Lords Grand Committee
Monday 12th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 14 hours, 57 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, it's immensely good that we're back here discussing this very slow Railways bill and the attempt it puts before us to recreate the railway system of the Soviet Union in Great Britain. Freight is an important part of our rail infrastructure, our rail business. Of course, it's very important everyone agrees on that. There's no dispute in this committee as to the importance of freight. But the bill is woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing the question of freight.
Now the government has a target, which is to increase rail freight by 75% by 2050. That has a target inherited from the conservative government. And of that target, I think I may say, who is in his place is my noble friend, Lord Harper, when he was Secretary of State for transport. So there is a commonality of view in support of that target. However, there is tremendous absence of detail and a great deal of vagueness about how that target is going to be achieved.
And in recent weeks, the government has announced that there is to be an interim target. That's a that is a helpful step, but the interim target is to have a 40% increase by 2040. 2040 is so long away that a great deal of the rail. I believe the rail freight rolling stock might well have been renewed by 2040. It's such a very long time away. It's no, it's not an effective target at all.
Now, now, this notion that rail is to have freight is to have its own target is both positive and negative. It's positive in the sense that it shows the government is behind freight wants to support its growth. Remember, these are private businesses, private businesses who businesses that have invested their own capital in freight. But they will be pleased to know that the government is generally supportive. But bear in mind that a cack handed and inept attempt by government to promote that target could start putting opposing targets and activities on the rail freight sector, which would be profoundly uncomfortable for them.
So I'm not suggesting there are any such at the moment, but the fear is always there. And then, of course, in the minds of the freight sector, and we will come to this in another group, there is the fear that the government is going and not the government. Great British Rail is going to be determining access to the network when it is also a competitor for the use of that capacity. So you will understand, noble Lords will understand that there is a degree of nervousness in the rail freight sector on both of those fronts.
I have two amendments in this group, one of them, 113 at the end of the group, calls for an annual report on progress that is so simple and straightforward that I think there can be no doubt that noble Lords would want to support it. Or at the very least, the government would want to give an assurance that whether it were part of the Bill or not, there would be an annual report and the government would commit itself at the despatch box to producing such a report.
That, I think, is barely requires any argument. Number 91, the First Amendment in the group, which is the one, the one leading the group is is the one, however, that I think requires a more subtle and nuanced response from the government than they've been willing to give so far, because it asks them to fill in, to some extent, the sort of detail that we need and that the rail freight sector needs in order to have that assurance that the government is going to achieve its target, not simply by some remote interim date, but by 2030.
What is its staging post 2030, for example, and how does it expect to get there? And secondly, that the means it is going to use to achieve that target are means that have been worked out carefully with the rail freight sector, are practical, are deliverable, and something that the private sector can accommodate and work with. Because all of these things in the railways, as the noble Lord, the minister knows better than anybody else, require long term planning and the private sector, the rail freight sector has to be involved in doing that.
And we want to hear from the noble Lord, the minister, that that involvement is going to be there. My Lords, I beg to move.
Now the government has a target, which is to increase rail freight by 75% by 2050. That has a target inherited from the conservative government. And of that target, I think I may say, who is in his place is my noble friend, Lord Harper, when he was Secretary of State for transport. So there is a commonality of view in support of that target. However, there is tremendous absence of detail and a great deal of vagueness about how that target is going to be achieved.
And in recent weeks, the government has announced that there is to be an interim target. That's a that is a helpful step, but the interim target is to have a 40% increase by 2040. 2040 is so long away that a great deal of the rail. I believe the rail freight rolling stock might well have been renewed by 2040. It's such a very long time away. It's no, it's not an effective target at all.
Now, now, this notion that rail is to have freight is to have its own target is both positive and negative. It's positive in the sense that it shows the government is behind freight wants to support its growth. Remember, these are private businesses, private businesses who businesses that have invested their own capital in freight. But they will be pleased to know that the government is generally supportive. But bear in mind that a cack handed and inept attempt by government to promote that target could start putting opposing targets and activities on the rail freight sector, which would be profoundly uncomfortable for them.
So I'm not suggesting there are any such at the moment, but the fear is always there. And then, of course, in the minds of the freight sector, and we will come to this in another group, there is the fear that the government is going and not the government. Great British Rail is going to be determining access to the network when it is also a competitor for the use of that capacity. So you will understand, noble Lords will understand that there is a degree of nervousness in the rail freight sector on both of those fronts.
I have two amendments in this group, one of them, 113 at the end of the group, calls for an annual report on progress that is so simple and straightforward that I think there can be no doubt that noble Lords would want to support it. Or at the very least, the government would want to give an assurance that whether it were part of the Bill or not, there would be an annual report and the government would commit itself at the despatch box to producing such a report.
That, I think, is barely requires any argument. Number 91, the First Amendment in the group, which is the one, the one leading the group is is the one, however, that I think requires a more subtle and nuanced response from the government than they've been willing to give so far, because it asks them to fill in, to some extent, the sort of detail that we need and that the rail freight sector needs in order to have that assurance that the government is going to achieve its target, not simply by some remote interim date, but by 2030.
What is its staging post 2030, for example, and how does it expect to get there? And secondly, that the means it is going to use to achieve that target are means that have been worked out carefully with the rail freight sector, are practical, are deliverable, and something that the private sector can accommodate and work with. Because all of these things in the railways, as the noble Lord, the minister knows better than anybody else, require long term planning and the private sector, the rail freight sector has to be involved in doing that.
And we want to hear from the noble Lord, the minister, that that involvement is going to be there. My Lords, I beg to move.
15:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Amendment proposed in clause 15, page nine. Line nine at end insert. See in brackets the development of rail freight network usage. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 106 in this group. Just a quick apology. Apology to Noble Lords for not being able to be here at the last committee session, when a number of amendments to which I put my name were debated. I'm very grateful to the noble Lords who spoke so well to those amendments better than I could have done.
So that was particularly helpful. This amendment and this group is about what the nature, in fact, what the specifics of that target should be. That clause 17 tells us that the Secretary of State must set a target to increase rail freight, but it doesn't tell us by how much. And of course, we know that in the recent past, rail freight has increased, but not by the required amount. On average, I think it's just about 1% a year on average.
Now, as my noble friend quite rightly said, in moving the initial amendment, we want to see rail freight grow. We've seen substantial investment. We need for for a range of purposes, both economic and environmental. We want to see an increase in rail freight activity. So I think we in the parliamentary task is to not only to say that the target must be for an increase, but to be quite clear that the target should be consistent with the with the targets that have been set by the government generally.
So the numbers matter. The. My noble friend said there was the inherited target of an increase by 2050 of 75%. Now the 2% per annum wasn't quite sufficient to do that. I think it would have had to be in excess of 2%, something like 2.1% every year, in order cumulatively to arrive at the target for 2050. The Secretary of State's target of achieving 40% by 2040 is actually consistent with 2% per annum compound increase in freight.
So by setting a 2% figure, it is effectively Parliament saying yes, we agree. And of course, if the increase was set at less than 2%, by definition, that is setting it at below the trajectory that is consistent with what the Secretary of State herself has given as the target. As it happens, 2% a year between now and 2040 might meet that target, but it doesn't actually do what we need for 2050. We would subsequently have to increase the rate of growth to 2.25% in the subsequent decade.
Now, as we've heard, the Secretary of State, in addition to setting an intermediate target, referred to a number of expectations, amongst which I thought quite notably was the increase of 65% in high value goods carried by freight over the period to 2040. I haven't extended the amendment, but I think it is worth just stopping and saying this is . This means some pretty substantial increases year on year. I want to just raise take this opportunity to raise with the minister, whom I've discussed this with, grateful for his those conversations that if we're going to increase the high value goods freight traffic, then there are a number of significant projects that need to be brought forward, not least, I think, in the long term rail strategy and the financing that the government is going to give to Great British Railways, I would you won't be surprised that I draw particular attention.
As a Suffolk resident and former member of Parliament in Cambridgeshire, to the importance of the Ely Junction and Hockley Junction improvements. The Ely Junction improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of about 5% five sorry of five and. And that as noble Lords who have been in the Department will know that that is quite a rare feat for a project to show a return on investment that is as good as that. It just hasn't been found.
The money . We know that the mayor, Paul Bristow, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, is committed to try to make this project come forward and is doing what he can by way of using his resources to tackle some of the level crossing issues. The issue is whether Great British Rail's Great British Rail, with the support of the government, will bring this forward because my calculation it's only my my working, working the numbers is that if Felixstowe has about a third of the UK container traffic, half of roughly what that brings forward.
These are tend to be the high value goods. By the definition of things like manufactured goods rather than construction materials, and Felixstowe has about a third of UK container traffic. About half of that goes via Ely and would benefit from the Ely Junction improvement. So when we look at that, something approaching 5% of total UK container traffic goes through Ely and the improvements could increase that, such that the capacity would increase by 40%.
So it's not an answer in itself. And there are other projects which noble Lords might be aware of, but there are other projects that will help to enable the freight traffic to move. But what the industry can't do for themselves is put the capacity, put the capacity on the line through the the improvements to the route. So what I'm asking the minister is to say, right, we should accept that in this in this clause, it is not just an increase, but it ought to be an increase consistent with the trajectory that meets the stated targets of the government.
And in order to make that happen, certainly by the mid 2030s, we need some major projects to increase the available capacity. And I think I hope that this amendment will commend itself. I, I take I take heart and comfort from the fact that it seems to be very consistent with the amendment 106 A that has been tabled by my noble friend, the former Secretary of State. And so I think, should he be noble Lords will find merit in setting the target in the way that is proposed.
So that was particularly helpful. This amendment and this group is about what the nature, in fact, what the specifics of that target should be. That clause 17 tells us that the Secretary of State must set a target to increase rail freight, but it doesn't tell us by how much. And of course, we know that in the recent past, rail freight has increased, but not by the required amount. On average, I think it's just about 1% a year on average.
Now, as my noble friend quite rightly said, in moving the initial amendment, we want to see rail freight grow. We've seen substantial investment. We need for for a range of purposes, both economic and environmental. We want to see an increase in rail freight activity. So I think we in the parliamentary task is to not only to say that the target must be for an increase, but to be quite clear that the target should be consistent with the with the targets that have been set by the government generally.
So the numbers matter. The. My noble friend said there was the inherited target of an increase by 2050 of 75%. Now the 2% per annum wasn't quite sufficient to do that. I think it would have had to be in excess of 2%, something like 2.1% every year, in order cumulatively to arrive at the target for 2050. The Secretary of State's target of achieving 40% by 2040 is actually consistent with 2% per annum compound increase in freight.
So by setting a 2% figure, it is effectively Parliament saying yes, we agree. And of course, if the increase was set at less than 2%, by definition, that is setting it at below the trajectory that is consistent with what the Secretary of State herself has given as the target. As it happens, 2% a year between now and 2040 might meet that target, but it doesn't actually do what we need for 2050. We would subsequently have to increase the rate of growth to 2.25% in the subsequent decade.
Now, as we've heard, the Secretary of State, in addition to setting an intermediate target, referred to a number of expectations, amongst which I thought quite notably was the increase of 65% in high value goods carried by freight over the period to 2040. I haven't extended the amendment, but I think it is worth just stopping and saying this is . This means some pretty substantial increases year on year. I want to just raise take this opportunity to raise with the minister, whom I've discussed this with, grateful for his those conversations that if we're going to increase the high value goods freight traffic, then there are a number of significant projects that need to be brought forward, not least, I think, in the long term rail strategy and the financing that the government is going to give to Great British Railways, I would you won't be surprised that I draw particular attention.
