Lords Grand Committee
Wednesday 16th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:15
16:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I gave me yesterday. Which we discussed the question of the general functions of Great British Railways, a subject that came up in on the first day in committee, when the noble Lord offered that meeting, which, as I say, took place yesterday, I discovered in that meeting the question of gbr's functions is a great deal more complicated in the noble Lords mind, even than we discovered when we debated it here, and that there are functions of GBR which are not functions, and that there are activities of GBR which are subject to the Secretary of State's direction and other activities which are not subject to the Secretary of State's direction.
And I wondered, I can't force the noble Lord. I wouldn't want to, but I wondered if the noble Lord wishes to take at some point, not necessarily today. At some point, we should take an opportunity to find a way of introducing into our debates in committee some sort of a recipes to some extent of what was debated rather messily on the first day, so that we have his whole view of the question set to music so that we can all understand it as a thought for the noble Lord to take up if he wishes.
My Lord, I'm going to start in as far as the group is concerned , with amendments 63, A, 91 A and 116 A, and all of these are related to the question of innovation. Now, it only a few years ago that people were debated, people in the industry were debating what it meant to what it would look like to have a digital railway. What would that expression mean? Everything was very forward looking. And I look in this bill, which is about the future of the railways, and I find nothing at all about innovation.
I find no obligations on the part of Great British Railways to innovate. I find no policies directed towards innovation, no mandate on the Secretary of State to include innovation in the long term rail strategy and so forth. And I think that's missing. In fact, I think it's going to be too difficult about this. But I think it's part of a general pattern of this bill, which is very back to the 1970s theme of this government, of course, is under Mr.
Burnham is back to the 1970s. He's made that very clear. And we could go back to the 1970s technologically as well. But I don't think that's the government's intention. But there's no intention here to make any progress either. So these amendments are tabled. I won't go into them in detail, but they're tables with a view to encouraging the noble Lord to make a statement as to what the government's intentions are and how they might be reflected in the Bill , in any change that he might bring forward, forward, later in committee or on report.
If I turn to amendments three, three, o, D and 33OE. Both of these have been put forward by tech UK. They're very anxious about the information. The data, which is gathered and generated by Great British Railways, and they want to ensure that that data is in the public domain and is transparent. Now, I'd hope the noble Lord would have no difficulty in accepting that as a principle, completely free and open access, because that is, after all, the policy he introduced in relation to TfL data when he was Commissioner.
And it led, of course, to an explosion in apps in the private sector, which some of which turned out to be very useful to members of the public, some of which fell by the wayside. That's the way of technological development, helping people find their buses, connect their trains to the buses, finding which door would be the most intelligent door to get on on the tube in order to make a quick exit at the next station you're changing at, and so forth.
Now, all of these things are done in the private sector. The only possible. If. If the data is provided. So that commitment to open completely open data and its inclusion in the face of the bill would be extremely helpful. And 33OE also suggests that, as I say by tech, UK is about smart data schemes in which rail planning and integrated ticketing are identified as candidate use cases, and the rail data marketplace itself falls within scope of that.
That work. This amendment is intended to ensure that the relationship between the two is resolved and reported, and commits the government only to considering its own policy. So I would hope again that it would be easy for the government to accept it. And I turn then I think finally to amendment 89. A 89 A is of a slightly distant subject, but that's the way our groupings very often work, and it's to do with steel.
It is, of course, the case that government has shot British industry in the foot by imposing steel tariffs on imported steel. That's the policy they've gone for. It's very reminiscent of the 1970s, I might say, and wouldn't have been possible naturally, if we'd stayed in the European Union. So at least it's a Brexit bonus. As far as the government is concerned, this amendment responds to the government's new steel trade measures, which came into force on the 1st of July this year.
Those measures reduced the overall tariff free steel import quota by 51% compared with the previous safeguard regime, and imposed a 50% tariff by value once the relevant quota is exhausted. So, in other words, there's much less tariff free steel available to British industry. And the tariff on that which comes in is higher than it was before. All very bad news. One of the government's central arguments for the creation of Great British Railways has always been.
Bringing the railway together will reduce costs. Now the government says its reforms on the railway will secure more than £1 million a billion. I beg your pardon? Pounds in savings and efficiencies. By the end of the decade for the railway, the government. The government's own document, UK Steel's trade measure from 1st July 2026, specifically identifies product category 19 as railway material. And that's significant because Network Rail has already contracted for almost 450 000 tonnes.
That's European tonnes of rail over the five years to 2000, including at least 78,000 tonnes from Germany, 8500 tonnes from Austria. Network rail itself has said that these European suppliers are important for specialist products and security of supply. Of course they are. The issue here is where GB needs GBR needs imported railway steel to maintain, renew or improve the network. Would the taxpayer bear an additional 50% cost simply because the relevant quota has been exhausted? The amendment would exempt steel steel imported specifically for GBR railway infrastructure from that additional tariff.
It should therefore, and I imagine, will be welcome to the noble Lord, the Minister, and to everyone on the railway in the railways. I hope the Minister didn't explain why the taxpayer, who will be paying for GBR will also have to pay higher costs due to a separate and distinct government policy, and I hope he'll explain that he'll be willing to take this opportunity to to remove that that difficulty. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
And I wondered, I can't force the noble Lord. I wouldn't want to, but I wondered if the noble Lord wishes to take at some point, not necessarily today. At some point, we should take an opportunity to find a way of introducing into our debates in committee some sort of a recipes to some extent of what was debated rather messily on the first day, so that we have his whole view of the question set to music so that we can all understand it as a thought for the noble Lord to take up if he wishes.
My Lord, I'm going to start in as far as the group is concerned , with amendments 63, A, 91 A and 116 A, and all of these are related to the question of innovation. Now, it only a few years ago that people were debated, people in the industry were debating what it meant to what it would look like to have a digital railway. What would that expression mean? Everything was very forward looking. And I look in this bill, which is about the future of the railways, and I find nothing at all about innovation.
I find no obligations on the part of Great British Railways to innovate. I find no policies directed towards innovation, no mandate on the Secretary of State to include innovation in the long term rail strategy and so forth. And I think that's missing. In fact, I think it's going to be too difficult about this. But I think it's part of a general pattern of this bill, which is very back to the 1970s theme of this government, of course, is under Mr.
Burnham is back to the 1970s. He's made that very clear. And we could go back to the 1970s technologically as well. But I don't think that's the government's intention. But there's no intention here to make any progress either. So these amendments are tabled. I won't go into them in detail, but they're tables with a view to encouraging the noble Lord to make a statement as to what the government's intentions are and how they might be reflected in the Bill , in any change that he might bring forward, forward, later in committee or on report.
If I turn to amendments three, three, o, D and 33OE. Both of these have been put forward by tech UK. They're very anxious about the information. The data, which is gathered and generated by Great British Railways, and they want to ensure that that data is in the public domain and is transparent. Now, I'd hope the noble Lord would have no difficulty in accepting that as a principle, completely free and open access, because that is, after all, the policy he introduced in relation to TfL data when he was Commissioner.
And it led, of course, to an explosion in apps in the private sector, which some of which turned out to be very useful to members of the public, some of which fell by the wayside. That's the way of technological development, helping people find their buses, connect their trains to the buses, finding which door would be the most intelligent door to get on on the tube in order to make a quick exit at the next station you're changing at, and so forth.
Now, all of these things are done in the private sector. The only possible. If. If the data is provided. So that commitment to open completely open data and its inclusion in the face of the bill would be extremely helpful. And 33OE also suggests that, as I say by tech, UK is about smart data schemes in which rail planning and integrated ticketing are identified as candidate use cases, and the rail data marketplace itself falls within scope of that.
That work. This amendment is intended to ensure that the relationship between the two is resolved and reported, and commits the government only to considering its own policy. So I would hope again that it would be easy for the government to accept it. And I turn then I think finally to amendment 89. A 89 A is of a slightly distant subject, but that's the way our groupings very often work, and it's to do with steel.
It is, of course, the case that government has shot British industry in the foot by imposing steel tariffs on imported steel. That's the policy they've gone for. It's very reminiscent of the 1970s, I might say, and wouldn't have been possible naturally, if we'd stayed in the European Union. So at least it's a Brexit bonus. As far as the government is concerned, this amendment responds to the government's new steel trade measures, which came into force on the 1st of July this year.
Those measures reduced the overall tariff free steel import quota by 51% compared with the previous safeguard regime, and imposed a 50% tariff by value once the relevant quota is exhausted. So, in other words, there's much less tariff free steel available to British industry. And the tariff on that which comes in is higher than it was before. All very bad news. One of the government's central arguments for the creation of Great British Railways has always been.
Bringing the railway together will reduce costs. Now the government says its reforms on the railway will secure more than £1 million a billion. I beg your pardon? Pounds in savings and efficiencies. By the end of the decade for the railway, the government. The government's own document, UK Steel's trade measure from 1st July 2026, specifically identifies product category 19 as railway material. And that's significant because Network Rail has already contracted for almost 450 000 tonnes.
That's European tonnes of rail over the five years to 2000, including at least 78,000 tonnes from Germany, 8500 tonnes from Austria. Network rail itself has said that these European suppliers are important for specialist products and security of supply. Of course they are. The issue here is where GB needs GBR needs imported railway steel to maintain, renew or improve the network. Would the taxpayer bear an additional 50% cost simply because the relevant quota has been exhausted? The amendment would exempt steel steel imported specifically for GBR railway infrastructure from that additional tariff.
It should therefore, and I imagine, will be welcome to the noble Lord, the Minister, and to everyone on the railway in the railways. I hope the Minister didn't explain why the taxpayer, who will be paying for GBR will also have to pay higher costs due to a separate and distinct government policy, and I hope he'll explain that he'll be willing to take this opportunity to to remove that that difficulty. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lord, it's a pleasure to rise. To make the first contribution from the cushioned seats. Sure, maybe this will change for me when we get to day four of committee. I congratulate the minister. Yeah. I've got that. Can I congratulate the Minister on everything he did when he was in charge of TfL in terms of innovation and the smart use of data.
16:24
16:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
There's nothing smart about data of itself. It's the uses that we put data to which makes it smart. And that is really behind my two amendments and indeed the other amendments, which my noble friend has eloquently spoken to in this group. What we saw when the minister was in charge of TfL was transformational in terms of how the network ran, but critically, in terms of the passenger, in terms of the user experience, and his legacy lives on large today on that network.
But when we come to this bill, we don't see very much of that at all. I say we don't see very much. There's nothing really which even is a distant echo of what was achieved at TfL. So my amendments are somewhat probing, but also offering some solutions to this to have a technology and innovation imperative put upon GBR. I've set out some technologies, but the key when drafting amendments and indeed legislation, is to be tech neutral because through being tech neutral, we have a good chance of being tech future proofed.
But whether it's passenger safety, passenger experience, the efficient running of the rail network itself, you would imagine that all forms of AI would have a role to play. My Second Amendment goes to the heart of the issue of cyber. Yes, we have a cyber bill currently in your lordships House, but one would really like to see specific cyber requirements across the slate of legislation coming forward.
But when we come to this bill, we don't see very much of that at all. I say we don't see very much. There's nothing really which even is a distant echo of what was achieved at TfL. So my amendments are somewhat probing, but also offering some solutions to this to have a technology and innovation imperative put upon GBR. I've set out some technologies, but the key when drafting amendments and indeed legislation, is to be tech neutral because through being tech neutral, we have a good chance of being tech future proofed.
But whether it's passenger safety, passenger experience, the efficient running of the rail network itself, you would imagine that all forms of AI would have a role to play. My Second Amendment goes to the heart of the issue of cyber. Yes, we have a cyber bill currently in your lordships House, but one would really like to see specific cyber requirements across the slate of legislation coming forward.
16:40
16:40
16:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My I've bought enough cushions. Secondly, the noble Lord Moylan referred to a discussion yesterday about the functions of Great British Railways, and we did have a great. I will write to him to place the views that. That I expressed to him in speech yesterday, and to other members, and place a copy in the library so that we're all clear about what, what, what the government believes to be the case. And then thirdly, just to say, today the government published a paper on the long term rail strategy, which will be particularly beneficial, I believe, for this committee.
So it's it's it was published, I think, this morning, if I may start. . Interrupt the
So it's it's it was published, I think, this morning, if I may start. . Interrupt the
16:41
16:41
16:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
In an hour or so, this committee will be debating the long term rail strategy, completely blind to this new paper and the government's timetable for approaching this, which I complained about very strongly, I think, at second reading of trying to push through the legislation when Parliament is blind to so many of the policy documents that many, I think, due in the spring of next year after we've even enacted the legislation, it really is something the government should think about, the extent to which they are, in fact, abusing the parliamentary process.
And the members of this House.
And the members of this House.
16:42
16:42
16:42
16:42
16:42
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Just before the minister moves on. Can I just add to my noble friend's point? I think the concern and this is also aimed at the whip. The danger for the minister is that if we debate, which we will today, the amendments on the long term rail strategy, and then we study the document published today and decide that there are matters we wish to raise. All the minister is going to discover is that further amendments will be put down, and then we'll have a rather repetitive debate about the long term rail strategy.
Again, when we could have had a single rail strategy, which will then elongate the length of the committee and will end up sitting for longer, which isn't enormously in our interests if it's something we could have dealt with earlier and I'm sure won't be welcome to the whip. So I would just put that on the record and we'll hold that in our back pocket if required.
Again, when we could have had a single rail strategy, which will then elongate the length of the committee and will end up sitting for longer, which isn't enormously in our interests if it's something we could have dealt with earlier and I'm sure won't be welcome to the whip. So I would just put that on the record and we'll hold that in our back pocket if required.
16:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
To which I respond to the noble Lord. I believe that the publication is helpful. I believe that the remarks I'm going to say in respect of that debate on the on the Group today and indeed others, it. I believe that my remarks will help in any event, and they will replicate what the. What noble Lords will find in the document from today. So on innovation, which is amendments 63, A 91, a 116 A and 130.
I should start by saying I agree completely with the important role technology and innovation can play in improving passenger experience in railway operations, digitalisation, supporting simplification of fares and ticketing, AI, enabling more efficient and safer monitoring the network. Technological innovation will all present new opportunities for GBR across all its functions. That's why the bill already includes a function for GBR to carry out research and development, and support innovation in relation to railways.
In clause three one F, that means 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, including innovation as a function rather than a duty. Referring to amendments 116 and 130 has the benefit of bringing the activity into scope of Gbr's duties as well as under the orders monitoring clause. This will lead to better outcomes by ensuring GBR considers key elements such as the public interest and efficiency whilst promoting innovation, and that the author can consider and advise on what they do.
As I mentioned in a previous group, this is something the railway is already doing. The first of a kind competition is now in its ninth round of delivery, providing millions of pounds for innovative rail projects to improve passenger experience, including improving safety on platforms and enhancing passenger safety. Projects from previous winners are already being used across railways to improve efficiency, safety and reliability. This will continue under GBR, who will be able to include a pipeline of proposed innovation in their business plan.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I can assure the noble Lord that the bill as drafted, already allows the Secretary of State to state objectives related to innovation and the adoption of new technology in the statement of objectives, as amendment 63 suggests, and I'm happy to confirm the noble Lord that the long term rail strategy will address technology and innovation and both the opportunities and risks it presents as amendment 91 proposes, the right way, the right place for GBR to address innovation and technologies in its business plan, which will require it to set out its activities guided by its functions and duties, and the long term rail strategy which, as I set out, will all have an innovation component.
These elements achieve the aim, I think, that noble lords are looking for on on cyber and technology strategies. Amendments three, two, five and three, two, nine. As I said earlier, I agree with the important role technology and innovation can play on the railway. Technology is always improving and with that comes opportunities, but also threats as noble lords of of observed from cyber attacks. I agree with the noble Lord Holmes that cyber security is not an optional extra for the railway.
Rail is part of critical national infrastructure, and we continue to take seriously the reality of growing cyber, of growing cyber threats and the need to keep systems safe, resilient and up to date. However, I don't believe that the new clause is the right way to achieve our shared aims because the government's already taking action to address cyber security risks, the rail sector must already comply with the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, and the government will continue to monitor Gbr's cyber security position.
The government's Cyber Action Plan, published earlier this year, also sets clear expectations about how public. sector manage cyber risk and resilience, including through stronger accountability and support, and the government and the LRR will review the business plan to ensure these actions and principles are embedded in Gbr's activities on artificial intelligence. My department has already set out how we will work with the transport sector to harness innovation responsibly, whilst managing risks for our published transport AI action Plan and the more recent publication in April this year of the Artificial Intelligence in Rail Industry Action Plan.
I have already spoken about the long term in this group. I would reiterate that it will cover how technological advances can support better outcomes for passengers and reduced risks to cyber threats. I hope noble lords lords can be reassured that this is being dealt with. Finally, on Open Data and Data review, the government strongly supports a transparent approach. to open access to data, as the noble Lord Moylan referred to in the case of TfL, can improve passenger information leading to greater patronage, enable businesses and innovators to develop new tools and services.
I should add that this policy in TfL was not mandated by Act of Parliament, but by the desire to improve the business to build the passenger base. The bill already allows GBR to disclose information and in carrying out its functions and activities. This supports open data whilst giving GBR the flexibility as the directing mind to decide what information should be shared. This largely replicates the current arrangement, where open railway data has been provided at no charge for over a decade.
Without a legislative backing like that proposed by this amendment. And I assure the committee that that that this will continue. My Lords, that flexibility is critical as technical requirements, data rights and operational sensitivities mean data access must be considered carefully. Personal data, commercially sensitive information and information which of which the disclosure could harm competition must remain protected. It's therefore not always appropriate to require all types of data to be made available through an open licence.
GBR will need to consider data protection, commercial confidentiality, competition law, security, intellectual property and whether it actually has the right to disclose the information. But I can assure noble Lords that the government will take an active interest in promoting fair and open data in the interests of railway users and taxpayers. By Dubai GBR Business Plan unlike this amendment, government's approach supports useful and responsible disclosure backed by contractual provisions and existing legal protections such as Competition Act, which will ensure that GBR does not act abusively in its handling of railway data.
The amendment 330 e about the scope of the data use, whether GBR should be within the scope of the Data Use and Access Act 2025. Smart data schemes and regulated arrangements for the secure sharing of specified customer or business data with authorised recipients. As I'm sure noble Lords can appreciate, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the need for a rail smart data scheme on this, particularly when open data is the default position.
A separate review of data BR is. This amendment would create would duplicate the framework set out in that legislation and preempt proper assessment and prioritisation of a possible rail smart data scheme. Our existing approach to data, which includes the art to disclose information about its function duties, is the more direct and proportionate way to improve access to rail data, whilst retaining the flexibility to use the Data Use and Access Act 2025. If a rail smart data scheme should be necessary.
Finally, turning to amendment 89 on railway steel, I don't think it's sensible to undercut the UK's trade policy with the sector specific exemptions proposed by the decisions on tariffs. Quotas are more appropriately considered through the mechanisms established by the Taxation Cross-Border Trade Act of 2018 and related trade processes. Rather than this legislation, which is in the business, the structure of our railways. But in any case, Network Rail already sources over 90% of its steel from British Steel.
And I can tell the noble Lord Harper that in recent months, Network Rail has worked extraordinarily hard to support the continuation of producing steel at Scunthorpe, which is where all standard British Rail is produced, and GBR will continue to procure steel in accordance with the established framework and with us today. And in fact, there are some quite long contracts around as a consequence of the previous crisis in the steel industry, which makes this amendment unnecessary. The small quantity of steel which is not procured from Scunthorpe, is specialist steel for relatively small applications, like some specialist points and crossings as part of the track.
And and I don't I don't believe that it. Well, I'll correct myself. I don't need to say I don't believe it's a relatively small proportion of the total supply of rail. I think in respect to the noble Lord Barclay. Firstly, I'm going to wait for the Rib report to draw any conclusions from derailment. But the steel which is procured from Scunthorpe, which is used generally in the network, which is British steel for ordinary steel rails, is is of the is of safety critical quality and and and certainly there's no well we'll wait for the report to see what the report says.
I will write to him about WiFi. I did answer his question at the previous committee meeting and I will answer it again. The point of a national procurement about WiFi is not that the benefit is not seen in the West of England, but the benefit of better WiFi is seen all over the intercity network at a speed of being put on trains at a speed that will improve many, many more people's journeys than just in the west of England.
I hope I've answered these points, and I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
I should start by saying I agree completely with the important role technology and innovation can play in improving passenger experience in railway operations, digitalisation, supporting simplification of fares and ticketing, AI, enabling more efficient and safer monitoring the network. Technological innovation will all present new opportunities for GBR across all its functions. That's why the bill already includes a function for GBR to carry out research and development, and support innovation in relation to railways.
In clause three one F, that means 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, including innovation as a function rather than a duty. Referring to amendments 116 and 130 has the benefit of bringing the activity into scope of Gbr's duties as well as under the orders monitoring clause. This will lead to better outcomes by ensuring GBR considers key elements such as the public interest and efficiency whilst promoting innovation, and that the author can consider and advise on what they do.
As I mentioned in a previous group, this is something the railway is already doing. The first of a kind competition is now in its ninth round of delivery, providing millions of pounds for innovative rail projects to improve passenger experience, including improving safety on platforms and enhancing passenger safety. Projects from previous winners are already being used across railways to improve efficiency, safety and reliability. This will continue under GBR, who will be able to include a pipeline of proposed innovation in their business plan.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I can assure the noble Lord that the bill as drafted, already allows the Secretary of State to state objectives related to innovation and the adoption of new technology in the statement of objectives, as amendment 63 suggests, and I'm happy to confirm the noble Lord that the long term rail strategy will address technology and innovation and both the opportunities and risks it presents as amendment 91 proposes, the right way, the right place for GBR to address innovation and technologies in its business plan, which will require it to set out its activities guided by its functions and duties, and the long term rail strategy which, as I set out, will all have an innovation component.
These elements achieve the aim, I think, that noble lords are looking for on on cyber and technology strategies. Amendments three, two, five and three, two, nine. As I said earlier, I agree with the important role technology and innovation can play on the railway. Technology is always improving and with that comes opportunities, but also threats as noble lords of of observed from cyber attacks. I agree with the noble Lord Holmes that cyber security is not an optional extra for the railway.
Rail is part of critical national infrastructure, and we continue to take seriously the reality of growing cyber, of growing cyber threats and the need to keep systems safe, resilient and up to date. However, I don't believe that the new clause is the right way to achieve our shared aims because the government's already taking action to address cyber security risks, the rail sector must already comply with the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, and the government will continue to monitor Gbr's cyber security position.
The government's Cyber Action Plan, published earlier this year, also sets clear expectations about how public. sector manage cyber risk and resilience, including through stronger accountability and support, and the government and the LRR will review the business plan to ensure these actions and principles are embedded in Gbr's activities on artificial intelligence. My department has already set out how we will work with the transport sector to harness innovation responsibly, whilst managing risks for our published transport AI action Plan and the more recent publication in April this year of the Artificial Intelligence in Rail Industry Action Plan.
I have already spoken about the long term in this group. I would reiterate that it will cover how technological advances can support better outcomes for passengers and reduced risks to cyber threats. I hope noble lords lords can be reassured that this is being dealt with. Finally, on Open Data and Data review, the government strongly supports a transparent approach. to open access to data, as the noble Lord Moylan referred to in the case of TfL, can improve passenger information leading to greater patronage, enable businesses and innovators to develop new tools and services.
I should add that this policy in TfL was not mandated by Act of Parliament, but by the desire to improve the business to build the passenger base. The bill already allows GBR to disclose information and in carrying out its functions and activities. This supports open data whilst giving GBR the flexibility as the directing mind to decide what information should be shared. This largely replicates the current arrangement, where open railway data has been provided at no charge for over a decade.
Without a legislative backing like that proposed by this amendment. And I assure the committee that that that this will continue. My Lords, that flexibility is critical as technical requirements, data rights and operational sensitivities mean data access must be considered carefully. Personal data, commercially sensitive information and information which of which the disclosure could harm competition must remain protected. It's therefore not always appropriate to require all types of data to be made available through an open licence.
GBR will need to consider data protection, commercial confidentiality, competition law, security, intellectual property and whether it actually has the right to disclose the information. But I can assure noble Lords that the government will take an active interest in promoting fair and open data in the interests of railway users and taxpayers. By Dubai GBR Business Plan unlike this amendment, government's approach supports useful and responsible disclosure backed by contractual provisions and existing legal protections such as Competition Act, which will ensure that GBR does not act abusively in its handling of railway data.
The amendment 330 e about the scope of the data use, whether GBR should be within the scope of the Data Use and Access Act 2025. Smart data schemes and regulated arrangements for the secure sharing of specified customer or business data with authorised recipients. As I'm sure noble Lords can appreciate, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the need for a rail smart data scheme on this, particularly when open data is the default position.
A separate review of data BR is. This amendment would create would duplicate the framework set out in that legislation and preempt proper assessment and prioritisation of a possible rail smart data scheme. Our existing approach to data, which includes the art to disclose information about its function duties, is the more direct and proportionate way to improve access to rail data, whilst retaining the flexibility to use the Data Use and Access Act 2025. If a rail smart data scheme should be necessary.
Finally, turning to amendment 89 on railway steel, I don't think it's sensible to undercut the UK's trade policy with the sector specific exemptions proposed by the decisions on tariffs. Quotas are more appropriately considered through the mechanisms established by the Taxation Cross-Border Trade Act of 2018 and related trade processes. Rather than this legislation, which is in the business, the structure of our railways. But in any case, Network Rail already sources over 90% of its steel from British Steel.
And I can tell the noble Lord Harper that in recent months, Network Rail has worked extraordinarily hard to support the continuation of producing steel at Scunthorpe, which is where all standard British Rail is produced, and GBR will continue to procure steel in accordance with the established framework and with us today. And in fact, there are some quite long contracts around as a consequence of the previous crisis in the steel industry, which makes this amendment unnecessary. The small quantity of steel which is not procured from Scunthorpe, is specialist steel for relatively small applications, like some specialist points and crossings as part of the track.
And and I don't I don't believe that it. Well, I'll correct myself. I don't need to say I don't believe it's a relatively small proportion of the total supply of rail. I think in respect to the noble Lord Barclay. Firstly, I'm going to wait for the Rib report to draw any conclusions from derailment. But the steel which is procured from Scunthorpe, which is used generally in the network, which is British steel for ordinary steel rails, is is of the is of safety critical quality and and and certainly there's no well we'll wait for the report to see what the report says.
I will write to him about WiFi. I did answer his question at the previous committee meeting and I will answer it again. The point of a national procurement about WiFi is not that the benefit is not seen in the West of England, but the benefit of better WiFi is seen all over the intercity network at a speed of being put on trains at a speed that will improve many, many more people's journeys than just in the west of England.
I hope I've answered these points, and I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
16:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, just on the question of steel, the noble Lord has said that the amount of steel that is going to be subject to tariffs is relatively small. I think that was the expression he used. But I ask him, would he be willing, after this meeting of the committee report, in writing to members of the committee, some assessment of the cost to Great. Britain next, say, 4 or 5 years of of the tariffs on steel.
In other words, how much of the steel expected to be imported from abroad falls under the tariff free quota? And. And what value does not, and therefore attracts a tariff of 50%. If the noble Lord was willing to put that in writing, it would be extremely helpful to members of the Committee concerning the other amendments. It's. It's rather marvellous that there is such unanimity across the Committee about the importance of all these issues technological innovation, cyber security, and the sharing of data and the advantages that flow from that.
The pity is only that the government believes that we can rely could rely on their assurances in this regard, rather than having matters specified on the face of the bill. So I don't believe the noble Lord and the assurances he gives, indeed assurances he gives at the despatch box have certain value. But I would just say that in the case of creating a hugely powerful monopoly with interests of its own and the most exiguous accountability to the Secretary of State and to Parliament, it.
The bar is higher for accepting assurances that everything is going to be fine when it's implemented and for the years that followed, and therefore I think it may well be the case that noble Lords, when we return to this question on report, will wish to retable some, at least of these amendments if the government has not found itself, found it possible in the interim to to give way on some of them, and offer written assurances on the face of the Bill, such as we are looking for.
But for the moment, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
In other words, how much of the steel expected to be imported from abroad falls under the tariff free quota? And. And what value does not, and therefore attracts a tariff of 50%. If the noble Lord was willing to put that in writing, it would be extremely helpful to members of the Committee concerning the other amendments. It's. It's rather marvellous that there is such unanimity across the Committee about the importance of all these issues technological innovation, cyber security, and the sharing of data and the advantages that flow from that.
The pity is only that the government believes that we can rely could rely on their assurances in this regard, rather than having matters specified on the face of the bill. So I don't believe the noble Lord and the assurances he gives, indeed assurances he gives at the despatch box have certain value. But I would just say that in the case of creating a hugely powerful monopoly with interests of its own and the most exiguous accountability to the Secretary of State and to Parliament, it.
The bar is higher for accepting assurances that everything is going to be fine when it's implemented and for the years that followed, and therefore I think it may well be the case that noble Lords, when we return to this question on report, will wish to retable some, at least of these amendments if the government has not found itself, found it possible in the interim to to give way on some of them, and offer written assurances on the face of the Bill, such as we are looking for.
But for the moment, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
16:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mr. Lord, your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 64 not moved. 64. A Lord Moylan not moved, moved 65. Not moved 66. Lord Grealy not moved 67. Not moved 68. Lord Grealy not moved 69. Not moved 70. Lord Moylan not moved. Moved 71.
Baroness Pidgeon not moved 72. Not moved 73. Not moved 74 to 78. Lord Bradshaw, Lord Moylan not moved.
Baroness Pidgeon not moved 72. Not moved 73. Not moved 74 to 78. Lord Bradshaw, Lord Moylan not moved.
16:57
16:57
16:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, I'm not going to speak briefly. I'm probably going to compete with the noble Lords, Moylan and Harper in the length of my comments and the thoroughness with which I cover the amendments. I've got my name on on all of the amendments in this group, and I care very much that these are properly debated and properly understood. Now, the aim of amendment 78 A is to broaden the exclusions from the subsidy control rules. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 has created a fundamental split in the bill, which translates directly into how policy will be made and what can be done with public money.
I understand it only funding for the primary purpose of infrastructure and a clause three one A is excluded from the subsidy control rules. Implication is that everything else will be subject to them. I think that helps explain the split between the different budgets with infrastructure funded through the funding period review, while operations and other areas, including capital projects and enhancements, come through the spending review, with a close eye being kept on cross subsidy. Now that seems to run against the long standing aim of GBR going back to 2021, of bringing infrastructure and operations together.
The Rail Industry Association warned last year that if track and train integration is to be achieved, both need to be covered by the same funding process. But my specific concern with this amendment is public interest policy making, particularly accessibility and climate for accessibility. Won't these rules make it harder to reform an integrated and integrate funding programs, and to plan investment in a rational way so that we can make progress as quickly as possible? And on climate, I think the issue is even more complicated.
Many of the things we've been talking about and will later today, are vital to increasing passenger numbers and shifting people from cars to rail, and these could potentially be subject to subsidy control rules. That includes things like electrification and other capital investment. Environmental measures are also subject to additional requirements under the Subsidy Control Act. So I think this is a complicated and under-discussed area, and I really would like the Minister to explain the practical impact of these rules on accessibility and climate funding and policy making.
This amendment would create exclusions for both, where the primary purpose of the financial assistance is to protect or improve the environment, mitigate or adapt to climate change, or secure and improve accessibility for disabled people. So I hope the minister can give us some reassurance about how these subsidy control rules will work in practice, and whether the government will be prepared to look at exclusions of this kind. My amendment 130 A builds on amendment one two, nine from the noble Baroness Willis, which I support, but I wanted to ask whether we could be a bit more ambitious.
We're legislating for a new Great British Railways at a time when we face both a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis, I think we should be asking what this new body can actively do to address those challenges, rather than simply ensuring that it doesn't make them worse. The railway estate gives us an extraordinary opportunity. Network rail is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with around 52,000 hectares of land. Its own description of the railway estate is as a green corridor, recognising that railway land can connect fragmented habitats across the country, I suggest that we find a way to put that opportunity into the bill.
Imagine a continuous green corridor running from Penzance to John O'Groats following the railway where possible, not necessarily a contiguous strip of woodland or one uniform habitat, but a connected network of grasslands, wetlands, scrub woodlands, ponds and other habitats joined together by the railway estate and the railway already provides the network. Network rail itself recognises this and acknowledges that the railway estate provides habitat for a wide range of species. So that's a vital starting point.
But I think that the targets that Network Rail has set itself are rather vague. Its 2035 targets talk about managing biodiversity in a way that protects and enhances it, and about leading the way in land management. Now, there's a good ambitions, but they don't tell us what success looks like. That's why this amendment asks for measurable targets for habitat creation and restoration, for biodiversity recovery, for connectivity, and for renewable electricity generation. I would like us to imagine what it would mean if every time a railway line passes through a fragmented landscape, we ask whether the railway estate could help reconnect it.
And if we did that across the whole network, we could begin to create something really significant a nature, a national nature recovery network running alongside our national railway network. And it seems to me exactly the sort of long term thinking we should be building into GBR from the beginning. The amendment would require GBR to manage its land as part of a connected national network, Nature recovery, and that means working with local nature recovery strategies, restoring habitats, improving ecological connectivity and creating wildlife corridors where reasonably practicable.
Now, we're not asking railway engineers to become conservationists or putting nature ahead of railway safety. The amendment is deliberately framed around what is practicable, but we have a chance to recognise that the railway estate is not just an operational asset, it's also land running through some of the most fragmented and depleted landscapes in the country, and GBR will have the responsibility for managing it. We're asking GBR to maximise renewable electricity generation from its own infrastructure, from station roofs, depots, car parks and other suitable sites and where it can to use that electricity to power railway operations, where the railway has suitable land or infrastructure for generating clean electricity, it should make the most of it.
The amendment also asks for measurable targets and a published plan with progress reported annually. And that's important because we've seen environmental commitments before. Network rail already has biodiversity commitments and has recognised the role that its estate can play in nature recovery. And the question is whether we want to give those ambitions a statutory footing in the creation of of GBR. And I think this bill gives us a rare opportunity to do that.
The railway is a national network. Its land should be part of a national network for nature recovery 130 be nature's rights. Now this takes the same principle a little further. I support the idea that GBR should actively contribute to nature recovery. But could we go beyond saying that nature is something GBR should take into account, and instead recognise that healthy ecosystems are fundamental to our own well-being and to the economy on which we all depend.
The amendment would require GBR to recognise the intrinsic value of nature and to protect, restore and enhance nature when exercising its functions. It would also require GBR to consider cumulative and indirect harm, the needs of future generations, and the possibility of restoration and regeneration. I think that's an important shift in how we think about infrastructure. We tend to ask whether a railway project is technically possible and financially viable, and those questions obviously matter.
But we should also be asking what the project means for the living systems around it, and whether there's a way of achieving the same objective while causing less harm. Now, there is, of course, a wider debate about this already taking place in the House. Baroness Bennett's Nature's Rights Bill is currently making its way through our House. That bill takes a much bigger step of recognising nature as a legal subject and establishing an integrated framework for protecting its rights.
I'm not suggesting that we try to put the whole of that bill into the railway bill, but I do think it's an opportunity to take some of its thinking and apply it to GBR. We are creating a new organisation with enormous responsibility for land, infrastructure and investment decisions across the country. We should build into that organisation from the beginning, the principle that nature is not simply an externality to be considered after the economic and engineering decisions have already been made, it should be part of the overriding decision itself.
I saw the noble Lord Minister smiling there. I hope that means he's in total agreement with what I'm saying. I support amendments 93, 101 and 120 993. Climate resilience needs to be central to the railway strategy. We know that extreme heat, flooding, drought and soil moisture changes are already disrupting the railway. I know there are some hot weather procedures in place, but I think we need to ask whether we are testing and designing the railway for the climate we actually face, rather than the climate we used to have.
The noble Lord. The minister did say some quite supportive things about this yesterday, and I hope he feels free to repeat them today. The regulator has previously found that climate adaptation planning was not keeping pace with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather. We've seen the consequences during heat waves, with speed restrictions and failures affecting services. Some overhead line equipment, for example, was designed around operating temperatures of up to 38 degrees that were increasingly seeing temperatures approaching that level.
I recognise that Network Rail is already doing a lot of work on climate adaptation, and there are good examples, but that work is not necessarily consistent. Responsibilities have historically been divided between different organisations and different owners of track stations and land, and obviously the creation of GBR gives us an opportunity to change that. We can't keep treating these events as exceptional and simply responding when they happen. We actually have to design, test and maintain our railway on the basis that extreme weather is now a serious and growing threat to the network.
And finally, three, one, three and 330 J. I support strongly supporting the noble Earl Russell's amendment 313. I think it's an important amendment because we're in a climate emergency. And yet England has had virtually no new electrification for quite a number of years. There are really two sides to this. We need to make the railway resilient to the climate change that's already happening. But we also need to reduce the railway's own emissions.
We can't just adapt to a changing climate while continuing to build and operate infrastructure in ways that add to the problem. So I welcome the proposal for a framework looking at both climate resilience and decarbonisation. But I've tabled amendments. 330 J because I think we need to go further. A framework is a good starting point, but I want to see a plan with binding targets, timescales, funding and a clear programme of delivery. I think Scotland actually gives us a useful example of what that can look like, because Scotland has a rail services decarbonisation action plan and is continuing at a rolling programme of electrification.
Three quarters of passenger journeys are already made on electric trains, and the Scottish Government says it remains committed to further electrification. And, of course, we've got to remember that Britain actually lags behind much of Europe. 60% of passenger services run on electric trains here, compared to 74% in Germany and 85% in France. And of course, electric electrification isn't just about emissions. Those trains can be faster, quieter and more efficient.
They can increase capacity and reduce reliance on diesel, and a railway powered by electricity can increasingly benefit from the move towards renewable energy. So I don't think we should talk about rail decarbonisation as though it's some additional environmental project that we might get around to. If there's enough money left, it has to be in our railways as soon as possible. Every year we delay decisions on infrastructure that can last for decades, which make it harder and more expensive to decarbonise the railways.
And the same applies to resilience. We know that some parts of the network are vulnerable to flooding, extreme heat, landslides, drought or coastal erosion. So we should identify those risks now and have a funded programme for dealing with them. And new infrastructure should be designed for the climate we expect over its lifetime, not simply the climate we've experienced in the past. So we need binding targets for reducing emissions. A comprehensive assessment of climate risks, a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements, funding arrangements, whole life carbon assessment and annual reporting.
It would also require GBR to operate consistently within the plan. And I support amendment 313 because I think it moves us in the right direction. I need, though, to move from identifying what needs to be done to actually committing ourselves to doing it. So this is the opportunity. Let's all go green. Build climate resilience, decarbonisation into the railway from the beginning, rather than leaving it to somebody else to do.
I understand it only funding for the primary purpose of infrastructure and a clause three one A is excluded from the subsidy control rules. Implication is that everything else will be subject to them. I think that helps explain the split between the different budgets with infrastructure funded through the funding period review, while operations and other areas, including capital projects and enhancements, come through the spending review, with a close eye being kept on cross subsidy. Now that seems to run against the long standing aim of GBR going back to 2021, of bringing infrastructure and operations together.
The Rail Industry Association warned last year that if track and train integration is to be achieved, both need to be covered by the same funding process. But my specific concern with this amendment is public interest policy making, particularly accessibility and climate for accessibility. Won't these rules make it harder to reform an integrated and integrate funding programs, and to plan investment in a rational way so that we can make progress as quickly as possible? And on climate, I think the issue is even more complicated.
Many of the things we've been talking about and will later today, are vital to increasing passenger numbers and shifting people from cars to rail, and these could potentially be subject to subsidy control rules. That includes things like electrification and other capital investment. Environmental measures are also subject to additional requirements under the Subsidy Control Act. So I think this is a complicated and under-discussed area, and I really would like the Minister to explain the practical impact of these rules on accessibility and climate funding and policy making.
This amendment would create exclusions for both, where the primary purpose of the financial assistance is to protect or improve the environment, mitigate or adapt to climate change, or secure and improve accessibility for disabled people. So I hope the minister can give us some reassurance about how these subsidy control rules will work in practice, and whether the government will be prepared to look at exclusions of this kind. My amendment 130 A builds on amendment one two, nine from the noble Baroness Willis, which I support, but I wanted to ask whether we could be a bit more ambitious.
We're legislating for a new Great British Railways at a time when we face both a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis, I think we should be asking what this new body can actively do to address those challenges, rather than simply ensuring that it doesn't make them worse. The railway estate gives us an extraordinary opportunity. Network rail is one of the largest landowners in Britain, with around 52,000 hectares of land. Its own description of the railway estate is as a green corridor, recognising that railway land can connect fragmented habitats across the country, I suggest that we find a way to put that opportunity into the bill.
Imagine a continuous green corridor running from Penzance to John O'Groats following the railway where possible, not necessarily a contiguous strip of woodland or one uniform habitat, but a connected network of grasslands, wetlands, scrub woodlands, ponds and other habitats joined together by the railway estate and the railway already provides the network. Network rail itself recognises this and acknowledges that the railway estate provides habitat for a wide range of species. So that's a vital starting point.
But I think that the targets that Network Rail has set itself are rather vague. Its 2035 targets talk about managing biodiversity in a way that protects and enhances it, and about leading the way in land management. Now, there's a good ambitions, but they don't tell us what success looks like. That's why this amendment asks for measurable targets for habitat creation and restoration, for biodiversity recovery, for connectivity, and for renewable electricity generation. I would like us to imagine what it would mean if every time a railway line passes through a fragmented landscape, we ask whether the railway estate could help reconnect it.
And if we did that across the whole network, we could begin to create something really significant a nature, a national nature recovery network running alongside our national railway network. And it seems to me exactly the sort of long term thinking we should be building into GBR from the beginning. The amendment would require GBR to manage its land as part of a connected national network, Nature recovery, and that means working with local nature recovery strategies, restoring habitats, improving ecological connectivity and creating wildlife corridors where reasonably practicable.
Now, we're not asking railway engineers to become conservationists or putting nature ahead of railway safety. The amendment is deliberately framed around what is practicable, but we have a chance to recognise that the railway estate is not just an operational asset, it's also land running through some of the most fragmented and depleted landscapes in the country, and GBR will have the responsibility for managing it. We're asking GBR to maximise renewable electricity generation from its own infrastructure, from station roofs, depots, car parks and other suitable sites and where it can to use that electricity to power railway operations, where the railway has suitable land or infrastructure for generating clean electricity, it should make the most of it.
The amendment also asks for measurable targets and a published plan with progress reported annually. And that's important because we've seen environmental commitments before. Network rail already has biodiversity commitments and has recognised the role that its estate can play in nature recovery. And the question is whether we want to give those ambitions a statutory footing in the creation of of GBR. And I think this bill gives us a rare opportunity to do that.
The railway is a national network. Its land should be part of a national network for nature recovery 130 be nature's rights. Now this takes the same principle a little further. I support the idea that GBR should actively contribute to nature recovery. But could we go beyond saying that nature is something GBR should take into account, and instead recognise that healthy ecosystems are fundamental to our own well-being and to the economy on which we all depend.
The amendment would require GBR to recognise the intrinsic value of nature and to protect, restore and enhance nature when exercising its functions. It would also require GBR to consider cumulative and indirect harm, the needs of future generations, and the possibility of restoration and regeneration. I think that's an important shift in how we think about infrastructure. We tend to ask whether a railway project is technically possible and financially viable, and those questions obviously matter.
But we should also be asking what the project means for the living systems around it, and whether there's a way of achieving the same objective while causing less harm. Now, there is, of course, a wider debate about this already taking place in the House. Baroness Bennett's Nature's Rights Bill is currently making its way through our House. That bill takes a much bigger step of recognising nature as a legal subject and establishing an integrated framework for protecting its rights.
I'm not suggesting that we try to put the whole of that bill into the railway bill, but I do think it's an opportunity to take some of its thinking and apply it to GBR. We are creating a new organisation with enormous responsibility for land, infrastructure and investment decisions across the country. We should build into that organisation from the beginning, the principle that nature is not simply an externality to be considered after the economic and engineering decisions have already been made, it should be part of the overriding decision itself.
I saw the noble Lord Minister smiling there. I hope that means he's in total agreement with what I'm saying. I support amendments 93, 101 and 120 993. Climate resilience needs to be central to the railway strategy. We know that extreme heat, flooding, drought and soil moisture changes are already disrupting the railway. I know there are some hot weather procedures in place, but I think we need to ask whether we are testing and designing the railway for the climate we actually face, rather than the climate we used to have.
The noble Lord. The minister did say some quite supportive things about this yesterday, and I hope he feels free to repeat them today. The regulator has previously found that climate adaptation planning was not keeping pace with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather. We've seen the consequences during heat waves, with speed restrictions and failures affecting services. Some overhead line equipment, for example, was designed around operating temperatures of up to 38 degrees that were increasingly seeing temperatures approaching that level.
I recognise that Network Rail is already doing a lot of work on climate adaptation, and there are good examples, but that work is not necessarily consistent. Responsibilities have historically been divided between different organisations and different owners of track stations and land, and obviously the creation of GBR gives us an opportunity to change that. We can't keep treating these events as exceptional and simply responding when they happen. We actually have to design, test and maintain our railway on the basis that extreme weather is now a serious and growing threat to the network.
And finally, three, one, three and 330 J. I support strongly supporting the noble Earl Russell's amendment 313. I think it's an important amendment because we're in a climate emergency. And yet England has had virtually no new electrification for quite a number of years. There are really two sides to this. We need to make the railway resilient to the climate change that's already happening. But we also need to reduce the railway's own emissions.
We can't just adapt to a changing climate while continuing to build and operate infrastructure in ways that add to the problem. So I welcome the proposal for a framework looking at both climate resilience and decarbonisation. But I've tabled amendments. 330 J because I think we need to go further. A framework is a good starting point, but I want to see a plan with binding targets, timescales, funding and a clear programme of delivery. I think Scotland actually gives us a useful example of what that can look like, because Scotland has a rail services decarbonisation action plan and is continuing at a rolling programme of electrification.
Three quarters of passenger journeys are already made on electric trains, and the Scottish Government says it remains committed to further electrification. And, of course, we've got to remember that Britain actually lags behind much of Europe. 60% of passenger services run on electric trains here, compared to 74% in Germany and 85% in France. And of course, electric electrification isn't just about emissions. Those trains can be faster, quieter and more efficient.
They can increase capacity and reduce reliance on diesel, and a railway powered by electricity can increasingly benefit from the move towards renewable energy. So I don't think we should talk about rail decarbonisation as though it's some additional environmental project that we might get around to. If there's enough money left, it has to be in our railways as soon as possible. Every year we delay decisions on infrastructure that can last for decades, which make it harder and more expensive to decarbonise the railways.
And the same applies to resilience. We know that some parts of the network are vulnerable to flooding, extreme heat, landslides, drought or coastal erosion. So we should identify those risks now and have a funded programme for dealing with them. And new infrastructure should be designed for the climate we expect over its lifetime, not simply the climate we've experienced in the past. So we need binding targets for reducing emissions. A comprehensive assessment of climate risks, a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements, funding arrangements, whole life carbon assessment and annual reporting.
It would also require GBR to operate consistently within the plan. And I support amendment 313 because I think it moves us in the right direction. I need, though, to move from identifying what needs to be done to actually committing ourselves to doing it. So this is the opportunity. Let's all go green. Build climate resilience, decarbonisation into the railway from the beginning, rather than leaving it to somebody else to do.
17:11
17:11
17:11
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
the Committee for the fact that I wasn't able to attend reading. It's always a pleasure to go after the noble Baroness. I speak to my amendments 93111 and 313, which I've worked with peers for the planet, and I thank the noble Baroness Jones, Baroness Willis Summertown for having her name at all. I'm also grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet with me prior to committing these amendments.
Seek to ensure the railways deliver not only a modern and efficient railway, but one is resilient to climate change, helping to meet our statutory environmental and net zero duties. The need is indeed underscored by events that happen this summer. The UK has endured one of its hottest and driest summers on record. The drought declared across much of England and Wales, and one of the worst years on record for wildfires, which also significantly impacted our railway network.
Persistent drought and heat cause a embankments district to shrink, disturbing track geometry and creating growing derailment risks. We have seen emergency speed restrictions across the eastern corridor, the south east, southern and eastern corridors affecting great angular Sea, Great Northern, the Elizabeth Line, Southern Railways and two derailments within 24 hours during a recent heat wave, which Network Rail itself described as presenting exceptional challenges. By the 1st of July this year, Network Rail had already recorded 864 critical rail temperature speed restriction incident delays this year, more than in the whole of the previous year.
Extreme weather accounted for 10% of delay minutes in 2024 five, with a 50% rise in adverse
Seek to ensure the railways deliver not only a modern and efficient railway, but one is resilient to climate change, helping to meet our statutory environmental and net zero duties. The need is indeed underscored by events that happen this summer. The UK has endured one of its hottest and driest summers on record. The drought declared across much of England and Wales, and one of the worst years on record for wildfires, which also significantly impacted our railway network.
Persistent drought and heat cause a embankments district to shrink, disturbing track geometry and creating growing derailment risks. We have seen emergency speed restrictions across the eastern corridor, the south east, southern and eastern corridors affecting great angular Sea, Great Northern, the Elizabeth Line, Southern Railways and two derailments within 24 hours during a recent heat wave, which Network Rail itself described as presenting exceptional challenges. By the 1st of July this year, Network Rail had already recorded 864 critical rail temperature speed restriction incident delays this year, more than in the whole of the previous year.
Extreme weather accounted for 10% of delay minutes in 2024 five, with a 50% rise in adverse
17:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Rise in adverse weather impacts over the last five years. My Lords, the Climate Change Committee warns that peak river flows could rise by 45% while track building, while track buckling disruption could grow from roughly one day a year today to over 14 days a year under more extreme warming, this winter's super El Nino is likely to bring worse storms, flooding and next summer further heat and increased wildfire risks. So these are not future risks.
They are happening now. We are not as prepared as we should be. Turning to amendments. Amendment 93 would require the Secretary of State, under clause 15 to include measures reducing the network's carbon footprint and identifying sections vulnerable to drought, flooding, heat and cold. It is a modest and targeted. It does not prescribe engineering solutions, only that the strategy does what any prudent infrastructure owner should assess vulnerability and plan for adaption.
Network rail and GBR are already investing 2.6 billion in climate adaption, but without a statutory requirement. These effects risk remaining fragmented and reactive. Scotland's Climate Ready Infrastructure Forum and Adaptive Pathways programme show that structured planning can work. This amendment would embed it across England and Wales to amendment one. One one would require Great British Railways rail Railways to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Environment Act 2021 targets the Climate Change Act, carbon budgets and net zero targets the National Adaptation Program and air quality targets.
As the minister has noted, environmental sustainability is already envisaged as a strategic objective and GBR must have regard to it. This amendment simply makes that duty explicit and actionable. Time GBR to targets. Parliament has already set without imposing new ones. Amendment 313 sets out a rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework. This would ensure that GBR is. Environmental duty is measured and reported on and not left to aspiration.
GBR will inherit. As we've heard, some 52,000 hectares of land, around 20,000km of track stations and embankments across England, Scotland and Wales. As the Government's Estates Nature programme recognised, state owned land is shifting towards a whole estate approach and we welcome that connecting isolated habitats into ecosystems essential to halting species loss and building climate resilience. Annual reporting would improve transparency and encourage practical action. Building on the framework, local authority authorities already use in their biodiversity duties.
Turning to amendment one two, nine in the name of Baroness Willis of Summertown, to which I've added my name, we support this amendment. This would require GBR to publish an annual report on how railway Land supports local nature recovery strategies, wildlife corridors and clean energy generation through rooftop and car park. Solar railway land is a natural asset. Linear corridors connecting fragmented habitats and vast and underused surfaces for solar.
This amendment mandates not specific projects, but transparency and accountability. Together, these amendments seize the opportunity. Sorry, I'll just move on. I turn finally to the amendments in the name of Baroness Jones. I think the noble Baroness has introduced her amendments very well, so I won't add to that, but I do. I do support your amendments. I notice that there is a considerable area of overlap with the amendments in my name, but we are supportive of the amendments that you've put forward.
So to conclude, I am grateful again to the Minister for a constructive meeting ahead of committee. I look forward to further discussions as the bill proceeds on these important matters. The evidence from this summer is stark. Our railways are already struggling to operate under a changing climate. If we have a railway, that is, if we are to have a railway railway that is reliable, affordable and fit for the future, it must be low carbon, climate resilient and aligned with our environmental laws.
They are happening now. We are not as prepared as we should be. Turning to amendments. Amendment 93 would require the Secretary of State, under clause 15 to include measures reducing the network's carbon footprint and identifying sections vulnerable to drought, flooding, heat and cold. It is a modest and targeted. It does not prescribe engineering solutions, only that the strategy does what any prudent infrastructure owner should assess vulnerability and plan for adaption.
Network rail and GBR are already investing 2.6 billion in climate adaption, but without a statutory requirement. These effects risk remaining fragmented and reactive. Scotland's Climate Ready Infrastructure Forum and Adaptive Pathways programme show that structured planning can work. This amendment would embed it across England and Wales to amendment one. One one would require Great British Railways rail Railways to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Environment Act 2021 targets the Climate Change Act, carbon budgets and net zero targets the National Adaptation Program and air quality targets.
As the minister has noted, environmental sustainability is already envisaged as a strategic objective and GBR must have regard to it. This amendment simply makes that duty explicit and actionable. Time GBR to targets. Parliament has already set without imposing new ones. Amendment 313 sets out a rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework. This would ensure that GBR is. Environmental duty is measured and reported on and not left to aspiration.
GBR will inherit. As we've heard, some 52,000 hectares of land, around 20,000km of track stations and embankments across England, Scotland and Wales. As the Government's Estates Nature programme recognised, state owned land is shifting towards a whole estate approach and we welcome that connecting isolated habitats into ecosystems essential to halting species loss and building climate resilience. Annual reporting would improve transparency and encourage practical action. Building on the framework, local authority authorities already use in their biodiversity duties.
Turning to amendment one two, nine in the name of Baroness Willis of Summertown, to which I've added my name, we support this amendment. This would require GBR to publish an annual report on how railway Land supports local nature recovery strategies, wildlife corridors and clean energy generation through rooftop and car park. Solar railway land is a natural asset. Linear corridors connecting fragmented habitats and vast and underused surfaces for solar.
This amendment mandates not specific projects, but transparency and accountability. Together, these amendments seize the opportunity. Sorry, I'll just move on. I turn finally to the amendments in the name of Baroness Jones. I think the noble Baroness has introduced her amendments very well, so I won't add to that, but I do. I do support your amendments. I notice that there is a considerable area of overlap with the amendments in my name, but we are supportive of the amendments that you've put forward.
So to conclude, I am grateful again to the Minister for a constructive meeting ahead of committee. I look forward to further discussions as the bill proceeds on these important matters. The evidence from this summer is stark. Our railways are already struggling to operate under a changing climate. If we have a railway, that is, if we are to have a railway railway that is reliable, affordable and fit for the future, it must be low carbon, climate resilient and aligned with our environmental laws.
17:17
17:17
17:17
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Rise to speak to amendment one, two, nine standing in my name, but also amendments 93111313 that I've signed. And also 130 A which I think has got a considerable overlap with the amendments that I put forward here. So amendment one, two, nine aims to maintain the contribution that Network Rail has made to nature recovery efforts over recent years, and I think it is important to, in many ways, to congratulate Network Rail and what they have already achieved. This potential was first recognised in 2018, when the Network Rail Vegetation Management Review, led by John Varley, recommended that Nature Recovery be set up across the estate to produce a railway for people and wildlife, and the government accepted this recommendation and in 2019 published a policy statement requiring Network Rail to achieve no net loss of biodiversity on the existing lineside estate by 2024 and to achieve biodiversity net gain on each route by 2040.
The requirement included an expectation for Network Rail to publish an annual report on its activity and on progress towards meeting these goals, and it did and has indeed done that over the past six years. It's led to progress. And we're you know, I think it's really important to acknowledge that biodiversity plan and a regular state of nation reports from Network Rail has kick started and reported on a range of really quite ingenious projects to achieve no net loss in biodiversity by 2024.
And they've started to deliver on biodiversity, on biodiversity gain. And they've now brought this forward to 2035. So the latest State of nature report already reports on a minor overall increase in the amount of nature rich habitats across the estate since 2020, including an extra 618 hectares of broadleaved woodland. Now, in the foreword of this 2024 State of Nature report, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, when Chair of Network Rail, indicated that this progress would continue in this new arrangement, stating the rail industry is raising the profile of biodiversity alongside engineering.
It is natural engineering that looks to offer much opportunity as we press towards Great British Railways. However, sadly, the government's mechanism to achieve this continuity are currently lacking from this bill and I believe there is a real risk that this really good recent progress is lost with the transfer of the railway estate to Great British Railways. Amendment 129 is designed to prevent this and is strongly supported by the Wildlife trusts and other environmental groups.
The issue is that the bill only places one tangential environmental responsibility on Great British Railways, and that is the duty to make decisions in the public interest, which is described in clause 18 as encompassing the effect of railway services on the environment. That is it. This is amorphous. This is unreportable fraction of a duty, and it's simply no replacement for the specific and reportable biodiversity enhancement requirement that has applied to Network Rail since 2018.
The biodiversity duty set under the Environment Act in 2021 will apply to GBR, but it's general in application and without a requirement to report on progress. So my amendment outlines three concerns. Specifically. The first is to deliver measures as identified in the local nature recovery strategies. Now we have these strategies. Very shortly we will have 48 covering the entirety of England. And this amendment provides local specific blueprints for effective nature recovery on every English railway holding, really increasing the impact of using local data, but also, really importantly, the work of local communities who've worked extremely hard to bring together this data into local nature recovery strategy and the organisations developing them.
So my amendment additional would also require Great British Railways to report on the creation of wildlife corridors, as already mentioned by another couple of other noble lords. Now, as a scientist, I went back to look at what is the evidence base for these corridors actually having any effect. This is just a nice to have. And I came across a paper that was published last year, and it was a meta analysis across the world looking at created wildlife corridors created alongside urban infrastructure such as roads and railways, 34 countries, 800 examples, and over 64% of these indicated improved movement across landscapes and associated improvements in wildlife, biodiversity and abundance.
Now, one of the problems with the UK nature right now, and I and I'm not the only one believing this, it's the reason why we keep seeing this decline is because currently our nature is becoming more and more fragmented into small islands surrounded by large oceans of impenetrable landscape. The railways have a huge potential. That land alongside the railways has huge potential there to create these corridors. And I, you know, I do believe they have the potential to create a wildlife corridor from Land's End to John o groats.
Or technically, looking this up on the railway network is from Penzance to Thurso. But the prize that Network Rail could bring about to restoring the continuity of ecological process in the UK is huge, but it needs to be realised and supported and this would, I believe, be strengthened by reporting duty as outlined in my amendment. But there's another point to these wildlife corridors that we often lose sight of, and that nature rich habitats can reduce far risks from railways , because these native biodiversity replaces the highly flammable, invasive or unmanaged grass.
And this is because native biodiversity, particularly trees and shrubs, they have these this higher leaf moisture content and lower volatile oils. They don't catch fire so easily. So you don't see these long strips of fire going alongside the railway. And then the other beauty of vegetation and these wildlife corridors along the sides of railways is the root networks pulled in the soil. When you have or have flooding events, those areas are vegetated, are less likely to see the landslides and landslips which damage and stop the railways from working.
So those. This is why I think these are really important amendments. Finally, the estate has significant potential for solar deployment on stations and their car parks. And again, Network Rail, they kick started this work in 2025 with an agreement with EDF to provide energy from solar to meet 15% of the network's needs, a new railway solar deployment reporting duty could build on this and absolutely galvanise work to fit small scale solar across the railways, estates and their two and a half, more than 2500 stations.
But it comes back to by legally requiring annual reports on the delivery of these three highly impactful environmental interventions that I believe that amendment to one, two, nine would lock in effective environmental improvement into Great British Railways operating model. I am seriously concerned it will get lost in the noise if we're not careful. Otherwise, just turning very briefly to the other amendments, I've added my name to the chief theme about those. Amongst them is resilience.
We need to electrify our railways in England and setting this yearly target for Mars, electrified like they do in Scotland. We're way behind them and we need to have some targets there. We also need to ensure that trains can operate in our hot summers. I travel up and down every day by train to the House of Lords. I dearly hope we can count because my, my my journeys would absolutely devastated this summer.
And I think the point to make is our temperate climate is a thing of the past. We are now in the norm and we absolutely need to adapt to that. So this bill could be an opportunity to give one of our most iconic of our transport network across the UK, Great British Railways and the sector adaptation targets, and a general duty to reach our mission's adaptation and environmental targets as amendment 111 does. And these these amendments would go some way towards achieving this.
Thank you.
The requirement included an expectation for Network Rail to publish an annual report on its activity and on progress towards meeting these goals, and it did and has indeed done that over the past six years. It's led to progress. And we're you know, I think it's really important to acknowledge that biodiversity plan and a regular state of nation reports from Network Rail has kick started and reported on a range of really quite ingenious projects to achieve no net loss in biodiversity by 2024.
And they've started to deliver on biodiversity, on biodiversity gain. And they've now brought this forward to 2035. So the latest State of nature report already reports on a minor overall increase in the amount of nature rich habitats across the estate since 2020, including an extra 618 hectares of broadleaved woodland. Now, in the foreword of this 2024 State of Nature report, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, when Chair of Network Rail, indicated that this progress would continue in this new arrangement, stating the rail industry is raising the profile of biodiversity alongside engineering.
It is natural engineering that looks to offer much opportunity as we press towards Great British Railways. However, sadly, the government's mechanism to achieve this continuity are currently lacking from this bill and I believe there is a real risk that this really good recent progress is lost with the transfer of the railway estate to Great British Railways. Amendment 129 is designed to prevent this and is strongly supported by the Wildlife trusts and other environmental groups.
The issue is that the bill only places one tangential environmental responsibility on Great British Railways, and that is the duty to make decisions in the public interest, which is described in clause 18 as encompassing the effect of railway services on the environment. That is it. This is amorphous. This is unreportable fraction of a duty, and it's simply no replacement for the specific and reportable biodiversity enhancement requirement that has applied to Network Rail since 2018.
The biodiversity duty set under the Environment Act in 2021 will apply to GBR, but it's general in application and without a requirement to report on progress. So my amendment outlines three concerns. Specifically. The first is to deliver measures as identified in the local nature recovery strategies. Now we have these strategies. Very shortly we will have 48 covering the entirety of England. And this amendment provides local specific blueprints for effective nature recovery on every English railway holding, really increasing the impact of using local data, but also, really importantly, the work of local communities who've worked extremely hard to bring together this data into local nature recovery strategy and the organisations developing them.
So my amendment additional would also require Great British Railways to report on the creation of wildlife corridors, as already mentioned by another couple of other noble lords. Now, as a scientist, I went back to look at what is the evidence base for these corridors actually having any effect. This is just a nice to have. And I came across a paper that was published last year, and it was a meta analysis across the world looking at created wildlife corridors created alongside urban infrastructure such as roads and railways, 34 countries, 800 examples, and over 64% of these indicated improved movement across landscapes and associated improvements in wildlife, biodiversity and abundance.
Now, one of the problems with the UK nature right now, and I and I'm not the only one believing this, it's the reason why we keep seeing this decline is because currently our nature is becoming more and more fragmented into small islands surrounded by large oceans of impenetrable landscape. The railways have a huge potential. That land alongside the railways has huge potential there to create these corridors. And I, you know, I do believe they have the potential to create a wildlife corridor from Land's End to John o groats.
Or technically, looking this up on the railway network is from Penzance to Thurso. But the prize that Network Rail could bring about to restoring the continuity of ecological process in the UK is huge, but it needs to be realised and supported and this would, I believe, be strengthened by reporting duty as outlined in my amendment. But there's another point to these wildlife corridors that we often lose sight of, and that nature rich habitats can reduce far risks from railways , because these native biodiversity replaces the highly flammable, invasive or unmanaged grass.
And this is because native biodiversity, particularly trees and shrubs, they have these this higher leaf moisture content and lower volatile oils. They don't catch fire so easily. So you don't see these long strips of fire going alongside the railway. And then the other beauty of vegetation and these wildlife corridors along the sides of railways is the root networks pulled in the soil. When you have or have flooding events, those areas are vegetated, are less likely to see the landslides and landslips which damage and stop the railways from working.
So those. This is why I think these are really important amendments. Finally, the estate has significant potential for solar deployment on stations and their car parks. And again, Network Rail, they kick started this work in 2025 with an agreement with EDF to provide energy from solar to meet 15% of the network's needs, a new railway solar deployment reporting duty could build on this and absolutely galvanise work to fit small scale solar across the railways, estates and their two and a half, more than 2500 stations.
But it comes back to by legally requiring annual reports on the delivery of these three highly impactful environmental interventions that I believe that amendment to one, two, nine would lock in effective environmental improvement into Great British Railways operating model. I am seriously concerned it will get lost in the noise if we're not careful. Otherwise, just turning very briefly to the other amendments, I've added my name to the chief theme about those. Amongst them is resilience.
We need to electrify our railways in England and setting this yearly target for Mars, electrified like they do in Scotland. We're way behind them and we need to have some targets there. We also need to ensure that trains can operate in our hot summers. I travel up and down every day by train to the House of Lords. I dearly hope we can count because my, my my journeys would absolutely devastated this summer.
And I think the point to make is our temperate climate is a thing of the past. We are now in the norm and we absolutely need to adapt to that. So this bill could be an opportunity to give one of our most iconic of our transport network across the UK, Great British Railways and the sector adaptation targets, and a general duty to reach our mission's adaptation and environmental targets as amendment 111 does. And these these amendments would go some way towards achieving this.
Thank you.
17:27
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords. I rise very, very briefly to add my voice to amendment 313 that I added my name to. And I think this is the first time I've really spoken. So could I thank the Minister and his staff for the very good meetings we've had so far? This is incredibly important, my Lords. My last two rail journeys of any note have both been disrupted badly, one by trains having to go slowly because the rails were buckled at 24°C, and the other one was a tree fell on a line and pretty much put you out of action.
And I hear now that that the strategy for tree management is having to change enormously because of the drier weather. So I think, my Lords, this is a this framework is not something that we should bring in now. We should have brought it in ten years ago. And and as with any of these frameworks, we need reporting on exactly what happens if you don't report on something, it gets pushed to the back.
And I hear now that that the strategy for tree management is having to change enormously because of the drier weather. So I think, my Lords, this is a this framework is not something that we should bring in now. We should have brought it in ten years ago. And and as with any of these frameworks, we need reporting on exactly what happens if you don't report on something, it gets pushed to the back.
17:28
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lord, I'm delighted to support some of the amendments in this group, and I'm sure we've all experienced the leaves on the track nightmare. But by putting in place a number of the different targets, it also have to have a focus on maintenance. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, just referred to the buckling, as did the noble Baroness Willis Summertown, largely because we've moved to continuously welded rail in order to have a smoother journey. That was particularly welcome.
Actually, I should declare an interest. I live about, I think, 100 yards or so from a railway line which has had CW thanks to Sizewell C, because otherwise the trains would be exceptionally noisy overnight when they're bringing in all the different material. However, going back to the issues at hand, there's no doubt that increasing electrification is needed. I'm very conscious that only about 38% of the rail network is electrified, but it does cover about three quarters of the passengers that use trains.
But nevertheless, there is more that can be done. And in terms of the battery shift that is happening or starting to happen, I hope that there'll be other lines which have already got a mixed mode situation, but currently operate on diesel, where we will start to see that change to the battery elements. As that technology evolves and becomes more widespread. I think one of the things I do want to assure my noble friend, though, that I'm not looking to electrify the entire line only because of heritage railways and indeed steam and coal will continue to be important to feature, albeit not being the primary reason for passenger transport, but for enjoyment and indeed preserving that heritage.
In terms of thinking through where things have gone wrong, it is frustrating to see when there have been a number of situations where HS2 is probably the best example, where trees are planted, left alone, watered di have to be replaced. It's just a waste of money and it's that's one of the frustrations on. And one of the benefits of bringing in targets. Indeed, the bits. In particular, thinking about the local nature recovery strategies would help to make sure that these things are not just literally dropped in the ground and then forgotten forevermore.
I know that previous ministers in office used to explore the idea of how you use these pipelines right across the country, being used to move people and freight around also to do the to use for broadband, for telecommunications and the like. Well, frankly, in a much more modest cost. So nature can be improved and help the government achieve its legally binding targets. And that's why I think some of these amendments are to be supported.
I'll have to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I'm afraid I cannot go down the 1.30 route. It's just not a philosophy I'm prepared to adopt. But I appreciate she keeps bringing these issues for the consideration of Parliament.
Actually, I should declare an interest. I live about, I think, 100 yards or so from a railway line which has had CW thanks to Sizewell C, because otherwise the trains would be exceptionally noisy overnight when they're bringing in all the different material. However, going back to the issues at hand, there's no doubt that increasing electrification is needed. I'm very conscious that only about 38% of the rail network is electrified, but it does cover about three quarters of the passengers that use trains.
But nevertheless, there is more that can be done. And in terms of the battery shift that is happening or starting to happen, I hope that there'll be other lines which have already got a mixed mode situation, but currently operate on diesel, where we will start to see that change to the battery elements. As that technology evolves and becomes more widespread. I think one of the things I do want to assure my noble friend, though, that I'm not looking to electrify the entire line only because of heritage railways and indeed steam and coal will continue to be important to feature, albeit not being the primary reason for passenger transport, but for enjoyment and indeed preserving that heritage.