As a Suffolk resident and former member of Parliament in Cambridgeshire, to the importance of the Ely Junction and Hockley Junction improvements. The Ely Junction improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of about 5% five sorry of five and. And that as noble Lords who have been in the Department will know that that is quite a rare feat for a project to show a return on investment that is as good as that. It just hasn't been found.
The money . We know that the mayor, Paul Bristow, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, is committed to try to make this project come forward and is doing what he can by way of using his resources to tackle some of the level crossing issues. The issue is whether Great British Rail's Great British Rail, with the support of the government, will bring this forward because my calculation it's only my my working, working the numbers is that if Felixstowe has about a third of the UK container traffic, half of roughly what that brings forward.
These are tend to be the high value goods. By the definition of things like manufactured goods rather than construction materials, and Felixstowe has about a third of UK container traffic. About half of that goes via Ely and would benefit from the Ely Junction improvement. So when we look at that, something approaching 5% of total UK container traffic goes through Ely and the improvements could increase that, such that the capacity would increase by 40%.
So it's not an answer in itself. And there are other projects which noble Lords might be aware of, but there are other projects that will help to enable the freight traffic to move. But what the industry can't do for themselves is put the capacity, put the capacity on the line through the the improvements to the route. So what I'm asking the minister is to say, right, we should accept that in this in this clause, it is not just an increase, but it ought to be an increase consistent with the trajectory that meets the stated targets of the government.
And in order to make that happen, certainly by the mid 2030s, we need some major projects to increase the available capacity. And I think I hope that this amendment will commend itself. I, I take I take heart and comfort from the fact that it seems to be very consistent with the amendment 106 A that has been tabled by my noble friend, the former Secretary of State. And so I think, should he be noble Lords will find merit in setting the target in the way that is proposed.
15:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, let me just start. I would like to support all the amendments in this group. AM I, as noble Lords know, I was former chairman of the Rail Freight Group and some of the. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley has just mentioned are. Our dear. Have been dear to my heart for decades and including. Why the hell don't they electrify some of the routes to increase the capacity further? But I wanted to give an example which affects both access and charges relating to both noble Lords and very interesting speeches, because over the last few weeks I've had a.
I visited a Cornish lithium mine in Cornwall at their invitation. I don't know how many noble lords, how much they know about the Cornish China clay works, and the holes and the mountains and everything else, and the little baby railways that go everywhere, most of them not working any more, but some of them could be redone. Anyway, I was invited to to visit this work, which is in its final stages of getting fast track planning permission, which I think when the work then become complete, it will be producing something like 50% of the lithium ion that is needed in this country.
It is massive that a great big hole, but it's also then needs quite a lot of processing. It's not just pouring it into a truck and hoping it goes away. It has other other materials which it mixes in the in the process, including, I'm told, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite, and a drop of sulfuric acid to help it along. And the concern from the company who's developing this is that, yeah, they can get most of these raw materials from somewhere in the UK or from other UK ports.
But as it's going to be a continuous process of making the lithium, they can't rely on the these other materials not turning up. Now you can have a great big stockpile and they have got quite a big stockpile. But even so, they want some assurance that they'll be able to get get materials in by rail. Now, the other thing they've done, I think very sensibly is, is say to the residents of the clay, the clay pit area, which is if you haven't if noble Lords haven't been there, it's a lot of poverty there.
Awful roads. And when there are jobs, they're good jobs. But anyway, the. They have given an assurance to the local populace that all materials will come and go by rail. Now that's quite an assurance to give all materials. And so they're very, very keen to know how it'll be. Great British Railways by the time this starts, will will be able to guarantee that they can have a capacity to bring the various materials in from all the way around the country, some in large volumes, some in much smaller volumes, but all by rail.
And this is one which, when one looks at the priorities, which at the moment, if there's a if there's a problem and you can appeal to the order and that you hopefully gets dealt with properly. But if , if the Great British Railways decide that somewhere further up country, not necessarily in Devon and Cornwall, but further up country, they'd rather start a new passenger service on a line, which actually means that there'll be only one class for freight to this particular lithium ion factory a day, and that doesn't work.
Then the company is completely it's lost. It can't it can't continue to operate. So I the same comment applies, of course, to many of the cargos that noble Lord Lawrence has just mentioned. It's . It's a misconception that freight doesn't mind when it goes or like to like to know where it's going. It doesn't it doesn't always mind when it goes. Whereas, of course, passengers are much more important than they do mind as we've been debating.
But I think we have to have some assurance in the legislation that customers can get the train path that they believe they need within reason, and if not, that there is an appeal mechanism. And that's why the the role of the Orer is, is so absolutely vital here. So I hope my noble friend will be able to explain that this is going to be all right in the night. And there'll be my.
One of these companies in Cornwall at least, can run trains when they. When they want, and at a reasonable price, because of course that's another issue which may end up with the order. But I think it's very important that we look at the. The different demands of customers, whether they're passenger customers or freight demand freight customers and try and make sure that their priorities are looked after again, independently. So I support these amendments, and I shall be coming back from some of the other ones.
I visited a Cornish lithium mine in Cornwall at their invitation. I don't know how many noble lords, how much they know about the Cornish China clay works, and the holes and the mountains and everything else, and the little baby railways that go everywhere, most of them not working any more, but some of them could be redone. Anyway, I was invited to to visit this work, which is in its final stages of getting fast track planning permission, which I think when the work then become complete, it will be producing something like 50% of the lithium ion that is needed in this country.
It is massive that a great big hole, but it's also then needs quite a lot of processing. It's not just pouring it into a truck and hoping it goes away. It has other other materials which it mixes in the in the process, including, I'm told, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite, and a drop of sulfuric acid to help it along. And the concern from the company who's developing this is that, yeah, they can get most of these raw materials from somewhere in the UK or from other UK ports.
But as it's going to be a continuous process of making the lithium, they can't rely on the these other materials not turning up. Now you can have a great big stockpile and they have got quite a big stockpile. But even so, they want some assurance that they'll be able to get get materials in by rail. Now, the other thing they've done, I think very sensibly is, is say to the residents of the clay, the clay pit area, which is if you haven't if noble Lords haven't been there, it's a lot of poverty there.
Awful roads. And when there are jobs, they're good jobs. But anyway, the. They have given an assurance to the local populace that all materials will come and go by rail. Now that's quite an assurance to give all materials. And so they're very, very keen to know how it'll be. Great British Railways by the time this starts, will will be able to guarantee that they can have a capacity to bring the various materials in from all the way around the country, some in large volumes, some in much smaller volumes, but all by rail.
And this is one which, when one looks at the priorities, which at the moment, if there's a if there's a problem and you can appeal to the order and that you hopefully gets dealt with properly. But if , if the Great British Railways decide that somewhere further up country, not necessarily in Devon and Cornwall, but further up country, they'd rather start a new passenger service on a line, which actually means that there'll be only one class for freight to this particular lithium ion factory a day, and that doesn't work.
Then the company is completely it's lost. It can't it can't continue to operate. So I the same comment applies, of course, to many of the cargos that noble Lord Lawrence has just mentioned. It's . It's a misconception that freight doesn't mind when it goes or like to like to know where it's going. It doesn't it doesn't always mind when it goes. Whereas, of course, passengers are much more important than they do mind as we've been debating.
But I think we have to have some assurance in the legislation that customers can get the train path that they believe they need within reason, and if not, that there is an appeal mechanism. And that's why the the role of the Orer is, is so absolutely vital here. So I hope my noble friend will be able to explain that this is going to be all right in the night. And there'll be my.
One of these companies in Cornwall at least, can run trains when they. When they want, and at a reasonable price, because of course that's another issue which may end up with the order. But I think it's very important that we look at the. The different demands of customers, whether they're passenger customers or freight demand freight customers and try and make sure that their priorities are looked after again, independently. So I support these amendments, and I shall be coming back from some of the other ones.
16:03
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, my Lords, I have three amendments in this particular group, and they do indeed follow on one of them from, as I said, that's 106 a. Before I start, I should declare my interests as an adviser to Hutchison Ports and also a member of the UK and Ireland leadership team of Atkins Wireless. I tabled 106 a. In particular, a bit of a challenge to the Minister, because I'm well aware of the the issues around statutory meeting of targets and so forth, but the government's announcement that it had a 40% target by 2040 has to have some meat to it.
You can't just figure out and say, here's our target. And the minister, of course, is far too expense to railwaymen to have taken such an approach. So really, I want to probe from him today. How are we going to get to that point? Because this is by no means easy. I mean, the first issue Lord Lansley rightly made reference to Haughley junction, Ely Junction, the corridor from Peterborough to Leicester, the constraints going through Oxford.
The reality is there are some significant problems holding back freight traffic on the network today and for a variety of reasons. The projects I put into the system as secretary of state were gobbled by the budgets that were taken by HS2. But of course, this government has come in and it has, for example, frozen rail fares, which benefits passengers. But it's a financial decision for the railways. It is taking other decisions about public spending.
And the reality is, all my understanding is there really is very unlikely to be new money for enhancements to the network for pretty much the next ten years, that any realistic prospect of spending money has already been committed. And I know that issue, and I'm sure Lord Harper knows that issue as well, because we became Secretary of state, basically all the money had already been committed, and you didn't have much opportunity to put new projects in place. And I'm sure that's the issue for the for the minister and for the Secretary of State.
But you can't then pluck a 40% growth target out of the air and hope it's just going to happen. And this is also coming at a time when the sector is under a different kind of pressure. So DB cargo, one of the three major operators, is up for a fire sale at the moment with big question marks about its future. GB Railfreight is doing okay. New chief executive coming in, but has nonetheless got some challenges ahead of it.
Freightliner has just been broken. Half. Half of it has been sold. The intermodal business has been sold to a big shipping company. The rest has been left as heavy haul to to do bulk haulage around the country for Network Rail and other and others. I would not say any of those three businesses were in the most organised shape at the moment to drive growth. And in fact, frankly, most observers of this sector would be saying that you've got three businesses chasing around after the same clients and the same volumes of business, and it's not really clear where the growth is coming from.
And if if you talk to most of those companies, they'd be saying, what we really need is disincentives to travel by road, to carry freight by road, and more of an incentive to carry freight on rail. Now, that's a separate debate, but that's what they would be saying. It's not entirely clear to me where the growth is going to come from, and I have a number of concerns on this, not least of which is that and this is an issue I've discussed with the minister before.
Is this actually going to lead to Great British Rail trying to take on freight itself? The reality is, I know it's not the government's current intention, but the way the bill is structured would allow that to happen in the future. If that happens, you could end up with the big guy squeezing out the smaller operators. And would we be certain in reality that greater British Railways would do a decent job anyway? One of the constraints around Ely is that the last time we had a nationalised railway, British Rail, it took up the tracks between so and Ely as.
As a result, constrained capacity for rail freight through to the Midlands because it was expedient to do so because they wanted to spend money on passenger services at a time of tight budgets. And, of course, we are now in a situation where we could very well have a national rail operator wanting to spend money on passenger service at a time of tight budgets. So not only is there a risk of a lack of new investment, even sustaining the existing services may be a challenge.