In terms of thinking through where things have gone wrong, it is frustrating to see when there have been a number of situations where HS2 is probably the best example, where trees are planted, left alone, watered di have to be replaced. It's just a waste of money and it's that's one of the frustrations on. And one of the benefits of bringing in targets. Indeed, the bits. In particular, thinking about the local nature recovery strategies would help to make sure that these things are not just literally dropped in the ground and then forgotten forevermore.
I know that previous ministers in office used to explore the idea of how you use these pipelines right across the country, being used to move people and freight around also to do the to use for broadband, for telecommunications and the like. Well, frankly, in a much more modest cost. So nature can be improved and help the government achieve its legally binding targets. And that's why I think some of these amendments are to be supported.
I'll have to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I'm afraid I cannot go down the 1.30 route. It's just not a philosophy I'm prepared to adopt. But I appreciate she keeps bringing these issues for the consideration of Parliament.
17:31
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Could I make a brief intervention? It's the first time I've spoken on the Railways Bill, actually, since it appeared, and I'm generally, of course, extremely supportive of it. I've listened with great sympathy to all the amendments put forward. Most of which I understand the motive for putting them forward. What I worry about is the general principle of loading the bill with lots of duties that Great British Rail has to follow.
I think one of the reasons why the British state is failing and has been failing for some time. So this isn't a. This is a criticism of both Conservative and Labour governments is that we've got into this habit of wanting everything. You know, everything has to be there that that the state is trying to achieve. And I think if we want to have effective public sector organisations, then a lot of that everythingness has to be cut away and that the board has to decide on its priorities, be accountable for its priorities and be challenged in that way.
But if you put a lot of statutory duties on the board, frankly, that's the road to the back tunnel. You know, the hundred million waste of money in HS2. And we should be very careful about how we load up this bill with contradictory duties, putting lots of difficult choices on the statute book. It would be much better to have a effective board that made those choices.
I think one of the reasons why the British state is failing and has been failing for some time. So this isn't a. This is a criticism of both Conservative and Labour governments is that we've got into this habit of wanting everything. You know, everything has to be there that that the state is trying to achieve. And I think if we want to have effective public sector organisations, then a lot of that everythingness has to be cut away and that the board has to decide on its priorities, be accountable for its priorities and be challenged in that way.
But if you put a lot of statutory duties on the board, frankly, that's the road to the back tunnel. You know, the hundred million waste of money in HS2. And we should be very careful about how we load up this bill with contradictory duties, putting lots of difficult choices on the statute book. It would be much better to have a effective board that made those choices.
17:33
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, with what I thought was a short but actually very well judged speech, which I think he'll discover is actually not enormously dissimilar to 1 or 2 of the things that I'm going to say. I just wanted to start by saying, and I should , should thank. I
17:33
17:33
17:33
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
This of I hope from the little frisson that I've created, I haven't damaged the noble Lords reputation amongst his Labour colleagues by. Obviously agree with him. I don't wish to do that, but maybe just wait for my remarks and we'll see how in line they are. I should just thank the Baroness Willis of Summertown for her extensive recounting of the considerable progress the Network Rail made on environmental matters under the leadership of the board by the noble Lord, the Minister, when he chaired it, and, of course, under a number of conservative Secretaries of State, and I thank her for recognising the considerable environmental progress that was achieved, which I support.
So I'm I'm. My sense on this group of amendments is I'm supportive that GBR at Network Rail, in its new incarnation, as far as infrastructure is concerned, continues having a. An important eye to environmental matters, but I did just want to flag up, I think, pretty much the same concern as the noble Lord Liddle to recognise this rail travel is a a relatively low carbon form of transport. And often when we're discussing in the noble lady, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when we were discussing the Civil Aviation Bill, she was obviously very critical of aviation.
Now, one of the dangers here is if we load lots of responsibilities and costs and burdens on the rail industry, and we make it very expensive to build new infrastructure and deliver it, we're actually making it harder to get more people on rail, which means we'll be taking fewer of them away from aviation and on the roads. And in fact, the noble Lord Liddle gave me a perfect example by referring to the bat tunnel HS2.
One of the problems with HS2, one of the reasons why I took the decision to cancel the second phase of it was that the costs had run out of control and. And I note the present government, although although they were critical of the decision at the time, I notice in the two years it's been in power, it hasn't reversed the decision and shows no sign of reversing the decision because it recognises the same cost pressures. So the only word of caution I would have on framing these amendments, and if the the government is tempted by the the thrust of any of them, it.
My advice would be to bring back some amendments which were more tightly focused. Is that what we don't want to do is make it more costly and more difficult to build and operate railways so that we have fewer of them and fewer services and less investment in infrastructure. And then we push people into higher carbon forms of transport, which would be rather shooting themselves in the foot. And I think there are 1 or 2 aspects of this where I think they do well.
I did just want to flag up some concerns. So in amendment 138, for example, I notice there's a reference to a transition to a zero carbon railway as opposed to one that is net zero. And I flagged that as important for this reason. For example, it talks about generating electricity on railway land, which obviously makes a contribution if you're trying to get to a zero carbon railway, I'm not sure that is actually achievable.
And if you strive to do that with no eye on the cost, the effect of trying to do that is that you actually end up with putting given public money is limited, is not infinite, you end up doing less investment in than you otherwise would, which is a bit self-defeating. So that's where I would be a little bit a bit concerned. The other area I was concerned is there's two other areas. One is on whether it ends up making it so difficult to develop on railway land, either by selling it to others or using the joint ventures that we referred to in an earlier day of committee .
Again. But what you actually end up doing is stopping development, reducing the income to GBR and actually making it more expensive to own and operate a railway, which I don't think is helpful for the taxpayer. I think the positive things that I absolutely support is recognising, and I think noble lady, Baroness Jones and Baroness Willis referred to this and a number of other noble Lords is recognising that our climate has altered and I think the work involved in looking at the network and identifying the parts of the network which are particularly vulnerable to different forms of weather, and then putting together a plan to deal with that so that it can be costed and judged accordingly, I think is actually very sensible, and I know Network Rail already does a lot of that work, but I think actually pulling it all together in a in a coherent way is actually very sensible.
The final thing that I would say is just on the point about electrification. So I support electrification. Most of the electrification on the railway in England and Wales was done under a conservative government. The Labour government pre 2010 had done very little. So the bulk of it was done under us. But again, you have to have an eye on practicality and cost . And something like 70% of passenger journeys are already on trains that are electrified because of the nature of our network and at the years in which it was constructed.
As we go along, the cost of electrifying what hasn't already been electrified is going to become increasingly costly because of of bridges and the rest of the infrastructure. And you get to the point where it just doesn't make any sense. And I think this is where actually our earlier debate on innovation is very helpful, because noble Lords may have seen some recent rolling stock procurement news where the trains were going to be battery electric.
Yeah, that's very helpful where you enable the train to be able to be electric without having to electrify the infrastructure. I think what's important is electrification is not a problem. But what we've got to be careful is we don't insist that every railway line has to have an electrical cable running above it and insist on that, how it's delivered. I saying the principle is okay, but I think you need to have innovation and flexibility on how you deliver it, because there are some parts of the network where trying to do overhead electrification is simply not sensible.
It's either impractical from an engineering perspective, or if you did it, it would be so costly it would make no sense. And actually innovations like battery electric trains or tri mode trains, where you enable that technology to best use the way the network exists at the moment, I think is the way to go. So I think there is a risk on being too specific in primary legislation about the way we deliver some of these things, albeit the I think the overall objective is one that I support.
So I think in conclusion, I very much support continuing the work that we've done over the years in recognising that GBL is going to be a very big land public landowner, and it absolutely should continue doing the work that it's already doing. I mean, I suppose I would just say the existing legislative framework that exists and the duties that fall on it clearly done a very good job. So I'm not sure we need to pile loads of extra duties on top, as Lord Liddle said, but I want to continue that work.
I just have a note of caution about, as he did, about making sure we don't overdo it and make it so costly that we either don't develop the railway, or we actually make it so that we reduce the number of people actually shifting from from cars and planes onto what is a relatively low carbon form of transport, which would be rather shooting ourselves in the foot. So I think whilst supporting moves to being environmentally friendly, the change in the climate, I think we just have to be a little bit cautious about the practicalities of it, and I'll look forward to hearing what the minister has got to say about how the government balances those two very important objectives.
So I'm I'm. My sense on this group of amendments is I'm supportive that GBR at Network Rail, in its new incarnation, as far as infrastructure is concerned, continues having a. An important eye to environmental matters, but I did just want to flag up, I think, pretty much the same concern as the noble Lord Liddle to recognise this rail travel is a a relatively low carbon form of transport. And often when we're discussing in the noble lady, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when we were discussing the Civil Aviation Bill, she was obviously very critical of aviation.
Now, one of the dangers here is if we load lots of responsibilities and costs and burdens on the rail industry, and we make it very expensive to build new infrastructure and deliver it, we're actually making it harder to get more people on rail, which means we'll be taking fewer of them away from aviation and on the roads. And in fact, the noble Lord Liddle gave me a perfect example by referring to the bat tunnel HS2.
One of the problems with HS2, one of the reasons why I took the decision to cancel the second phase of it was that the costs had run out of control and. And I note the present government, although although they were critical of the decision at the time, I notice in the two years it's been in power, it hasn't reversed the decision and shows no sign of reversing the decision because it recognises the same cost pressures. So the only word of caution I would have on framing these amendments, and if the the government is tempted by the the thrust of any of them, it.
My advice would be to bring back some amendments which were more tightly focused. Is that what we don't want to do is make it more costly and more difficult to build and operate railways so that we have fewer of them and fewer services and less investment in infrastructure. And then we push people into higher carbon forms of transport, which would be rather shooting themselves in the foot. And I think there are 1 or 2 aspects of this where I think they do well.
I did just want to flag up some concerns. So in amendment 138, for example, I notice there's a reference to a transition to a zero carbon railway as opposed to one that is net zero. And I flagged that as important for this reason. For example, it talks about generating electricity on railway land, which obviously makes a contribution if you're trying to get to a zero carbon railway, I'm not sure that is actually achievable.
And if you strive to do that with no eye on the cost, the effect of trying to do that is that you actually end up with putting given public money is limited, is not infinite, you end up doing less investment in than you otherwise would, which is a bit self-defeating. So that's where I would be a little bit a bit concerned. The other area I was concerned is there's two other areas. One is on whether it ends up making it so difficult to develop on railway land, either by selling it to others or using the joint ventures that we referred to in an earlier day of committee .
Again. But what you actually end up doing is stopping development, reducing the income to GBR and actually making it more expensive to own and operate a railway, which I don't think is helpful for the taxpayer. I think the positive things that I absolutely support is recognising, and I think noble lady, Baroness Jones and Baroness Willis referred to this and a number of other noble Lords is recognising that our climate has altered and I think the work involved in looking at the network and identifying the parts of the network which are particularly vulnerable to different forms of weather, and then putting together a plan to deal with that so that it can be costed and judged accordingly, I think is actually very sensible, and I know Network Rail already does a lot of that work, but I think actually pulling it all together in a in a coherent way is actually very sensible.
The final thing that I would say is just on the point about electrification. So I support electrification. Most of the electrification on the railway in England and Wales was done under a conservative government. The Labour government pre 2010 had done very little. So the bulk of it was done under us. But again, you have to have an eye on practicality and cost . And something like 70% of passenger journeys are already on trains that are electrified because of the nature of our network and at the years in which it was constructed.
As we go along, the cost of electrifying what hasn't already been electrified is going to become increasingly costly because of of bridges and the rest of the infrastructure. And you get to the point where it just doesn't make any sense. And I think this is where actually our earlier debate on innovation is very helpful, because noble Lords may have seen some recent rolling stock procurement news where the trains were going to be battery electric.
Yeah, that's very helpful where you enable the train to be able to be electric without having to electrify the infrastructure. I think what's important is electrification is not a problem. But what we've got to be careful is we don't insist that every railway line has to have an electrical cable running above it and insist on that, how it's delivered. I saying the principle is okay, but I think you need to have innovation and flexibility on how you deliver it, because there are some parts of the network where trying to do overhead electrification is simply not sensible.
It's either impractical from an engineering perspective, or if you did it, it would be so costly it would make no sense. And actually innovations like battery electric trains or tri mode trains, where you enable that technology to best use the way the network exists at the moment, I think is the way to go. So I think there is a risk on being too specific in primary legislation about the way we deliver some of these things, albeit the I think the overall objective is one that I support.
So I think in conclusion, I very much support continuing the work that we've done over the years in recognising that GBL is going to be a very big land public landowner, and it absolutely should continue doing the work that it's already doing. I mean, I suppose I would just say the existing legislative framework that exists and the duties that fall on it clearly done a very good job. So I'm not sure we need to pile loads of extra duties on top, as Lord Liddle said, but I want to continue that work.
I just have a note of caution about, as he did, about making sure we don't overdo it and make it so costly that we either don't develop the railway, or we actually make it so that we reduce the number of people actually shifting from from cars and planes onto what is a relatively low carbon form of transport, which would be rather shooting ourselves in the foot. So I think whilst supporting moves to being environmentally friendly, the change in the climate, I think we just have to be a little bit cautious about the practicalities of it, and I'll look forward to hearing what the minister has got to say about how the government balances those two very important objectives.
17:42
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It's been a very interesting debate, and I congratulate noble Baroness Jones, and noble Baroness Wells of Summertown for making the very strong points about the need for environmental friendly policies to justify the ongoing construction and development of railways. Of course, as Lord Harper and my noble friend Lord Liddle referred to, there's always a risk that if you took the 300 or 300 odd amendments in the in the Marshall List and applied those to roads, you'd just be laughing yourself silly because it's much too much detail and totally unnecessary.
So that's that's a different point. Take forward my concern with amendment 130 a. When I read it was that. Here we are. With noble Baroness Jones basically saying that. Well, the environment nature is more important than humans. That's a pretty rough thing to say, and I'm sure she'll have a go at me when I finish. But actually, if you .
If you apply some of these. Amendments and I compare them with the policy that our government has recently been encouraging people to build, develop housing near stations, the. There's a conflict somewhere. They're not everywhere, but there will be a conflict somewhere. And the idea that you can have a nice place to live near a station so that you can use more environmentally friendly means of transport to get wherever you want to go, to seem to me to be a very good, good idea from our government.
But then you look at the nature recovery and clean energy on rail land and in amendment 130 A. It's some of the issues in the. In the subtext is you sort of think, well, can you actually incorporate them while building a nice little house for everybody else next door? I mean, I know it's not all land owned by the railways is next to a station, but I would have expected some kind of reference to the need to look at the needs for, well, human beings who are going to get on these trains, as well as the poor old nature recovery things which are quite rightly listed in in this amendment.
And I'm sure my noble Baroness will have a go at me after this. But I just I just think there needs to be a balance. I'm not sure what the balance is, but reading this amendment, I thought, well, we're out of balance.
So that's that's a different point. Take forward my concern with amendment 130 a. When I read it was that. Here we are. With noble Baroness Jones basically saying that. Well, the environment nature is more important than humans. That's a pretty rough thing to say, and I'm sure she'll have a go at me when I finish. But actually, if you .
If you apply some of these. Amendments and I compare them with the policy that our government has recently been encouraging people to build, develop housing near stations, the. There's a conflict somewhere. They're not everywhere, but there will be a conflict somewhere. And the idea that you can have a nice place to live near a station so that you can use more environmentally friendly means of transport to get wherever you want to go, to seem to me to be a very good, good idea from our government.
But then you look at the nature recovery and clean energy on rail land and in amendment 130 A. It's some of the issues in the. In the subtext is you sort of think, well, can you actually incorporate them while building a nice little house for everybody else next door? I mean, I know it's not all land owned by the railways is next to a station, but I would have expected some kind of reference to the need to look at the needs for, well, human beings who are going to get on these trains, as well as the poor old nature recovery things which are quite rightly listed in in this amendment.
And I'm sure my noble Baroness will have a go at me after this. But I just I just think there needs to be a balance. I'm not sure what the balance is, but reading this amendment, I thought, well, we're out of balance.
17:46
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, my Lords, I have to say I take a lot of issue with what Lord Buckley has just said. It is perfectly possible sensible housing development that is wildlife friendly and indeed we have to have housing developments in this country. There's wildlife friendly. It's perfectly. I remember in political campaigning, walking around in your estate in my own constituency and meeting three deer running through. You know, we have to develop around stations, correct? We have in a sensible way that doesn't damage biodiversity and encourages biodiversity within housing development around stations.
And that's just plain common sense. Now, whilst I would sympathise with much of what Lord Liddle and Lord Harper said about actually writing too many duties into what Baroness Jones and Baroness Willis have done is rightly raised some extremely important issues that need to be a part of what great British Railways does. We can't actually have a situation where the country's major landowners do not have a focus on protecting biodiversity in the land they control, and I think Lady Willis's evidence research that she had done highlights that it is indeed important to do just that.
And I do think that the minister, whilst I'm sure he won't accept the detail of the amendments, I hope the Minister can actually set out for us how, in the duties that the Secretary of State provides in his various strategies for Great British Railways, he will make sure that the issues that have been highlighted in this debate are reflected, and I think it does matter particularly to ensure that Great British Railways does when it develops the network for the future and where I probably don't agree with Baroness Jones on this, is that for me, capacity development is the number one priority.
It was always for me as secretary of state because the more people you get off the roads and onto the railways, the better. And there are hard choices to be taken about. Which projects you spend the money on. My personal view is right now expanding the capacity of the network, reopening disused routes and so on and so forth are where the priorities should lie. As Lord Harper rightly said, sometimes there are trade offs around the cost of electrification.
Battery trains and hydrogen trains, I think, provide a much better route in parts of our network. For the future. I hope the minister will will take on board much of what's been said. I hope the guidance he gives to the future organisation will be clear on this. I think sometimes there have to be compromises in what is perfect on the railways, and I always profoundly disagreed with the engineering standards of Network Rail that scalped huge amounts of earth out of the route along East West Rail, which was an existing railway trackbed that had been in existence for a century and which needed restoration, clearly needed better drainage.
But was it really necessary to scalp all the biodiversity that was a largely redundant corridor and leave it as kind of brand new open grassland? So I do think the compromises to be had when that capacity is put in place. But I do think that what the two baronesses have said, supported by others about the need for biodiversity to be protected in Great British Railways, is extremely important. And I hope the Minister will make sure in whatever way is best , that is best achieved.
That is what happens.
And that's just plain common sense. Now, whilst I would sympathise with much of what Lord Liddle and Lord Harper said about actually writing too many duties into what Baroness Jones and Baroness Willis have done is rightly raised some extremely important issues that need to be a part of what great British Railways does. We can't actually have a situation where the country's major landowners do not have a focus on protecting biodiversity in the land they control, and I think Lady Willis's evidence research that she had done highlights that it is indeed important to do just that.
And I do think that the minister, whilst I'm sure he won't accept the detail of the amendments, I hope the Minister can actually set out for us how, in the duties that the Secretary of State provides in his various strategies for Great British Railways, he will make sure that the issues that have been highlighted in this debate are reflected, and I think it does matter particularly to ensure that Great British Railways does when it develops the network for the future and where I probably don't agree with Baroness Jones on this, is that for me, capacity development is the number one priority.
It was always for me as secretary of state because the more people you get off the roads and onto the railways, the better. And there are hard choices to be taken about. Which projects you spend the money on. My personal view is right now expanding the capacity of the network, reopening disused routes and so on and so forth are where the priorities should lie. As Lord Harper rightly said, sometimes there are trade offs around the cost of electrification.
Battery trains and hydrogen trains, I think, provide a much better route in parts of our network. For the future. I hope the minister will will take on board much of what's been said. I hope the guidance he gives to the future organisation will be clear on this. I think sometimes there have to be compromises in what is perfect on the railways, and I always profoundly disagreed with the engineering standards of Network Rail that scalped huge amounts of earth out of the route along East West Rail, which was an existing railway trackbed that had been in existence for a century and which needed restoration, clearly needed better drainage.
But was it really necessary to scalp all the biodiversity that was a largely redundant corridor and leave it as kind of brand new open grassland? So I do think the compromises to be had when that capacity is put in place. But I do think that what the two baronesses have said, supported by others about the need for biodiversity to be protected in Great British Railways, is extremely important. And I hope the Minister will make sure in whatever way is best , that is best achieved.
That is what happens.
17:50
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, this group of amendments looks to consider the environmental impact of the railway and to ensure Great British Railways take steps to meet climate change legislation looks at reducing the carbon footprint of the railway and using every opportunity to support the environment and indeed electrifying the railway, whether that's rail or battery or other. And the amendments are in the name of Baroness Jones. Earl Russell has several here and has spoke very clearly about the importance of these matters and, of course, the increasing extreme weather we're all experiencing.
I think this brings home how important this topic is to us all. We're seeing it increasingly every year. And of course, Baroness Willis is also her really good amendments. And in her amendment 129, Baroness Willis talks about the deployment of solar panels on transport infrastructure, as does Baroness Jones Amendment 129, and also about the solar reporting duty. But we can go much further in this space in the planning legislation earlier this year, we might might have been that last year I spoke to some amendments I tabled in this space about using our transport infrastructure for solar panels in places like Switzerland.
They have installed solar panels laid between the track, whereas France, of course, is well known to be using coverings in car parks. There's so much innovation that we can learn from globally, and we must do better to capture solar panel on our transport infrastructure. I really welcome these amendments. Lord point, you know, of course is really valid, but here we are. We're probing these these are probing amendments, trying to make sure this is absolutely on the government's agenda.
And I'm sure the long term rail strategy, which was mentioned earlier, may well cover some of this. But I look forward to the minister's response on this really important area. Yeah.
I think this brings home how important this topic is to us all. We're seeing it increasingly every year. And of course, Baroness Willis is also her really good amendments. And in her amendment 129, Baroness Willis talks about the deployment of solar panels on transport infrastructure, as does Baroness Jones Amendment 129, and also about the solar reporting duty. But we can go much further in this space in the planning legislation earlier this year, we might might have been that last year I spoke to some amendments I tabled in this space about using our transport infrastructure for solar panels in places like Switzerland.
They have installed solar panels laid between the track, whereas France, of course, is well known to be using coverings in car parks. There's so much innovation that we can learn from globally, and we must do better to capture solar panel on our transport infrastructure. I really welcome these amendments. Lord point, you know, of course is really valid, but here we are. We're probing these these are probing amendments, trying to make sure this is absolutely on the government's agenda.
And I'm sure the long term rail strategy, which was mentioned earlier, may well cover some of this. But I look forward to the minister's response on this really important area. Yeah.
17:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Russell and the noble Baroness , Lady Willis, for their amendments. Their parts of the railway are vulnerable to flooding, extreme weather and other climate risks. GBR clearly needs to understand those vulnerabilities and ensure that the network is resilient. We do, however, as Lord Liddle and my noble friend Lord Harper say, need to take into consideration the administrative burdens and obligations many of these amendments amendments may likely engender.
There is also an important point to be made about electrification. We should recognise the contribution already made by open access operators. Lumos East Coast fleet is entirely electric, while Hull Trains has invested in modern BI mode trains, which 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 any further electrification of of the lines is not affordable right now.
This demonstrates demonstrates that private operators and private investment is the best way to achieving the government's environmental objectives.
There is also an important point to be made about electrification. We should recognise the contribution already made by open access operators. Lumos East Coast fleet is entirely electric, while Hull Trains has invested in modern BI mode trains, which 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 any further electrification of of the lines is not affordable right now.
This demonstrates demonstrates that private operators and private investment is the best way to achieving the government's environmental objectives.
17:53
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I just want to start by making a response to the noble Lord Moylan, who's not in his place at the moment. On amendment 89 , a. I will write to noble Lords with the information I have about the likely future origin of steel for the UK railway for UK Railways. On these amendments I. I should start by saying that I hope noble Lords will all note that rail makes up only 1.4% of overall transport, greenhouse gas emissions and rail freight 7,076% less carbon per tonne compared with road transport, with even lower emissions using electric traction or low carbon fuels.
So rail is already one of the cleanest ways of travel, and that's something we should be proud of. Of course, there's also there's always more to be done. And I should say that because of the duty and clause 18 requiring GBR to act in the public interest, including by considering the environment, GBR will be subject to more requirements than. Currently, network rail is. The infrastructure provider is. Amendment 93 touches on a critical issue for the railway and.
We've all recently seen a. Noble Lords have referred to and experienced the impacts extreme weather have had on the network, particularly this summer. That's 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. The discussion document published today, refers to the critical importance of this issue and commits that that strategy will suggest prioritisation for climate resilience works based on the areas of greatest risk.
However, I agree with not waiting for the strategy to act, and the noble Lord, the noble Earl Russell and the noble Baroness Jones, both said that more action is needed now, and indeed, Network Rail is already developing adaptation pathways that will, on by region basis, set out the organisation's approach to responding on environmental challenging challenges, again focusing on 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.
And this will, of course, be continued by GBR once it's established on amendments 111 and 130 B, I'm happy to reassure that the environment and protection of nature will form a vital part of discussion on the railway, just as the amendments seek all relevant environmental legislation. Targets will apply to GBR in full and GBR will be subject, as I said, to environmental requirements at both national and devolved level and as discussed with the noble Lord, I can confirm today that targets in existing legislation are referenced in the long term rail strategy to demonstrate the importance that government places on this, and I hope that noble Lords will see this reference in the discussion document.
Turning to amendment 330 J. The government is working to develop a long term strategic approach to decarbonising and adapting our railways, and GBR will be vital in progressing it, but in progressing this. That's why the long term rail strategy also contains a strategic objective on environmental sustainability, which includes protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation, delivering rail decarbonisation. As I said, GBR has a duty under clause 18 to act in the public interest and GBR will discharge this duty when it develops its business plan, where it must set out activities it will take to meet its duties and its long term rail strategy, both of which clearly have environmental considerations.
On amendment 78, 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 and will not prevent the government from spending money on its priorities. It would certainly not prevent the government spending money on the environment or on accessibility. When funding the railway, the Secretary of State will also be under duty 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 the and environmental targets, and these will be embedded in the key strategic decisions taken on the railway on amendment 313. As I'm 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 and includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railway.
It supports, for example, 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 for 30 years. An integrated plan to take this forward, and noble lords have referred to modern technology with the use of battery technology and discontinuous electrification, and indeed, noble lords have also referred to the recently announced train order for TransPennine, which includes trains which run both on electric wires and have batteries where 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 because and and the government is already. working on this across department. So we have a joined up response to climate change amendments , 129 and 130, a local nature recovery and energy generation are raise important issues. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring the railway.
contributes to our natural environment. The biodiversity duty found in the Environment Act will require GBR to increase wildlife and natural habitats and have regard to local nature, local nature strategy. In any event, Network Rail is required as part of its licence to have an environmental policy and it's already taking action to improve biodiversity across the railway estate through its Biodiversity Action Plan. If noble Lords would like any more specific details, I'd be delighted to to to to assist.
We want this work to continue and that's why the GBR licence policy document, published in May, includes a requirement to maintain an environmental policy, and that would include managing habitats and woodland, controlling invasive species and developing nature based solutions. I would also reassure noble Lords that that properly done, this can reduce the long term railway costs by by avoiding tree felling, by planting controllable species. For example, I confirmed to the noble Baroness Willis that Network Rail reports its performance against its Biodiversity Action plan to the Orer, and this will continue under GBR.
The RR, as the enforcer of the licence, would be able to step in if it became dissatisfied on energy generation. I'm pleased that the noble Baroness has raised this, because it allows me to mention it. In April of this year, as an example, lNer publicly owned alongside the renewable innovation focused company Trebor, successfully installed three wind turbines along the East Coast Main line that capture energy generated by passing trains that clean energy generated will be measured, harnessed and used to power a range of devices.
As an example of what can be done alongside the railway, this. This is a proof of concept that is entirely the sort of thing I would expect GBR to deliver to fulfil its environmental duty and the environmental objective in the long term rail strategy. I hope the noble Lord of Baroness can see that their amendments are being thoroughly addressed by the government's plans already. In conclusion, the government remains committed to addressing the environmental challenges challenges we face, and the provisions in this bill will ensure that the Railways continues to support the government's climate targets on climate change, air quality , decarbonisation.
I do, of course, concur with my noble friend Lord Liddle, that we should not load the bill or indeed GBR as an organisation with a huge amount of statutory duties when there's sufficient in the Bill to ensure that the organisation does the right thing in any event. So I encourage noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
So rail is already one of the cleanest ways of travel, and that's something we should be proud of. Of course, there's also there's always more to be done. And I should say that because of the duty and clause 18 requiring GBR to act in the public interest, including by considering the environment, GBR will be subject to more requirements than. Currently, network rail is. The infrastructure provider is. Amendment 93 touches on a critical issue for the railway and.
We've all recently seen a. Noble Lords have referred to and experienced the impacts extreme weather have had on the network, particularly this summer. That's 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. The discussion document published today, refers to the critical importance of this issue and commits that that strategy will suggest prioritisation for climate resilience works based on the areas of greatest risk.
However, I agree with not waiting for the strategy to act, and the noble Lord, the noble Earl Russell and the noble Baroness Jones, both said that more action is needed now, and indeed, Network Rail is already developing adaptation pathways that will, on by region basis, set out the organisation's approach to responding on environmental challenging challenges, again focusing on 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.
And this will, of course, be continued by GBR once it's established on amendments 111 and 130 B, I'm happy to reassure that the environment and protection of nature will form a vital part of discussion on the railway, just as the amendments seek all relevant environmental legislation. Targets will apply to GBR in full and GBR will be subject, as I said, to environmental requirements at both national and devolved level and as discussed with the noble Lord, I can confirm today that targets in existing legislation are referenced in the long term rail strategy to demonstrate the importance that government places on this, and I hope that noble Lords will see this reference in the discussion document.
Turning to amendment 330 J. The government is working to develop a long term strategic approach to decarbonising and adapting our railways, and GBR will be vital in progressing it, but in progressing this. That's why the long term rail strategy also contains a strategic objective on environmental sustainability, which includes protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation, delivering rail decarbonisation. As I said, GBR has a duty under clause 18 to act in the public interest and GBR will discharge this duty when it develops its business plan, where it must set out activities it will take to meet its duties and its long term rail strategy, both of which clearly have environmental considerations.
On amendment 78, 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 and will not prevent the government from spending money on its priorities. It would certainly not prevent the government spending money on the environment or on accessibility. When funding the railway, the Secretary of State will also be under duty 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 the and environmental targets, and these will be embedded in the key strategic decisions taken on the railway on amendment 313. As I'm 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 and includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railway.
It supports, for example, 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 for 30 years. An integrated plan to take this forward, and noble lords have referred to modern technology with the use of battery technology and discontinuous electrification, and indeed, noble lords have also referred to the recently announced train order for TransPennine, which includes trains which run both on electric wires and have batteries where 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 because and and the government is already. working on this across department. So we have a joined up response to climate change amendments , 129 and 130, a local nature recovery and energy generation are raise important issues. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring the railway.
contributes to our natural environment. The biodiversity duty found in the Environment Act will require GBR to increase wildlife and natural habitats and have regard to local nature, local nature strategy. In any event, Network Rail is required as part of its licence to have an environmental policy and it's already taking action to improve biodiversity across the railway estate through its Biodiversity Action Plan. If noble Lords would like any more specific details, I'd be delighted to to to to assist.
We want this work to continue and that's why the GBR licence policy document, published in May, includes a requirement to maintain an environmental policy, and that would include managing habitats and woodland, controlling invasive species and developing nature based solutions. I would also reassure noble Lords that that properly done, this can reduce the long term railway costs by by avoiding tree felling, by planting controllable species. For example, I confirmed to the noble Baroness Willis that Network Rail reports its performance against its Biodiversity Action plan to the Orer, and this will continue under GBR.
The RR, as the enforcer of the licence, would be able to step in if it became dissatisfied on energy generation. I'm pleased that the noble Baroness has raised this, because it allows me to mention it. In April of this year, as an example, lNer publicly owned alongside the renewable innovation focused company Trebor, successfully installed three wind turbines along the East Coast Main line that capture energy generated by passing trains that clean energy generated will be measured, harnessed and used to power a range of devices.
As an example of what can be done alongside the railway, this. This is a proof of concept that is entirely the sort of thing I would expect GBR to deliver to fulfil its environmental duty and the environmental objective in the long term rail strategy. I hope the noble Lord of Baroness can see that their amendments are being thoroughly addressed by the government's plans already. In conclusion, the government remains committed to addressing the environmental challenges challenges we face, and the provisions in this bill will ensure that the Railways continues to support the government's climate targets on climate change, air quality , decarbonisation.
I do, of course, concur with my noble friend Lord Liddle, that we should not load the bill or indeed GBR as an organisation with a huge amount of statutory duties when there's sufficient in the Bill to ensure that the organisation does the right thing in any event. So I encourage noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
18:02
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'd like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will just make a comment or two on it, and I would like to thank the Minister and his team for for their response. I'm in such awe of the noble Lord Minister's extensive knowledge of railways. I always find his replies in these meetings very comforting, and it's only when I walk away and start rereading it and I think, hold on, hold on.
18:02
18:03
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I will be coming back. Issues Committee stage. Okay, that's a warning, not a threat. The noble Lord Russell, he used a word that I hadn't. I hadn't been used. But I will will incorporate it into my thinking. And he said vulnerability. And I think that's actually what we're talking about with all these things. And, and he is so environmentally aware that it's fantastic.
The noble lady, Baroness Willis, that was it was very good to hear what you say about the corridors in other countries. And it comes back to what the noble lady, Lady Pigeon, was talking about, in that none of this is new. We can do this. We have examples that we can take from other countries and, and, and other and even other railways and. Prince Philip once said to me that.
The noble lady, Baroness Willis, that was it was very good to hear what you say about the corridors in other countries. And it comes back to what the noble lady, Lady Pigeon, was talking about, in that none of this is new. We can do this. We have examples that we can take from other countries and, and, and other and even other railways and. Prince Philip once said to me that.
18:04
18:04
18:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Quite unkindly, I thought that the problem with us was we never gave anyone else any credit for what they did. And I actually did take that to heart because we don't other people never go far enough. It's never enough. We always want more. And and the noble lady, Lady Willis, was absolutely right to say , Network Rail has been doing stuff. And. And I really should accept that.
And the fire risk and the flooding, of course, that's something we really need to keep down the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Yes, of course, this should have all started ten years ago. Or 20 or 30 or 40. We have known about the climate crisis and its approach for well over 50 years, and we should have been thinking ahead then, but we weren't. And it goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper was saying. Yes, the Tories were better in some ways, but they're regressing now.
And had you listen to the Green Party, HS2 would not have started where it started and we wouldn't have had the back tunnel fiasco. So please remember, you know, the Greens were right back then and we're right now. Noble lady, noble lady.
And the fire risk and the flooding, of course, that's something we really need to keep down the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Yes, of course, this should have all started ten years ago. Or 20 or 30 or 40. We have known about the climate crisis and its approach for well over 50 years, and we should have been thinking ahead then, but we weren't. And it goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper was saying. Yes, the Tories were better in some ways, but they're regressing now.
And had you listen to the Green Party, HS2 would not have started where it started and we wouldn't have had the back tunnel fiasco. So please remember, you know, the Greens were right back then and we're right now. Noble lady, noble lady.
18:05
18:05
18:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
did hear the noble lady opening speech, actually, and I've just heard her remarks, but I just briefly say one of the reasons we weren't concerned about the climate crisis 50 years ago was that we were being told by scientists then, and it was on the front page of The Economist, which I used to read assiduously every week that we were about to enter a new ice age. That was the consensus then, and that was the view of what that was, the Green Party's view.
18:05
18:05
18:05
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:06
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Let me get back to my comments. Oh, lady. Lady coffee. Yes, of course the welded rails is is part of the problem. And I'm absolutely delighted that she doesn't have a lot of noise from the railway going past her house. Is. We need to reduce diesel and we need to. Well, I suppose I was disappointed she couldn't fully support what I was saying, but you know, thank you anyway. No, Lord, Lord Liddle.
This is not about putting everything in the bill. This is about thinking about a future for for humankind. And it's Lord Barclay as well, whom I will have a word with later. And this. You know, I'm not trying to save nature for nature's sake. It's because we rely on nature for our human existence. And I don't understand why people just don't get that connection. No bees, no food, no humans.
Okay. Have you got. Right. Okay. So , you know, please. I'm not saying nature is more important than humans. I'm saying it's important for humans. The noble lord, Lord Grayling. Well, I was very surprised he supported anything I said. That's rather nice. Why? Well, I don't know. I perhaps I haven't listened hard enough to what you're saying generally, but thank you anyway.
And the noble Lord Reay. I assumed he was going to completely rubbish everything, and so I didn't start to take notes so. Well, thank you for that. And yeah, I look forward to all the other groups in this. I beg leave to withdraw.
This is not about putting everything in the bill. This is about thinking about a future for for humankind. And it's Lord Barclay as well, whom I will have a word with later. And this. You know, I'm not trying to save nature for nature's sake. It's because we rely on nature for our human existence. And I don't understand why people just don't get that connection. No bees, no food, no humans.
Okay. Have you got. Right. Okay. So , you know, please. I'm not saying nature is more important than humans. I'm saying it's important for humans. The noble lord, Lord Grayling. Well, I was very surprised he supported anything I said. That's rather nice. Why? Well, I don't know. I perhaps I haven't listened hard enough to what you're saying generally, but thank you anyway.
And the noble Lord Reay. I assumed he was going to completely rubbish everything, and so I didn't start to take notes so. Well, thank you for that. And yeah, I look forward to all the other groups in this. I beg leave to withdraw.
18:07
18:07
18:08
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I rise. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 79293 table in my name. As many noble Lords are aware, consumer protection such as ensuring transparency of fees, safeguard customer interests and drive economic growth by promoting trust and confidence. Bolster consumer protection. The Competition and Markets Authority was awarded direct consumer enforcement powers in 2024. This meant 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 for a problem.
The new government's approach will be to award these same direct enforcement powers to sector regulators as well, who will be able to undertake the same enforcement activities as CMA but with additional sectoral expertise. The government is beginning this process by awarding the Civil Aviation Authority these powers by 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 activities currently underway.
CMA has launched an investigation for drip pricing, a practice where total fees are not revealed until late into the purchase process, luring consumers into falsely believing the product to be cheaper than it is with this amendment. With these amendments, in future, the Orer could undertake this kind of investigation in relation to the industry, utilising its sector experience expertise to seek swift redress , redress for customers, the breach of consumer law be found. This Bill seeks to put passengers at the heart of decision making, and having the sector regulator able to take swift and decisive corrective action for breaches of consumer law is an important and sensible amendment that will boost 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 and if not, I can discuss them before report stage. Enable them again then.
The new government's approach will be to award these same direct enforcement powers to sector regulators as well, who will be able to undertake the same enforcement activities as CMA but with additional sectoral expertise. The government is beginning this process by awarding the Civil Aviation Authority these powers by 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 activities currently underway.
CMA has launched an investigation for drip pricing, a practice where total fees are not revealed until late into the purchase process, luring consumers into falsely believing the product to be cheaper than it is with this amendment. With these amendments, in future, the Orer could undertake this kind of investigation in relation to the industry, utilising its sector experience expertise to seek swift redress , redress for customers, the breach of consumer law be found. This Bill seeks to put passengers at the heart of decision making, and having the sector regulator able to take swift and decisive corrective action for breaches of consumer law is an important and sensible amendment that will boost 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 and if not, I can discuss them before report stage. Enable them again then.
18:10
18:10
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Nobody else standing up, I will. Noble Lords. First of all, can I thank peers for planet. They are the people who actually alerted me to the fact that I had an amendment today because I got missed off the distribution list and the government whips office, so I'm afraid I have not had the opportunity to explore other people's amendments in this group, and I hope they will not think me rude in covering some of the points. That
18:10
18:10
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
So I'm trying to. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle's left because I thought he might like part of my speech I was about to make. And this may seem. My amendment may seem like we're going back to the 80s or the 90s. And in some ways it is. There's Two-fold approach to what I've tried to do. I was told it wasn't in scope to remove functions from the Orer, but I could create a new one instead.
So I've created the one that was actually originally created back in the 90s, and that is to go back to basically having a simpler body that looks after rail. And ideally, I think roads should be dealt with elsewhere, if at all. So let's go on a bit of a logic here. First of all, one of the things that is now Great British Railways is going to be basically taxpayer owned, government owned, and there's no need to now have a non-ministerial department as a regulator, no need whatsoever.
So this is going to be run by the government. And I'm more than happy. Another time to sit down with the noble Lord, the minister, to go through this whole thing of how he could become and get some brownie points or some gold stars with the first Secretary of State in helping to rewire the state. And indeed, the the discussion that's been going on within
So I've created the one that was actually originally created back in the 90s, and that is to go back to basically having a simpler body that looks after rail. And ideally, I think roads should be dealt with elsewhere, if at all. So let's go on a bit of a logic here. First of all, one of the things that is now Great British Railways is going to be basically taxpayer owned, government owned, and there's no need to now have a non-ministerial department as a regulator, no need whatsoever.
So this is going to be run by the government. And I'm more than happy. Another time to sit down with the noble Lord, the minister, to go through this whole thing of how he could become and get some brownie points or some gold stars with the first Secretary of State in helping to rewire the state. And indeed, the the discussion that's been going on within
18:12
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Discussion that's been going on within within the government about how to get back more control. And the control is not just about owning the railways. The control is also about how people are accountable. And indeed, a non-ministerial department isn't accountable to Parliament is sorry, not accountable to ministers, it's to Parliament. That doesn't mean that there aren't discussions and the like, but I think people would rather that if the government's going to own the railways, there's an element that they should be in charge and they should be accountable, and they should be looking into how it's really operating.
So I appreciate there's an element here about safety. And there's two functions currently of that. And the Railway Accident Investigation Bureau isn't part of the Or. It's it's a body that actually or reports directly to the Secretary of state, the Or has other issues to do or functions to do with safety, which it took on in 2006, instead of the Health and Safety Executive. And I think it's perfectly acceptable for there be a much closer relationship to think about how safety is applied on government owned railways than through some other third party body.
There's another example in. While the Health and Safety Executive is a Ndpb, actually, the Defence Safety Authority is in the Ministry of Defence. They have a different way of having accountability to avoid it going straight into the Secretary of State, they go through a permanent secretary. But nevertheless, my point is that there's a the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is back and I'm hoping he might enjoy part of my speech, which is about helping to rewire the state and have fewer of these non-ministerial departments.
So the reason I'm focusing on this is because if the whole point of having much more control of railways by ministers, then there's a sense about how we start to strip away other aspects, unnecessary aspects of the state in order to make sure that can get done efficiently and effectively. Now, in terms of there's obviously with the or a hell of a lot of influence on the focus on rail rather than the roads.
There's a bit on roads, but I'm not sure they've done the best job in managing national highways. Indeed, we know that National Highways had the Lower Thames crossing removed from them to be taken directly back into the department. There is something I appreciate has come up. There's a new bill tabled in the in the Commons, the Highways Financing Bill, which basically will allow toll roads and introduce the model. I was delighted when I was an MP, I managed to fight the toll road on the A14 by persuading my noble friend Lord Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister, that on the grounds that getting to Felixstowe there was only.
You could only use the A14. It wasn't at all on that. But we'll have that debate another time. But of course, we have other ways of of helping Parliament to understand whether it's the National Audit Office and similar. The other aspect I would say is I do think thinking about the roads, having that come together and we know why it happened. It happened in 2015 when National Highways were set up as an executive agency, and this was to allow multi-year budgets and some element of independence directly from ministers.
I'm not sure how well that really worked out, although I appreciate there are two former secretaries of state here today who , understandably are heavily engaged. But it was that point that the Orer changed. I think it had been it kept the letters from 1993 all the way through to 2015 and took on roads at that point. So I strongly feel that when we are trying to be more effective, more efficient, we do need to try and get more power back into the hands of ministers to have clearer ways of how Parliament can hold ministers to account.
And I do not think at the moment the structure that is set up is the best way to achieve that. One of the things that I will finally say is that I just want to pay credit to actually, the rail inspectors in particular, gentleman called Ian Prosser. And I think there can be people who are exceptionally sensible, not a jobsworth actually overriding other rail organisations who panic on aspects of safety. It's very important that there is confidence in rail safety, of course, but to have that sensible element, and I'm particularly thinking of a situation in a railway station called Halesworth, where Ian Prosser came all the way up to Suffolk and made sensible.
So it's this sort of direct relationship, closer relationship that I think would make the noble or the minister even more effective than he is. I know he loves his buses, as does the Prime Minister, but I know how much he enjoys his railway as well. And instead of how can I put it, other people being accountable for the tracks. We would like to see that in the hands of the minister, not some other board.
So I appreciate there's an element here about safety. And there's two functions currently of that. And the Railway Accident Investigation Bureau isn't part of the Or. It's it's a body that actually or reports directly to the Secretary of state, the Or has other issues to do or functions to do with safety, which it took on in 2006, instead of the Health and Safety Executive. And I think it's perfectly acceptable for there be a much closer relationship to think about how safety is applied on government owned railways than through some other third party body.
There's another example in. While the Health and Safety Executive is a Ndpb, actually, the Defence Safety Authority is in the Ministry of Defence. They have a different way of having accountability to avoid it going straight into the Secretary of State, they go through a permanent secretary. But nevertheless, my point is that there's a the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is back and I'm hoping he might enjoy part of my speech, which is about helping to rewire the state and have fewer of these non-ministerial departments.
So the reason I'm focusing on this is because if the whole point of having much more control of railways by ministers, then there's a sense about how we start to strip away other aspects, unnecessary aspects of the state in order to make sure that can get done efficiently and effectively. Now, in terms of there's obviously with the or a hell of a lot of influence on the focus on rail rather than the roads.
There's a bit on roads, but I'm not sure they've done the best job in managing national highways. Indeed, we know that National Highways had the Lower Thames crossing removed from them to be taken directly back into the department. There is something I appreciate has come up. There's a new bill tabled in the in the Commons, the Highways Financing Bill, which basically will allow toll roads and introduce the model. I was delighted when I was an MP, I managed to fight the toll road on the A14 by persuading my noble friend Lord Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister, that on the grounds that getting to Felixstowe there was only.
You could only use the A14. It wasn't at all on that. But we'll have that debate another time. But of course, we have other ways of of helping Parliament to understand whether it's the National Audit Office and similar. The other aspect I would say is I do think thinking about the roads, having that come together and we know why it happened. It happened in 2015 when National Highways were set up as an executive agency, and this was to allow multi-year budgets and some element of independence directly from ministers.
I'm not sure how well that really worked out, although I appreciate there are two former secretaries of state here today who , understandably are heavily engaged. But it was that point that the Orer changed. I think it had been it kept the letters from 1993 all the way through to 2015 and took on roads at that point. So I strongly feel that when we are trying to be more effective, more efficient, we do need to try and get more power back into the hands of ministers to have clearer ways of how Parliament can hold ministers to account.
And I do not think at the moment the structure that is set up is the best way to achieve that. One of the things that I will finally say is that I just want to pay credit to actually, the rail inspectors in particular, gentleman called Ian Prosser. And I think there can be people who are exceptionally sensible, not a jobsworth actually overriding other rail organisations who panic on aspects of safety. It's very important that there is confidence in rail safety, of course, but to have that sensible element, and I'm particularly thinking of a situation in a railway station called Halesworth, where Ian Prosser came all the way up to Suffolk and made sensible.
So it's this sort of direct relationship, closer relationship that I think would make the noble or the minister even more effective than he is. I know he loves his buses, as does the Prime Minister, but I know how much he enjoys his railway as well. And instead of how can I put it, other people being accountable for the tracks. We would like to see that in the hands of the minister, not some other board.
18:17
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, my Lords, I rise to move amendment 142 to speak to amendment 142 standing in my name on the order paper, and I do so with apologies for not having attended the second reading of the Bill, and indeed, with some trepidation, given the level of expertise on railways and rail that is clearly present on all sides in this grand committee, Lord, Lord Moylan began his contribution to today's proceedings with a reference to the 1970s.
Well, he will forgive me if I don't go there. That, for me was a time of flares and floral shirts and an afro. And that's that isn't. There are many members around here who are certainly familiar with flares and floral shirts. Not so many, perhaps with an afro, but that was the 70s for me, and I don't intend to go there. But I do intend to go to the 80s , where I was a member of a local authority that had oversight of the Docklands Light Railway and to the noughties , mid the early noughties, where as Chief Secretary in two spending reviews, I took a particular interest in Crossrail and the lessons I learnt from both those experiences in the 80s and in the and in the noughties was of the significance of rail of railways in promoting economic growth.
Absolutely central. And as a result of that it seems to me, my Lords, that great British Railways shouldn't merely operate a railway. It should help grow Britain. That has to be at the heart of our consideration of this Bill and therefore our regulatory framework should therefore recognise the economic geography of the whole country, as well as the economics of the railway, the economic geography of the whole country, as well as the economics of the railway.
Hence, my Lords, the importance of regional growth. And I would argue that that's something that should unite us all on all sides of this committee. We may have different views as to how we get there, but we all believe that growth is absolutely essential for the future of our country. Well, I'm not going to go down the road that the noble Baroness tempts me, but I can add the word sustainable growth.
Surely even she will not demure from from that proposition. Well, I have no problem with the notion of sustainable, sustainable growth or indeed of that notion being being on the bill, I mean, and in relation to this amendment, because this is a amendment that seeks is by no means perfect. It does seek to elicit from the government a response to the issue of how it, with its commendable commitment to growth across the country, particularly to addressing regional disparities, how it is going to make this bill fit for purpose.
In order to do that, and I would suggest that we are going to have to come back to the issue of growth in the course of our consideration, sustainable growth in the course of our consideration of of this bill, because as it stands at at the moment, it doesn't actually make the point that the railways do have a vital role to play in our country's future going forward. And in this intervention, I take as an example, the situation that exists today in relation to H.
S one and Kent and the regeneration of Kent, the noble Lord, the Lord young, sadly, isn't in his place, but made a very important contribution to our earlier deliberations when he was Secretary of State. And indeed I was in the other place. He made the point in relation to the railways and the great the Channel Tunnel rail link in particular. He made the point in the debate, which is in Hansard in February of 1996, that the benefits referring specifically to the to the to the Channel tunnel, the and the rail link are of nation wide ranging and substantial.
The the benefits of the agreement that had been reached goes on to say the railway will be a great boost to economic development and regeneration, and so indeed, it has proved in the context of Kent. But sadly the decision made in the. In. In March 2020, close access to the channel rail rail link for Ashford and indeed for. For Ebbsfleet had a devastating effect on the region and a negative effect on its growth.
That point, my Lords, has been very well made and I commend them for it by the work of the local members of. Of Parliament. In the other place, Helena Dollimore for Hastings and Rye, Tony Vaughan for folks in Hythe, Sir John Joseph for. For Ashford, and indeed others. Others in the region working with the Good Growth Foundation just to demonstrate what the what the impact of the lack of access through Ashford has meant for the region.
£80 million worth of infrastructure investment rendered useless business across the region, losing footfall and trade, perpetuating some of the deep inequalities that exist within Kent and East Sussex, which, after all, do contain some of the most deprived communities in the UK. With child poverty and unemployment concentrated particularly along the coastal towns, which I happen to know, to know very, very, very well. All of that impacted upon by a decision made by a rail operator in relation to one specific station.
The point I make to the Grand Committee at this stage, and to the Minister at this stage of our consideration of of the Bill, and a hugely grateful to him for the interest he has shown over the years in this subject matter is that unless we amend the Bill as it stands with a regional growth duty requiring a. The the issue to form part of the regulatory decision making process, rather than being treated as somehow external to it.
If we don't make a change to this bill, what's going to happen is that in relation to an. The Commons library reported on this in just in August of this year in relation to the four potential competitors for Eurostar who have aspirations to operate international passenger services through the Channel Tunnel, the. Or has already approved track access agreements between Virgin Trains and H. S one and limited. Following its earlier Temple Mills decision, which I know the Minister is is is well aware.
The Minister will be equally well aware that the government has supported an industry working group to look at the remobilisation of the Kent H. S one stations for potential new international entrants. If we don't amend the statutory framework. Now, if the author were considering competing access applications, one operator proposing a London Paris service running non-stop through Kent, while another proposed calling at Ashford under a narrowly railway economic analysis, the Ashford stop could appear disadvantageous, disadvantageous.
A few minutes additional journey time, station operating costs, border security arrangements possibly reduce. London Paris capacity. Capacity. If that were the only consideration, then the author would be driven in one particular direction. But a regional sustainable growth duty would require the author to consider the other side of the ledger. Inward investment attracted by European connectivity, tourism expenditure, labour market accessibility, business productivity and the agglomeration effects development around Ashford, connectivity for Kent, East Sussex and the wider South East.
Utilization of existing infrastructure and model transfer for car, air, air, air, air, trout. International rail travel. Now, I end on this point if if that is true and it is true in relation to Ashford and Kent, think about the rest of the country. Think about those parts of the of the North East, those parts of the Midlands and of the of the wider north of of our country, who, without a specific duty to take note of the issue of growth, would be denied.
The benefits that a railway system can provide for the whole country. So on that basis, I commend the amendment to the Minister and hope he'll give us a reply that gives us some hope that these issues will be addressed in the Bill. Thank you.
Well, he will forgive me if I don't go there. That, for me was a time of flares and floral shirts and an afro. And that's that isn't. There are many members around here who are certainly familiar with flares and floral shirts. Not so many, perhaps with an afro, but that was the 70s for me, and I don't intend to go there. But I do intend to go to the 80s , where I was a member of a local authority that had oversight of the Docklands Light Railway and to the noughties , mid the early noughties, where as Chief Secretary in two spending reviews, I took a particular interest in Crossrail and the lessons I learnt from both those experiences in the 80s and in the and in the noughties was of the significance of rail of railways in promoting economic growth.
Absolutely central. And as a result of that it seems to me, my Lords, that great British Railways shouldn't merely operate a railway. It should help grow Britain. That has to be at the heart of our consideration of this Bill and therefore our regulatory framework should therefore recognise the economic geography of the whole country, as well as the economics of the railway, the economic geography of the whole country, as well as the economics of the railway.
Hence, my Lords, the importance of regional growth. And I would argue that that's something that should unite us all on all sides of this committee. We may have different views as to how we get there, but we all believe that growth is absolutely essential for the future of our country. Well, I'm not going to go down the road that the noble Baroness tempts me, but I can add the word sustainable growth.
Surely even she will not demure from from that proposition. Well, I have no problem with the notion of sustainable, sustainable growth or indeed of that notion being being on the bill, I mean, and in relation to this amendment, because this is a amendment that seeks is by no means perfect. It does seek to elicit from the government a response to the issue of how it, with its commendable commitment to growth across the country, particularly to addressing regional disparities, how it is going to make this bill fit for purpose.
In order to do that, and I would suggest that we are going to have to come back to the issue of growth in the course of our consideration, sustainable growth in the course of our consideration of of this bill, because as it stands at at the moment, it doesn't actually make the point that the railways do have a vital role to play in our country's future going forward. And in this intervention, I take as an example, the situation that exists today in relation to H.
S one and Kent and the regeneration of Kent, the noble Lord, the Lord young, sadly, isn't in his place, but made a very important contribution to our earlier deliberations when he was Secretary of State. And indeed I was in the other place. He made the point in relation to the railways and the great the Channel Tunnel rail link in particular. He made the point in the debate, which is in Hansard in February of 1996, that the benefits referring specifically to the to the to the Channel tunnel, the and the rail link are of nation wide ranging and substantial.
The the benefits of the agreement that had been reached goes on to say the railway will be a great boost to economic development and regeneration, and so indeed, it has proved in the context of Kent. But sadly the decision made in the. In. In March 2020, close access to the channel rail rail link for Ashford and indeed for. For Ebbsfleet had a devastating effect on the region and a negative effect on its growth.
That point, my Lords, has been very well made and I commend them for it by the work of the local members of. Of Parliament. In the other place, Helena Dollimore for Hastings and Rye, Tony Vaughan for folks in Hythe, Sir John Joseph for. For Ashford, and indeed others. Others in the region working with the Good Growth Foundation just to demonstrate what the what the impact of the lack of access through Ashford has meant for the region.
£80 million worth of infrastructure investment rendered useless business across the region, losing footfall and trade, perpetuating some of the deep inequalities that exist within Kent and East Sussex, which, after all, do contain some of the most deprived communities in the UK. With child poverty and unemployment concentrated particularly along the coastal towns, which I happen to know, to know very, very, very well. All of that impacted upon by a decision made by a rail operator in relation to one specific station.
The point I make to the Grand Committee at this stage, and to the Minister at this stage of our consideration of of the Bill, and a hugely grateful to him for the interest he has shown over the years in this subject matter is that unless we amend the Bill as it stands with a regional growth duty requiring a. The the issue to form part of the regulatory decision making process, rather than being treated as somehow external to it.
If we don't make a change to this bill, what's going to happen is that in relation to an. The Commons library reported on this in just in August of this year in relation to the four potential competitors for Eurostar who have aspirations to operate international passenger services through the Channel Tunnel, the. Or has already approved track access agreements between Virgin Trains and H. S one and limited. Following its earlier Temple Mills decision, which I know the Minister is is is well aware.
The Minister will be equally well aware that the government has supported an industry working group to look at the remobilisation of the Kent H. S one stations for potential new international entrants. If we don't amend the statutory framework. Now, if the author were considering competing access applications, one operator proposing a London Paris service running non-stop through Kent, while another proposed calling at Ashford under a narrowly railway economic analysis, the Ashford stop could appear disadvantageous, disadvantageous.
A few minutes additional journey time, station operating costs, border security arrangements possibly reduce. London Paris capacity. Capacity. If that were the only consideration, then the author would be driven in one particular direction. But a regional sustainable growth duty would require the author to consider the other side of the ledger. Inward investment attracted by European connectivity, tourism expenditure, labour market accessibility, business productivity and the agglomeration effects development around Ashford, connectivity for Kent, East Sussex and the wider South East.
Utilization of existing infrastructure and model transfer for car, air, air, air, air, trout. International rail travel. Now, I end on this point if if that is true and it is true in relation to Ashford and Kent, think about the rest of the country. Think about those parts of the of the North East, those parts of the Midlands and of the of the wider north of of our country, who, without a specific duty to take note of the issue of growth, would be denied.
The benefits that a railway system can provide for the whole country. So on that basis, I commend the amendment to the Minister and hope he'll give us a reply that gives us some hope that these issues will be addressed in the Bill. Thank you.
18:29
18:29
18:29
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Boateng for an introduction. I declare an interest, apart from having been involved years ago in the Channel Tunnel and and Ashford Station, and to get built in the right place, which wasn't very easy. I'm now involved in one of the cross-channel services that he mentioned, Gemini, whose ambition is to up trains regularly at Ebbsfleet and Ashford. But it's all. It is all quite complicated because you have an independent infrastructure manager who obviously wants the maximum return.
Obviously they operate local services to Folkestone and Dover and Ramsgate, I think, and they've all got to be fitted. They've all got to be fitted in together and that's that's before you get involved in the frontier control issues, which probably better avoid for the moment. The. It's up to on on international services, which is what these are called. It's for the operator to decide which its timetable of services and which stations it wishes to stop at, which is which is the same really as open access operators in this country, and a few with a few minor differences.
And he has to look at the costs and the costs of how many infrastructure for how many police and everybody else have to be there. And that's to find somewhere to park the trains at night and all the other things that that go with it. But my noble friend's point is that this needs some kind of economic encouragement, hopefully from the government, which is very similar to what should be being provided up in the North now or in Wales , or even where I live in Cornwall.
I mean, wherever it's needed to try and balance the the economies of these various different areas. It is then a question of who makes what decision as to where to run the trains , and if it's an open access operator, then we've talked about that elsewhere in the committee. We got the there was the ability in the in the bill to encourage or allow open access operators if they don't get in the way of the other trains, or we can.
And the freight trains. It's more difficult when you get smaller operators who want to go on a short journey. Will they be allowed to operate? We really don't know that yet. The. The link between economic demands and what the railway can provide is absolutely fundamental. And as my noble friend has said, the. The needs for Ashford and to some extent the rest of East Kent are pretty horrendously bad compared to other parts of the South East.
And so therefore stopping trains, Ebbsfleet and Ashford has many, many benefits also linked of other routes down to Hastings and not Hastings to Brighton and Hastings to. And it is all a question of how the government is going to decide on these various priorities when it probably doesn't have that too much money to spend. I personally believe that Endoscopies idea . Amendment of. I think it's to abolish the order and create a new one would be a complete disaster for the railways, and that's because I worked on rail freight as well.
And you need you need an organisation who can be seen to act independently in all the issues when you're trying to fit more trains than you possibly need to or want onto a track. And who gets priority? Does the does the argument about fares , feeds and basically competition issues and the over the years has. It's been changed once or twice and it's its terms of reference, but I has, I think, operated very fairly and in in a timely manner most of the time.
And if you compare their terms of reference and what they do with the Civil Aviation Authority or the the maritime, I can't remember what its name is now, but there's a similar one for maritime. All they do, I say all they do. It's a very important thing that they do is to act as an independent appeal body, if you like, or or whatever, so that you haven't got to go to court. You don't need to have the Competition and Markets Authority every time you want to blow your nose.
And I think the order, with whatever amendments are decided in this committee and thereon, is an absolutely fundamental part of keeping the network fair, as full as it can be, and encouraging new operators as new operators. That my noble friend really wanted extra traffic, more reliable traffic, but provided fairly and at the best possible price.
Obviously they operate local services to Folkestone and Dover and Ramsgate, I think, and they've all got to be fitted. They've all got to be fitted in together and that's that's before you get involved in the frontier control issues, which probably better avoid for the moment. The. It's up to on on international services, which is what these are called. It's for the operator to decide which its timetable of services and which stations it wishes to stop at, which is which is the same really as open access operators in this country, and a few with a few minor differences.
And he has to look at the costs and the costs of how many infrastructure for how many police and everybody else have to be there. And that's to find somewhere to park the trains at night and all the other things that that go with it. But my noble friend's point is that this needs some kind of economic encouragement, hopefully from the government, which is very similar to what should be being provided up in the North now or in Wales , or even where I live in Cornwall.
I mean, wherever it's needed to try and balance the the economies of these various different areas. It is then a question of who makes what decision as to where to run the trains , and if it's an open access operator, then we've talked about that elsewhere in the committee. We got the there was the ability in the in the bill to encourage or allow open access operators if they don't get in the way of the other trains, or we can.
And the freight trains. It's more difficult when you get smaller operators who want to go on a short journey. Will they be allowed to operate? We really don't know that yet. The. The link between economic demands and what the railway can provide is absolutely fundamental. And as my noble friend has said, the. The needs for Ashford and to some extent the rest of East Kent are pretty horrendously bad compared to other parts of the South East.
And so therefore stopping trains, Ebbsfleet and Ashford has many, many benefits also linked of other routes down to Hastings and not Hastings to Brighton and Hastings to. And it is all a question of how the government is going to decide on these various priorities when it probably doesn't have that too much money to spend. I personally believe that Endoscopies idea . Amendment of. I think it's to abolish the order and create a new one would be a complete disaster for the railways, and that's because I worked on rail freight as well.
And you need you need an organisation who can be seen to act independently in all the issues when you're trying to fit more trains than you possibly need to or want onto a track. And who gets priority? Does the does the argument about fares , feeds and basically competition issues and the over the years has. It's been changed once or twice and it's its terms of reference, but I has, I think, operated very fairly and in in a timely manner most of the time.
And if you compare their terms of reference and what they do with the Civil Aviation Authority or the the maritime, I can't remember what its name is now, but there's a similar one for maritime. All they do, I say all they do. It's a very important thing that they do is to act as an independent appeal body, if you like, or or whatever, so that you haven't got to go to court. You don't need to have the Competition and Markets Authority every time you want to blow your nose.
And I think the order, with whatever amendments are decided in this committee and thereon, is an absolutely fundamental part of keeping the network fair, as full as it can be, and encouraging new operators as new operators. That my noble friend really wanted extra traffic, more reliable traffic, but provided fairly and at the best possible price.
18:36
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords, I'm going to speak to my my amendment about opposing clause 20, because there's a duty being placed on the RR that I haven't really understood, and that's about promoting competition. So. So what I'm trying to do is probe exactly what the government means by the Office of Rail and Roads duty to promote competition. I'm concerned that there's a lack of clarity here between promoting competition and regulating competition that already has a role in regulating competition under the Railways Act 1993.
But clause 20 appears to give it a separate duty to promote competition. And so I'd like to understand what exactly that means in practice and why it's necessary. This is not an issue I will be bringing back at committee stage, but because it's I can't quite put enough passion into it, but it's I do see that there's potential tension here because the RR has a number of other responsibilities, including safety, access and economic regulation, the areas in which it's required to promote competition include important parts of the railways network services.
So I would like the minister to explain how this new duty will interact with those other responsibilities. And in particular, if there's a conflict between promoting competition and another statutory duty or the government's rail strategy, which takes precedence, I'm not convinced that we need a general duty on the regulator to promote competition in this bill. My
But clause 20 appears to give it a separate duty to promote competition. And so I'd like to understand what exactly that means in practice and why it's necessary. This is not an issue I will be bringing back at committee stage, but because it's I can't quite put enough passion into it, but it's I do see that there's potential tension here because the RR has a number of other responsibilities, including safety, access and economic regulation, the areas in which it's required to promote competition include important parts of the railways network services.
So I would like the minister to explain how this new duty will interact with those other responsibilities. And in particular, if there's a conflict between promoting competition and another statutory duty or the government's rail strategy, which takes precedence, I'm not convinced that we need a general duty on the regulator to promote competition in this bill. My
18:38
18:38
18:38
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I do thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for explaining that to me. I. I'd like to hear that corroborated by the Lord, the minister, if if he would. There's one obviously needs safeguards and so on. So my amendment three, three one is quite specific, but it raises two rather important questions about it to be competitive parts of the railway. And the first is rolling stock. We discussed on the first day the question of bringing rolling stock into public ownership.
The office for National Statistics is also considering the accounting treatment of rolling stock companies, including whether their leases should ultimately appear on the public sector balance sheet. Now, I don't want to rehearse that whole debate here, but I do think it's worth asking whether treating rolling stock as a competitive market be taken for granted. If the government's ambition is to create a genuinely integrated railway, which I hope it is, there may be circumstances where intervention in the rolling stock market is necessary.
Removing rolling stock from this particular competition provision would at least allow that policy question to be considered, without assuming that competition must always be the organizing principle. And the second issue is passenger information systems. I'd like the Minister to explain exactly what's meant by these systems in this legislation. I mean, if not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, could help me out. This provision dates back to the Railways Act 1993, when the technology and structure of the railway were very different.
If we're talking about the digital systems that allow information to be shared across the rail network, it seems to me there's a strong argument for treating them as essential railway infrastructure, and that would not necessarily prevent competition in ticket retailing or other services, but the underlying information infrastructure needs to work across the network. So I would be grateful if the minister could clarify what systems are covered by this provision and why they need to be treated as a competitive market.
And my amendment three, three two raises a broader question about the position of competition regulation within the new railway. As I understand it, the effect of this provision is that the competition functions under section 67 of the Railways Act , 1993 will continue to apply to chapter two or part one of this bill. However, the bill is also establishing a rail strategy and a set of general duties for British Railways. So I want to understand how these things fit together.
If the RR is that, it's difficult to say if the RR is applying competition regulation to the new statutory framework, could that regulation prevent GBR from implementing something that's otherwise consistent with the rail strategy and its general duties, and if so, which takes priorities? We've heard arguments that the role is being reduced under this bill, but this provision seems to leave it with significant powers in relation to competition. I'd like us to be clear about where the balance lies.
Are we creating a new railway strategy, which GBR is expected to deliver, whilst simultaneously giving the regulator the ability to intervene where it considers competition requirements have not been met? If that's the intention, the government should explain how conflicts between those objectives will be resolved. I'm not arguing against regulation where it's needed, but I would question the idea that competition should be an end in itself. The purpose of the railway should be to serve the public, and competition should support that purpose rather than take priority over it.
The office for National Statistics is also considering the accounting treatment of rolling stock companies, including whether their leases should ultimately appear on the public sector balance sheet. Now, I don't want to rehearse that whole debate here, but I do think it's worth asking whether treating rolling stock as a competitive market be taken for granted. If the government's ambition is to create a genuinely integrated railway, which I hope it is, there may be circumstances where intervention in the rolling stock market is necessary.
Removing rolling stock from this particular competition provision would at least allow that policy question to be considered, without assuming that competition must always be the organizing principle. And the second issue is passenger information systems. I'd like the Minister to explain exactly what's meant by these systems in this legislation. I mean, if not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, could help me out. This provision dates back to the Railways Act 1993, when the technology and structure of the railway were very different.
If we're talking about the digital systems that allow information to be shared across the rail network, it seems to me there's a strong argument for treating them as essential railway infrastructure, and that would not necessarily prevent competition in ticket retailing or other services, but the underlying information infrastructure needs to work across the network. So I would be grateful if the minister could clarify what systems are covered by this provision and why they need to be treated as a competitive market.
And my amendment three, three two raises a broader question about the position of competition regulation within the new railway. As I understand it, the effect of this provision is that the competition functions under section 67 of the Railways Act , 1993 will continue to apply to chapter two or part one of this bill. However, the bill is also establishing a rail strategy and a set of general duties for British Railways. So I want to understand how these things fit together.