So my my challenge to the minister is this he is a man we all respect. He is a man who has deep knowledge of the industry, but he's got to stand up in front of this committee and explain how a 40% target for 2040 is viable. What is the government going to do to facilitate that? It's a private sector job to actually drive the business, but government is going to, by definition, create part of the environment. Having nationalised the the passenger railway and taken Network Rail and the passenger railway together under one roof in the way that existed under under British Rail, how is he going to do that? What is he going to instruct Great British Railways to do? And this is for the purpose of of amendments 108 and 109 to say very clearly from this committee, we expect Great British Railways have a focus on freight as well, and not to simply ignore it and concentrate on passenger services, because passengers vote and rail freight wagons do not.
So I want to hear the minister explain in detail where that 2040 target has come from, how it is going to be achieved, and what are the changes that will be necessary that he and his colleagues in the Department of Transport will commit to to make that happen?
You can't just figure out and say, here's our target. And the minister, of course, is far too expense to railwaymen to have taken such an approach. So really, I want to probe from him today. How are we going to get to that point? Because this is by no means easy. I mean, the first issue Lord Lansley rightly made reference to Haughley junction, Ely Junction, the corridor from Peterborough to Leicester, the constraints going through Oxford.
The reality is there are some significant problems holding back freight traffic on the network today and for a variety of reasons. The projects I put into the system as secretary of state were gobbled by the budgets that were taken by HS2. But of course, this government has come in and it has, for example, frozen rail fares, which benefits passengers. But it's a financial decision for the railways. It is taking other decisions about public spending.
And the reality is, all my understanding is there really is very unlikely to be new money for enhancements to the network for pretty much the next ten years, that any realistic prospect of spending money has already been committed. And I know that issue, and I'm sure Lord Harper knows that issue as well, because we became Secretary of state, basically all the money had already been committed, and you didn't have much opportunity to put new projects in place. And I'm sure that's the issue for the for the minister and for the Secretary of State.
But you can't then pluck a 40% growth target out of the air and hope it's just going to happen. And this is also coming at a time when the sector is under a different kind of pressure. So DB cargo, one of the three major operators, is up for a fire sale at the moment with big question marks about its future. GB Railfreight is doing okay. New chief executive coming in, but has nonetheless got some challenges ahead of it.
Freightliner has just been broken. Half. Half of it has been sold. The intermodal business has been sold to a big shipping company. The rest has been left as heavy haul to to do bulk haulage around the country for Network Rail and other and others. I would not say any of those three businesses were in the most organised shape at the moment to drive growth. And in fact, frankly, most observers of this sector would be saying that you've got three businesses chasing around after the same clients and the same volumes of business, and it's not really clear where the growth is coming from.
And if if you talk to most of those companies, they'd be saying, what we really need is disincentives to travel by road, to carry freight by road, and more of an incentive to carry freight on rail. Now, that's a separate debate, but that's what they would be saying. It's not entirely clear to me where the growth is going to come from, and I have a number of concerns on this, not least of which is that and this is an issue I've discussed with the minister before.
Is this actually going to lead to Great British Rail trying to take on freight itself? The reality is, I know it's not the government's current intention, but the way the bill is structured would allow that to happen in the future. If that happens, you could end up with the big guy squeezing out the smaller operators. And would we be certain in reality that greater British Railways would do a decent job anyway? One of the constraints around Ely is that the last time we had a nationalised railway, British Rail, it took up the tracks between so and Ely as.
As a result, constrained capacity for rail freight through to the Midlands because it was expedient to do so because they wanted to spend money on passenger services at a time of tight budgets. And, of course, we are now in a situation where we could very well have a national rail operator wanting to spend money on passenger service at a time of tight budgets. So not only is there a risk of a lack of new investment, even sustaining the existing services may be a challenge.
So my my challenge to the minister is this he is a man we all respect. He is a man who has deep knowledge of the industry, but he's got to stand up in front of this committee and explain how a 40% target for 2040 is viable. What is the government going to do to facilitate that? It's a private sector job to actually drive the business, but government is going to, by definition, create part of the environment. Having nationalised the the passenger railway and taken Network Rail and the passenger railway together under one roof in the way that existed under under British Rail, how is he going to do that? What is he going to instruct Great British Railways to do? And this is for the purpose of of amendments 108 and 109 to say very clearly from this committee, we expect Great British Railways have a focus on freight as well, and not to simply ignore it and concentrate on passenger services, because passengers vote and rail freight wagons do not.
So I want to hear the minister explain in detail where that 2040 target has come from, how it is going to be achieved, and what are the changes that will be necessary that he and his colleagues in the Department of Transport will commit to to make that happen?
16:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, let me just add briefly following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, said, I don't need to add. I'll try not to repeat what he's already said. First of all, going back to the original 75% target, which was referred to in the minister's written statement, and the 40% effectively is a subset of that a little bit earlier. The reason, as I've said on previous occasions, why we put that in was because most of the conversation about rail inevitably ends up being about passenger services, as my noble friend Lord Grayling suggested.
And the point about putting a rail freight target in was to make sure that GBR, when it's taking decisions, has to consider the impact on rail freight, but I strongly support what my. My noble friend Lord Grayling said, because the target is the the top piece of it. But it's important to understand what flows from it. And I just make one point just to reinforce what he said about investment, that the key issue here is going to be about capacity.
The reason why a number of us are getting exercised about open access operators for passenger services and about rail freight is because in a capacity constraint, network, decisions about who has access to the network are incredibly important. One way of improving the situation is clearly to deal with capacity, which is about investment decisions. And there are two two issues there which I would ask the minister to to to speak on. One is about, obviously, the total quantum of investment, how much investment is going to the network overall.
And then the second issue is about what that investment is being spent on. Is it being spent on new capacity for passenger services? Is it being spent on new capacity for freight services, or it's being spent on new capacity, which could be used for either and it may be, for example, being spent on things like electrification for speeding up the running of services. And the point about having a target is it's to drive those decisions and make sure that at decent amounts of investment, go into freight services.
And my noble friend Lord Grayling referred to Haughley Junction and Ely. Those were very good projects which have very, very good cost benefit numbers, in fact, staggeringly good, I think, compared to many. The reason why we didn't pay for them was because there's a certain amount of money, and that money had already been committed, and I simply couldn't find, I think, if I remember correctly, the £600 million or so required to do the investment and what what the point of I think these amendments are is to make sure that as GBR Department for transport and the Treasury are thinking about the overall amount of investment that they're making, they're making the right amount of investment overall.
But how they then carve it out into passenger services, freight services, and those that those bits of the network that can be used for both is going to get to this target. So we set the 75% a couple of years ago. The 40% is a relatively recent iteration of that. So as I said, I would reinforce the question from my noble friend, which is how did the 40% the decision to come up with that in 2040 arise? You know, you could have said there was an interim target in 2030 or at some some point there.
Why? Why 2040? And presumably since quite a bit of time has elapsed, there is a plan that sets out how you get from where we are today to there and what is required to do that. So is that will it require infrastructure investment? Will it require the the Network Rail bit of GBR? I don't know whether that's going to have a name, but is it going to require that part of the business to invest in some specific projects that that actually do exist, that we know what they are, it's going to drive freight investment or, or not, and or are there other projects which the minister is aware of? So a little bit of detail, I think would be very welcome.
That's all I really wanted to say. I think the case for rail freight has been very well made. I don't particularly want to see people using rail by punishing people who use roads. I want to make moving freight by rail more attractive. And you do that by making sure this capacity on the network, it's cost effective to do so financially, but also you can do it at speed and convenience, taking it from ports to to where it needs to go.
That's the better way of doing it, I think rather than trying to price people off of the road network, the final thing I would say is just it's worth thinking about in terms of how it talks about this subject, reinforcing for the public why they should care about this. It's clear that in the first instance, people immediately think about passenger services, but they can't be very many people in the country that don't use something that moves by rail freight, whether it's the disposal of which they clearly welcome, whether it's moving energy supplies to power generation, whether it's moving construction materials, either new construction materials or waste from construction projects off the roads, which then reduces the congestion, reduces the noise, reduces the inconvenience to the public.
All of those are reasons why the public should care about rail freight, and I think we made some of those arguments or made those arguments more more prominent that would actually enable the government, whoever the government of the day, was, to make the case for investment in rail freight as opposed to just investment in passenger services. So I think reminding everybody why they should care, I think, is part of the minister's job. And I'd also be interested to know what the department is doing to reinforce the value to the wider public and the economy about rail freight in general.
And the point about putting a rail freight target in was to make sure that GBR, when it's taking decisions, has to consider the impact on rail freight, but I strongly support what my. My noble friend Lord Grayling said, because the target is the the top piece of it. But it's important to understand what flows from it. And I just make one point just to reinforce what he said about investment, that the key issue here is going to be about capacity.
The reason why a number of us are getting exercised about open access operators for passenger services and about rail freight is because in a capacity constraint, network, decisions about who has access to the network are incredibly important. One way of improving the situation is clearly to deal with capacity, which is about investment decisions. And there are two two issues there which I would ask the minister to to to speak on. One is about, obviously, the total quantum of investment, how much investment is going to the network overall.
And then the second issue is about what that investment is being spent on. Is it being spent on new capacity for passenger services? Is it being spent on new capacity for freight services, or it's being spent on new capacity, which could be used for either and it may be, for example, being spent on things like electrification for speeding up the running of services. And the point about having a target is it's to drive those decisions and make sure that at decent amounts of investment, go into freight services.
And my noble friend Lord Grayling referred to Haughley Junction and Ely. Those were very good projects which have very, very good cost benefit numbers, in fact, staggeringly good, I think, compared to many. The reason why we didn't pay for them was because there's a certain amount of money, and that money had already been committed, and I simply couldn't find, I think, if I remember correctly, the £600 million or so required to do the investment and what what the point of I think these amendments are is to make sure that as GBR Department for transport and the Treasury are thinking about the overall amount of investment that they're making, they're making the right amount of investment overall.
But how they then carve it out into passenger services, freight services, and those that those bits of the network that can be used for both is going to get to this target. So we set the 75% a couple of years ago. The 40% is a relatively recent iteration of that. So as I said, I would reinforce the question from my noble friend, which is how did the 40% the decision to come up with that in 2040 arise? You know, you could have said there was an interim target in 2030 or at some some point there.
Why? Why 2040? And presumably since quite a bit of time has elapsed, there is a plan that sets out how you get from where we are today to there and what is required to do that. So is that will it require infrastructure investment? Will it require the the Network Rail bit of GBR? I don't know whether that's going to have a name, but is it going to require that part of the business to invest in some specific projects that that actually do exist, that we know what they are, it's going to drive freight investment or, or not, and or are there other projects which the minister is aware of? So a little bit of detail, I think would be very welcome.
That's all I really wanted to say. I think the case for rail freight has been very well made. I don't particularly want to see people using rail by punishing people who use roads. I want to make moving freight by rail more attractive. And you do that by making sure this capacity on the network, it's cost effective to do so financially, but also you can do it at speed and convenience, taking it from ports to to where it needs to go.
That's the better way of doing it, I think rather than trying to price people off of the road network, the final thing I would say is just it's worth thinking about in terms of how it talks about this subject, reinforcing for the public why they should care about this. It's clear that in the first instance, people immediately think about passenger services, but they can't be very many people in the country that don't use something that moves by rail freight, whether it's the disposal of which they clearly welcome, whether it's moving energy supplies to power generation, whether it's moving construction materials, either new construction materials or waste from construction projects off the roads, which then reduces the congestion, reduces the noise, reduces the inconvenience to the public.
All of those are reasons why the public should care about rail freight, and I think we made some of those arguments or made those arguments more more prominent that would actually enable the government, whoever the government of the day, was, to make the case for investment in rail freight as opposed to just investment in passenger services. So I think reminding everybody why they should care, I think, is part of the minister's job. And I'd also be interested to know what the department is doing to reinforce the value to the wider public and the economy about rail freight in general.
16:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, I think this the debate on this group shows that I think across the House we're all supportive of increasing the use of rail for freight as well as passenger services. I want to talk to amendment 107 in my name, which strengthens clause 17 on the rail freight target. The bill, as currently drafted, states that GBR must, when exercising its functions, have regard to the target. My amendment changes this. To say GBR must give significant weight to the target, strengthening the focus on freight as an important part of the rail network, both economically and environmentally, as we've heard.
But I want to put freight into context here and try to drill down and to understand the true meaning of the target. And perhaps a lot of this discussion has been about the target and what it means. If you look at the December 2025 release of Great Britain Transport Statistics, it says that rail has an 8% share of domestic rail freight and 1% for international. So in this context, even the 75% increase by 2050 target feels very unambitious.
We've heard it was inherited from the previous conservative government. For comparison, Switzerland's percentage share for rail is 39%. So government is looking at a 6% increase by 2050. But let's go back further. In 2000, the Department for transport published a ten year transport plan, and it pledged them to increase freight by 80% in that time frame. I don't think that was achieved, but the questions for me that arise here, why did it not succeed and why will this target be different, as has kind of been discussed in this debate.
But why is there much less ambition now? And if that's perhaps a product of learning from past failed target setting and delivery, maybe this is an ambitious target, but is it? It doesn't seem to. At face value, it would be useful to hear the noble Lord the minister's thoughts on that. I've also had a read of the access and use policy out for consultation, which was referenced in the recent letter from the noble Lord, the Minister.
But as I read that great British Railways will try not to meddle with freight services, but it says its passenger services, it can do almost whatever it likes with including changing frequencies. And Lord Grayling set out that he sees that there's a potential threat to the freight sector compared to passengers. But actually, let's if we actually look at the document for passengers, it says in 2.31 of this consultation document, it does not require the continuation of a particular operator service design features, including frequency calling patterns, origins and destinations, or timings .
Having considered relevant issues and mitigations, GBR may decide to make sure a change to better serve the wider interests of all passengers. I would be alarmed if, as a passenger, but then for freight, supporting established traffic is fundamental to making rail an attractive and commercially viable option for customers and to achieve freight growth. So it seems to me that freight has got far more protection than passenger services within GBR and the consultation documents. Perhaps the minister would be able to clarify what the meaning of this is within this consultation document, because I think it would be a huge concern to passengers and and wider communities.
Now, the other amendments in this group are in the sort of similar space, and we've heard from former transport secretaries about this area. I think Lord Lansley's point is really important about investment in infrastructure alongside any target. And I think the junction example he gave shows what is needed if we're going to make actually achieve this target or a more ambitious one. I know the minister is passionate about growing freight on the railway alongside passenger services. I look forward to his response and clarification on the issues that have been raised and the assurance that the industry, but also passengers, are looking for.
But I want to put freight into context here and try to drill down and to understand the true meaning of the target. And perhaps a lot of this discussion has been about the target and what it means. If you look at the December 2025 release of Great Britain Transport Statistics, it says that rail has an 8% share of domestic rail freight and 1% for international. So in this context, even the 75% increase by 2050 target feels very unambitious.
We've heard it was inherited from the previous conservative government. For comparison, Switzerland's percentage share for rail is 39%. So government is looking at a 6% increase by 2050. But let's go back further. In 2000, the Department for transport published a ten year transport plan, and it pledged them to increase freight by 80% in that time frame. I don't think that was achieved, but the questions for me that arise here, why did it not succeed and why will this target be different, as has kind of been discussed in this debate.
But why is there much less ambition now? And if that's perhaps a product of learning from past failed target setting and delivery, maybe this is an ambitious target, but is it? It doesn't seem to. At face value, it would be useful to hear the noble Lord the minister's thoughts on that. I've also had a read of the access and use policy out for consultation, which was referenced in the recent letter from the noble Lord, the Minister.
But as I read that great British Railways will try not to meddle with freight services, but it says its passenger services, it can do almost whatever it likes with including changing frequencies. And Lord Grayling set out that he sees that there's a potential threat to the freight sector compared to passengers. But actually, let's if we actually look at the document for passengers, it says in 2.31 of this consultation document, it does not require the continuation of a particular operator service design features, including frequency calling patterns, origins and destinations, or timings .
Having considered relevant issues and mitigations, GBR may decide to make sure a change to better serve the wider interests of all passengers. I would be alarmed if, as a passenger, but then for freight, supporting established traffic is fundamental to making rail an attractive and commercially viable option for customers and to achieve freight growth. So it seems to me that freight has got far more protection than passenger services within GBR and the consultation documents. Perhaps the minister would be able to clarify what the meaning of this is within this consultation document, because I think it would be a huge concern to passengers and and wider communities.
Now, the other amendments in this group are in the sort of similar space, and we've heard from former transport secretaries about this area. I think Lord Lansley's point is really important about investment in infrastructure alongside any target. And I think the junction example he gave shows what is needed if we're going to make actually achieve this target or a more ambitious one. I know the minister is passionate about growing freight on the railway alongside passenger services. I look forward to his response and clarification on the issues that have been raised and the assurance that the industry, but also passengers, are looking for.
16:20
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords. Firstly, amendments 106 and 106 a the government shares the noble Lords ambitions for the freight sector, which is, of course, why we've committed to the overall target of increasing rail freight by 75% by 2050, and why we recently announced, and has already been mentioned, the interim freight target of 40% growth by 2040. And the noble Lord Lansley is right. The the the 75% requires a growth rate of a little more than 2% a year, whereas the 40% is about 2% a year.
So far as amendment 106 goes, then I think the the bill requires the Secretary of State to issue a growth target in perpetuity. So the effect of amendment 106 A, I think is already achieved. I discussed amendment 106 with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, before conference recess, and I take his point that it can be helpful to guide GBR towards the freight growth they'd need to achieve to to reach the freight target.
I agree that it would be helpful. In fact, I think it's essential for GBR business plan in particular to be considering how to maintain the average growth needed over the five year plan, whether that be 2% or otherwise. And I can assure the noble Lord that the author and the Secretary of State will assess that business plan. With that in mind, but I don't want to ensure enshrine the specific target peer into legislation, as it's also true that GBR will be planning over a five year period, and there may well be greater opportunities to make gains in some years rather than others.
Significant investment in infrastructure. As several noble Lords have mentioned in this debate, may enable large gains in a particular year, and that investment may, of course, come from particular sources. I will I'll . The noble Lord Lansley raised Ely Hawley, and I agree it has great value. I'll write to him about the actions that that I've taken and and Network Rail have taken to move that forward. He's right that the mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is involved, and hopefully he and the county Council's concerned, the highway authorities concerned will be helpful in reducing the cost of the the cost of that scheme.
So the fact is that you do need steady growth, but also any of the significant investments in infrastructure, that release capacity may release a lot of capacity in a relatively short space of of time. Turning to amendments 107 and 108 and 109, the wording of the bill already requires GBR to take the target into account whilst exercising all of its functions. In other words, when making any and all decisions relevant to freight, that includes decisions around access to the network, such as which paths should be prioritised for freight use.
And that's deliberate. It ensures that GBR cannot ignore the target at any time unless it undertakes activities which are completely removed from the railway or from opportunities for freight growth. Additionally, acknowledgement of the challenges rail freight has historically faced in today's first come, first served market model, we've provided not one but two duties to promote and growth rate. So I hope noble Lords cannot think that this bill provides anything other than absolute support for a thriving freight sector.
So far as amendment 106 goes, then I think the the bill requires the Secretary of State to issue a growth target in perpetuity. So the effect of amendment 106 A, I think is already achieved. I discussed amendment 106 with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, before conference recess, and I take his point that it can be helpful to guide GBR towards the freight growth they'd need to achieve to to reach the freight target.
I agree that it would be helpful. In fact, I think it's essential for GBR business plan in particular to be considering how to maintain the average growth needed over the five year plan, whether that be 2% or otherwise. And I can assure the noble Lord that the author and the Secretary of State will assess that business plan. With that in mind, but I don't want to ensure enshrine the specific target peer into legislation, as it's also true that GBR will be planning over a five year period, and there may well be greater opportunities to make gains in some years rather than others.
Significant investment in infrastructure. As several noble Lords have mentioned in this debate, may enable large gains in a particular year, and that investment may, of course, come from particular sources. I will I'll . The noble Lord Lansley raised Ely Hawley, and I agree it has great value. I'll write to him about the actions that that I've taken and and Network Rail have taken to move that forward. He's right that the mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is involved, and hopefully he and the county Council's concerned, the highway authorities concerned will be helpful in reducing the cost of the the cost of that scheme.
So the fact is that you do need steady growth, but also any of the significant investments in infrastructure, that release capacity may release a lot of capacity in a relatively short space of of time. Turning to amendments 107 and 108 and 109, the wording of the bill already requires GBR to take the target into account whilst exercising all of its functions. In other words, when making any and all decisions relevant to freight, that includes decisions around access to the network, such as which paths should be prioritised for freight use.
And that's deliberate. It ensures that GBR cannot ignore the target at any time unless it undertakes activities which are completely removed from the railway or from opportunities for freight growth. Additionally, acknowledgement of the challenges rail freight has historically faced in today's first come, first served market model, we've provided not one but two duties to promote and growth rate. So I hope noble Lords cannot think that this bill provides anything other than absolute support for a thriving freight sector.
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
So the the GBR five year GBR business plan will have to set out how it seeks to achieve that. And in order to set out how it seeks to achieve it, it will have to interact with the freight sector, not only the freight operators, but freight customers, to work out what what needs to be done in order to increase increase the amount of freight that has been done in the past, but not, I think, as serious, as seriously as it should have been.
And for example, I was at I was at London Gateway last Thursday, actually on a brand new freight locomotive and talking in some detail about how the railway network can accommodate further growth of what I think the noble Lord Lansley called high value traffic. Or we did , in order to get more more rail freight into and out of the port. And actually, it's that that sort of plan set out a five year plan with with details about the investments that need to be made and a discussion with those parties who are who are in a position to make them, including government that will actually deliver the increases that we're that we're talking about.
I should also reassure the committee that the Secretary of State can't ignore this target. Public law principles already require the Secretary of State to have regard to the target due to the legitimate application of the target creates, and it will clearly be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to set a target and then, without good reason, disregard it. That's why it's very uncommon in legislation for any actors of public bodies to be required to have regard to their own targets or, or strategies, because that that that consideration is implicit in the issuing of the target.
Another example, I think, for the noble Lord Grayling is this, which is that they will have to be further plans for the West Coast Main Line. The parts of it are physically constrained not only by the lack of railway infrastructure, but also power, and those plans in the future will have to also look at freight growth, whereas currently there have at least been some actually a number of plans in the recent past which have not looked at freight growth.