If the RR is that, it's difficult to say if the RR is applying competition regulation to the new statutory framework, could that regulation prevent GBR from implementing something that's otherwise consistent with the rail strategy and its general duties, and if so, which takes priorities? We've heard arguments that the role is being reduced under this bill, but this provision seems to leave it with significant powers in relation to competition. I'd like us to be clear about where the balance lies.
Are we creating a new railway strategy, which GBR is expected to deliver, whilst simultaneously giving the regulator the ability to intervene where it considers competition requirements have not been met? If that's the intention, the government should explain how conflicts between those objectives will be resolved. I'm not arguing against regulation where it's needed, but I would question the idea that competition should be an end in itself. The purpose of the railway should be to serve the public, and competition should support that purpose rather than take priority over it.
18:42
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
My Lords, I rise to address the government amendment at the start of this group, and this takes us back somewhat to the debates we had previously about Civil Aviation Authority and the additional responsibilities it was given. I have some significant misgivings about exactly where the government is placing the RR in this legislation and in the structure of the future. It's always seemed to me there are two prime functions. If there is to be a regulator at all, and in a state run railway where government is effectively recreating British Rail, of course, in the past there would not have been such a thing.
And the government is creating multiple bodies around what was once a single unit national railway. But the key issue here is that the job should be about ensuring where there is external access to the network for freight, for open access, for heritage railways. Seeing my friend down there, it's job should be to ensure that access is provided on a fair basis and that access is charged for on a fair basis. Yeah, I'm not really sure I quite understand why this amendment is really necessary, because it's taking the RR into the field of consumer regulation, into the work of the the CMA and into the world of competition legislation.
And of course, when we debated the similar measure on civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Authority, we were dealing with a range of powers that the government was seeking to give the Civil Aviation Authority, some of which the minister himself, rightly and I'm grateful to him, recognised, were actually too draconian. And he stepped back from some of the original pieces in that legislation. So I think before we give him carte blanche in a committee where there isn't the opportunity to divide on the floor of the House before we give him carte blanche to do this in committee, I think he needs to explain in a bit more detail precisely what this entails.
What actually is the RR trying to sort out? What are the the justice implications of this? What are the kind of areas of criminal civil activity that this is designed to tackle? I think unless he can set that out in quite a lot more detail, I will object to this going through this committee today and say to the minister he needs to come back at report with much more information about this, because he will recall at the debate we had on civil aviation, I asked him a number of questions, which are through no fault of his own, because it was not his specialist area.
He did not have the full information to hand. This, of course, is his specialist area , and I'm sure he does have the information to hand. But if he does not, this is not a matter that should be dealt with today. Amendment.
And the government is creating multiple bodies around what was once a single unit national railway. But the key issue here is that the job should be about ensuring where there is external access to the network for freight, for open access, for heritage railways. Seeing my friend down there, it's job should be to ensure that access is provided on a fair basis and that access is charged for on a fair basis. Yeah, I'm not really sure I quite understand why this amendment is really necessary, because it's taking the RR into the field of consumer regulation, into the work of the the CMA and into the world of competition legislation.
And of course, when we debated the similar measure on civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Authority, we were dealing with a range of powers that the government was seeking to give the Civil Aviation Authority, some of which the minister himself, rightly and I'm grateful to him, recognised, were actually too draconian. And he stepped back from some of the original pieces in that legislation. So I think before we give him carte blanche in a committee where there isn't the opportunity to divide on the floor of the House before we give him carte blanche to do this in committee, I think he needs to explain in a bit more detail precisely what this entails.
What actually is the RR trying to sort out? What are the the justice implications of this? What are the kind of areas of criminal civil activity that this is designed to tackle? I think unless he can set that out in quite a lot more detail, I will object to this going through this committee today and say to the minister he needs to come back at report with much more information about this, because he will recall at the debate we had on civil aviation, I asked him a number of questions, which are through no fault of his own, because it was not his specialist area.
He did not have the full information to hand. This, of course, is his specialist area , and I'm sure he does have the information to hand. But if he does not, this is not a matter that should be dealt with today. Amendment.
18:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I wish to talk to several amendments in this group. They cover the role of the ORR now, as my noble friend Grayling has just said, it is arguably a bit weird having a continuing to have a regulator when you're bringing back and train together in GB R. But he also highlighted the reason why it matters, because the O. R has an important role in making sure that fair decisions are made, and we'll talk about it a bit at various stages during the bill, fair decisions are made about access to the network for open access operators and for freight, and that those powers are exercised in a fair and reasonable way, and will have some debates later about whether GBS, the way the bill is set up is too much marking its own homework.
So I wanted to talk, first of all, to amendment 134, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who was sadly unable to be here today and asked 1 or 2 of us to speak to his amendment. And it's been co-signed by my noble friend, Lord Moylan. Now, this amendment would have the effect that the duty to promote competition continue to apply to their functions under chapter one of part three, which is that's access to news policy, infrastructure capacity, the working timetable, the capacity duty, the charging scheme, the performance scheme, and to appeals in respect of those policies.
Now, I shall listen carefully to what the minister says when he responds to this group. Now, it may be that he says that the reason why the role of the RR is being constrained in the way it is based on the bill as drafted, is so that the Orr doesn't use its powers to undermine the directing mind of GBR. Now, I think that's a flawed argument. The great majority of passenger services and ownership of assets are in the hands of GBR, or will be when the remaining franchises have expired and GBR has taken over those routes and the promotion of competition operates at the margin.
However, that doesn't mean it doesn't have enormous value, because the role of competition can demonstrate the value of particular routes, it can demonstrate more efficient and consumer responsive services. Let me give an example which which may appeal to those who are particularly keen on the European Union, the European Commission found in a report based on services in Spain and Italy, found that open access on their high speed rail network had reduced prices, improved quality and frequency, enlarged the rail market and passenger numbers.
And. And this should be, I think, attractive to the noble lady. Lady Jones encouraged modal shift and it's important to recognise the duty to promote . Competition is linked to the benefit to consumers, and I think it's important to preserve that element of potential challenge that the RR has got limited powers, but I think it should we should maximise the extent to which they can use them. And I'll give an example in this country on the.
So the importance of capacity is you clearly can't have. And we've had this debate earlier stages. You can't have competition unless there's capacity. So it's important that when decisions about capacity are being taken, then they're taken to make sure we can have competition. But the the line that has capacity is the East Coast main line. And then three open access operators, Grand Central, Lumo and Hull Trains, who all provide competition against lNer.
Now, the reason why that's valuable, it's not just that those three open access operators provide different types of services than are provided by lNer. Particularly, a number of them are focused on providing very low cost rail services. But the effect of having those three operators, and this has been documented by independent economic analysis, I understand, is that it holds down ticket prices on lNer. So even people that never used operators , but use the existing main operator benefit from the existence of the open access operators.
And I think that's why it's important to make sure we preserve that element of competition. The second thing I wanted to say is I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng's argument and his amendment 142, about promoting regional growth. And he's absolutely right. There's a lot of evidence that improving rail connectivity, and it's true of improving road connectivity as well. But improving rail connectivity absolutely can deliver economic growth.
And we've seen that very clearly in what's happened, for example. And it isn't even isn't even complete yet. Once we we got to the point where we were absolutely constructing the first phase of HS2. Anybody who's been to Birmingham will have seen even before the rail line is completed, once it was clear it was going to happen, there's been an enormous amount of investment and economic development in the centre of Birmingham and companies relocating their operations, and that's all happened on a prospective basis because people knew that that was going to happen.
So I think the noble Lords correct that economic growth, regional economic growth is driven by rail. I think I can reassure him a little bit. I think I mean, in terms of how government makes these decisions about where it invests and of course, the investment that Network Rail makes and that GBR makes in the infrastructure is public money. Absolutely looks at the benefit cost ratio, and it looks at the some of the things it looks at are not just time savings, but it absolutely does look at the wider economic benefits.
That is not the easiest thing to capture when you're looking at prospective benefits and you're looking at economic growth, being able to actually nail that down. Produce an economic analysis which is robust and that you can turn into numbers that you can then weigh up against. The cost is not that straightforward. And the Department for transport, I don't know how many it has exactly, but it has a very significant number of economic analysis, economic analysis, analysts who produce all this information for ministers when they're taking these decisions.
So I whether we need to add it to the bill, I'm not quite sure. But the thrust of the nobles arguments, I think, about the importance of the rail network for regional economic growth, I think are absolutely spot on. So whether it needs to be in the bill or not, I'm not quite sure, because I think there are a lot of things already that make sure that is taken into account. But I absolutely support the the thrust of what he's got to say.
And I'll listen as the noble lady, Lady Jones, will, to the minister's response, but I think I take a much more positive view about benefits of competition on the rail network. But as I said in the points I just made, competition helps keep down costs to consumers. It helps to drive passenger growth, particularly attracting people onto the rail network who perhaps can't afford to travel on some of the existing services. But some of the open access operators have specifically gone for no frills, low cost services, which attract people that wouldn't otherwise use the rail network, and you therefore get modal shift and people shifting off of what are more environmentally impacting forms of transport that produce more carbon per passenger mile onto the rail network, which I think is a good thing.
It's good for consumers and it's good for the environment. And I think that competition is what helps to drive that. That is effectively, as I know, my noble friend Lord young would say , if he was here, that is effectively what happened. Post-privatisation the vast increase in investment passenger numbers took a lot of people off of roads and aviation and put them onto the rail network, which was, I think, good for them, good for the economy and good for the environment.
And I want to make sure we maximise the extent to which competition exists with this new model as we move to GBR.
So I wanted to talk, first of all, to amendment 134, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who was sadly unable to be here today and asked 1 or 2 of us to speak to his amendment. And it's been co-signed by my noble friend, Lord Moylan. Now, this amendment would have the effect that the duty to promote competition continue to apply to their functions under chapter one of part three, which is that's access to news policy, infrastructure capacity, the working timetable, the capacity duty, the charging scheme, the performance scheme, and to appeals in respect of those policies.
Now, I shall listen carefully to what the minister says when he responds to this group. Now, it may be that he says that the reason why the role of the RR is being constrained in the way it is based on the bill as drafted, is so that the Orr doesn't use its powers to undermine the directing mind of GBR. Now, I think that's a flawed argument. The great majority of passenger services and ownership of assets are in the hands of GBR, or will be when the remaining franchises have expired and GBR has taken over those routes and the promotion of competition operates at the margin.
However, that doesn't mean it doesn't have enormous value, because the role of competition can demonstrate the value of particular routes, it can demonstrate more efficient and consumer responsive services. Let me give an example which which may appeal to those who are particularly keen on the European Union, the European Commission found in a report based on services in Spain and Italy, found that open access on their high speed rail network had reduced prices, improved quality and frequency, enlarged the rail market and passenger numbers.
And. And this should be, I think, attractive to the noble lady. Lady Jones encouraged modal shift and it's important to recognise the duty to promote . Competition is linked to the benefit to consumers, and I think it's important to preserve that element of potential challenge that the RR has got limited powers, but I think it should we should maximise the extent to which they can use them. And I'll give an example in this country on the.
So the importance of capacity is you clearly can't have. And we've had this debate earlier stages. You can't have competition unless there's capacity. So it's important that when decisions about capacity are being taken, then they're taken to make sure we can have competition. But the the line that has capacity is the East Coast main line. And then three open access operators, Grand Central, Lumo and Hull Trains, who all provide competition against lNer.
Now, the reason why that's valuable, it's not just that those three open access operators provide different types of services than are provided by lNer. Particularly, a number of them are focused on providing very low cost rail services. But the effect of having those three operators, and this has been documented by independent economic analysis, I understand, is that it holds down ticket prices on lNer. So even people that never used operators , but use the existing main operator benefit from the existence of the open access operators.
And I think that's why it's important to make sure we preserve that element of competition. The second thing I wanted to say is I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng's argument and his amendment 142, about promoting regional growth. And he's absolutely right. There's a lot of evidence that improving rail connectivity, and it's true of improving road connectivity as well. But improving rail connectivity absolutely can deliver economic growth.
And we've seen that very clearly in what's happened, for example. And it isn't even isn't even complete yet. Once we we got to the point where we were absolutely constructing the first phase of HS2. Anybody who's been to Birmingham will have seen even before the rail line is completed, once it was clear it was going to happen, there's been an enormous amount of investment and economic development in the centre of Birmingham and companies relocating their operations, and that's all happened on a prospective basis because people knew that that was going to happen.
So I think the noble Lords correct that economic growth, regional economic growth is driven by rail. I think I can reassure him a little bit. I think I mean, in terms of how government makes these decisions about where it invests and of course, the investment that Network Rail makes and that GBR makes in the infrastructure is public money. Absolutely looks at the benefit cost ratio, and it looks at the some of the things it looks at are not just time savings, but it absolutely does look at the wider economic benefits.
That is not the easiest thing to capture when you're looking at prospective benefits and you're looking at economic growth, being able to actually nail that down. Produce an economic analysis which is robust and that you can turn into numbers that you can then weigh up against. The cost is not that straightforward. And the Department for transport, I don't know how many it has exactly, but it has a very significant number of economic analysis, economic analysis, analysts who produce all this information for ministers when they're taking these decisions.
So I whether we need to add it to the bill, I'm not quite sure. But the thrust of the nobles arguments, I think, about the importance of the rail network for regional economic growth, I think are absolutely spot on. So whether it needs to be in the bill or not, I'm not quite sure, because I think there are a lot of things already that make sure that is taken into account. But I absolutely support the the thrust of what he's got to say.
And I'll listen as the noble lady, Lady Jones, will, to the minister's response, but I think I take a much more positive view about benefits of competition on the rail network. But as I said in the points I just made, competition helps keep down costs to consumers. It helps to drive passenger growth, particularly attracting people onto the rail network who perhaps can't afford to travel on some of the existing services. But some of the open access operators have specifically gone for no frills, low cost services, which attract people that wouldn't otherwise use the rail network, and you therefore get modal shift and people shifting off of what are more environmentally impacting forms of transport that produce more carbon per passenger mile onto the rail network, which I think is a good thing.
It's good for consumers and it's good for the environment. And I think that competition is what helps to drive that. That is effectively, as I know, my noble friend Lord young would say , if he was here, that is effectively what happened. Post-privatisation the vast increase in investment passenger numbers took a lot of people off of roads and aviation and put them onto the rail network, which was, I think, good for them, good for the economy and good for the environment.
And I want to make sure we maximise the extent to which competition exists with this new model as we move to GBR.
18:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, this group of amendments on the Office of Rail and Road is clearly seeking, I think, a different role or different structure for the Office of Rail and Road than that envisage by the government. For many it's more of the same. The amendments on the whole, are trying to allow the Office of Rail and Road to assess competition on the railways, to allow. It seems to be more open access operators and whilst I absolutely understand we have seen the benefits that open access operators have brought to the railway, as noble Lords have described, and I hope they can continue to bring to passengers the services that they they have.
But there is the issue, and we've debated this with the setting up of Great British Railways and the Secretary of State having so many powers. We have warned about the marking of their own homework, and I fear these amendments, which I don't think the government will move on, because I think this is an area they've set out clearly in their manifesto, but that there is a real challenge here in terms of the how the structure is going to work in reality and what open access will be allowed.
And I think hopefully clarity. Baroness Jones, Baroness Jones is seeking, will be helpful. It is also obviously an open access operator, obviously a different type of service, and I think the freight industry would appreciate some assurance from the noble Lord, the minister, about their role. I know we've got other groups on this later because they are concerned as the legislation is drafted. I am interested in amendments 286288, which give the or a role in monitoring and auditing Great British Railways statutory functions.
And that could possibly help with this whole issue of of being judge and jury marking one's own homework. I really like amendment 142 from Lord Boateng, and I think he should welcome him to the Transport Enthusiasts Club.
But there is the issue, and we've debated this with the setting up of Great British Railways and the Secretary of State having so many powers. We have warned about the marking of their own homework, and I fear these amendments, which I don't think the government will move on, because I think this is an area they've set out clearly in their manifesto, but that there is a real challenge here in terms of the how the structure is going to work in reality and what open access will be allowed.
And I think hopefully clarity. Baroness Jones, Baroness Jones is seeking, will be helpful. It is also obviously an open access operator, obviously a different type of service, and I think the freight industry would appreciate some assurance from the noble Lord, the minister, about their role. I know we've got other groups on this later because they are concerned as the legislation is drafted. I am interested in amendments 286288, which give the or a role in monitoring and auditing Great British Railways statutory functions.
And that could possibly help with this whole issue of of being judge and jury marking one's own homework. I really like amendment 142 from Lord Boateng, and I think he should welcome him to the Transport Enthusiasts Club.
18:56
18:56
18:56
18:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
if he can bear it. Exactly. It's a joy to have him here, but it really is interesting hearing him describe the Docklands Light Railway and Crossrail and the economic growth those railways brought to those parts of London and further afield. And I think actually, it's a really interesting point that the Office of Rail and Road should recognise this economic geography of the country along as well as the economics of the railway. And I think the points about the high speed one and the impact and fiasco we've had around that.
Parts of Kent explain this issue really well. So I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, might be sympathetic to this point. And I think, though there may be issues in finding a way to develop that, I think it's a really important area that this whole new Great British Railways should be looking at as we go forward. So I look forward to the minister's reflections on these points.
Parts of Kent explain this issue really well. So I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, might be sympathetic to this point. And I think, though there may be issues in finding a way to develop that, I think it's a really important area that this whole new Great British Railways should be looking at as we go forward. So I look forward to the minister's reflections on these points.
18:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group dealing with different matters, and I may take slightly longer than my customary brevity, because I also wish to speak to some amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to which I put my name, not those, in fact, which my noble friend Lord Harper has spoken, because there's no need for me to repeat what he has said. But there are others that haven't been addressed. But before I come to that, could I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and say to him, I understand very much what he's saying.
During the 2016 games, I was chairman of the Olympic Park and it was a great ambition and hope of mine that we could get at some stage. Eurostar trains to stop at Stratford International Station, which is on the line and which is there and available to do that in the interests of promoting growth and regeneration in Newham, and that that Olympic Park area was never any chance of doing that. No interest on the part of Eurostar whatsoever, a great disappointment, an opportunity missed.
In fact, be frank, there's very little point to the station if if those trains don't stop. I know javelin trains stop, but it's a bit pointless in a way. We need the Eurostar to stop. Then I moved on. Later. I was a member of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation for 3 or 4 years, and of course we did have trains that stopped. Absolutely marvellous. And we not only had the javelins so that you could get to Ebbsfleet in 19 minutes from Saint Pancras, that's what I used to do to go to board meetings.
But we also had Eurostar trains stopping. They didn't stop at Ashford, which is what was mentioned by the noble Lord, but they stopped at Ebbsfleet until Covid came along. Now, of course, without. Why they stopped stopping at at Ebbsfleet during Covid, but they took the opportunity never to resume. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggests that this is inevitably all driven by commercial considerations and the choice of the railway company where to stop its trains in order to maximise its revenue.
The implication of that is that if the government wants to do something and actually make use of these stations and get the sort of advantages that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, was referring to, it needs to provide some sort of subsidy or something of that sort. Actually, the new competitor who wants to, whoever it may be, in fact, who wants to provide a service, needs a depot in London. And the only person I know who's actually working very hard, and I know this for a number of reasons, to secure that depot in the Walthamstow area, is the noble Lord, the minister? I don't think he actually needs to supply subsidy to achieve his aims.
He has leverage, and we should be using that leverage in order to secure the economic benefits and the connectivity benefits that we have built the stations to secure. So I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in his thrust. And I hope the noble Lord, the minister, if not existing, this precise amendment will actually show some gumption about this and try to get something done. So if I now turn to my amendments in the group, they are.
I won't read out the numbers. I'll take 135 137, 138 and 140 together. Because they work together, they do the same thing. What they do essentially is restore the competition duty in respect of Great British Railways rail operations. Now the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, slightly suspected she has a suspicious mind. Slightly suspected this was all about promoting open access. But if I could say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, there is a great deal going on on the railways, apart from open access, where competition would be both necessary and beneficial as first of all, there is the supply chain.
There is no obligation on Great British Railways to encourage competition in the in the supply chain, but we would actually benefit greatly from from from that supply chain being competitive and sharper. It would help them and it would make them more productive and increase the opportunity of exports on their part. That's the supply chain. There's also there should be a promotion of competition, in my view, in ticket retailing, in other areas, in ancillary, indeed, in the provision of coffee shops.
Do we all want the same Stalinist British Rail coffee shop on every station?
During the 2016 games, I was chairman of the Olympic Park and it was a great ambition and hope of mine that we could get at some stage. Eurostar trains to stop at Stratford International Station, which is on the line and which is there and available to do that in the interests of promoting growth and regeneration in Newham, and that that Olympic Park area was never any chance of doing that. No interest on the part of Eurostar whatsoever, a great disappointment, an opportunity missed.
In fact, be frank, there's very little point to the station if if those trains don't stop. I know javelin trains stop, but it's a bit pointless in a way. We need the Eurostar to stop. Then I moved on. Later. I was a member of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation for 3 or 4 years, and of course we did have trains that stopped. Absolutely marvellous. And we not only had the javelins so that you could get to Ebbsfleet in 19 minutes from Saint Pancras, that's what I used to do to go to board meetings.
But we also had Eurostar trains stopping. They didn't stop at Ashford, which is what was mentioned by the noble Lord, but they stopped at Ebbsfleet until Covid came along. Now, of course, without. Why they stopped stopping at at Ebbsfleet during Covid, but they took the opportunity never to resume. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggests that this is inevitably all driven by commercial considerations and the choice of the railway company where to stop its trains in order to maximise its revenue.
The implication of that is that if the government wants to do something and actually make use of these stations and get the sort of advantages that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, was referring to, it needs to provide some sort of subsidy or something of that sort. Actually, the new competitor who wants to, whoever it may be, in fact, who wants to provide a service, needs a depot in London. And the only person I know who's actually working very hard, and I know this for a number of reasons, to secure that depot in the Walthamstow area, is the noble Lord, the minister? I don't think he actually needs to supply subsidy to achieve his aims.
He has leverage, and we should be using that leverage in order to secure the economic benefits and the connectivity benefits that we have built the stations to secure. So I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in his thrust. And I hope the noble Lord, the minister, if not existing, this precise amendment will actually show some gumption about this and try to get something done. So if I now turn to my amendments in the group, they are.
I won't read out the numbers. I'll take 135 137, 138 and 140 together. Because they work together, they do the same thing. What they do essentially is restore the competition duty in respect of Great British Railways rail operations. Now the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, slightly suspected she has a suspicious mind. Slightly suspected this was all about promoting open access. But if I could say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, there is a great deal going on on the railways, apart from open access, where competition would be both necessary and beneficial as first of all, there is the supply chain.
There is no obligation on Great British Railways to encourage competition in the in the supply chain, but we would actually benefit greatly from from from that supply chain being competitive and sharper. It would help them and it would make them more productive and increase the opportunity of exports on their part. That's the supply chain. There's also there should be a promotion of competition, in my view, in ticket retailing, in other areas, in ancillary, indeed, in the provision of coffee shops.
Do we all want the same Stalinist British Rail coffee shop on every station?
19:01
19:01
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Or should there be a promotion competition of coffee shops? So there is choice in different stations and a bit of local character and colour in the station as to where, what, what type of coffee. Yet when you go to different stations, all of this needs to be in the bill. It's not simply open access and it is a serious mistake to leave it out. Competition is a very significant driver of economic growth.
That is what the government is meant to be looking for. Amendment 196 is simply good practice. It requires Great British Rail to provide its complaint statistics to the Orer. Now, it may be, of course they're going to do this, but I would suggest there needs to be an obligation on them so that there is transparency and comprehensiveness in the complaint statistics that they deliver to the ORRORR can make a judgment about them and so forth two, eight, six, two, eight seven and two, eight, eight work together to give the ORR the power to audit, not simply to monitor GBR but to audit GBR.
That would be a greater power of getting into the weeds and having the power to demand sight of the weeds in order to understand what is going on. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for her indication that she might find she finds that an interesting thing to pursue as well. If I then turn to amendment 290.
That is what the government is meant to be looking for. Amendment 196 is simply good practice. It requires Great British Rail to provide its complaint statistics to the Orer. Now, it may be, of course they're going to do this, but I would suggest there needs to be an obligation on them so that there is transparency and comprehensiveness in the complaint statistics that they deliver to the ORRORR can make a judgment about them and so forth two, eight, six, two, eight seven and two, eight, eight work together to give the ORR the power to audit, not simply to monitor GBR but to audit GBR.
That would be a greater power of getting into the weeds and having the power to demand sight of the weeds in order to understand what is going on. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for her indication that she might find she finds that an interesting thing to pursue as well. If I then turn to amendment 290.
19:03
19:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Sorry. 290 is about procuring services in the private sector. I'm not suggesting that we're going to go back to the old days of the railway. In the old days of the railway, if one takes London Underground, for example, they didn't simply they manufactured everything that. Huge depots at Earls Court. And if you wanted a new bench for your station, you didn't go out and buy a bench for the station.
You summoned up the workshop and they would make a bench in Earl's Court to go on your say, if you wanted a new roundel to go on the wall, it would be made for you. And of course, catastrophically, they would make the lifts as well. And that would make simply, I mean ages and huge expense to install the lifts. All of that was got rid of. Now it is I. What I want to be sure is that Great British Rail is not going to go back to that sort of mentality, which it shared in the past, and an obligation to procure as much as possible from the private sector would, I think, be exactly the right focus for a lean, efficient railway that is focused on the provision of services, the timetabling, the strategic management of the railway, that's where it should be, and it should be strongly discouraged by legislation from getting into the procurement of supplies from its own sources.
It should be pushed to secure them from the private sector. If I come to amendment 292 and my opposition to clause 75, we're dealing here with a basic question how is the oh actually supposed to enforce compliance if one of its most important enforcement tools is taken away because the clause specifically prevents the author from imposing fines on GBR? Now, this is the sort of argument where you can't impose a fine on GBR , because GBR party government says it's all circular money and so forth.
We used to say that in respect of the NHS when I was young, the NHS had crown exemption. You couldn't sue it for damages. Now we do and because we can, I think since the 1980s we have been able to sue the NHS for negligence. Because of that, a great deal of bad practice has been exposed and a great deal of opportunity and stimulus has been created to improve and eliminate practice, to improve practices and eliminate bad practices.
Exposing things to the light of day in that fashion is a very good means of ensuring improvement, and I do not see why the Or should not have the power to impose these fines. Principle that financial penalties can change behaviour is apparently accepted everywhere except when GBR breaches its licence. An amendment 292 goes further. This is a little bit cruel. I have to grant, but I don't see why the individuals responsible at GBR shouldn't be subject to financial penalties as well, to keep them on their toes, that that power would be created by my amendment 292 and the or.
The water
You summoned up the workshop and they would make a bench in Earl's Court to go on your say, if you wanted a new roundel to go on the wall, it would be made for you. And of course, catastrophically, they would make the lifts as well. And that would make simply, I mean ages and huge expense to install the lifts. All of that was got rid of. Now it is I. What I want to be sure is that Great British Rail is not going to go back to that sort of mentality, which it shared in the past, and an obligation to procure as much as possible from the private sector would, I think, be exactly the right focus for a lean, efficient railway that is focused on the provision of services, the timetabling, the strategic management of the railway, that's where it should be, and it should be strongly discouraged by legislation from getting into the procurement of supplies from its own sources.
It should be pushed to secure them from the private sector. If I come to amendment 292 and my opposition to clause 75, we're dealing here with a basic question how is the oh actually supposed to enforce compliance if one of its most important enforcement tools is taken away because the clause specifically prevents the author from imposing fines on GBR? Now, this is the sort of argument where you can't impose a fine on GBR , because GBR party government says it's all circular money and so forth.
We used to say that in respect of the NHS when I was young, the NHS had crown exemption. You couldn't sue it for damages. Now we do and because we can, I think since the 1980s we have been able to sue the NHS for negligence. Because of that, a great deal of bad practice has been exposed and a great deal of opportunity and stimulus has been created to improve and eliminate practice, to improve practices and eliminate bad practices.
Exposing things to the light of day in that fashion is a very good means of ensuring improvement, and I do not see why the Or should not have the power to impose these fines. Principle that financial penalties can change behaviour is apparently accepted everywhere except when GBR breaches its licence. An amendment 292 goes further. This is a little bit cruel. I have to grant, but I don't see why the individuals responsible at GBR shouldn't be subject to financial penalties as well, to keep them on their toes, that that power would be created by my amendment 292 and the or.
The water
19:07
19:07
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And the ORR could impose fines on individuals if it was thought to be appropriate, and they had contributed significantly to the breaches. I come now finally to amendments government amendment 79 and 293, which are linked. I think I'm right in saying the 293 is consequential on on 79. So I'll just speak to to 79, which creates concurrent enforcement powers. I don't have to speak to it in any great length because the concern, first of all, because we discussed something similar when dealing with the Civil Aviation bill.
Secondly, because my noble friend Lord Grayling has, without any coordination with me, made points, raised concerns that I share, and I will only say, in addition to what he has said, that I would support him if he were to object today to this. These two amendments, in fact, being being moved and adopted by the Committee today, because I think they require a great deal more explanation as to how this is going to work. Dual enforcement is always risky.
Dual enforcement always risks confusion. Dual enforcement always risks unfairness. And I think we really have to understand how this is going to work. Finally, as I said, I wish to come to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which is amendment number 143, and it deals with clauses 67 and 68. Clauses 67 and 68 set out how the Orer 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. The. And time limits and governing the practice and procedure of appeals. All of those may be the regulations made by the Secretary of State. It's therefore not clear what purpose guidance is in relation to the appeals procedure, but it should clearly not be used.
Seek to control how the Orer conducts appeals by means which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as would be the case for regulations made by statutory instrument. So 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 can be scrutinised, what what is the guidance? Adding that what.
What is the need for guidance to be super added to that in a manner which is not subject to that scrutiny?
Secondly, because my noble friend Lord Grayling has, without any coordination with me, made points, raised concerns that I share, and I will only say, in addition to what he has said, that I would support him if he were to object today to this. These two amendments, in fact, being being moved and adopted by the Committee today, because I think they require a great deal more explanation as to how this is going to work. Dual enforcement is always risky.
Dual enforcement always risks confusion. Dual enforcement always risks unfairness. And I think we really have to understand how this is going to work. Finally, as I said, I wish to come to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which is amendment number 143, and it deals with clauses 67 and 68. Clauses 67 and 68 set out how the Orer 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. The. And time limits and governing the practice and procedure of appeals. All of those may be the regulations made by the Secretary of State. It's therefore not clear what purpose guidance is in relation to the appeals procedure, but it should clearly not be used.
Seek to control how the Orer conducts appeals by means which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as would be the case for regulations made by statutory instrument. So 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 can be scrutinised, what what is the guidance? Adding that what.
What is the need for guidance to be super added to that in a manner which is not subject to that scrutiny?
19:10
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords, my firstly turn to the government Amendment 79293 and in response to the noble Lord Grayling and the noble Lord Moylan, who has just spoken about them, these amendments are just giving the author the same powers as the CMA has now on consumer law, so as to enforce directly, for example, on drip pricing and on other issues that negatively affect consumers. It does not change the law. It just it just enables Orer to enforce directly, just as the CMA can.
Turning to amendments.
Turning to amendments.
19:11
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Mr. Minister, allow me hasn't really said you'll remember the debates we had over the civil aviation legislation and the powers that were provided, for example, to enter homes to, to, to enter office buildings and read documents and so forth. I don't understand why in the rail industry, which is going to be dominated by a
19:11
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Dominated by a single national body which is answerable to the Secretary of State. But we need exactly the same powers, and I really don't feel that this is something that should be just pushed through at committee. Can I suggest to the Secretary of State, to the minister that he might listen abeyance until report, and actually provide a much more detailed letter to us all to explain this?
19:12
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'm grateful to the noble Lord. And indeed, if he is concerned about amendment 79 and 293, not only will I withdraw them, but I'll write as he suggests that we discuss it further. Thank you. Turning to amendments 1341351371381 40 and the clause 20 stand. This government recognises that there are. Excuse me 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, innovation and efficiency and in 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 isn't appropriate and will be counterproductive. So we've deliberately specified in clause 20 when this competition should duty should apply. And I'll 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. And when competition supports those aims, then we agree it should be promoted. For example, competition in the retail online market supports better outcomes for passengers because it gives them more choice. We know from the debates in this House that lots of disabled passengers are looking forward to the GBR app, which will allow them to book tickets, all tickets and passenger assist in one place, whilst other disabled passengers, such as passengers with vision impairments, provide 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 competition duty will apply when it writes the Code of practice on access. In comparison, the best outcome for passengers is the service that 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, and 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.
For many years under franchising, the Brighton main line was an example of this inefficient, uncoordinated service patterns limited the total number of services that could run and passengers at some stations, irregular intervals between services. It was only possible to construct a more coherent timetable, with more services overall and more regular calling patterns when there are two competing franchised operators were combined into one. Likewise, the best outcome for freight is the opportunity provided by more usable freight powers becoming available.
That, too, is achieved by a sensible plan which enables space to be made at the right time and in right in the right places, and not by competition for competition sake. To be clear, I'm not saying that an open access operator cannot provide benefits to passengers, and they absolutely can. That's why we see the value of open access operators and why there's a place for them on the railway. If any operator devolved open access or GBR offers the best choice the public according to duties, then they should be granted access.
But that's not the same as pursuing competition for competition sake. Regardless of the final product that actually achieves where open access delivers the best use of network capacity, those services should be planned as coherent parts of the overall service pattern on the relevant route, not bolted on as an afterthought or in conflict with other services. Turning to the idea that competition duties should apply when the RR assess access appeals, this would mean the RR accessing decisions, assessing decisions, I'm sorry through a different set of criteria to GBR.
It would effectively mean the RR rerunning the best use judgment based on competition dynamics rather than relevant duties in the bill, such as the freight group's growth duty or the passenger interest duty, which are the outcomes that matter. We want the RR to ensure that GBR has treated people fairly and reasonably against those outcomes, not to take decisions according to a totally different set of criteria. The RR will not be the directing mind, and the last thing the access framework needs is more fragmentation, conflict, disagreements and delays with passengers and freight customers.
Deprioritise as as as in many cases exists today. Likewise, we do not want the competition duty to apply when the RR is enforcing GBR licence. GBR license contains provisions that GBR must comply with, including safety, accessibility and others. Therefore, when the RR is enforcing against these licence conditions, it's vital that they do so in a genuinely fair and balanced way. Based on the simple question of whether GBR is complied or not.