And now they and and now they will now. Now they will have to on amendment 113 to ensure the freight target target is delivered. As I've said, we expect GBR to set out a credible pathway for meeting the growth growth target in its business plan. Secretary of state will only sign off this plan once she's received expert advice from the IRR, and is satisfied that the plan effectively sets out how GBR will meet the government's expectations and priorities for the railways, including on rail freight.
The business plan will be published and updated annually. GBR will then be responsible for delivering the business plan, and will be held to account by the Secretary of State. When doing so, the LRR will also monitor Gbr's delivery outcomes and provide expert advice on GBR delivery to the Secretary of State, and that means that there's no need for the annual report required by amendment 113. There will also. There will be transparent recording of Gbr's delivery against the freight target, which is built into the bill, and a mechanism for holding them to account against that to.
On amendment 91, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the strategy. The long term rail strategy will absolutely increase include freight, as growing freight is one of the government's main priorities for rail reform. Representatives from the freight industry have been engaged during the development work of the strategy strategy and will continue, without which the necessary actions won't be able to be achieved. In fact, the discussion document, published last month highlights the protection and development of rail freight as a key prioritisation test that GBR will need to pass to meet to meet the rail freight target.
The word freight appears no less than 36 times in that document, and I assure I can assure noble Lords that it will be similarly prevalent in the final long term strategy as well. I note I, I take great note of what the noble Baroness Pigeon said about the lessons from the past, and I'm very happy to debate that with a further. Of course, in the last 25 years there there's there's been a massive change in the freight industry from the movement of coal and iron.
Some of the early targets of 25 years ago are simply not relevant. And indeed, one of the reasons for having a good look at the best use of the railway infrastructure is that some of the reserves are freight piles on the rail day have not been used for many years, because coal and iron is no longer moved around the country. And conversely, some are well used. And the reason why some of them are protected is because the freight operators need that protection in order to to satisfy their customers about the consistency of, of, of delivery.
And indeed, Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Berkeley, mentioned that freight has its own timeliness. And that's increasingly true, particularly of container freight to to the Midlands. And one of the reasons for when we get on to capacity for having a fresh look at the capacity of the network is in order to give paths where they're needed and to take paths away where they're not needed. I'm better briefed on the Cornish lithium production than I was two weeks ago, and the target will ensure that GBR takes such proposals seriously and seeks to find usable paths.
And that's the reason when we get on to capacity for the GBR, duty to best use of the best use of the railway infrastructure. I do believe that we all share the same intentions for freight. I hope noble, noble lords are encouraged and I hope they'll feel able to withdraw their amendments. I can certainly discuss with them further, but probably not today. The particular issues which I think the railway industry in the past has not either been equipped to, or has treated as seriously as it needs to do in the future in order to satisfy these targets.
And for example, I was at I was at London Gateway last Thursday, actually on a brand new freight locomotive and talking in some detail about how the railway network can accommodate further growth of what I think the noble Lord Lansley called high value traffic. Or we did , in order to get more more rail freight into and out of the port. And actually, it's that that sort of plan set out a five year plan with with details about the investments that need to be made and a discussion with those parties who are who are in a position to make them, including government that will actually deliver the increases that we're that we're talking about.
I should also reassure the committee that the Secretary of State can't ignore this target. Public law principles already require the Secretary of State to have regard to the target due to the legitimate application of the target creates, and it will clearly be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to set a target and then, without good reason, disregard it. That's why it's very uncommon in legislation for any actors of public bodies to be required to have regard to their own targets or, or strategies, because that that that consideration is implicit in the issuing of the target.
Another example, I think, for the noble Lord Grayling is this, which is that they will have to be further plans for the West Coast Main Line. The parts of it are physically constrained not only by the lack of railway infrastructure, but also power, and those plans in the future will have to also look at freight growth, whereas currently there have at least been some actually a number of plans in the recent past which have not looked at freight growth.
And now they and and now they will now. Now they will have to on amendment 113 to ensure the freight target target is delivered. As I've said, we expect GBR to set out a credible pathway for meeting the growth growth target in its business plan. Secretary of state will only sign off this plan once she's received expert advice from the IRR, and is satisfied that the plan effectively sets out how GBR will meet the government's expectations and priorities for the railways, including on rail freight.
The business plan will be published and updated annually. GBR will then be responsible for delivering the business plan, and will be held to account by the Secretary of State. When doing so, the LRR will also monitor Gbr's delivery outcomes and provide expert advice on GBR delivery to the Secretary of State, and that means that there's no need for the annual report required by amendment 113. There will also. There will be transparent recording of Gbr's delivery against the freight target, which is built into the bill, and a mechanism for holding them to account against that to.
On amendment 91, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the strategy. The long term rail strategy will absolutely increase include freight, as growing freight is one of the government's main priorities for rail reform. Representatives from the freight industry have been engaged during the development work of the strategy strategy and will continue, without which the necessary actions won't be able to be achieved. In fact, the discussion document, published last month highlights the protection and development of rail freight as a key prioritisation test that GBR will need to pass to meet to meet the rail freight target.
The word freight appears no less than 36 times in that document, and I assure I can assure noble Lords that it will be similarly prevalent in the final long term strategy as well. I note I, I take great note of what the noble Baroness Pigeon said about the lessons from the past, and I'm very happy to debate that with a further. Of course, in the last 25 years there there's there's been a massive change in the freight industry from the movement of coal and iron.
Some of the early targets of 25 years ago are simply not relevant. And indeed, one of the reasons for having a good look at the best use of the railway infrastructure is that some of the reserves are freight piles on the rail day have not been used for many years, because coal and iron is no longer moved around the country. And conversely, some are well used. And the reason why some of them are protected is because the freight operators need that protection in order to to satisfy their customers about the consistency of, of, of delivery.
And indeed, Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Berkeley, mentioned that freight has its own timeliness. And that's increasingly true, particularly of container freight to to the Midlands. And one of the reasons for when we get on to capacity for having a fresh look at the capacity of the network is in order to give paths where they're needed and to take paths away where they're not needed. I'm better briefed on the Cornish lithium production than I was two weeks ago, and the target will ensure that GBR takes such proposals seriously and seeks to find usable paths.
And that's the reason when we get on to capacity for the GBR, duty to best use of the best use of the railway infrastructure. I do believe that we all share the same intentions for freight. I hope noble, noble lords are encouraged and I hope they'll feel able to withdraw their amendments. I can certainly discuss with them further, but probably not today. The particular issues which I think the railway industry in the past has not either been equipped to, or has treated as seriously as it needs to do in the future in order to satisfy these targets.
16:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I hope I don't sound too harsh when I say noble Lords speech was completely lacking in any substance about how he's going to achieve the targets which is being imposed and willingly imposed by this legislation on the government. It is all still a wing and a prayer. It's possible that a way of addressing this, when we come to report, would be to develop my amendment requiring an annual report, so that it's more specific in saying that it's an annual report, which would explain how 2% or 2.1 or 2%, whatever is the necessary figure, was being achieved each year and where it was not being achieved, what remedial measures the government was going to take to achieve it.
I think that might be a way forward. When we get to report. There are other considerations and other noble Lords may they may have their own ideas. I do think it's very unsatisfactory that noble Lord has had several weeks to prepare for this. Our last session in committee was over three weeks ago when we broke. Just at this point, when had we been more speedy, the noble Lord would have had to address these issues back then on, I think it was Wednesday the 16th of September.
But no. The Damoclean sword was raised from his neck and he was given three extra weeks to prepare. What is he made of those three weeks? Very little indeed, as far as I can see. My lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
I think that might be a way forward. When we get to report. There are other considerations and other noble Lords may they may have their own ideas. I do think it's very unsatisfactory that noble Lord has had several weeks to prepare for this. Our last session in committee was over three weeks ago when we broke. Just at this point, when had we been more speedy, the noble Lord would have had to address these issues back then on, I think it was Wednesday the 16th of September.
But no. The Damoclean sword was raised from his neck and he was given three extra weeks to prepare. What is he made of those three weeks? Very little indeed, as far as I can see. My lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, the question of the workforce is absolutely crucial to passengers, and the Bill has very little indeed to say about it. And indeed, the government has been very quiet on the subject. Indeed, I rise to move my amendment number 96, which requires there to be a long. The long term rail strategy include workforce pay and productivity policy, under which general pay increases for GBR employees must be accompanied by material and measurable improvements in productivity or operating efficiency.
It need hardly be said that the productivity improvements. Perhaps I can draw an analogy. In the late 18th century, agricultural yields in Britain and Russia were roughly equal. The remarkable fact is that at the beginning of the 20th century, agricultural yields in Britain had increased by 20%, had increased by by by by 110%, whereas agricultural yields in Russia were absolutely static, the same they had been at the end of the 18th century.
Now, where would we put the railway industry on that spectrum? Is it is it Britain over that period with huge leaps forward in productivity, as we have seen in so much of the private sector in this country, or is it equivalent to the Russian still producing the same amount of potatoes per per per acre as he was 200 years, 150 years before? That's where the railway industry is in this country. Almost no productivity improvement over much of my lifetime.
Indeed, in many respects getting worse and getting higher pay for it. This can't be allowed to continue. The government has to have a policy for addressing it. And it's right that noble Lords should call policy to be to be amendatory policy that the government is required by the Bill to produce amendment 315. Is a. Sorry, I beg your pardon. I just want to come briefly to that.
Sorry. That was amendment 96. So I've got my the wrong page, which is really annoying for noble Lords as much as me. Amendment 324 also in my name goes to the question of how GBR should engage with recognised trade unions on pay hours and holidays. Unions should be consulted. Nobody has any doubt that they should be consulted on matters affecting their members.
I entirely agree with that. But recent events on the London Underground demonstrate why there's a real distinction. Consultation and a statutory requirement to negotiate. The Bill creates statutory requirements to negotiate. So we've seen the RMT take strike action over TfL's proposal for a four day working week, though the arrangement was entirely voluntarily voluntary and, as described, the Rmt's attitude as bizarre. Now, why should there be a statutory obligation to negotiate going beyond consultation when trades unions take positions like that? What is there indeed to negotiate about? And it becomes even more important when we consider amendments two, one five and 316, tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper, the government have removed important industrial action thresholds through the Employment Rights Act.
My noble Friend's amendment seeks to restore safeguards around turnout and support for strike action in respect of railway industrial action and to prevent industrial action in one part of GBR, automatically spilling across the wider group of companies. Now, if those protections are being weakened, it's even more important that GBR is not simultaneously placed under an unnecessarily rigid duty to negotiate on pay hours and holidays. Consultation is more appropriate than creating a structure in which management's ability to reform working practices, improve productivity or control costs, can become dependent on securing agreement through negotiation.
Amendment 316 in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, to which I have added my name, addresses a very real risk . If GBR is allowed to become, in effect, a single employer across the railway that is, across the 75% of the railway which it is in charge of, so to speak, obviously doesn't include freight and so forth. But if it is allowed to become in effect , a single employer, as opposed to the multiple employers that currently exist in passenger railway services, where separate companies are responsible for different parts of the network, then the government risk creating the conditions for national industrial action, even in response to quite localised disputes.
And this can have a devastating effect on the passengers. If this is what the government is effectively introducing this bill, then popular support for railway nationalisation will dissipate very quickly indeed in areas where there are two services available. An example would be Oxford, Cambridge, other places like that. But currently a strike might occur on one of the services but leave the other operating freely. If the government is creating circumstances where the whole network can be closed down over, as I say, what is almost certainly going to be a localised dispute because most disputes are.
That would be extremely bad indeed. And the government needs to say clearly, are they willing to run that risk? What is their policy on this three, two, seven amendment three, two, seven in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper is, I think, a very important amendment. Disabled passengers are often amongst those most severely affected by industrial action, particularly where alternative transport options are limited or inaccessible. So the idea that those of us who need to travel might take the bus or go by car.
These options may simply or walk. These options may simply not be accessible to disabled people. I don't see any reason at all why trade unions proposing such action shouldn't be specifically required to discuss with disability groups before doing so. My Lords, I beg to move.
It need hardly be said that the productivity improvements. Perhaps I can draw an analogy. In the late 18th century, agricultural yields in Britain and Russia were roughly equal. The remarkable fact is that at the beginning of the 20th century, agricultural yields in Britain had increased by 20%, had increased by by by by 110%, whereas agricultural yields in Russia were absolutely static, the same they had been at the end of the 18th century.
Now, where would we put the railway industry on that spectrum? Is it is it Britain over that period with huge leaps forward in productivity, as we have seen in so much of the private sector in this country, or is it equivalent to the Russian still producing the same amount of potatoes per per per acre as he was 200 years, 150 years before? That's where the railway industry is in this country. Almost no productivity improvement over much of my lifetime.
Indeed, in many respects getting worse and getting higher pay for it. This can't be allowed to continue. The government has to have a policy for addressing it. And it's right that noble Lords should call policy to be to be amendatory policy that the government is required by the Bill to produce amendment 315. Is a. Sorry, I beg your pardon. I just want to come briefly to that.
Sorry. That was amendment 96. So I've got my the wrong page, which is really annoying for noble Lords as much as me. Amendment 324 also in my name goes to the question of how GBR should engage with recognised trade unions on pay hours and holidays. Unions should be consulted. Nobody has any doubt that they should be consulted on matters affecting their members.
I entirely agree with that. But recent events on the London Underground demonstrate why there's a real distinction. Consultation and a statutory requirement to negotiate. The Bill creates statutory requirements to negotiate. So we've seen the RMT take strike action over TfL's proposal for a four day working week, though the arrangement was entirely voluntarily voluntary and, as described, the Rmt's attitude as bizarre. Now, why should there be a statutory obligation to negotiate going beyond consultation when trades unions take positions like that? What is there indeed to negotiate about? And it becomes even more important when we consider amendments two, one five and 316, tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper, the government have removed important industrial action thresholds through the Employment Rights Act.
My noble Friend's amendment seeks to restore safeguards around turnout and support for strike action in respect of railway industrial action and to prevent industrial action in one part of GBR, automatically spilling across the wider group of companies. Now, if those protections are being weakened, it's even more important that GBR is not simultaneously placed under an unnecessarily rigid duty to negotiate on pay hours and holidays. Consultation is more appropriate than creating a structure in which management's ability to reform working practices, improve productivity or control costs, can become dependent on securing agreement through negotiation.
Amendment 316 in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, to which I have added my name, addresses a very real risk . If GBR is allowed to become, in effect, a single employer across the railway that is, across the 75% of the railway which it is in charge of, so to speak, obviously doesn't include freight and so forth. But if it is allowed to become in effect , a single employer, as opposed to the multiple employers that currently exist in passenger railway services, where separate companies are responsible for different parts of the network, then the government risk creating the conditions for national industrial action, even in response to quite localised disputes.
And this can have a devastating effect on the passengers. If this is what the government is effectively introducing this bill, then popular support for railway nationalisation will dissipate very quickly indeed in areas where there are two services available. An example would be Oxford, Cambridge, other places like that. But currently a strike might occur on one of the services but leave the other operating freely. If the government is creating circumstances where the whole network can be closed down over, as I say, what is almost certainly going to be a localised dispute because most disputes are.
That would be extremely bad indeed. And the government needs to say clearly, are they willing to run that risk? What is their policy on this three, two, seven amendment three, two, seven in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper is, I think, a very important amendment. Disabled passengers are often amongst those most severely affected by industrial action, particularly where alternative transport options are limited or inaccessible. So the idea that those of us who need to travel might take the bus or go by car.
These options may simply or walk. These options may simply not be accessible to disabled people. I don't see any reason at all why trade unions proposing such action shouldn't be specifically required to discuss with disability groups before doing so. My Lords, I beg to move.
16:40
16:40
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I want to say a word or two about amendment 96, which my noble friend moved at the beginning of his remarks, and then I'll spend most of my time on the three amendments in my name. Just on his key point about pay and productivity being linked. I'll be very interested to listen to what the minister has to say, because I know the minister believes, or at least the minister in a previous incarnation absolutely did believe in this.
And not only did he believe in it, he was actually rather good at delivering it. And certainly when I was Secretary of State, he and the the then chief executive of Network Rail delivered a pay deal with the RMT, which stuck within the the envelope, to use that terrible phrase, the Treasury and I had set but delivered a decent pay rise for the workforce, but also delivered productivity improvements, which meant that the taxpayer was not being unduly burdened by that pay deal.
So everybody was a winner. The workforce got a decent pay rise. The business ran more productively and efficiently, and the taxpayer was not done out of money unfairly. That's, I think, all my noble friend, Lord Moylan, wants to achieve with his amendment, and I would be interested to if the minister doesn't support the amendment, which I suspect he does not. How the government proposes under the GBR model to ensure that what the Minister delivered when he was chair of Network Rail, which was pay, pay improvements, activity increases, which funded them, at least in part.
How does he want to ensure that that happens in the future? And I'll look forward.
And not only did he believe in it, he was actually rather good at delivering it. And certainly when I was Secretary of State, he and the the then chief executive of Network Rail delivered a pay deal with the RMT, which stuck within the the envelope, to use that terrible phrase, the Treasury and I had set but delivered a decent pay rise for the workforce, but also delivered productivity improvements, which meant that the taxpayer was not being unduly burdened by that pay deal.
So everybody was a winner. The workforce got a decent pay rise. The business ran more productively and efficiently, and the taxpayer was not done out of money unfairly. That's, I think, all my noble friend, Lord Moylan, wants to achieve with his amendment, and I would be interested to if the minister doesn't support the amendment, which I suspect he does not. How the government proposes under the GBR model to ensure that what the Minister delivered when he was chair of Network Rail, which was pay, pay improvements, activity increases, which funded them, at least in part.
How does he want to ensure that that happens in the future? And I'll look forward.
16:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
May I just ask? Of course. May I just ask my noble friend to confirm if it's his view that since the noble Lord, the minister became minister, ceased to be chairman of Network Rail, pay agreements that have been reached with the rail industry have have notably failed to include the productivity improvements that were characteristic of his of his previous employment.
16:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, I say two things. First of all, I can confirm that I think that is indeed the case, but I would absolve the minister in front of us for responsibility. I was going to come on to this later in my remarks, but I may as well do so now, since my noble friend has given me the opening, I mean relatively quickly after the election, the then Transport Secretary, now the very important First Secretary of State, handed over money to train drivers to Aslef in a complete.
No strings attached in and by no strings attached. What we mean.
No strings attached in and by no strings attached. What we mean.
16:43
16:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Cost nothing in return, no productivity improvements, no improvements to efficiency, nothing at all to improve the operation of the railway for passengers or to reduce its costs. That is what I think we are worried is going to happen going forward. And then and then ridiculously, we see subsequent pay deals where just to use new technology, it is required for the taxpayer to hand over money to in those trade union deals. Now, in no other workforce is that required.
People are expected to use new technology to make businesses more efficient to help it compete. They're not expected to say, we're going to carry on using paper and pen unless you give us large amounts of money to do so. Any competitive business that did that would discover that it wasn't going to be in business for very long, because it would be put out of business by all its competitors who were moving with the latest technology. That's the mindset that we want to make sure doesn't happen now.
The three amendments that I have. Amendment three, one five, specifically means that for passenger railway services, you would it would disapply the change that was in the Employment Rights Act 2025, and make sure that you had to have at least 50% of eligible union members participating in a strike ballot, and at least 40% of those eligible members supporting industrial action. Now, the reason for that is that, as my noble friend said, many people depend on passenger rail services to get to work, to earn a living, to get to an educational opportunity, to do all of the essential things, to get to medical appointments, to do all the essential things that people need to do in life.
And passenger rail strikes on passenger rail services are incredibly disruptive. And this is about making sure that you can't have a dispute without a significant amount of support for it, because otherwise, what you would find is that you could have a relatively small number of people voting in a strike ballot, but a majority carrying the ballot. And with relatively low support, you could have a strike causing enormous amounts of inconvenience and economic damage. And this amendment simply tries to preserve that higher bar to have a strike.
It doesn't say you can't have a strike. It simply says that you have to have a higher level of support to have one. The Second Amendment Amendment 316, my noble friend alluded to is about four. That GBR remains a separate company for the purposes of industrial relations legislation from its subsidiaries. Now, there's a very important reason for doing that twofold. One is to prevent unions being able to have rail unions be able to have a national rail strike, causing enormous inconvenience , not just for passengers, but also for freight operators and those that require access to the network.
But the second thing, which I think certainly under this government would be more likely. I'm not necessarily that would be the ministers doing. Is that because of that power that would be handed to trade unions , to have a national rail strike, what would actually happen in practice is that their bargaining strength would be increased, and we would see larger pay rises going to those trade unions, not merited by any improvement in productivity and entirely paid for with a nationalised rail industry by the taxpayer.
And I don't think that will be acceptable. And actually, if ministers, they won't admit it. But I suspect in their private moments, ministers must be just thinking to themselves, is it a very good idea to have a nationalised rail service that counts as a single employer, where we give the power to trade unions, to have national rail strikes so that they're able to demand unlimited amounts of money from us for fear of bringing the country to a standstill.
And I think perhaps in their quieter moments, they might just reflect on whether that is entirely sensible. I would argue that it isn't. And keeping putting this in place means that if you had a dispute on a particular part of the passenger network, for example, perhaps because of local issues, as my noble friend Lord Moylan said, what that wouldn't be able to do is turn into a national rail strike. It would also mean, for example, if there was a pay dispute on a part of the network where there was an open access competitor, you couldn't have the the network going on strike to shut down the open access operator in order to strengthening the bargaining power of the passenger operator that was in competition with it, because that is what could happen.
And so I think from the public's point of view, because I think we should always think about what does this look like from the public's point of view. My amendment would reduce the risk of having a national rail strike in the first place. The second thing it would do is it would it would stop handing over significant amounts of bargaining power to trade unions, which would mean their ability to extract larger amounts of money from the taxpayer without anything in return.
I have no problem with people that work in the rail industry, whether it's drivers or other staff earning decent salaries. But just like in every industry, those salary rises have to be paid for by productivity improvements because otherwise they're just paid for by taxpayers, most of whom earn less than train drivers, significantly less than train drivers in most cases, all paid for by passengers. The final amendment that I have got down is amendment 327, and this is about consulting with disabled passengers before unions can have give notice of industrial action.
Now, the reason for this is that the Dft's own research into rail strikes found that passengers with mobility, memory or learning disabilities were more likely than non-disabled passengers. To say that making alternative arrangements was simply not feasible. Disabled passengers were also more likely to report a loss of earnings as a result of the strike. Now, you don't have to think too hard to understand why that might be. If you're physically disabled, for example, you're not able to drive or you're you have a visual impairment.