It's not appropriate for the order to assess GBR compliance with its licence against completely separate criteria relating to competition aspirations. But there are circumstances where it is important for this duty to apply. For example, earlier this year the launched a review into the rolling stock maintenance to ensure that market arrangements support efficient investment and growth in the rail sector. The competition duty, of course, applied in this situation has driving up competition to supporting investment that can bring passenger benefits, which is the point of the review.
The bill would not change this. I turn to amendments 331322 where competition, and I note that the noble Baroness Jones wants to remove or limit the RR in this area. Competition law aims to prevent distortion of markets through both anti-competitive agreements between competitors, for example, price fixing or the abuse of dominant market positions. We do not want this distortive practice in any part of the railway sector. I would remind noble Lords that the enforcement of competition law is distinct from the proactive duty to promote competition referenced in clause 20.
There is no part of the railway system in which we would support exemptions from competition law compliance, and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments. I'm very happy to discuss with her further and, if necessary, write to her and copy it to other members of of of this committee or all the reasons to all the answers to some of the questions you posed in her earlier speech. Turning to amendments 141 and 142, I should provide some reassurance that the RR must already consider efficiency and economic growth as part of its general duties in clause 18.
Clause 18 F specifically requires the RR to take into account costs and public funds and the need to make efficient use of them. Likewise, clause 18 E specifically highlights the need to act in the public interest with the definition of this explicitly including economic benefits. I would absolutely agree with the noble Lord Boateng that the point of the railways growth and jobs and housing and the Bill a place places really important duties on GBR in relation to regional and local growth, in particular mayoral combined authorities, and I would be delighted to further speak to him on this between now and court stage.
I should also I'm also happy to talk to him about the International Rail. The bill doesn't change anything in respect of international rail and in respect of Eurostar stopping at stations in Kent and Stratford. If. If we still had a shareholding in Eurostar, it would have been easier in 2016 to make them stop, as it would have been in 2020 when they were stopping at Ebbsfleet. But in fact we haven't now because it was sold in 2015, so we have to influence it and its competitors in any way that we can.
And on this, at least, Lord Moylan is right, which is that I am engaged in that persuasion because the economic benefits of stopping in those places are really important. The important issue of technology is raised. I'd like to reassure the committee that the Ory is already working on how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, digitalisation, can improve the resilience of the railways, thereby improving service of passengers. For example, the Orer has already produced an action plan on AI earlier this year, setting out how it can be safely integrated into the rail industry to drive innovation and economic growth.
Amendment 290 from the noble Lord Moylan talks about assessing whether private sector procurement would offer a better use of public funds. I absolutely agree that GBR must deliver value for taxpayers. GBR will have to take procurement decisions on their merits, taking account of the duty to make efficient use of public funds, as well as their other duties, such as considering what's best for the passengers and the public interest. There are likely to be, as the noble Lord suggests, situations where GBR finds that private sector performance.
But procurement is is is more cost efficient and delivers more for the public. Network rail, as its predecessor is good at this already, and. And majority of its work on the infrastructure is in fact contracted out. He used the example of a bench produced at the Lillie Bridge Works in West Kensington. London. Transport had a much better one because it used to make its own Christmas puddings.
I'm not expecting GBR to. Please let me also further reassure the noble Lord that when providing advice to the Secretary of State on whether to approve the business plan, the author is required by schedule two of the Bill to advise on whether the business plan represents value for money. We, of course, would expect this to include consideration of Gbr's chosen delivery routes and whether it would be better value to procure something or some things from the private sector.
Therefore, this is this assessment is already baked into the business plan. The IRR is monitoring GBR against. In summary, whilst the government agrees with the importance of these issues, these amendments are not required because these duties are either in the Bill or are being delivered without the need for legislation on amendments 143, 146, 286 287 and two, eight eight, I reckon. Excuse me, I recognise the importance of the author's independence when determining access appeals.
Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who who I spoke to yesterday. But noble Lords no can't be in his place today. That the author will determine appeals independently and will itself be responsible for setting the practice and procedure for its appeals process. It has already begun engaging with industry on this ahead of formal consultation. However, this does not mean that there can be no legitimate role for the Secretary of State's guidance.
There may, for example, be matters of general principles relevant to the exercise of the appeal functions on which guidance would be appropriate. For example, it might be, at some point in the future, be desirable to provide guidance about the time frames in which appeals ought to be heard to ensure timely resolution. This guidance power is intended to set strategic expectations about the functions within the wider railway framework, whilst respecting the statutory independence of the regulator in carrying out those functions.
Guidance cannot alter the legal framework established by Parliament, nor displace the author's duty to determine appeals in accordance with the requirements set out in the legislation. Any guidance issued under clause 21 would therefore need to be read alongside and consistently with the Statutory appeals Statutory Access Appeals Framework. The author will remain responsible for reaching its own independent decisions on appeals. Applying the statutory test, which reflect established judicial review principles, a specific exclusion for access appeals is unnecessary.
The legislation already safeguards the independence whilst, whilst preserving the Secretary of State's ability to issue guidance to ensure the effective operation of the railway . Amendments two eight, six, two, eight, seven and 288 are on amendments to eight, 6287 and 288. I agree that robust independent oversight of GBR will be essential. That's precisely why clause 74 gives the author significant and enhanced monitoring role across the breadth of British Great British Railway statutory functions. The Oro will monitor Gbr's delivery against its business plans, including how its costs and income compare with its estimates, whether its statutory functions are being exercised in a way that furthers railway safety, and whether it's meeting its duties and KPIs.
Importantly, it will also be able to carry out investigations where it considers it appropriate. That provides the RR with the scope to scrutinise its performance and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Auditing is a separate function. GBR will already be subject to independent audit through the National Audit Office, including the audit of its annual accounts. Requiring the author to undertake an additional auditing role would therefore duplicate established arrangements and blur the distinct responsibilities of the regulator and the Auditor Amendment on amendment 196.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the RR will retain this role as now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, and this enables flexibility, allowing for the collection of data to be proportionate, needs based and to ensure necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the author and publication processes in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it's established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency, as the noble Lord noted, and we are not proposing to reduce this going forward.
The passenger watchdog will also have access to the data collected by RR, including data on complaints, and be able to use it to identify issues and areas for improvement passengers and to follow up on amendments 292 and the question of clause 75 stand part of the Bill. The government does not support this because it will create. It just creates a situation where public funds will be recycled around government. GBR will be a publicly owned company funded by the taxpayer, and therefore it's right that the licensing enforcement process should not include the ability to find GBR or finding does in this situation is to create a complex and administratively challenging money go round and .
Indeed, all it does is to return railway funds to the to his His Majesty's Treasury, leading to less spent on the railway. This is not about the situation that the noble Lord described in terms of suing the NHS. This is a practical measure to retain retain money in the railway. It is the only change to the licence enforcement process proposed in the Bill. All the other powers remain the same and the order will therefore hold the same role on licences in the future as it does today, and will still be able to take the following enforcement step.
It can escalate the issue to the GBR board. It can require the creation and publication of an improvement plan. And finally, it can issue a legally binding enforcement force, GBR to change its actions. And just to say, the government also rejects amendment 292, there are plenty enough serious duties on the board members of a public body like GBR without without suggesting that they should be pursued in in in. In individually these providing appropriate enforcement routes without a pointless money go round and.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments. Finally, on amendment 330 G. I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her very interesting speech. I do agree with her that we only want the the order to do what's necessary, given the substantial change in the organisation of the railway. I thought she might. I thought the noble Baroness might find it useful for me to briefly say. Repeat the findings of the independent review into the order published earlier this month for her consideration.
Firstly, it noted that all is well positioned to navigate the challenges ahead and is respected for its expertise, valued for its independence and recognised for its economic and safety capabilities. The review also concluded that the added value for taxpayers and users, via assurance and challenge of infrastructure managers and operators, and what's more, the review highlighted the inherent benefits of road and rail oversight being within the same organisation and noted that with more structured, cross-sector engagement, valuable lessons from both rail and road could be shared more consistently, unlocking wider benefits for both sectors.
That's why the bill preserves the essential, the essential road role as out and rail regulator. Separately, we must also recognise the LRR as a key delivery partner in the biggest rail reform programme in 30 years, already implementing a comprehensive transformation programme to make sure it's ready to fulfil the requirements in this legislation and a further organisational change in just 12 months will create not only an implementation, but risk creating a weakened body without the expertise to properly regulate the railways in the new circumstances.
And with that, I would thank Lords, all noble Lords for their participation and beg them to withdraw their amendments.
Noble Lords have mentioned the supply chain where competition drives innovation, innovation and efficiency and in 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 isn't appropriate and will be counterproductive. So we've deliberately specified in clause 20 when this competition should duty should apply. And I'll 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. And when competition supports those aims, then we agree it should be promoted. For example, competition in the retail online market supports better outcomes for passengers because it gives them more choice. We know from the debates in this House that lots of disabled passengers are looking forward to the GBR app, which will allow them to book tickets, all tickets and passenger assist in one place, whilst other disabled passengers, such as passengers with vision impairments, provide 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 competition duty will apply when it writes the Code of practice on access. In comparison, the best outcome for passengers is the service that 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, and 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.
For many years under franchising, the Brighton main line was an example of this inefficient, uncoordinated service patterns limited the total number of services that could run and passengers at some stations, irregular intervals between services. It was only possible to construct a more coherent timetable, with more services overall and more regular calling patterns when there are two competing franchised operators were combined into one. Likewise, the best outcome for freight is the opportunity provided by more usable freight powers becoming available.
That, too, is achieved by a sensible plan which enables space to be made at the right time and in right in the right places, and not by competition for competition sake. To be clear, I'm not saying that an open access operator cannot provide benefits to passengers, and they absolutely can. That's why we see the value of open access operators and why there's a place for them on the railway. If any operator devolved open access or GBR offers the best choice the public according to duties, then they should be granted access.
But that's not the same as pursuing competition for competition sake. Regardless of the final product that actually achieves where open access delivers the best use of network capacity, those services should be planned as coherent parts of the overall service pattern on the relevant route, not bolted on as an afterthought or in conflict with other services. Turning to the idea that competition duties should apply when the RR assess access appeals, this would mean the RR accessing decisions, assessing decisions, I'm sorry through a different set of criteria to GBR.
It would effectively mean the RR rerunning the best use judgment based on competition dynamics rather than relevant duties in the bill, such as the freight group's growth duty or the passenger interest duty, which are the outcomes that matter. We want the RR to ensure that GBR has treated people fairly and reasonably against those outcomes, not to take decisions according to a totally different set of criteria. The RR will not be the directing mind, and the last thing the access framework needs is more fragmentation, conflict, disagreements and delays with passengers and freight customers.
Deprioritise as as as in many cases exists today. Likewise, we do not want the competition duty to apply when the RR is enforcing GBR licence. GBR license contains provisions that GBR must comply with, including safety, accessibility and others. Therefore, when the RR is enforcing against these licence conditions, it's vital that they do so in a genuinely fair and balanced way. Based on the simple question of whether GBR is complied or not.
It's not appropriate for the order to assess GBR compliance with its licence against completely separate criteria relating to competition aspirations. But there are circumstances where it is important for this duty to apply. For example, earlier this year the launched a review into the rolling stock maintenance to ensure that market arrangements support efficient investment and growth in the rail sector. The competition duty, of course, applied in this situation has driving up competition to supporting investment that can bring passenger benefits, which is the point of the review.
The bill would not change this. I turn to amendments 331322 where competition, and I note that the noble Baroness Jones wants to remove or limit the RR in this area. Competition law aims to prevent distortion of markets through both anti-competitive agreements between competitors, for example, price fixing or the abuse of dominant market positions. We do not want this distortive practice in any part of the railway sector. I would remind noble Lords that the enforcement of competition law is distinct from the proactive duty to promote competition referenced in clause 20.
There is no part of the railway system in which we would support exemptions from competition law compliance, and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments. I'm very happy to discuss with her further and, if necessary, write to her and copy it to other members of of of this committee or all the reasons to all the answers to some of the questions you posed in her earlier speech. Turning to amendments 141 and 142, I should provide some reassurance that the RR must already consider efficiency and economic growth as part of its general duties in clause 18.
Clause 18 F specifically requires the RR to take into account costs and public funds and the need to make efficient use of them. Likewise, clause 18 E specifically highlights the need to act in the public interest with the definition of this explicitly including economic benefits. I would absolutely agree with the noble Lord Boateng that the point of the railways growth and jobs and housing and the Bill a place places really important duties on GBR in relation to regional and local growth, in particular mayoral combined authorities, and I would be delighted to further speak to him on this between now and court stage.
I should also I'm also happy to talk to him about the International Rail. The bill doesn't change anything in respect of international rail and in respect of Eurostar stopping at stations in Kent and Stratford. If. If we still had a shareholding in Eurostar, it would have been easier in 2016 to make them stop, as it would have been in 2020 when they were stopping at Ebbsfleet. But in fact we haven't now because it was sold in 2015, so we have to influence it and its competitors in any way that we can.
And on this, at least, Lord Moylan is right, which is that I am engaged in that persuasion because the economic benefits of stopping in those places are really important. The important issue of technology is raised. I'd like to reassure the committee that the Ory is already working on how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, digitalisation, can improve the resilience of the railways, thereby improving service of passengers. For example, the Orer has already produced an action plan on AI earlier this year, setting out how it can be safely integrated into the rail industry to drive innovation and economic growth.
Amendment 290 from the noble Lord Moylan talks about assessing whether private sector procurement would offer a better use of public funds. I absolutely agree that GBR must deliver value for taxpayers. GBR will have to take procurement decisions on their merits, taking account of the duty to make efficient use of public funds, as well as their other duties, such as considering what's best for the passengers and the public interest. There are likely to be, as the noble Lord suggests, situations where GBR finds that private sector performance.
But procurement is is is more cost efficient and delivers more for the public. Network rail, as its predecessor is good at this already, and. And majority of its work on the infrastructure is in fact contracted out. He used the example of a bench produced at the Lillie Bridge Works in West Kensington. London. Transport had a much better one because it used to make its own Christmas puddings.
I'm not expecting GBR to. Please let me also further reassure the noble Lord that when providing advice to the Secretary of State on whether to approve the business plan, the author is required by schedule two of the Bill to advise on whether the business plan represents value for money. We, of course, would expect this to include consideration of Gbr's chosen delivery routes and whether it would be better value to procure something or some things from the private sector.
Therefore, this is this assessment is already baked into the business plan. The IRR is monitoring GBR against. In summary, whilst the government agrees with the importance of these issues, these amendments are not required because these duties are either in the Bill or are being delivered without the need for legislation on amendments 143, 146, 286 287 and two, eight eight, I reckon. Excuse me, I recognise the importance of the author's independence when determining access appeals.
Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who who I spoke to yesterday. But noble Lords no can't be in his place today. That the author will determine appeals independently and will itself be responsible for setting the practice and procedure for its appeals process. It has already begun engaging with industry on this ahead of formal consultation. However, this does not mean that there can be no legitimate role for the Secretary of State's guidance.
There may, for example, be matters of general principles relevant to the exercise of the appeal functions on which guidance would be appropriate. For example, it might be, at some point in the future, be desirable to provide guidance about the time frames in which appeals ought to be heard to ensure timely resolution. This guidance power is intended to set strategic expectations about the functions within the wider railway framework, whilst respecting the statutory independence of the regulator in carrying out those functions.
Guidance cannot alter the legal framework established by Parliament, nor displace the author's duty to determine appeals in accordance with the requirements set out in the legislation. Any guidance issued under clause 21 would therefore need to be read alongside and consistently with the Statutory appeals Statutory Access Appeals Framework. The author will remain responsible for reaching its own independent decisions on appeals. Applying the statutory test, which reflect established judicial review principles, a specific exclusion for access appeals is unnecessary.
The legislation already safeguards the independence whilst, whilst preserving the Secretary of State's ability to issue guidance to ensure the effective operation of the railway . Amendments two eight, six, two, eight, seven and 288 are on amendments to eight, 6287 and 288. I agree that robust independent oversight of GBR will be essential. That's precisely why clause 74 gives the author significant and enhanced monitoring role across the breadth of British Great British Railway statutory functions. The Oro will monitor Gbr's delivery against its business plans, including how its costs and income compare with its estimates, whether its statutory functions are being exercised in a way that furthers railway safety, and whether it's meeting its duties and KPIs.
Importantly, it will also be able to carry out investigations where it considers it appropriate. That provides the RR with the scope to scrutinise its performance and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Auditing is a separate function. GBR will already be subject to independent audit through the National Audit Office, including the audit of its annual accounts. Requiring the author to undertake an additional auditing role would therefore duplicate established arrangements and blur the distinct responsibilities of the regulator and the Auditor Amendment on amendment 196.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the RR will retain this role as now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, and this enables flexibility, allowing for the collection of data to be proportionate, needs based and to ensure necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the author and publication processes in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it's established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency, as the noble Lord noted, and we are not proposing to reduce this going forward.
The passenger watchdog will also have access to the data collected by RR, including data on complaints, and be able to use it to identify issues and areas for improvement passengers and to follow up on amendments 292 and the question of clause 75 stand part of the Bill. The government does not support this because it will create. It just creates a situation where public funds will be recycled around government. GBR will be a publicly owned company funded by the taxpayer, and therefore it's right that the licensing enforcement process should not include the ability to find GBR or finding does in this situation is to create a complex and administratively challenging money go round and .
Indeed, all it does is to return railway funds to the to his His Majesty's Treasury, leading to less spent on the railway. This is not about the situation that the noble Lord described in terms of suing the NHS. This is a practical measure to retain retain money in the railway. It is the only change to the licence enforcement process proposed in the Bill. All the other powers remain the same and the order will therefore hold the same role on licences in the future as it does today, and will still be able to take the following enforcement step.
It can escalate the issue to the GBR board. It can require the creation and publication of an improvement plan. And finally, it can issue a legally binding enforcement force, GBR to change its actions. And just to say, the government also rejects amendment 292, there are plenty enough serious duties on the board members of a public body like GBR without without suggesting that they should be pursued in in in. In individually these providing appropriate enforcement routes without a pointless money go round and.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments. Finally, on amendment 330 G. I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her very interesting speech. I do agree with her that we only want the the order to do what's necessary, given the substantial change in the organisation of the railway. I thought she might. I thought the noble Baroness might find it useful for me to briefly say. Repeat the findings of the independent review into the order published earlier this month for her consideration.
Firstly, it noted that all is well positioned to navigate the challenges ahead and is respected for its expertise, valued for its independence and recognised for its economic and safety capabilities. The review also concluded that the added value for taxpayers and users, via assurance and challenge of infrastructure managers and operators, and what's more, the review highlighted the inherent benefits of road and rail oversight being within the same organisation and noted that with more structured, cross-sector engagement, valuable lessons from both rail and road could be shared more consistently, unlocking wider benefits for both sectors.
That's why the bill preserves the essential, the essential road role as out and rail regulator. Separately, we must also recognise the LRR as a key delivery partner in the biggest rail reform programme in 30 years, already implementing a comprehensive transformation programme to make sure it's ready to fulfil the requirements in this legislation and a further organisational change in just 12 months will create not only an implementation, but risk creating a weakened body without the expertise to properly regulate the railways in the new circumstances.
And with that, I would thank Lords, all noble Lords for their participation and beg them to withdraw their amendments.
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
by leave withdrawn in clause 13, amendment 80 and 81. Lord Moylan not moved, not moved. The question is clause 13 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. content and will not content the contents have it. The question is at clause 14 stand part of the Bill. Many are of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 14.
Amendment 82. Baroness Pidgeon not moved, not moved. Amendment 83. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 89. Lord Barclay not moved, not moved, not moved from the supplementary sheet. Amendment 89 a Lord Moylan not moved, moved in. Clause 15 . Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Amendment 82. Baroness Pidgeon not moved, not moved. Amendment 83. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 89. Lord Barclay not moved, not moved, not moved from the supplementary sheet. Amendment 89 a Lord Moylan not moved, moved in. Clause 15 . Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
19:31
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My Lords, I rise to move amendment 90, which stands in my name, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, whose only. Prevented from standing up in a moment to say. He agrees with every word about utter. Because he is presiding over us inscrutable impartiality. Lords. This is a large group of amendments dealing with the government's long term rail strategy, as provided for in clause 15 of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer and I propose adding a modest line at the end of one be to insert the words including heritage, railway services and.
Noble Lords may not think this is the most pressing of the amendments in the group that deal with the long term strategy, but there cannot be long term strategy for rail without an understanding of, and an appreciation for the past and the lessons that it can teach us. And heritage services operate on mainline rail services, not just on preserved lines. They are highly visible and hugely cherished services which form special birthdays, wedding anniversaries and memorable occasions for families across the country.
They're also a hugely important recruiting sergeant for our railways, for the passengers, the drivers, the engineers and all the many other roles that go into making our railways a success. Not for nothing was the special train, which toured the country this year and last as part of the railway 200 events named inspiration, and I pay tribute again to the work of Network Rail, the National Railway Museum, and indeed the noble Lord, the Minister and others who had a role in its great success.
It covered 12,000 miles, visited more than 60 locations and inspired more than 100,000 people, a large number of them young people, particularly school visits. Brilliantly, the exhibition and the events were targeted at young schoolchildren at the time that they start to decide the subjects that will help form the careers they might pursue, and on board the. The carriage was were exhibitions that opened their eyes to the many and varied roles that they could play on the railways of the future.
This, of course, is all on top of the social and economic impact that heritage railways have directly through the work that they do, the vital role they play in tourism, in conservation, in skills and training, and in regeneration in communities across the country. I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, succeeding the noble Lord, the minister, and joined by the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester, who serves as its president.
President HRA members attract more than 13 million visitors and generate more than £600 million annually to our economy. Thanks to the change that the government agreed in the Employment Rights Act, they provide opportunities for young people and volunteers across the country. They bring generations together. They help people with neurodiversity to find fulfilling things to do. They help tackle loneliness and people of all ages and so much more. The minister, of course, knows all of this from his time chairing the Heritage Railway Association and through his lifelong passion for our railways.
He is a great enthusiast for the past as well as for the future of of railways. He will know, too, that the charities, trusts and small businesses who look after the rail heritage do so in the face of significant challenges. The restricted availability of coal, particularly following Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine and the closure of key mines like Fozzie Fran in South Wales. The rising costs of energy and employment, not least through the changes to the governments the government has made to National Insurance contributions.
Heritage railways have had a tough summer once again, not just because of the rising temperature but also the rising cost of living. Regrettably, the government's Great British Summer Savings Scheme, which encouraged people to get out and enjoy days out with their families, did not help heritage railways because transport is zero rated for VAT. The very dry weather we've had this summer meant that heritage railways were unable to run steam operations because of the fire, and I listened with interest to the point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, made in the previous group about biodiversity, helping to tackle the challenges of dry grass by railway lines, something that many heritage railways are already doing. So even before the decision that was encouraged by the government's National Emergency alert on the 14th of August, many heritage railway operators had taken the decision to stop running services. I visited the Bluebell Railway in Sussex the morning after the alert went out and saw the impact that that had on them, and many other railways.
The absence of steam, which of course is such an attractive for so many of the visitors. And those restrictions have continued. I was supposed to be on the Mayflower service, running down from Bristol to Plymouth last weekend, but the red conditions, which continued mean that steam tours on mainline rail have required diesel assistance and that has had sadly to be postponed until the spring. So in that context, there is some nervousness among heritage rail operators about certain provisions in the bill.
Both those who run services on the mainline, whether through timetables, open access rights or through ad hoc passing requests, as well as by those who rely on the national rail network to move historic locomotives, carriages and other rolling stock. The noble Lord, the minister, knows well the challenges that are inherent in coordinating all of this. Heritage rail is slower often than modern trains, and passing even 75 mile an hour heritage trains is getting more difficult.
Standards, of course, have changed in the intervening years. Slam door carriages are needing to be replaced at the cost to the operators who run them, and too often, the dismay of those who come and see a livery other than the one they were expecting. Capacity, both online and at major railway stations is being squeezed. Platform capacity is an issue for the Polar Express trains, which run out of Euston, and there's only one suitable path a week out of King's Cross.
Already. One only needs to look at the queue of international tourists who wait to stare at a brick wall labelled platform nine and three quarters no. The important draw of British Railways and the importance to our tourist and visitor economy. So the further amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner and I have tabled to the Bill, seek to probe some of the challenges of access and other areas of concern. We're very grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, who made time ahead of committee to meet both of us to discuss these issues.
At present, there is no mention of heritage in the 99 pages of this bill, nor in the 24 pages of the briefing document, which was published today on the. Giving a bit more detail on the government's long term rail strategy. Many of the concerns which those operating in the heritage parts of the sector have raised could, I think, be alleviated if they were a duty to to consider heritage among all the other important considerations which will help to shape the executive state's long term strategy for rail? I beg to move.
Noble Lords may not think this is the most pressing of the amendments in the group that deal with the long term strategy, but there cannot be long term strategy for rail without an understanding of, and an appreciation for the past and the lessons that it can teach us. And heritage services operate on mainline rail services, not just on preserved lines. They are highly visible and hugely cherished services which form special birthdays, wedding anniversaries and memorable occasions for families across the country.
They're also a hugely important recruiting sergeant for our railways, for the passengers, the drivers, the engineers and all the many other roles that go into making our railways a success. Not for nothing was the special train, which toured the country this year and last as part of the railway 200 events named inspiration, and I pay tribute again to the work of Network Rail, the National Railway Museum, and indeed the noble Lord, the Minister and others who had a role in its great success.
It covered 12,000 miles, visited more than 60 locations and inspired more than 100,000 people, a large number of them young people, particularly school visits. Brilliantly, the exhibition and the events were targeted at young schoolchildren at the time that they start to decide the subjects that will help form the careers they might pursue, and on board the. The carriage was were exhibitions that opened their eyes to the many and varied roles that they could play on the railways of the future.
This, of course, is all on top of the social and economic impact that heritage railways have directly through the work that they do, the vital role they play in tourism, in conservation, in skills and training, and in regeneration in communities across the country. I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, succeeding the noble Lord, the minister, and joined by the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester, who serves as its president.
President HRA members attract more than 13 million visitors and generate more than £600 million annually to our economy. Thanks to the change that the government agreed in the Employment Rights Act, they provide opportunities for young people and volunteers across the country. They bring generations together. They help people with neurodiversity to find fulfilling things to do. They help tackle loneliness and people of all ages and so much more. The minister, of course, knows all of this from his time chairing the Heritage Railway Association and through his lifelong passion for our railways.
He is a great enthusiast for the past as well as for the future of of railways. He will know, too, that the charities, trusts and small businesses who look after the rail heritage do so in the face of significant challenges. The restricted availability of coal, particularly following Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine and the closure of key mines like Fozzie Fran in South Wales. The rising costs of energy and employment, not least through the changes to the governments the government has made to National Insurance contributions.
Heritage railways have had a tough summer once again, not just because of the rising temperature but also the rising cost of living. Regrettably, the government's Great British Summer Savings Scheme, which encouraged people to get out and enjoy days out with their families, did not help heritage railways because transport is zero rated for VAT. The very dry weather we've had this summer meant that heritage railways were unable to run steam operations because of the fire, and I listened with interest to the point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, made in the previous group about biodiversity, helping to tackle the challenges of dry grass by railway lines, something that many heritage railways are already doing. So even before the decision that was encouraged by the government's National Emergency alert on the 14th of August, many heritage railway operators had taken the decision to stop running services. I visited the Bluebell Railway in Sussex the morning after the alert went out and saw the impact that that had on them, and many other railways.
The absence of steam, which of course is such an attractive for so many of the visitors. And those restrictions have continued. I was supposed to be on the Mayflower service, running down from Bristol to Plymouth last weekend, but the red conditions, which continued mean that steam tours on mainline rail have required diesel assistance and that has had sadly to be postponed until the spring. So in that context, there is some nervousness among heritage rail operators about certain provisions in the bill.
Both those who run services on the mainline, whether through timetables, open access rights or through ad hoc passing requests, as well as by those who rely on the national rail network to move historic locomotives, carriages and other rolling stock. The noble Lord, the minister, knows well the challenges that are inherent in coordinating all of this. Heritage rail is slower often than modern trains, and passing even 75 mile an hour heritage trains is getting more difficult.
Standards, of course, have changed in the intervening years. Slam door carriages are needing to be replaced at the cost to the operators who run them, and too often, the dismay of those who come and see a livery other than the one they were expecting. Capacity, both online and at major railway stations is being squeezed. Platform capacity is an issue for the Polar Express trains, which run out of Euston, and there's only one suitable path a week out of King's Cross.
Already. One only needs to look at the queue of international tourists who wait to stare at a brick wall labelled platform nine and three quarters no. The important draw of British Railways and the importance to our tourist and visitor economy. So the further amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner and I have tabled to the Bill, seek to probe some of the challenges of access and other areas of concern. We're very grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, who made time ahead of committee to meet both of us to discuss these issues.
At present, there is no mention of heritage in the 99 pages of this bill, nor in the 24 pages of the briefing document, which was published today on the. Giving a bit more detail on the government's long term rail strategy. Many of the concerns which those operating in the heritage parts of the sector have raised could, I think, be alleviated if they were a duty to to consider heritage among all the other important considerations which will help to shape the executive state's long term strategy for rail? I beg to move.
19:39
19:39
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
If I intervene at this point in the group, it might enable you. And it might enable, Lord, your. The occupant of the chair to be free to speak to his own amendment. It will be seen. We're doing a bit of Box and Cox exchanging here, and I must first declare an interest as a vice president of the Allen Valley Railway, well known to Lord Parkinson, and thank him for tabling this particular amendment 90. I think it is a necessary signal.
There have been times in the recent history of the railways when there have been very obdurate people in some management positions who didn't like the heritage sector. That's changed very significantly, not least because of the success to local economies and the popularity of the heritage sector. But we need to give that signal in some way, I think. But my main purpose is to do with my own amendment 105, which is on a different matter entirely.
It's about integrating road and rail transport. When the railways were nationalised, along with British road services and many bus companies, it was suggested that everything was going to be coordinated and trains and buses would meet each other and it would all work out beautifully. None of that happened. Abject failure nationalisation did not secure co-ordination between different forms of transport. If you travel around other countries, particularly in northern Europe, including countries which have public sector railways and those that have nationalised and private sector railways, you will find that there's a very often a frequency and reliability of connections between trains and buses and buses and ferries, which enables people to plan their journeys with a degree of confidence.
That confidence rarely exists in our own country. There's a general feeling that, if you're lucky, you might be able to get a bus from the station, but the idea that the bus would be waiting for your train and might wait five minutes if your train was five minutes late is somehow alien to the system. The same is true in reverse, of course. There have been some improvements at Berwick Station which I use regularly. Important borders bus services are integrated into the passenger information screen.
So you look at the screen and it'll tell you the next train is to Edinburgh. After that there's a bus to Galashiels and that's actually on the indicator screen. But that doesn't happen in very many places. And what it what it what it fails to provide when when it's so limited is first of all, the number of commuters were affected by this. And this amendment was suggested by the Association of Commuters who have to drive to the station.
So they get involved in using their car, when really their objective is to have a train journey to work. The bus connecting with the train would reduce the use of the car and also discourage them from saying, oh, well, I'm not. If I'm getting the car out, I might as well drive the whole way rather than use the railway. It's a disincentive. It's also a disincentive for travellers visiting more distant places .
As tourists, you can't rely on a connecting bus, train or ferry service. It's another of these things which is in could be included in the bill, not to create a complicated obligation, but to start signalling that it's something we see as desirable and likely to improve the use and increase the use of the of the railway. It's I think it's a neglected area and it's many other countries can do achieve a great deal more in this area than we've ever seen any sign of doing so.
I suggest that the minister finds a way of encouraging bus rail coordination, recognise it as an objective of the industry and realises that without it we are discouraging people from using trains.
There have been times in the recent history of the railways when there have been very obdurate people in some management positions who didn't like the heritage sector. That's changed very significantly, not least because of the success to local economies and the popularity of the heritage sector. But we need to give that signal in some way, I think. But my main purpose is to do with my own amendment 105, which is on a different matter entirely.
It's about integrating road and rail transport. When the railways were nationalised, along with British road services and many bus companies, it was suggested that everything was going to be coordinated and trains and buses would meet each other and it would all work out beautifully. None of that happened. Abject failure nationalisation did not secure co-ordination between different forms of transport. If you travel around other countries, particularly in northern Europe, including countries which have public sector railways and those that have nationalised and private sector railways, you will find that there's a very often a frequency and reliability of connections between trains and buses and buses and ferries, which enables people to plan their journeys with a degree of confidence.
That confidence rarely exists in our own country. There's a general feeling that, if you're lucky, you might be able to get a bus from the station, but the idea that the bus would be waiting for your train and might wait five minutes if your train was five minutes late is somehow alien to the system. The same is true in reverse, of course. There have been some improvements at Berwick Station which I use regularly. Important borders bus services are integrated into the passenger information screen.
So you look at the screen and it'll tell you the next train is to Edinburgh. After that there's a bus to Galashiels and that's actually on the indicator screen. But that doesn't happen in very many places. And what it what it what it fails to provide when when it's so limited is first of all, the number of commuters were affected by this. And this amendment was suggested by the Association of Commuters who have to drive to the station.
So they get involved in using their car, when really their objective is to have a train journey to work. The bus connecting with the train would reduce the use of the car and also discourage them from saying, oh, well, I'm not. If I'm getting the car out, I might as well drive the whole way rather than use the railway. It's a disincentive. It's also a disincentive for travellers visiting more distant places .
As tourists, you can't rely on a connecting bus, train or ferry service. It's another of these things which is in could be included in the bill, not to create a complicated obligation, but to start signalling that it's something we see as desirable and likely to improve the use and increase the use of the of the railway. It's I think it's a neglected area and it's many other countries can do achieve a great deal more in this area than we've ever seen any sign of doing so.
I suggest that the minister finds a way of encouraging bus rail coordination, recognise it as an objective of the industry and realises that without it we are discouraging people from using trains.
19:43
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
My Lords, I speak to amendment 101 A in my name, to which Baroness Brinton has added her name, and I accept that this amendment is quite long, but it's also a bit of a wish list of everything I would like for improved accessibility across the train network. So this new clause requires a ten year railway accessibility strategy, including a funded programme for permanent step, free access, accessible rolling stock, mobility aid, carriage, accessible interchange and accessible rail replacement services.
It also requires measurable targets, annual reporting and the involvement of disabled people in the development of the strategy. I'll also declare an interest. I'm a member of the campaign for Level Boarding. I'm an observer on the Avanti Accessibility panel. I'm very fortunate to have an open invite to Network Rail's national accessibility group, and I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the minister and his team for meeting with myself and Baroness Brinton this week to discuss our amendments, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion and how we can improve access for disabled people.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord the Minister's comments in the early group that we are going to be, or disabled people are going to be able to book assistance and also buy the best price ticket at the same time, rather than having to use the six different apps that I currently have on my phone, it's very welcome, if not slightly overdue. I'd also like to thank Alex Hines and Alison Smith from Network Rail, who I met last week, who were also very helpful.
So this is really a probing amendment. I very happy to discuss with the noble Lord, the minister, whether this amendment gets split into different parts, because there are some things which I do recognise might be challenging to achieve. And I think as we move to GBR, it's essential we move away from the current state of play, where train operating companies implement the accessible, accessible travel policy in quite different ways. And I have amendments in other groups that fit with this.
And there was a little bit debated whether this was the right group for this amendment to sit in, although it does relate to long term strategy. And actually there might be a better place for it in the bill as well. But one of the changes that noble Lord, the minister made when he was Commissioner of TfL, which had a great deal of pleasure sitting on with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was thinking about changing accessibility, doing it in a different way.
So rather than putting all the budget at the back end of the project and not really being able to do very much with the money, it was thinking about what you could do with accessibility right at the start if you were redesigning stations, and I think that's significantly improved the amount of accessible stations on the network. And it was a very realistic way of doing it. And I would like to consider how we can do something with access for all, because actually that feels far too removed from the process of improving accessibility.
And if you look at the total historic funding for for its £873 million, which sounds like a lot of money, but when you break it down into individual stations, it's actually a relatively small amount. Part of this amendment is also about collecting better data to be able to plan ahead. The last government estimated that it's going to be 100 years before we have a full step free train network in this country. Unless we chunk it off, we're actually never even going to hit that 100 year deadline, probably for another time.
I would like to think about how we refer to step three stations. I'm not particularly keen on just being able to get to the platform being called step three, because I think that makes it quite hard for disabled people to think about how they use the network. But I do think we have an opportunity to get a better standardization of service, and there are some really exciting things happening now. It was great to see the announcement last week.
A TransPennine by low floor trains hoping for more good news from other companies. But we also have to recognise there has to be a programme of ongoing work to change platform heights. It's not going to be possible to do that all in one go, as much as I would love it, but, but we have to think about how we can make a difference. If you look at what's happened with Greater Anglia, not every station on their line is step free to train, but there's much greater accessibility than there was before.
Part of this amendment is also looking around mobility aids now. They've changed quite significantly over the years. A lot more people are using scooters rather than manual or electric chairs, and we've got to think about the current space that is available on trains and the space around the companion seat. And DFT is doing some some great work and really interesting work on accessible micromobility. So I think we also have to think about how we can future proof some of the decisions that we are making now, because far more people are using, like the battery pack attachment that I use outside the building to be able to get around.
Now, technically it's not a scooter, but I know a number of people who've been stopped from getting on a train because they've been told it's scooter. And, you know, it's just ridiculous that the ATP has not been universally applied. There have been some big wins in the last years. I would like to pay tribute to Tony Jennings, who I've worked with over the last few years, who's changed the scooter policy for ScotRail and Northern.
Up until quite recently, both those train companies banned scooter users. It's taken quite a long time to get to this point, and the reason scooters seem to have been banned is because many years ago there was a fault on the train. Both doors opened. A scooter user getting onto the train, went through the door and fell off the other side, which is horrendous. But we don't ban little old ladies from travelling on trains because one falls down the side of the Elizabeth line, so it doesn't always feel that disabled people are being treated terribly, equitably.
So recently, northern thanks to Tony Jennings, have lifted their 158 ban, so mobility scooters can travel on the whole northern network for the first time. However, if you get off at Newcastle and try and use the Tyne and Wear Metro, you're still banned from there, which is a bit of a shame because they've replaced all their old trains with level boarding class five, five, five Sadlers so there aren't really any excuses. And if we look at what Merseyrail has done, it's been amazing in terms of level boarding.
So somebody did say to me it's easy because it's a closed loop system and it's not easy, but it's certainly easier. But what they had was a vision to think about how disabled people could travel differently. And I think we also have to be realistic about the change in nature of the network. If it's likely they're going to be less staff at stations, we have to really make a difference in terms of how disabled people get on trains.
And right at the start of the debate, I was contacted by an individual. They were at a train station. They were trying to get on a train, couldn't find a member of staff, rang the help point. I'm not convinced help points are the answer. They called the help point twice, apparently set up. It rings for 25 seconds, stops, rings again for 25 seconds, and if still nobody's answered it, it then goes through to National Rail enquiries who can't do anything at all to actually help an individual get on a train.
So these are the things that we need to be sorted, and some of these will come up in other amendments that I have. Making public transport fully accessible could boost the economy by 176 billion a year. The 2.8 million working age disabled people who are locked out of the workforce and lack of accessible public transport will contribute to that. The last point that I wanted to raise is part of the amendment is around rail replacement.
Now. It's not great for anybody, but in the last few years, I've had a couple of experiences, one which was amazing, but that's because on the train they recognised me as a member of the House of Lords and the person who posted on social media that was actually whispered to me and they sorted me out, you know, that's very nice. But that doesn't happen for the vast majority of disabled people. More recently, I was trying to get to Westminster, not such a great experience, and I had to try three different train stations that I could get to.
Luckily, my husband was able to drive me around these various train stations in the north east of England so I could avoid using rail replacement. But again, that is not realistic for the vast majority of disabled people. And the reality is accessible. Taxis are not available outside the many major cities, and there's a real risk disabled people could be stuck and able to continue their onward journey. And it's not okay to say to a disabled person, well, you can't travel on that day or you should have booked, which is the default for many train operating companies.
When there's a failure of assistance, the blame is put on the disabled person for actually having the temerity to turn up and go. But I think there is something much smarter that we can do in terms of rail replacement. And finally, I look forward to the minister's response and Baroness Brinton, who unfortunately isn't able to be in her place today. But both of us are very happy to continue the conversation to see which areas of this amendment may be more palatable than others.
It also requires measurable targets, annual reporting and the involvement of disabled people in the development of the strategy. I'll also declare an interest. I'm a member of the campaign for Level Boarding. I'm an observer on the Avanti Accessibility panel. I'm very fortunate to have an open invite to Network Rail's national accessibility group, and I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the minister and his team for meeting with myself and Baroness Brinton this week to discuss our amendments, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion and how we can improve access for disabled people.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord the Minister's comments in the early group that we are going to be, or disabled people are going to be able to book assistance and also buy the best price ticket at the same time, rather than having to use the six different apps that I currently have on my phone, it's very welcome, if not slightly overdue. I'd also like to thank Alex Hines and Alison Smith from Network Rail, who I met last week, who were also very helpful.
So this is really a probing amendment. I very happy to discuss with the noble Lord, the minister, whether this amendment gets split into different parts, because there are some things which I do recognise might be challenging to achieve. And I think as we move to GBR, it's essential we move away from the current state of play, where train operating companies implement the accessible, accessible travel policy in quite different ways. And I have amendments in other groups that fit with this.
And there was a little bit debated whether this was the right group for this amendment to sit in, although it does relate to long term strategy. And actually there might be a better place for it in the bill as well. But one of the changes that noble Lord, the minister made when he was Commissioner of TfL, which had a great deal of pleasure sitting on with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was thinking about changing accessibility, doing it in a different way.
So rather than putting all the budget at the back end of the project and not really being able to do very much with the money, it was thinking about what you could do with accessibility right at the start if you were redesigning stations, and I think that's significantly improved the amount of accessible stations on the network. And it was a very realistic way of doing it. And I would like to consider how we can do something with access for all, because actually that feels far too removed from the process of improving accessibility.
And if you look at the total historic funding for for its £873 million, which sounds like a lot of money, but when you break it down into individual stations, it's actually a relatively small amount. Part of this amendment is also about collecting better data to be able to plan ahead. The last government estimated that it's going to be 100 years before we have a full step free train network in this country. Unless we chunk it off, we're actually never even going to hit that 100 year deadline, probably for another time.
I would like to think about how we refer to step three stations. I'm not particularly keen on just being able to get to the platform being called step three, because I think that makes it quite hard for disabled people to think about how they use the network. But I do think we have an opportunity to get a better standardization of service, and there are some really exciting things happening now. It was great to see the announcement last week.
A TransPennine by low floor trains hoping for more good news from other companies. But we also have to recognise there has to be a programme of ongoing work to change platform heights. It's not going to be possible to do that all in one go, as much as I would love it, but, but we have to think about how we can make a difference. If you look at what's happened with Greater Anglia, not every station on their line is step free to train, but there's much greater accessibility than there was before.
Part of this amendment is also looking around mobility aids now. They've changed quite significantly over the years. A lot more people are using scooters rather than manual or electric chairs, and we've got to think about the current space that is available on trains and the space around the companion seat. And DFT is doing some some great work and really interesting work on accessible micromobility. So I think we also have to think about how we can future proof some of the decisions that we are making now, because far more people are using, like the battery pack attachment that I use outside the building to be able to get around.
Now, technically it's not a scooter, but I know a number of people who've been stopped from getting on a train because they've been told it's scooter. And, you know, it's just ridiculous that the ATP has not been universally applied. There have been some big wins in the last years. I would like to pay tribute to Tony Jennings, who I've worked with over the last few years, who's changed the scooter policy for ScotRail and Northern.
Up until quite recently, both those train companies banned scooter users. It's taken quite a long time to get to this point, and the reason scooters seem to have been banned is because many years ago there was a fault on the train. Both doors opened. A scooter user getting onto the train, went through the door and fell off the other side, which is horrendous. But we don't ban little old ladies from travelling on trains because one falls down the side of the Elizabeth line, so it doesn't always feel that disabled people are being treated terribly, equitably.
So recently, northern thanks to Tony Jennings, have lifted their 158 ban, so mobility scooters can travel on the whole northern network for the first time. However, if you get off at Newcastle and try and use the Tyne and Wear Metro, you're still banned from there, which is a bit of a shame because they've replaced all their old trains with level boarding class five, five, five Sadlers so there aren't really any excuses. And if we look at what Merseyrail has done, it's been amazing in terms of level boarding.
So somebody did say to me it's easy because it's a closed loop system and it's not easy, but it's certainly easier. But what they had was a vision to think about how disabled people could travel differently. And I think we also have to be realistic about the change in nature of the network. If it's likely they're going to be less staff at stations, we have to really make a difference in terms of how disabled people get on trains.
And right at the start of the debate, I was contacted by an individual. They were at a train station. They were trying to get on a train, couldn't find a member of staff, rang the help point. I'm not convinced help points are the answer. They called the help point twice, apparently set up. It rings for 25 seconds, stops, rings again for 25 seconds, and if still nobody's answered it, it then goes through to National Rail enquiries who can't do anything at all to actually help an individual get on a train.
So these are the things that we need to be sorted, and some of these will come up in other amendments that I have. Making public transport fully accessible could boost the economy by 176 billion a year. The 2.8 million working age disabled people who are locked out of the workforce and lack of accessible public transport will contribute to that. The last point that I wanted to raise is part of the amendment is around rail replacement.
Now. It's not great for anybody, but in the last few years, I've had a couple of experiences, one which was amazing, but that's because on the train they recognised me as a member of the House of Lords and the person who posted on social media that was actually whispered to me and they sorted me out, you know, that's very nice. But that doesn't happen for the vast majority of disabled people. More recently, I was trying to get to Westminster, not such a great experience, and I had to try three different train stations that I could get to.
Luckily, my husband was able to drive me around these various train stations in the north east of England so I could avoid using rail replacement. But again, that is not realistic for the vast majority of disabled people. And the reality is accessible. Taxis are not available outside the many major cities, and there's a real risk disabled people could be stuck and able to continue their onward journey. And it's not okay to say to a disabled person, well, you can't travel on that day or you should have booked, which is the default for many train operating companies.
When there's a failure of assistance, the blame is put on the disabled person for actually having the temerity to turn up and go. But I think there is something much smarter that we can do in terms of rail replacement. And finally, I look forward to the minister's response and Baroness Brinton, who unfortunately isn't able to be in her place today. But both of us are very happy to continue the conversation to see which areas of this amendment may be more palatable than others.
19:53
19:53
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Oh my Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendment number 99 in my name. And the reason for this amendment is that I am genuinely concerned that what we're going to end up with is a state monopoly, which squeezes out the very small amounts of competition that there is remaining through open access that perhaps even in time, becomes more unfriendly to freight that gets that takes a difficult approach to heritage usage of the network, because it is all a bit of a nuisance.
And the state needs to be talking to people who are offering alternatives, raising concerns about the way things were in the past and the way things could be in the future. We have to remember that a number of the issues and constraints on the network today date back to the days of British Rail, when we all know the British Rail approach was if the budgets were tight, they are, I'm afraid, going to be tight in the coming years.
We know that subsidy levels have rocketed. We know that revenues are falling and we know the Treasury's got no money, so the railways are going to get squeezed in the way they were in the days of British Rail. And what happened then. British Rail cut services or it closed routes or it took out capacity when the the single track line from Soames really is a case in point where the implications for today's railway are significant, but it was a useful closure at the time to save a bit of money.
So what happens now? Well, if the bill goes through as it is, and if the Secretary of State doesn't actually have a duty to talk to those who could be doing things differently, could be offering alternative services, those who are using the network, those are using the network for open access, those who are using it for heritage railways and those who may want to, those who may be looking for capacity , looking to offer alternative services. There is no duty, as far as I can see in this legislation, for the Secretary of State to consult those people as part of the formation of the long term rail strategy, and that feels to me to be a major omission.
And we'll come back later in this committee discussion, this committee debate, to the question of what happens if GBR objects to an open access application and then doesn't launch the service themselves, or GBR just wants to stop somebody getting in the way and objects to an open access operator, or GBR pulls out of a service and somebody else wants and is willing to run that service. Or if somebody is coming along and is trying to run a service that GBR doesn't want to ever operate, but wants to be difficult to.
Ultimately, the duty surely, of government in this bill is to deliver the best possible, most comprehensive public transport system, service and system available. And there will be times when the state cannot and will not do that. There will be times when there is a demand that the state operator will not and cannot and does not want to do so. What is the mechanism in producing the long term rail strategy or the minister to say, okay, I think we are going to need to leave that space for open access.
I think we're going to need that capacity for extra freight. We're going to need to make provision for some tourism access to the network. If there is no duty, which there doesn't seem to be the legislation to have those conversations, where is the requirement for those conversations to take place? How will they take place? Or actually in the rush to get a document out, will they not take place at all? I think this is a simple amendment.
Have the effect of ensuring that everybody should and would and does have a say in what the Secretary of State does on a reasonable basis within a reasonable scope. But the requirement is there, and that's why I think this amendment is necessary.
And the state needs to be talking to people who are offering alternatives, raising concerns about the way things were in the past and the way things could be in the future. We have to remember that a number of the issues and constraints on the network today date back to the days of British Rail, when we all know the British Rail approach was if the budgets were tight, they are, I'm afraid, going to be tight in the coming years.
We know that subsidy levels have rocketed. We know that revenues are falling and we know the Treasury's got no money, so the railways are going to get squeezed in the way they were in the days of British Rail. And what happened then. British Rail cut services or it closed routes or it took out capacity when the the single track line from Soames really is a case in point where the implications for today's railway are significant, but it was a useful closure at the time to save a bit of money.
So what happens now? Well, if the bill goes through as it is, and if the Secretary of State doesn't actually have a duty to talk to those who could be doing things differently, could be offering alternative services, those who are using the network, those are using the network for open access, those who are using it for heritage railways and those who may want to, those who may be looking for capacity , looking to offer alternative services. There is no duty, as far as I can see in this legislation, for the Secretary of State to consult those people as part of the formation of the long term rail strategy, and that feels to me to be a major omission.
And we'll come back later in this committee discussion, this committee debate, to the question of what happens if GBR objects to an open access application and then doesn't launch the service themselves, or GBR just wants to stop somebody getting in the way and objects to an open access operator, or GBR pulls out of a service and somebody else wants and is willing to run that service. Or if somebody is coming along and is trying to run a service that GBR doesn't want to ever operate, but wants to be difficult to.
Ultimately, the duty surely, of government in this bill is to deliver the best possible, most comprehensive public transport system, service and system available. And there will be times when the state cannot and will not do that. There will be times when there is a demand that the state operator will not and cannot and does not want to do so. What is the mechanism in producing the long term rail strategy or the minister to say, okay, I think we are going to need to leave that space for open access.
I think we're going to need that capacity for extra freight. We're going to need to make provision for some tourism access to the network. If there is no duty, which there doesn't seem to be the legislation to have those conversations, where is the requirement for those conversations to take place? How will they take place? Or actually in the rush to get a document out, will they not take place at all? I think this is a simple amendment.
Have the effect of ensuring that everybody should and would and does have a say in what the Secretary of State does on a reasonable basis within a reasonable scope. But the requirement is there, and that's why I think this amendment is necessary.
19:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, to speak briefly, first of all about amendment 101 A in the name of Baroness Grey-thompson. I think she's absolutely right about that. Quite a long list of things that need doing. And the timescale that she sets out in the amendment is it's probably quite challenging because trains will probably last 30 or 40 years, and the track, well, quite a long time as well. And it's a platform heights, which of course are the biggest problem.
There's a very interesting article in the latest rail magazine about platform heights, and I've studied it over the years because of getting container trains through it. And it's, it's very, very difficult and there's no easy solution. I think she's absolutely right to to put to table the amendment, and I certainly support it. My Lords, the other thing I want to speak to briefly is about inherit the heritage issue, which nobody spoke about initially. I like his amendments, on the other hand, I think the text of the bill in section 15, line three, it's slightly odd.
The railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided to Great Britain. What happens if the Secretary of State doesn't wish it, and which is a pretty stupid question to ask, but the word wish to me seems possibly the wrong one, because heritage, I assume, covers any type of non timetabled service. I don't know whether that's right that's true or not, but it it's it could be the occasional commercial services or. Local local train movements.
Heritage. Is it the smart restaurant cars on the main line or is it the branch lines which occasionally have it. And. I think it's pretty important that there's also some mention about the timings of these. In other words, how is it going to fit in with the rest of the timetable and which days? Because I know from talking to some of the heritage providers that they're really scared, there may be told, well, we can't run the trains for two weeks after they've taken all the reservations and everything like that.
So I think this needs you may wish to come back and report stage with some more detailed or have more discussions about it, but I think it's a really important issue which can easily get brushed aside.
There's a very interesting article in the latest rail magazine about platform heights, and I've studied it over the years because of getting container trains through it. And it's, it's very, very difficult and there's no easy solution. I think she's absolutely right to to put to table the amendment, and I certainly support it. My Lords, the other thing I want to speak to briefly is about inherit the heritage issue, which nobody spoke about initially. I like his amendments, on the other hand, I think the text of the bill in section 15, line three, it's slightly odd.
The railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided to Great Britain. What happens if the Secretary of State doesn't wish it, and which is a pretty stupid question to ask, but the word wish to me seems possibly the wrong one, because heritage, I assume, covers any type of non timetabled service. I don't know whether that's right that's true or not, but it it's it could be the occasional commercial services or. Local local train movements.
Heritage. Is it the smart restaurant cars on the main line or is it the branch lines which occasionally have it. And. I think it's pretty important that there's also some mention about the timings of these. In other words, how is it going to fit in with the rest of the timetable and which days? Because I know from talking to some of the heritage providers that they're really scared, there may be told, well, we can't run the trains for two weeks after they've taken all the reservations and everything like that.
So I think this needs you may wish to come back and report stage with some more detailed or have more discussions about it, but I think it's a really important issue which can easily get brushed aside.
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:01
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Oh, well, I'll relax and take my time then. No passengers journeys. Very rarely. Just a train journey. It might be a bus station, a train, then. a tram or whatever. And if those parts of the journey don't connect properly, the whole journey becomes more difficult. And I know this from personal experience, a missed connection a long way, separate tickets or poor passenger information and all make public transport less attractive.
The National Transport Sport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. And that's why I think integration is probably one of the strongest levers we have to get people, more people , to choose public transport. The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped.
Amendment 1 to 8 would put some of that principle back into the bill by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR to seek to promote integration in rail and bus, coach, tram, light rail and micro mobility. I also support amendment 105 from Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the rail strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and coordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information and includes ferry services. So I think the two amendments actually complement each other rather well.
One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things that integration should mean for passengers. And this isn't just about making journeys more convenient. If we want people to make journeys more journeys by public transport, it has to work. So I would like to ask the minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes, and will the government consider putting some of the practical elements in amendment 105 timetables, ticketing and passenger information into the statutory framework? I mean, we do have an opportunity here to create a railway that actually works as part of a wider public transport network, and I think that really ought to be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.
The National Transport Sport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. And that's why I think integration is probably one of the strongest levers we have to get people, more people , to choose public transport. The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped.
Amendment 1 to 8 would put some of that principle back into the bill by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR to seek to promote integration in rail and bus, coach, tram, light rail and micro mobility. I also support amendment 105 from Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the rail strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and coordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information and includes ferry services. So I think the two amendments actually complement each other rather well.
One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things that integration should mean for passengers. And this isn't just about making journeys more convenient. If we want people to make journeys more journeys by public transport, it has to work. So I would like to ask the minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes, and will the government consider putting some of the practical elements in amendment 105 timetables, ticketing and passenger information into the statutory framework? I mean, we do have an opportunity here to create a railway that actually works as part of a wider public transport network, and I think that really ought to be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.
20:04
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords committee will be relieved to know. I'm going to be very brief, and you will have observed that my name appears on two of these amendments the amendment Lord Parkinson, and also the excellent amendment from Lord Beith, looking first, taking first the Heritage amendment, I express my gratitude for Lord Parkinson for many of the nice things he said about me and about heritage railways, and as far as they are concerned, I of course agree completely.
I would also like just to let the Committee to the extraordinary beneficial effect of the amendment that was passed to the Employment Rights Bill, making it legal for young people under 16 to volunteer on heritage, railways and tramways. It has led to a very substantial increase in the number of young people coming forward, and the Heritage Railway Association indeed is devoting its annual conference to the subject of volunteering. That has been made possible as a result of the amendment.
But Lord Parkinson and I managed to persuade the House and persuaded the government, I think, with some help from the noble Lord, this Minister, to feel that it was. It was included in the Bill. Very good. The other aspect of heritage railways I want to mention is the fact that there are already a number of operations where heritage railways and National Railway are working closely together and providing timetabled services, and I hope very much that these.
It will be possible for those to continue. And under the new arrangements, particularly the Yorkshire Moors Railway, is running into Whitby, as it has done for a number of years, and the Severn Valley Railway has just announced a new service in the timetable, which is giving people in Bewdley the opportunity to commute to Birmingham with just one change at Kidderminster. This is a step forward. It means that Bewdley, for example, for the first time for many, many years to have a service at times people want to use rather than just one that's available for heritage purposes.
On Lord Beith's excellent amendment, I would like to remind the Minister of a letter that I forwarded to him from the Moreton in Marsh Town Council last week. I spent some considerable time in Moreton a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Stratford on Avon to Moreton Tramway, and which they claim to be one of the very earliest railways in in Britain. Opened in 1826, and great, great events went on at both .
Both ends of the line, including a visit by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to the town where many of the public buildings bear the name of his family. The. What the council. This is Moreton in Marsh Town Council are asking for. Is the Minister's support for their application to . To for funding from the Cotswold District Council for Community Infrastructure Levy to. To provide funding for a rail hub for a community rail hub in Moreton in Marsh to bring railways and buses together and provide an integrated service.
They've already gone a long way to doing that and expanded the bus services. But if if the minister is also prepared to give a nudge in this direction, that will go down extremely well. But I thank the Committee very much indeed for their indulgence in allowing me allowing me to add to, as Audrey says, Cox and box in the chair.
I would also like just to let the Committee to the extraordinary beneficial effect of the amendment that was passed to the Employment Rights Bill, making it legal for young people under 16 to volunteer on heritage, railways and tramways. It has led to a very substantial increase in the number of young people coming forward, and the Heritage Railway Association indeed is devoting its annual conference to the subject of volunteering. That has been made possible as a result of the amendment.
But Lord Parkinson and I managed to persuade the House and persuaded the government, I think, with some help from the noble Lord, this Minister, to feel that it was. It was included in the Bill. Very good. The other aspect of heritage railways I want to mention is the fact that there are already a number of operations where heritage railways and National Railway are working closely together and providing timetabled services, and I hope very much that these.
It will be possible for those to continue. And under the new arrangements, particularly the Yorkshire Moors Railway, is running into Whitby, as it has done for a number of years, and the Severn Valley Railway has just announced a new service in the timetable, which is giving people in Bewdley the opportunity to commute to Birmingham with just one change at Kidderminster. This is a step forward. It means that Bewdley, for example, for the first time for many, many years to have a service at times people want to use rather than just one that's available for heritage purposes.
On Lord Beith's excellent amendment, I would like to remind the Minister of a letter that I forwarded to him from the Moreton in Marsh Town Council last week. I spent some considerable time in Moreton a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Stratford on Avon to Moreton Tramway, and which they claim to be one of the very earliest railways in in Britain. Opened in 1826, and great, great events went on at both .
Both ends of the line, including a visit by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to the town where many of the public buildings bear the name of his family. The. What the council. This is Moreton in Marsh Town Council are asking for. Is the Minister's support for their application to . To for funding from the Cotswold District Council for Community Infrastructure Levy to. To provide funding for a rail hub for a community rail hub in Moreton in Marsh to bring railways and buses together and provide an integrated service.
They've already gone a long way to doing that and expanded the bus services. But if if the minister is also prepared to give a nudge in this direction, that will go down extremely well. But I thank the Committee very much indeed for their indulgence in allowing me allowing me to add to, as Audrey says, Cox and box in the chair.
20:08
20:08
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, I want to touch on four parts of this group. First of all, the amendment 90, which I strongly support, ably moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, I, the constituency I represented in the House of Commons for many years and in which I still live, has a heritage railway, forest railway and although most of its services run on its own tracks, it does interact with the main railway at Lydney and has a decent relationship with Network Rail and I absolutely support everything, he said in his speech, but particularly the impact on getting volunteers and interest from people actually to work on the railway and and I'm afraid I was able also to indulge.
They allowed me to indulge my. One of the things I always wanted to do, which was to drive a steam and also to. And I see the ministers find that amusing. The driver. Steam train , and also shovel coal into the. The fire as well, and it was fantastic. And of course they do that all the time. The reason why I mention it is because it's a big tourist attraction in the area are they run lots of theme days.
They run Thomas the Tank Engine days. It brings a lot of people into the area and it's very significant. And that interaction of railways, heritage, railways and tourism I think is very powerful. You only have to come into London Paddington. It's not quite as impressive as platform nine three quarters, but if you look at the number of tourists that are taking pictures of the sculpture of Paddington Bear, which is in compensation, that interaction of, say, railways and tourism, I think is very powerful.
So I absolutely support the amendment. And even if the amendment as drafted isn't acceptable to the government, I hope very much that the minister will consider it. And in the same way that the two noble lords, Faulkner and Parkinson of Whitley Bay, were able to get the success that Lord Falconer explained on the Employment Rights Act, that the minister perhaps could come back with a government amendment or some other way of delivering this important benefit for heritage railways.
The second thing I just wanted to touch on was amendment Amendments 95 and 101, which were in the names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and also signed by Lord Moylan. Now, the effect of these two amendments would be to require the rail strategy to be laid before Parliament, and for there to be the opportunity for a debate. At the moment the. The clause 15 in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish the document, but as it's currently set out and has some consultation requirements, but there's currently no requirement for any parliamentary process attached to the rail strategy, and I think it would be helpful if there were.
So the effect of those amendments, and it doesn't it doesn't trespass, I think, on on insisting that the the Parliament approves it. But what it does do is it means it's got to be laid before Parliament, available to the houses to be to debate. And if the houses do, the Secretary of State then has to respond to a resolution made by either House, and it. It, I think, forces the government to have a better relationship with Parliament.
And there are other significant statements by government which have a far more extensive parliamentary processes. So the Energy National Policy Statement has substantial consultation requirements, including a select committee review. The Planning and Infrastructure Act says that a national policy statement must be approved by a Commons resolution, so amendment 101 is much lighter touch. It enables a debate, but it doesn't require approval, and it doesn't enable select committees to make recommendations. It's based.
The structure is based on section nine of the Planning Act for national policy statements. And it seems to me, given the importance which ministers have placed on rail strategy, then I think it should embed in the the Bill that requirement for Parliament to at least be involved in the process in this relatively light touch way. So I think that would be welcome. And again, if if the minister doesn't find the particular solution acceptable, then I think it would be helpful if he could indicate that he's at least willing to go away and have a look at what he might be prepared to put in, in place.
The third area is on amendment 101 A, which Baroness Grey-thompson talked to, which is on the railways accessibility strategy. I listen very carefully to her, and I think her amendment, certainly the thrust of her amendment has merit. And again, I'm happy to listen to the minister. He has a very good track record in this area in, I think, all of the roles that he has held, both at TfL in his capacity when he was chair of Network Rail and in his current role.
And the only point I would add to what a noble lady or my noble friend, Baroness Gray Thompson said, was this the reason for putting it in? The strategy is the earlier you think about accessibility, the better it'll be delivered at the lowest cost. Both of those are very important. The second thing is it's not
They allowed me to indulge my. One of the things I always wanted to do, which was to drive a steam and also to. And I see the ministers find that amusing. The driver. Steam train , and also shovel coal into the. The fire as well, and it was fantastic. And of course they do that all the time. The reason why I mention it is because it's a big tourist attraction in the area are they run lots of theme days.
They run Thomas the Tank Engine days. It brings a lot of people into the area and it's very significant. And that interaction of railways, heritage, railways and tourism I think is very powerful. You only have to come into London Paddington. It's not quite as impressive as platform nine three quarters, but if you look at the number of tourists that are taking pictures of the sculpture of Paddington Bear, which is in compensation, that interaction of, say, railways and tourism, I think is very powerful.
So I absolutely support the amendment. And even if the amendment as drafted isn't acceptable to the government, I hope very much that the minister will consider it. And in the same way that the two noble lords, Faulkner and Parkinson of Whitley Bay, were able to get the success that Lord Falconer explained on the Employment Rights Act, that the minister perhaps could come back with a government amendment or some other way of delivering this important benefit for heritage railways.
The second thing I just wanted to touch on was amendment Amendments 95 and 101, which were in the names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and also signed by Lord Moylan. Now, the effect of these two amendments would be to require the rail strategy to be laid before Parliament, and for there to be the opportunity for a debate. At the moment the. The clause 15 in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish the document, but as it's currently set out and has some consultation requirements, but there's currently no requirement for any parliamentary process attached to the rail strategy, and I think it would be helpful if there were.
So the effect of those amendments, and it doesn't it doesn't trespass, I think, on on insisting that the the Parliament approves it. But what it does do is it means it's got to be laid before Parliament, available to the houses to be to debate. And if the houses do, the Secretary of State then has to respond to a resolution made by either House, and it. It, I think, forces the government to have a better relationship with Parliament.
And there are other significant statements by government which have a far more extensive parliamentary processes. So the Energy National Policy Statement has substantial consultation requirements, including a select committee review. The Planning and Infrastructure Act says that a national policy statement must be approved by a Commons resolution, so amendment 101 is much lighter touch. It enables a debate, but it doesn't require approval, and it doesn't enable select committees to make recommendations. It's based.
The structure is based on section nine of the Planning Act for national policy statements. And it seems to me, given the importance which ministers have placed on rail strategy, then I think it should embed in the the Bill that requirement for Parliament to at least be involved in the process in this relatively light touch way. So I think that would be welcome. And again, if if the minister doesn't find the particular solution acceptable, then I think it would be helpful if he could indicate that he's at least willing to go away and have a look at what he might be prepared to put in, in place.
The third area is on amendment 101 A, which Baroness Grey-thompson talked to, which is on the railways accessibility strategy. I listen very carefully to her, and I think her amendment, certainly the thrust of her amendment has merit. And again, I'm happy to listen to the minister. He has a very good track record in this area in, I think, all of the roles that he has held, both at TfL in his capacity when he was chair of Network Rail and in his current role.
And the only point I would add to what a noble lady or my noble friend, Baroness Gray Thompson said, was this the reason for putting it in? The strategy is the earlier you think about accessibility, the better it'll be delivered at the lowest cost. Both of those are very important. The second thing is it's not
20:13
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
More accessible for disabled people. They will be more accessible for everybody. The third thing I would just say is the reason about thinking about it early. It isn't just about the physical or rather the the requirements for for dealing with disabled people with a physical disability. It's also important to think about things like signage, information systems, the announcements that are made, the data that's available to enable people, for example, with a visual impairment or a hearing impairment, or someone perhaps who's got a learning disability but is in the workforce, needs , can't drive, perhaps needs to get to work, and may find some of the traditional ways we communicate that information difficult to handle.
And so all of those things need to be thought about. And as the noble lady said, there are a lot of people for whom public transport is the only way they can get about until perhaps we have more automated vehicles on the road. And that's why it's very important. And in fact, that that theme is something I'll touch on in a later group on, on one of the trade union amendments I've got, which is about consulting disabled people.
The final thing I just wanted to mention briefly, because this is a one of those occasions where I agree with Baroness Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Beith and others, is this point about integration. And I think the positive thing. I mean, I was pleased to be confirmed that the last time there was a significant amount of nationalisation, the nationalised body was completely useless at integrating anything, which just backs up my view about nationalisation.
But the government has a policy to nationalise, so I'm not going to reopen that argument. But the integration point, I agree, is very important. And I think, particularly now with the various information systems that are available for somebody on their phone, for example, to be able to plan a journey from door to door, whether it's a taxi or an Uber or a US to get to a train station, perhaps then to get to a airline trip and actually be able to look at all of that and see all that joined up, I think is very valuable.
One thing I would add is that it was very noticeable to me when I was Secretary of State. One of the roles that that mayors were doing in the money that they were bidding for from central government or asking central government for, was absolutely trying to deliver more integrated transport solutions. So actually, one of the things that mayors were able to do was look at the delivery of bus services, trams, light rail, rail services, and think about how they all fitted together using their convening powers and their investment and deliver that more integrated approach.
And that was something certainly when I was secretary of state, the central government was very keen to support. So, again, whether these amendments are drafted in the right way, I would urge the minister to think about how that need for integration can be reflected. Now, it is complex because, of course, there's no point requiring GDR to deliver integrated services when the other bits are delivered by other people. But at least if there's a duty on GBR to think about these things and interact with other bodies, whether it's local authorities, elected mayors or other people that deliver transport services, by the way, that will also include the private sector.
There are private sector mechanisms for getting to rail stations and again, sharing data, making sure all that seamless. That will give us a better transport system that's usable by more people, which I think will be benefit for for the economy. So this is one of those occasions on on where I can agree with Baroness Jones in her amendment. We don't get those opportunities very often. So I thought I'd particularly since she spoke and had to stay late as she'd intended, I thought I would give her that positive news.
In concluding my remarks.
And so all of those things need to be thought about. And as the noble lady said, there are a lot of people for whom public transport is the only way they can get about until perhaps we have more automated vehicles on the road. And that's why it's very important. And in fact, that that theme is something I'll touch on in a later group on, on one of the trade union amendments I've got, which is about consulting disabled people.