And until we get self driving cars widespread, you aren't able to drive either. Certainly not take a road vehicle at cost. Effectively, you simply have no choices. If the railways are not running, your chance of going to work is impaired or living your life, and it's a disproportionate impact on you compared to non-disabled people in society. So I think my very reasonable, modest amendment, it doesn't say that unions can't have a strike.
It simply says that before they give formal notice of industrial action, they have to speak to the disabled person's Transport Advisory Committee and other organisations representing disabled people, explain People explain the action and its likely effect on services, and allow at least seven days for representations to come back about the impact and for those trade unions to consider those representations before it goes ahead and has the strike now, in any other environment, the trade unions would think this was a marvellous if it was businesses that were having to obey these strictures.
So I think it reasonable that these strictures apply to them also, and I commend this amendment to the committee.
People are expected to use new technology to make businesses more efficient to help it compete. They're not expected to say, we're going to carry on using paper and pen unless you give us large amounts of money to do so. Any competitive business that did that would discover that it wasn't going to be in business for very long, because it would be put out of business by all its competitors who were moving with the latest technology. That's the mindset that we want to make sure doesn't happen now.
The three amendments that I have. Amendment three, one five, specifically means that for passenger railway services, you would it would disapply the change that was in the Employment Rights Act 2025, and make sure that you had to have at least 50% of eligible union members participating in a strike ballot, and at least 40% of those eligible members supporting industrial action. Now, the reason for that is that, as my noble friend said, many people depend on passenger rail services to get to work, to earn a living, to get to an educational opportunity, to do all of the essential things, to get to medical appointments, to do all the essential things that people need to do in life.
And passenger rail strikes on passenger rail services are incredibly disruptive. And this is about making sure that you can't have a dispute without a significant amount of support for it, because otherwise, what you would find is that you could have a relatively small number of people voting in a strike ballot, but a majority carrying the ballot. And with relatively low support, you could have a strike causing enormous amounts of inconvenience and economic damage. And this amendment simply tries to preserve that higher bar to have a strike.
It doesn't say you can't have a strike. It simply says that you have to have a higher level of support to have one. The Second Amendment Amendment 316, my noble friend alluded to is about four. That GBR remains a separate company for the purposes of industrial relations legislation from its subsidiaries. Now, there's a very important reason for doing that twofold. One is to prevent unions being able to have rail unions be able to have a national rail strike, causing enormous inconvenience , not just for passengers, but also for freight operators and those that require access to the network.
But the second thing, which I think certainly under this government would be more likely. I'm not necessarily that would be the ministers doing. Is that because of that power that would be handed to trade unions , to have a national rail strike, what would actually happen in practice is that their bargaining strength would be increased, and we would see larger pay rises going to those trade unions, not merited by any improvement in productivity and entirely paid for with a nationalised rail industry by the taxpayer.
And I don't think that will be acceptable. And actually, if ministers, they won't admit it. But I suspect in their private moments, ministers must be just thinking to themselves, is it a very good idea to have a nationalised rail service that counts as a single employer, where we give the power to trade unions, to have national rail strikes so that they're able to demand unlimited amounts of money from us for fear of bringing the country to a standstill.
And I think perhaps in their quieter moments, they might just reflect on whether that is entirely sensible. I would argue that it isn't. And keeping putting this in place means that if you had a dispute on a particular part of the passenger network, for example, perhaps because of local issues, as my noble friend Lord Moylan said, what that wouldn't be able to do is turn into a national rail strike. It would also mean, for example, if there was a pay dispute on a part of the network where there was an open access competitor, you couldn't have the the network going on strike to shut down the open access operator in order to strengthening the bargaining power of the passenger operator that was in competition with it, because that is what could happen.
And so I think from the public's point of view, because I think we should always think about what does this look like from the public's point of view. My amendment would reduce the risk of having a national rail strike in the first place. The second thing it would do is it would it would stop handing over significant amounts of bargaining power to trade unions, which would mean their ability to extract larger amounts of money from the taxpayer without anything in return.
I have no problem with people that work in the rail industry, whether it's drivers or other staff earning decent salaries. But just like in every industry, those salary rises have to be paid for by productivity improvements because otherwise they're just paid for by taxpayers, most of whom earn less than train drivers, significantly less than train drivers in most cases, all paid for by passengers. The final amendment that I have got down is amendment 327, and this is about consulting with disabled passengers before unions can have give notice of industrial action.
Now, the reason for this is that the Dft's own research into rail strikes found that passengers with mobility, memory or learning disabilities were more likely than non-disabled passengers. To say that making alternative arrangements was simply not feasible. Disabled passengers were also more likely to report a loss of earnings as a result of the strike. Now, you don't have to think too hard to understand why that might be. If you're physically disabled, for example, you're not able to drive or you're you have a visual impairment.
And until we get self driving cars widespread, you aren't able to drive either. Certainly not take a road vehicle at cost. Effectively, you simply have no choices. If the railways are not running, your chance of going to work is impaired or living your life, and it's a disproportionate impact on you compared to non-disabled people in society. So I think my very reasonable, modest amendment, it doesn't say that unions can't have a strike.
It simply says that before they give formal notice of industrial action, they have to speak to the disabled person's Transport Advisory Committee and other organisations representing disabled people, explain People explain the action and its likely effect on services, and allow at least seven days for representations to come back about the impact and for those trade unions to consider those representations before it goes ahead and has the strike now, in any other environment, the trade unions would think this was a marvellous if it was businesses that were having to obey these strictures.
So I think it reasonable that these strictures apply to them also, and I commend this amendment to the committee.
16:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, I want to intervene very briefly on this group of amendments and follow up what my noble friend Lord Harper said in connection with amendments 316, which specifically refers to separate companies under GBR when it comes to employing. Staff. What happened on privatisation was that under Tuppy, those who worked for British Rail were transferred over to the train operating companies under the franchises, and what subsequently happened was that each of the franchising companies developed different terms and conditions, different salary levels, and the position at the moment, as I understand it, is as the franchises expire, they fall into the lap of DFT and because the staff will be on different terms and conditions at the moment, I assume the DFT keeps them in separate entities, be they companies or what have you.
However, when you look at what the trade unions want, they want to move away from this separate bundles of contracts into one GBR as one employer with similar terms and conditions. If you look at what Mick Whelan has said, he wants to enter into discussions about equalising salaries so drivers get the same salary for the same job. And he's pointed out that at the moment one train driver can earn £10,000 more a train driver for doing basically the same thing.
And again, if you look at what the RMT want, they want a standardised rates of pay. And basically what they want is a 32 hour four day week. And if we are going to move to GBR running the railways, it would be slightly illogical to have totally different terms and conditions throughout the network. So my question to the minister is this . How does he plan to proceed from where we are with the franchises operating as they fall in under separate terms and conditions to where I expect he wants to be and where certainly the trade unions want to be, with one cohesive, standardised pay.
And, of course, what the trade unions will want to do is to level up. And that will have implications for GBR in terms of the subsidy they need from the Treasury. So just be helpful. If the minister could outline the the map, how he plans to get from where we are to where I think he wants to be and what his negotiating position is likely to be with the trade unions, who will say exactly what I've just said.
We're going to have one nationalised industry. It doesn't make sense to have totally different terms and conditions. So I hope when the minister winds up this debate, he can shed a little bit of light on the way forward for what I see as one of the major problems facing GBR. If it is to manage industrial relations sensibly and avoid what my noble friend Lord Harper has referred to the possibility of national strikes on a scale which actually we didn't see immediately after privatisation, but.
And I hope no one wants to see again. Yeah.
However, when you look at what the trade unions want, they want to move away from this separate bundles of contracts into one GBR as one employer with similar terms and conditions. If you look at what Mick Whelan has said, he wants to enter into discussions about equalising salaries so drivers get the same salary for the same job. And he's pointed out that at the moment one train driver can earn £10,000 more a train driver for doing basically the same thing.
And again, if you look at what the RMT want, they want a standardised rates of pay. And basically what they want is a 32 hour four day week. And if we are going to move to GBR running the railways, it would be slightly illogical to have totally different terms and conditions throughout the network. So my question to the minister is this . How does he plan to proceed from where we are with the franchises operating as they fall in under separate terms and conditions to where I expect he wants to be and where certainly the trade unions want to be, with one cohesive, standardised pay.
And, of course, what the trade unions will want to do is to level up. And that will have implications for GBR in terms of the subsidy they need from the Treasury. So just be helpful. If the minister could outline the the map, how he plans to get from where we are to where I think he wants to be and what his negotiating position is likely to be with the trade unions, who will say exactly what I've just said.
We're going to have one nationalised industry. It doesn't make sense to have totally different terms and conditions. So I hope when the minister winds up this debate, he can shed a little bit of light on the way forward for what I see as one of the major problems facing GBR. If it is to manage industrial relations sensibly and avoid what my noble friend Lord Harper has referred to the possibility of national strikes on a scale which actually we didn't see immediately after privatisation, but.
And I hope no one wants to see again. Yeah.
16:54
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, I rise just briefly to support what my both my noble friends have been saying, and indeed what Lord Moylan said at the start. This really matters because up to now we've seen no evidence that this government is going to push through modernisation of practices on the railways. In fact, just the opposite. When the the First Secretary of State settled with the unions after taking office, there was no provision for improved productivity.
And of course, this only leads to one of two places. One is the national strike, which. In the end the government will almost certainly have to cave into to some degree. But also, crucially, going back to our conversation a moment ago, the minister talking about how we get to the freight strategy for 2040, how projects come on stream and unlock extra capacity for freight and so forth. But we already know in this particular piece of legislation, the government is taking the power to effectively close down a control period spending package to allow the Secretary of State effectively to to row back.
And I assume, I gather, that was pushed by the Treasury in the the summer. And I have no doubt, given the pressures on the Treasury and the pattern of public spending for the coming years over the next 2 to 3 years until the next election. We know that Rachel Reeves spent money in the first two years. We know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the spending plans for the last 2 to 3 years of this parliament as eye wateringly tight and probably unsustainable.
And we know that the Treasury has changed the legislation to allow the Secretary of State to claw back planned spending in a control period that is otherwise supposed to be set for that period. And we know the government has so far done nothing to enhance productivity on the railways. And, in fact, we also know there's a very substantial amount of money spent by the last government on improving rail services in Oxford and Cambridge. For the moment, Oxford and Milton Keynes is sitting idly because the unions won't let the Chiltern Rail operate in exactly the same way as it already does on its existing services.
And that, of course, now doesn't rail as part of DFT. So a question to the minister where on earth is the evidence that, firstly, the government is going to be capable of managing the industrial relations, keeping all this under control and addressing the issues that my two noble friends have said. Where's the evidence that it will drive productivity on the railways, and where is the evidence that the cost of failing on both those counts is not going to be cutbacks to planned spending and investment? That will actually mean that targets like the 2040 target for rail freight are even less likely to be met.
And of course, this only leads to one of two places. One is the national strike, which. In the end the government will almost certainly have to cave into to some degree. But also, crucially, going back to our conversation a moment ago, the minister talking about how we get to the freight strategy for 2040, how projects come on stream and unlock extra capacity for freight and so forth. But we already know in this particular piece of legislation, the government is taking the power to effectively close down a control period spending package to allow the Secretary of State effectively to to row back.