The final thing I just wanted to mention briefly, because this is a one of those occasions where I agree with Baroness Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Beith and others, is this point about integration. And I think the positive thing. I mean, I was pleased to be confirmed that the last time there was a significant amount of nationalisation, the nationalised body was completely useless at integrating anything, which just backs up my view about nationalisation.
But the government has a policy to nationalise, so I'm not going to reopen that argument. But the integration point, I agree, is very important. And I think, particularly now with the various information systems that are available for somebody on their phone, for example, to be able to plan a journey from door to door, whether it's a taxi or an Uber or a US to get to a train station, perhaps then to get to a airline trip and actually be able to look at all of that and see all that joined up, I think is very valuable.
One thing I would add is that it was very noticeable to me when I was Secretary of State. One of the roles that that mayors were doing in the money that they were bidding for from central government or asking central government for, was absolutely trying to deliver more integrated transport solutions. So actually, one of the things that mayors were able to do was look at the delivery of bus services, trams, light rail, rail services, and think about how they all fitted together using their convening powers and their investment and deliver that more integrated approach.
And that was something certainly when I was secretary of state, the central government was very keen to support. So, again, whether these amendments are drafted in the right way, I would urge the minister to think about how that need for integration can be reflected. Now, it is complex because, of course, there's no point requiring GDR to deliver integrated services when the other bits are delivered by other people. But at least if there's a duty on GBR to think about these things and interact with other bodies, whether it's local authorities, elected mayors or other people that deliver transport services, by the way, that will also include the private sector.
There are private sector mechanisms for getting to rail stations and again, sharing data, making sure all that seamless. That will give us a better transport system that's usable by more people, which I think will be benefit for for the economy. So this is one of those occasions on on where I can agree with Baroness Jones in her amendment. We don't get those opportunities very often. So I thought I'd particularly since she spoke and had to stay late as she'd intended, I thought I would give her that positive news.
In concluding my remarks.
20:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, first of all, I'd like to talk to my amendment 92, which would require the rail strategy to cover a 30 year period. Now the noble Lord, the Minister at the start of our session today, talked about a paper that's been published today about the strategy. I've not seen it. I've not received any email about this. And I am completely on my inbox. And I would have hoped that officials could have sent that to us before we had come in today.
So I would be grateful if that could be sent round to noble Lords who are working on this bill, so we can look at that. So my words are, without having seen what you've published today, which may do exactly what I want, that this rail strategy should cover a 30 year period. I'm sure noble Lords will be only too aware that an organisation like Great British Railways, with its vast infrastructure, multiple services delivered, including the growth in rail freight and, of course, we hope in passengers it's complex.
Different parts of the railway will have different needs for investment decisions on rolling stock, electrification, station modernisation, workforce planning, passenger experience. They simply can't be taken on those short political cycles. And the rail strategy also needs to ensure it meets the needs of every part of the country. So rural communities are not always well served by the railway, and these communities need to be considered fully as part of a long term 30 year strategy, which would provide the vision and the clear steps to make that vision a reality.
I really would hope the noble Lord, the minister, will consider my amendment and the request that's in it carefully. Other amendments in this group require consultation with lots of organisations as part of the strategy's development. Surely any good organisation is going to do that, and I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can assure us of that. My noble friend Lord beats amendment 105 is very important, as the discussion has has shown, highlights the importance of integration with the railway, with other modes of transport and ensuring timetables align.
And if we want people to buy tickets, which then can move on to include bus travel and so on, then the coordination infrastructure needs to make this easy. And as we've heard, the bus or the ferry or whatever not be leaving three minutes before the train arrives. And that to me is part of what the added value of Great British Railways, whether it's the model I support or not, what is the difference you are making to people's onward travel? What is the difference that this new structure is going to make? That coordination, I think is really, really important.
And Baroness Jones's amendment makes a really similar point, and I hope we hear something positive from the noble Lord, the minister, on that. The points about heritage rail railways, which have been made by the noble Lord Parkinson and and noble Lord Faulkner, have really special interest in this area, I think have been made so clearly, and I I'm. I hope we can hear some positive response on that. And Baroness Gray Thompson's amendment, supported by my noble friend Baroness Brinton, is so important and would be part of this 30 year strategy as I would see it, you know, I mean, it shouldn't be rocket science to be able to join up, being able to book the tickets and the support you need to use the railway in one simple way.
And also this should be part of a programme and strategy and the whole debate about mobility aids, I think really important point on public transport in London, e-scooters as in two Wheeler devices that many people use and were banned on public transport. They were banned on buses the next day. Very next day, I had people on their mobility scooters not able to get on buses in Kingston because they had interpreted this, this rule wrongly, and it was affecting disabled people's ability to use public transport to get about their everyday business.
So it's really important that that is looked at as part of this. It's been a really good debate, and I know certainly some of this area the minister has a strong track record in, and I look forward to hearing his response, whether he'll support this 30 year strategy.
So I would be grateful if that could be sent round to noble Lords who are working on this bill, so we can look at that. So my words are, without having seen what you've published today, which may do exactly what I want, that this rail strategy should cover a 30 year period. I'm sure noble Lords will be only too aware that an organisation like Great British Railways, with its vast infrastructure, multiple services delivered, including the growth in rail freight and, of course, we hope in passengers it's complex.
Different parts of the railway will have different needs for investment decisions on rolling stock, electrification, station modernisation, workforce planning, passenger experience. They simply can't be taken on those short political cycles. And the rail strategy also needs to ensure it meets the needs of every part of the country. So rural communities are not always well served by the railway, and these communities need to be considered fully as part of a long term 30 year strategy, which would provide the vision and the clear steps to make that vision a reality.
I really would hope the noble Lord, the minister, will consider my amendment and the request that's in it carefully. Other amendments in this group require consultation with lots of organisations as part of the strategy's development. Surely any good organisation is going to do that, and I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can assure us of that. My noble friend Lord beats amendment 105 is very important, as the discussion has has shown, highlights the importance of integration with the railway, with other modes of transport and ensuring timetables align.
And if we want people to buy tickets, which then can move on to include bus travel and so on, then the coordination infrastructure needs to make this easy. And as we've heard, the bus or the ferry or whatever not be leaving three minutes before the train arrives. And that to me is part of what the added value of Great British Railways, whether it's the model I support or not, what is the difference you are making to people's onward travel? What is the difference that this new structure is going to make? That coordination, I think is really, really important.
And Baroness Jones's amendment makes a really similar point, and I hope we hear something positive from the noble Lord, the minister, on that. The points about heritage rail railways, which have been made by the noble Lord Parkinson and and noble Lord Faulkner, have really special interest in this area, I think have been made so clearly, and I I'm. I hope we can hear some positive response on that. And Baroness Gray Thompson's amendment, supported by my noble friend Baroness Brinton, is so important and would be part of this 30 year strategy as I would see it, you know, I mean, it shouldn't be rocket science to be able to join up, being able to book the tickets and the support you need to use the railway in one simple way.
And also this should be part of a programme and strategy and the whole debate about mobility aids, I think really important point on public transport in London, e-scooters as in two Wheeler devices that many people use and were banned on public transport. They were banned on buses the next day. Very next day, I had people on their mobility scooters not able to get on buses in Kingston because they had interpreted this, this rule wrongly, and it was affecting disabled people's ability to use public transport to get about their everyday business.
So it's really important that that is looked at as part of this. It's been a really good debate, and I know certainly some of this area the minister has a strong track record in, and I look forward to hearing his response, whether he'll support this 30 year strategy.
20:22
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, could I start by echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, but going a great deal further? I'm genuinely very angry. We are here today to discuss the long term rail strategy. Looking forward on the list of groupings coming up, I think I'm right in saying this is our only opportunity directly to discuss the long term rail strategy. And yet the minister has announced that a new document has appeared today setting out the parameters, I believe, and the instantiation of the long term rail strategy.
I'm a little further advanced than the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, because I have now got access to it on my iPhone. It's a PD, a lengthy PDF document. I find it very difficult to read with my eyesight on my iPhone. It's worse than useless, but nonetheless, I have at least got a link to it. Now. We do not know what it says, and the minister has said earlier on an earlier group that he hopes to tell us in the course of debate, give us an idea of what it contains.
But he is speaking last, so we will have the debate, and only then will we get the summary of what the document contains, and after that we will, over the next few days, have an opportunity to read it. And I think this is completely contemptuous of the committee, and I'm genuinely very angry about it. Now, as far as the debate that we have had is concerned, obviously, one is very sympathetic to the horrendous stories told by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson.
One is supportive of the heritage industry, rail industry in general, though I note we're going to have another debate on that later on. Unlike the long term rail strategy, we will be returning to Heritage Rail, and I also thought the speech by my noble friend Lord Grayling was very, very wise. Are we moving to a monopoly? You know, we have 25% of rail movements at the moment. Will not be GBR rail.
What's the target for that? What's the vision? You know, 10 or 20 years from now is GBR going to be doing 80%, 85%? Is the sector or the private sectors being squeezed out as the noble Lord, Lord Grayling said, or is the target for them to be doing less? What is it we don't know. What does the future hold? We're giving all these powers to Great British Railways with very few constraints, indeed, very few checks, and we do not know where they are taking us.
Now, I want to refer very briefly to the amendment by my noble friend Lord Lansley, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke. And I do not need, therefore, to say what it contains. But essentially it requires a form of parliamentary scrutiny of the long term rail strategy before it is adopted. And I particularly want to refer to that because I am moving to my amendments 96 and 97 a both of these amendments have been drafted in the light of recommendations of the Transport Select Committee in the other place, and I have had an opportunity to discuss them with the chairman of the Transport Select Committee and the other place, the transport.
The First Amendment refers not to the parliamentary scrutiny of the long term rail strategy, because that's been dealt with, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Landseer's amendment. But what happens when changes are made to the long term rail strategy and the thrust of the amendment, and very much the view of the Transport Select Committee, is that those changes should be subject to a similar form of parliamentary scrutiny as the original document, because the fear that the long term that the Transport Select Committee has expressed is that the long term rail strategy, because it can be changed by the Secretary of State, will become what they think of as a series of short term rail strategies, which, of course, is no strategy at all.
It's simply lurching from one plan to another in the light of the money made available by the Treasury. And so putting some form of check on the Secretary of State so that those changes have to be considered equally is a very important consideration. That is 96. A 97 A is again from the Transport Select Committee. It specifically, the committee specifically recommended that mayoral strategic authorities should be statutory consultees on the long term rail strategy.
Evidence to the committee described their absence as a little bit out of kilter quotes that was in quotes with the government's wider ambitions for devolution. Now, surely Scottish ministers, the mayor of London, mayors across England should have a formal opportunity to contribute when it is prepared, revised or replaced. The governments say they want greater devolution and these amendments give effect to that amendment. 100 is similar. The British Transport Police has unique expertise in the safety aspects and the policing aspects of running the railway, and it should surely be an obligation on the government to consult them about the long term.
And the Chief Constable, in fact, about the long term rail strategy, they should be formally consulted. Amendment 98, which is not in my name, but in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, has a similar effect in relation to the Office of Rail and Road. Should not the Office of Rail and Road be consulted about the long term rail strategy before it's published, before it's prepared and published? Amendment 102 strengthens the obligation of GBR in relation to the long term rail strategy.
At the moment, GBR is required to have regard to the objectives set out in the long term rail strategy. My amendment would improve on that and would require them to seek to achieve those objectives. So there is a strong sense of direction from the Secretary of State, embodied in the long term rail strategy. My Lords, those are the amendments I have in relation to the long term rail strategy. They're none of them is revolutionary.
All of them, I think, make it more effective and more relevant. I hope the government will be able to accept them, but I cannot sit down without repeating that. I think there is something of a farce involved in having this discussion. While the minister is now going to explain what it is we've been discussing.
I'm a little further advanced than the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, because I have now got access to it on my iPhone. It's a PD, a lengthy PDF document. I find it very difficult to read with my eyesight on my iPhone. It's worse than useless, but nonetheless, I have at least got a link to it. Now. We do not know what it says, and the minister has said earlier on an earlier group that he hopes to tell us in the course of debate, give us an idea of what it contains.
But he is speaking last, so we will have the debate, and only then will we get the summary of what the document contains, and after that we will, over the next few days, have an opportunity to read it. And I think this is completely contemptuous of the committee, and I'm genuinely very angry about it. Now, as far as the debate that we have had is concerned, obviously, one is very sympathetic to the horrendous stories told by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson.
One is supportive of the heritage industry, rail industry in general, though I note we're going to have another debate on that later on. Unlike the long term rail strategy, we will be returning to Heritage Rail, and I also thought the speech by my noble friend Lord Grayling was very, very wise. Are we moving to a monopoly? You know, we have 25% of rail movements at the moment. Will not be GBR rail.
What's the target for that? What's the vision? You know, 10 or 20 years from now is GBR going to be doing 80%, 85%? Is the sector or the private sectors being squeezed out as the noble Lord, Lord Grayling said, or is the target for them to be doing less? What is it we don't know. What does the future hold? We're giving all these powers to Great British Railways with very few constraints, indeed, very few checks, and we do not know where they are taking us.
Now, I want to refer very briefly to the amendment by my noble friend Lord Lansley, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke. And I do not need, therefore, to say what it contains. But essentially it requires a form of parliamentary scrutiny of the long term rail strategy before it is adopted. And I particularly want to refer to that because I am moving to my amendments 96 and 97 a both of these amendments have been drafted in the light of recommendations of the Transport Select Committee in the other place, and I have had an opportunity to discuss them with the chairman of the Transport Select Committee and the other place, the transport.
The First Amendment refers not to the parliamentary scrutiny of the long term rail strategy, because that's been dealt with, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Landseer's amendment. But what happens when changes are made to the long term rail strategy and the thrust of the amendment, and very much the view of the Transport Select Committee, is that those changes should be subject to a similar form of parliamentary scrutiny as the original document, because the fear that the long term that the Transport Select Committee has expressed is that the long term rail strategy, because it can be changed by the Secretary of State, will become what they think of as a series of short term rail strategies, which, of course, is no strategy at all.
It's simply lurching from one plan to another in the light of the money made available by the Treasury. And so putting some form of check on the Secretary of State so that those changes have to be considered equally is a very important consideration. That is 96. A 97 A is again from the Transport Select Committee. It specifically, the committee specifically recommended that mayoral strategic authorities should be statutory consultees on the long term rail strategy.
Evidence to the committee described their absence as a little bit out of kilter quotes that was in quotes with the government's wider ambitions for devolution. Now, surely Scottish ministers, the mayor of London, mayors across England should have a formal opportunity to contribute when it is prepared, revised or replaced. The governments say they want greater devolution and these amendments give effect to that amendment. 100 is similar. The British Transport Police has unique expertise in the safety aspects and the policing aspects of running the railway, and it should surely be an obligation on the government to consult them about the long term.
And the Chief Constable, in fact, about the long term rail strategy, they should be formally consulted. Amendment 98, which is not in my name, but in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, has a similar effect in relation to the Office of Rail and Road. Should not the Office of Rail and Road be consulted about the long term rail strategy before it's published, before it's prepared and published? Amendment 102 strengthens the obligation of GBR in relation to the long term rail strategy.
At the moment, GBR is required to have regard to the objectives set out in the long term rail strategy. My amendment would improve on that and would require them to seek to achieve those objectives. So there is a strong sense of direction from the Secretary of State, embodied in the long term rail strategy. My Lords, those are the amendments I have in relation to the long term rail strategy. They're none of them is revolutionary.
All of them, I think, make it more effective and more relevant. I hope the government will be able to accept them, but I cannot sit down without repeating that. I think there is something of a farce involved in having this discussion. While the minister is now going to explain what it is we've been discussing.
20:29
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Noble Lords, I I'm pleased that there's so much agreement that we need a genuine long term plan for the railway. Indeed, the noble Baroness Pigeon's counterpart in the other place call it the strongest element of the. Of the Bill. I believe we share the same vision for the genuine change that the long term rail strategy can provide the industry and the country. I'm sorry that noble Lords haven't received the consultation document for.
That's what it is. It's not the strategy. It's itself, of course. It's a document about the strategy and to the extent to which they haven't received them at all, I'll make sure that they have a copy on a form that can be read either this evening or tomorrow morning. And I'm sorry about the timing. Amendment 90 on Heritage Rail. Well, the noble Lord Parkinson and other noble lords here know that I'm a strong supporter of these services, but I'm I'm I don't think the strategy is the right place for consideration of heritage.
Rail strategy is intended to be where the Secretary of State sets out the strategic objectives, priorities and challenges for the railway over the next 30 years. These are very much things at the level like 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. Whilst I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the past informing the future, I hope that noble Lord would 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, in my view, are better considered as part of, for example, the access and use policy. And indeed, that's 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 pleased, as I am, to see that the draft Access and Use policy, published last week included mention of heritage services, showing they are considered at the heart of Gbr's access decisions, make access decision making alongside freight and other non GBR passenger services.
I would also want to avoid a too hasty consideration of heritage. Railway routes as part of the national network were, at least at present. That poses very significant challenges, some of their finances and indeed their existence. But I will return to this subject in Group seven with amendment 118, which will deal also with points that the. My noble friend Lord Barclay raised.
That's what it is. It's not the strategy. It's itself, of course. It's a document about the strategy and to the extent to which they haven't received them at all, I'll make sure that they have a copy on a form that can be read either this evening or tomorrow morning. And I'm sorry about the timing. Amendment 90 on Heritage Rail. Well, the noble Lord Parkinson and other noble lords here know that I'm a strong supporter of these services, but I'm I'm I don't think the strategy is the right place for consideration of heritage.
Rail strategy is intended to be where the Secretary of State sets out the strategic objectives, priorities and challenges for the railway over the next 30 years. These are very much things at the level like 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. Whilst I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the past informing the future, I hope that noble Lord would 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, in my view, are better considered as part of, for example, the access and use policy. And indeed, that's 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 pleased, as I am, to see that the draft Access and Use policy, published last week included mention of heritage services, showing they are considered at the heart of Gbr's access decisions, make access decision making alongside freight and other non GBR passenger services.
I would also want to avoid a too hasty consideration of heritage. Railway routes as part of the national network were, at least at present. That poses very significant challenges, some of their finances and indeed their existence. But I will return to this subject in Group seven with amendment 118, which will deal also with points that the. My noble friend Lord Barclay raised.
20:32
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Just before the Minister moves on. Can I just raise one point? And then obviously the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, gets to speak at the end. I follow his argument about whether the strategy is the right place. The only thing I would be concerned about is if the things in the strategy, if. In order to achieve them, it means that GBR takes decisions which have the not intended consequence, but the actual consequence that the impact heritage railways and they haven't thought about that or taken that into account at that stage.
So again, it may be that it's not right to include the sort of full consideration of heritage railways in the strategy document. What I wouldn't want to do, though, is have it done at a level down, but then decisions are taken about the overall network which impact it. So I'll just throw that one out there and then I'll can no doubt respond when he sums up at the end.
So again, it may be that it's not right to include the sort of full consideration of heritage railways in the strategy document. What I wouldn't want to do, though, is have it done at a level down, but then decisions are taken about the overall network which impact it. So I'll just throw that one out there and then I'll can no doubt respond when he sums up at the end.
20:33
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I thank the noble Lord. I. I was looking at what I might say in Group seven about amendment 118, and I think that what I might say might well deal with that. But clearly the access that this sort on the national network is access for specific trains at specific times, and therefore it's in it's it's in the access and use arrangements that, that, that, that's that, that, that's formalized. But of course, those services do actually pay track access charges.
So it's on, on, on the whole, it's in GBR interest to want to run them, providing that it's capable of actually finding the paths. And we will come to that in a moment. 118 amendment nine.
So it's on, on, on the whole, it's in GBR interest to want to run them, providing that it's capable of actually finding the paths. And we will come to that in a moment. 118 amendment nine.
20:34
20:34
20:34
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I'll think about that, if I may. There are various phrases about tourist charter and heritage I. I was replicating the noble Lord Parkinson's use of heritage to embrace all three of them, and I think that's probably the best way of doing it. Some of the heritage, I think, is questionable, because it seems to me in my recent. To be in my recent life. But then I'm old now. But I think we I think what we're doing is talking about heritage through both charter and tourist train.
20:34
20:34
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And the noble Lord is nodding. So I feel reasonably confident about that. On amendment. Turning to amendments 92, 95, 96, A 97, a 101, 98, 99 and 100. Whilst I appreciate the intent of amendment 92, it's not clear to me that the bill needs to set out. The strategy will be 30 years long. We've stated a clear intent for the strategy to cover 30 years in multiple locations, including in the strategy's fact sheet and the bill's explanatory notes.
I think I've already said it at the dispatch o in the despatch box in the other place. I'm sorry, and I'm happy to confirm it here again today. I can also confirm it will feature in the discussion document on the long term rail strategy, which we've referred to. Although nothing in the bill requires a strategy 30 years long. I would say to noble Baroness Pidgeon that the president plays a strong role in government on amendment 95, 101 and 96 a.
The bill also. The bill already requires the strategy to be published, and we've also committed to the Transport Select Committee to place copies in the House 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 will also apply to any changes to the strategy. I'm confident that if the strategy were to fall short of its 30 year goal, or if members of this House took issue with its contents, there will be many, including the noble Baroness and noble Lords, present at this committee, ready and willing to hold the government to account, including requesting a debate without needing to say that in legislation.
I don't agree with amendments 97, A 98, 99 and 100, the the one, the one, excuse me. 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 and 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 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 our respective strategies are aligned. But the Bill reflects the devolution settlements in rail, and I'd add, my Lords, that the Scottish Government have consented to this Bill as drafted and whilst I agree that measures play a crucial role in local transport planning in economic development, I don't think it's necessary to name every single one of them as consultees on the strategy.
I can, however, absolutely 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. And when when in the in the document that we published today.
I think I've already said it at the dispatch o in the despatch box in the other place. I'm sorry, and I'm happy to confirm it here again today. I can also confirm it will feature in the discussion document on the long term rail strategy, which we've referred to. Although nothing in the bill requires a strategy 30 years long. I would say to noble Baroness Pidgeon that the president plays a strong role in government on amendment 95, 101 and 96 a.
The bill also. The bill already requires the strategy to be published, and we've also committed to the Transport Select Committee to place copies in the House 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 will also apply to any changes to the strategy. I'm confident that if the strategy were to fall short of its 30 year goal, or if members of this House took issue with its contents, there will be many, including the noble Baroness and noble Lords, present at this committee, ready and willing to hold the government to account, including requesting a debate without needing to say that in legislation.
I don't agree with amendments 97, A 98, 99 and 100, the the one, the one, excuse me. 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 and 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 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 our respective strategies are aligned. But the Bill reflects the devolution settlements in rail, and I'd add, my Lords, that the Scottish Government have consented to this Bill as drafted and whilst I agree that measures play a crucial role in local transport planning in economic development, I don't think it's necessary to name every single one of them as consultees on the strategy.
I can, however, absolutely 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. And when when in the in the document that we published today.
20:38
20:38
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Seen on on amendment 98, the role of the LRR is that of a regulator and advisor. It's not for the author to set out priorities for the railway for 30 years. That is clearly for the government of the day to do and for the LRR to provide advice about how that vision is actioned. That's exactly what the lrr 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 wider priorities set out in the long term strategy.
The government will, of course, engage with the LRR and the development of the strategy, as we do in the development of almost all railway publications. But this is regular business and doesn't require 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 deliver that vision and and they will be involved, of course, as because as a routine matter of business, the government engages freight and passenger operators regularly.
And we've had multiple discussions on the development of the strategy already. It's allowed them to feed in without the requirement for them to be formally consulted. They will also be consulted on GWR's business plan, which will explain how the railway industry will achieve the Secretary of State's objectives and the access and use policy deals with consultation on access decisions and service frequency. On consulting the British Transport Police. Whilst amendment 100.
Whilst I agree that safety and security are absolutely key for users of the railways and that the British Transport Police are critical to supporting this 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 then gives business planning, will work out how to achieve her goals, and 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 Orer will be expected to demonstrate how they've considered the strategies and how their activities align with the objectives set over time. As already mentioned, GB Offers business Plan will set out how it will work towards delivering the long term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers strategy, and within the business plan, it will set measurable KPI targets to help it achieve the overarching long term goals.
Secretary of state will only sign the business plan off after the author has confirmed that the plans align with these strategies and GBR other duties. I propose not to talk to amendments 103 and 104. As I note the note. The noble Lord Lansley, who isn't in his place today, and I agreed last. And I agreed not last week not to repeat. Repeat the debate as I said.
Then I will reflect on the valuable points he's made on amendment to 105 and 128. I would just like to briefly address the Moreton in the Marsh Transport Hub collaboration. I raised. I'm 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 whilst I can't pre-empt the community infrastructure levy process, I would encourage the Town Council and the Great Western Railway to continue their engagement with it, and I look forward to hearing more about this in the future.
I hope that will do him. Government agrees with the noble Lord and Baroness about the importance of integrating rail passenger services without services with other public transport modes, which is why we published strategy for Integrated Transport in April this year, which set out our ambition to create a simpler, more connected and people focused transport network across England. In addition, I've also committed to the long term rail strategy, including objectives to improve the integration of railway services with other modes of transport.
The discussion document discusses the importance of multi-modal.
The government will, of course, engage with the LRR and the development of the strategy, as we do in the development of almost all railway publications. But this is regular business and doesn't require 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 deliver that vision and and they will be involved, of course, as because as a routine matter of business, the government engages freight and passenger operators regularly.
And we've had multiple discussions on the development of the strategy already. It's allowed them to feed in without the requirement for them to be formally consulted. They will also be consulted on GWR's business plan, which will explain how the railway industry will achieve the Secretary of State's objectives and the access and use policy deals with consultation on access decisions and service frequency. On consulting the British Transport Police. Whilst amendment 100.
Whilst I agree that safety and security are absolutely key for users of the railways and that the British Transport Police are critical to supporting this 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 then gives business planning, will work out how to achieve her goals, and 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 Orer will be expected to demonstrate how they've considered the strategies and how their activities align with the objectives set over time. As already mentioned, GB Offers business Plan will set out how it will work towards delivering the long term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers strategy, and within the business plan, it will set measurable KPI targets to help it achieve the overarching long term goals.
Secretary of state will only sign the business plan off after the author has confirmed that the plans align with these strategies and GBR other duties. I propose not to talk to amendments 103 and 104. As I note the note. The noble Lord Lansley, who isn't in his place today, and I agreed last. And I agreed not last week not to repeat. Repeat the debate as I said.
Then I will reflect on the valuable points he's made on amendment to 105 and 128. I would just like to briefly address the Moreton in the Marsh Transport Hub collaboration. I raised. I'm 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 whilst I can't pre-empt the community infrastructure levy process, I would encourage the Town Council and the Great Western Railway to continue their engagement with it, and I look forward to hearing more about this in the future.
I hope that will do him. Government agrees with the noble Lord and Baroness about the importance of integrating rail passenger services without services with other public transport modes, which is why we published strategy for Integrated Transport in April this year, which set out our ambition to create a simpler, more connected and people focused transport network across England. In addition, I've also committed to the long term rail strategy, including objectives to improve the integration of railway services with other modes of transport.
The discussion document discusses the importance of multi-modal.
20:42
20:42
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
In it 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 the no. When noble Lords read the Secretary of State's introduction, they will see commitment to integration set out there too. Building also includes practical measures to integrated transport. A reality beyond the Secretary of State will be both 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've already discussed, GBR will have regard to local transport plans, which will naturally lead to improvements in connectivity by encouraging collaboration with males. Authorities who have responsibility for wider local transport services. The bill also continues to enable the local devolution of railways. The government has published guidance to support this, creating more opportunities for integration of train and bus services. If the noble Baroness Jones is talking about the commitment in the 1993 act I, I'm firmly convinced that the commitments in this bill to the mayoral combined authorities and the other commitments that I've discussed meet that commitment from the 1993 act.
And I would just say in. In passing to the noble Lord Harper that he. He can have his own views about British Rail and integration. But in fact, it used to be quite good. And it's the deregulation of buses outside London in 1985 that destroyed a lot of the integration over much of England. Until that until 1986, for example, railway tickets were interoperable with bus services. But that act finished that off on amendment 101 A from the noble Baroness Grey-thompson.
It was a pleasure to discuss all of the issues that she spoke about today, and more with her and the noble Baroness 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 will deliver an integrated plan. It's 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 standalone issue. Noble Lords will see in the discussion document that improving accessibility is a key part of the objectives to evolve the passenger offer to better meet needs and encourage more people to use the railway. I can absolutely assure the committee government is looking to do engagement on the development of the strategy with disability groups in the coming months. The noble Baroness eloquently set out what should be included in accessibility strategy.
I'm more than happy to take it away and discuss it with her and the noble Baroness Brinton. Further, I should say two final things before I sit down. One of which is that on the noble Baroness referred to Railway Replacement Services , and the Minister for buses in the other place, and I have pursued accessibility on those. I believe, rightly, because of what she said, and many people's experiences, and we are seeking to change this.
It will, of course, be easier with GBR, and in the meantime, I'll raise the issue of scooter acceptance with all the operators we control tomorrow morning.
In addition, as we've already discussed, GBR will have regard to local transport plans, which will naturally lead to improvements in connectivity by encouraging collaboration with males. Authorities who have responsibility for wider local transport services. The bill also continues to enable the local devolution of railways. The government has published guidance to support this, creating more opportunities for integration of train and bus services. If the noble Baroness Jones is talking about the commitment in the 1993 act I, I'm firmly convinced that the commitments in this bill to the mayoral combined authorities and the other commitments that I've discussed meet that commitment from the 1993 act.
And I would just say in. In passing to the noble Lord Harper that he. He can have his own views about British Rail and integration. But in fact, it used to be quite good. And it's the deregulation of buses outside London in 1985 that destroyed a lot of the integration over much of England. Until that until 1986, for example, railway tickets were interoperable with bus services. But that act finished that off on amendment 101 A from the noble Baroness Grey-thompson.
It was a pleasure to discuss all of the issues that she spoke about today, and more with her and the noble Baroness 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 will deliver an integrated plan. It's 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 standalone issue. Noble Lords will see in the discussion document that improving accessibility is a key part of the objectives to evolve the passenger offer to better meet needs and encourage more people to use the railway. I can absolutely assure the committee government is looking to do engagement on the development of the strategy with disability groups in the coming months. The noble Baroness eloquently set out what should be included in accessibility strategy.
I'm more than happy to take it away and discuss it with her and the noble Baroness Brinton. Further, I should say two final things before I sit down. One of which is that on the noble Baroness referred to Railway Replacement Services , and the Minister for buses in the other place, and I have pursued accessibility on those. I believe, rightly, because of what she said, and many people's experiences, and we are seeking to change this.
It will, of course, be easier with GBR, and in the meantime, I'll raise the issue of scooter acceptance with all the operators we control tomorrow morning.
20:46
20:46
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all the noble Lords who spoke in support of amendment 90, which the noble and I tabled, including the noble Lords Lord Beith, Lord Berkeley, Lord Walker of Worcester, the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, and my noble friends, Lord Grayling, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan. And I focus my remarks on amendment 90. But in passing, I do just want to say how much I agreed with the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson, made in relation to her amendment, and in particular the Unacceptability, that people who rely on certain forms of electric, wheelchair or mobility scooter can't get to Whitley Bay on the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is absolutely right to raise that and much else, was heartened by the response of the noble Lord Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord peace amendment on connecting services was an important one. In connection here, I mentioned I visited the Bluebell Railway last month. In fact, when the friend who was going to give me a lift nearly rescinded the offer, the taking the Bluebell railway was any way I would have been able to reach the campsite we were staying at, and the noble Lord Lord was right to highlight the trials that have just been started by the Severn Valley Railway with a commuter service in in rush hour.
That might not be right or appropriate for every heritage railway, not least because of the extra burden it places on volunteers. But it is, I think, another reason why consideration of heritage rail services is something that the Secretary of State ought to consider in the long term strategy for our railways. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right to mention the challenges of timing both the sort of what time of day movements can happen, but also the short notice that is often involved.
And the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester and I have further amendments 222, 225 and 230 that touch on on this and other issues of of access which we can return to as the noble Lord. The Minister rightly says, we have an amendment as well, 118 in a later group that deals with the access and use policy, and it was very useful to have his his comments about that perhaps being the better place for the reference to heritage railways to come in.
Before we turn to that debate later in the committee's deliberations. So I'm very grateful to him for what the what he said on on this group as a prelude to that, and look forward to the debate on the access and use policy that we will have. But I would just note, of course, the the rail strategy in as set out in clause 15 of the bill, relates to the its long term strategy for I quote the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to.
Provided in Great Britain, where. Much heartened that the present Rail Minister and Secretary of State do want to see heritage rail services continuing. But we're legislating for an Act of Parliament that well long outlast their services in in government, and it will be useful to know whether every subsequent Secretary of State also wishes to see those services continuing, hence the probing that we've done there. So we'll return to this issue in the debate on access and use and in later stages, and with gratitude to the noble Lord, the Minister, and all those who've spoken, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 90.
The noble Lord, Lord peace amendment on connecting services was an important one. In connection here, I mentioned I visited the Bluebell Railway last month. In fact, when the friend who was going to give me a lift nearly rescinded the offer, the taking the Bluebell railway was any way I would have been able to reach the campsite we were staying at, and the noble Lord Lord was right to highlight the trials that have just been started by the Severn Valley Railway with a commuter service in in rush hour.
That might not be right or appropriate for every heritage railway, not least because of the extra burden it places on volunteers. But it is, I think, another reason why consideration of heritage rail services is something that the Secretary of State ought to consider in the long term strategy for our railways. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right to mention the challenges of timing both the sort of what time of day movements can happen, but also the short notice that is often involved.
And the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester and I have further amendments 222, 225 and 230 that touch on on this and other issues of of access which we can return to as the noble Lord. The Minister rightly says, we have an amendment as well, 118 in a later group that deals with the access and use policy, and it was very useful to have his his comments about that perhaps being the better place for the reference to heritage railways to come in.
Before we turn to that debate later in the committee's deliberations. So I'm very grateful to him for what the what he said on on this group as a prelude to that, and look forward to the debate on the access and use policy that we will have. But I would just note, of course, the the rail strategy in as set out in clause 15 of the bill, relates to the its long term strategy for I quote the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to.
Provided in Great Britain, where. Much heartened that the present Rail Minister and Secretary of State do want to see heritage rail services continuing. But we're legislating for an Act of Parliament that well long outlast their services in in government, and it will be useful to know whether every subsequent Secretary of State also wishes to see those services continuing, hence the probing that we've done there. So we'll return to this issue in the debate on access and use and in later stages, and with gratitude to the noble Lord, the Minister, and all those who've spoken, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 90.
20:50
20:50
20:50
20:50
20:50
20:50