And I assume, I gather, that was pushed by the Treasury in the the summer. And I have no doubt, given the pressures on the Treasury and the pattern of public spending for the coming years over the next 2 to 3 years until the next election. We know that Rachel Reeves spent money in the first two years. We know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the spending plans for the last 2 to 3 years of this parliament as eye wateringly tight and probably unsustainable.
And we know that the Treasury has changed the legislation to allow the Secretary of State to claw back planned spending in a control period that is otherwise supposed to be set for that period. And we know the government has so far done nothing to enhance productivity on the railways. And, in fact, we also know there's a very substantial amount of money spent by the last government on improving rail services in Oxford and Cambridge. For the moment, Oxford and Milton Keynes is sitting idly because the unions won't let the Chiltern Rail operate in exactly the same way as it already does on its existing services.
And that, of course, now doesn't rail as part of DFT. So a question to the minister where on earth is the evidence that, firstly, the government is going to be capable of managing the industrial relations, keeping all this under control and addressing the issues that my two noble friends have said. Where's the evidence that it will drive productivity on the railways, and where is the evidence that the cost of failing on both those counts is not going to be cutbacks to planned spending and investment? That will actually mean that targets like the 2040 target for rail freight are even less likely to be met.
16:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I just very briefly, I hope noble lords have recognised that the strike record of the passenger services. In recent years has been rather worse than the record of open access passenger operators and indeed freight operators. And they've been very, very few. Strikes in the in the freight sector. And I recall years ago, one of the reasons that for the privatisation and the. Franchising process for passengers was that ministers don't get any of the ministers who are here in the room now.
But ministers said, well, if we have half a dozen or a dozen different franchises, each with their own ability to negotiate terms and conditions with the trade unions, then it's been much more difficult for the trade unions to hold the whole country to account. Now, if we're going back to that, there is a downside there, and I only hope that we can get it right this time. And don't go back to what it was like 20 or 30 years ago, when the strikes seem to be going on forever.
But ministers said, well, if we have half a dozen or a dozen different franchises, each with their own ability to negotiate terms and conditions with the trade unions, then it's been much more difficult for the trade unions to hold the whole country to account. Now, if we're going back to that, there is a downside there, and I only hope that we can get it right this time. And don't go back to what it was like 20 or 30 years ago, when the strikes seem to be going on forever.
16:59
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Harper have set out around workforce productivity and industrial relations, and some of the debate has reminds me of debates we used to have at City Hall around London Underground. But the key issue for me is exactly as Lord Young of Cookham has set out something I mentioned earlier debate. And actually when we debated the first legislation on the public ownership of the railway two years ago, my noble friend Baroness Randerson, raised at that time, is to understand fully will staff remain in separate Great British Railways companies will become employed by one company.
As we've heard, they're all on different terms and conditions. Great variation. And of course, the unions role is to try to bring everyone up to the highest level. But the idea of an all out rail strike looms ahead. If we don't have clarity on this, and if everyone ends up working for one company, Great British Railways, and in some ways this is comparable to the NHS. A number of years for change rolled out, standardising pay grades and terms and conditions right across the NHS, buying people out of their contracts.
And we have had a lot of rail disputes. But I look back and experience the absolute pain of the dispute with Govia Thameslink Railway, Southern Railways, when I think government was trying to push them to remove guards on their trains. That went on for at least nine months around 2016 2017, absolutely painful, damaging to the economy, businesses going out of business in places like Brighton, and huge pain and that uncertainty every day as a passenger of knowing, are you going to be able to catch a train to pick up your child from nursery, or are you going to face being fined? And that stress every day and people you spoke to, it was huge.
And the idea you could have that on a national scale, I think is really worrying indeed. So I think it would be really helpful if the minister would be able to give us clarity on this point, because as we move forward with this bill, this is a really serious consideration.
As we've heard, they're all on different terms and conditions. Great variation. And of course, the unions role is to try to bring everyone up to the highest level. But the idea of an all out rail strike looms ahead. If we don't have clarity on this, and if everyone ends up working for one company, Great British Railways, and in some ways this is comparable to the NHS. A number of years for change rolled out, standardising pay grades and terms and conditions right across the NHS, buying people out of their contracts.
And we have had a lot of rail disputes. But I look back and experience the absolute pain of the dispute with Govia Thameslink Railway, Southern Railways, when I think government was trying to push them to remove guards on their trains. That went on for at least nine months around 2016 2017, absolutely painful, damaging to the economy, businesses going out of business in places like Brighton, and huge pain and that uncertainty every day as a passenger of knowing, are you going to be able to catch a train to pick up your child from nursery, or are you going to face being fined? And that stress every day and people you spoke to, it was huge.
And the idea you could have that on a national scale, I think is really worrying indeed. So I think it would be really helpful if the minister would be able to give us clarity on this point, because as we move forward with this bill, this is a really serious consideration.
17:01
17:01
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Well, my Lords, on turning first to amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, noble Lords heard him use what I think are really some inappropriate and wrong allegations about the present level of efficiency from the railway workforce. In his lifetime, the railway workforce has become very, very significantly smaller and is far more productive than it used to be. I, I wish very much, actually in the recent past, that any of the franchisees or many of them had taken any steps to drive productivity , because actually the railway might be in a better place today than it than than than actually it is.
But largely they didn't do that. And, and I would suggest that the government's doing better as far as the long term rail strategy is concerned. It's going to set out the objectives for the railway over a 30 year period and consider long term challenges like environmental and demographic changes and technological development. Very few companies manage their workforce via long term vision setting documents, and I'm sure that noble lords who have run companies, as I have, will agree with me that they did not and do not do that, making it impossible to offer pay increases to staff unless productivity improves, is not is not an appropriate amendment for primary legislation.
But I do agree with the noble Lords general point that railway productivity must improve to create a better experience for passengers and the public. It's how you do it that matters. And the noble Lord Harper is right. In my time of Network Rail, principally the chief executive, we did manage to get a satisfactory deal with some really substantial changes in in the way in which the work was done. But he should know, as other noble Lords, that actually there was no legislative obligation to do that.
That was the management talking to the workforce and the trade union and reaching a bargain about what needed to be done by them in order to be able to give the the pay rise that that they got.
But largely they didn't do that. And, and I would suggest that the government's doing better as far as the long term rail strategy is concerned. It's going to set out the objectives for the railway over a 30 year period and consider long term challenges like environmental and demographic changes and technological development. Very few companies manage their workforce via long term vision setting documents, and I'm sure that noble lords who have run companies, as I have, will agree with me that they did not and do not do that, making it impossible to offer pay increases to staff unless productivity improves, is not is not an appropriate amendment for primary legislation.
But I do agree with the noble Lords general point that railway productivity must improve to create a better experience for passengers and the public. It's how you do it that matters. And the noble Lord Harper is right. In my time of Network Rail, principally the chief executive, we did manage to get a satisfactory deal with some really substantial changes in in the way in which the work was done. But he should know, as other noble Lords, that actually there was no legislative obligation to do that.
That was the management talking to the workforce and the trade union and reaching a bargain about what needed to be done by them in order to be able to give the the pay rise that that they got.
17:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
But I just intervene briefly on that point. The minister is right. There wasn't a legislative obligation, but I'm sure the minister will be clear that he and the chief executive were under very clear direction from the Secretary of State, namely myself, about the the financial envelope and about the way in which they could reach a settlement. So I made it very clear that I was very happy for them to reach a settlement, but it was one that did not have an infinite amount of money attached to it.
But as I said in my remarks, he and the chief executive did a great job and came up with a very good deal. And that's what I want to see replicated.
But as I said in my remarks, he and the chief executive did a great job and came up with a very good deal. And that's what I want to see replicated.
17:04
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And I would say to the noble Lord that that's exactly the mechanism that will be used in GBR and by the Secretary of State in, in, in, in her management of GBR to get get better deals across the sector. You don't need legislation to do that. You need some clear, clear objectives. And for example, we're already taking steps to secure a genuine seven day railway, working with staff, management and unions across the railway to identify the best way to achieve it for passengers in a collaborative way.
I wish that had been done in the recent past . Coverage on Sundays, particularly from drivers in some companies, has long been a problem, but nobody's sought to solve to sought to deal with it. And and and and we are starting to to to deal with it. And indeed the present series of of pay deals where the delta between CPR and PRT has been paid for by real productivity. The delta is fairly small, but the productivity is worth having.
And it not only includes the use of modern technology, but it also includes improvements in things like route learning and gives genuinely better availability of staff to to, to run the train service. So I can assure noble Lords that pay decisions in the future will will reflect the government's determination to have a motivated, empowered and productive workforce and indeed creating GBR will help with this. GBR will bring an end to the fragmentation and short termism that has characterised rail workforce management practices for 30 years, such as the systemic systemic reliance on excessive overtime and rest day working, leading to cancel services when volunteers aren't available, which will allow productivity to be increased over time.
We have that issue well in hand, and I do not support amendments three, one five and 316 in the name of the noble Lord Harper, the government passed the Employment Rights Act, right. Rights act 2025 to remove restrictions on lawful industrial action, because it believes that collective bargaining rights are key to tackling problems of inequality and discrimination across sectors. We want to foster cooperation between trade unions, employers and the government. In doing so, we will support employers to amicably resolve disputes with their workforce and reduce disruption and costs overall.
And frankly, we're not revisiting the Employment Rights Act again in this in in this bill. And, and, and that improvement is what we've seen in the rail sector. The government has improved relationships with the trade unions, and the collaborative approach has meant that the number of rail services lost due to strikes has more than halved compared with the previous government.
I wish that had been done in the recent past . Coverage on Sundays, particularly from drivers in some companies, has long been a problem, but nobody's sought to solve to sought to deal with it. And and and and we are starting to to to deal with it. And indeed the present series of of pay deals where the delta between CPR and PRT has been paid for by real productivity. The delta is fairly small, but the productivity is worth having.
And it not only includes the use of modern technology, but it also includes improvements in things like route learning and gives genuinely better availability of staff to to, to run the train service. So I can assure noble Lords that pay decisions in the future will will reflect the government's determination to have a motivated, empowered and productive workforce and indeed creating GBR will help with this. GBR will bring an end to the fragmentation and short termism that has characterised rail workforce management practices for 30 years, such as the systemic systemic reliance on excessive overtime and rest day working, leading to cancel services when volunteers aren't available, which will allow productivity to be increased over time.
We have that issue well in hand, and I do not support amendments three, one five and 316 in the name of the noble Lord Harper, the government passed the Employment Rights Act, right. Rights act 2025 to remove restrictions on lawful industrial action, because it believes that collective bargaining rights are key to tackling problems of inequality and discrimination across sectors. We want to foster cooperation between trade unions, employers and the government. In doing so, we will support employers to amicably resolve disputes with their workforce and reduce disruption and costs overall.
And frankly, we're not revisiting the Employment Rights Act again in this in in this bill. And, and, and that improvement is what we've seen in the rail sector. The government has improved relationships with the trade unions, and the collaborative approach has meant that the number of rail services lost due to strikes has more than halved compared with the previous government.
17:07
17:07
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
If the noble Lord was really like to know, then he, then the Secretary, the previous Secretary of State, who's not present, who's not present in noble Lord's house, might want to explain why in 2022 we knew that the infrastructure was going to be finished in 24. And yet, when the government took office in July 2024, there was no contract in place for the operation of the service. We indeed, we had to start again in order to in order to start that contract.
And we're only now in the position that we're probably. We should have been two and a half years ago in terms of actually procuring a train service that actually worked. I don't feel that it's very productive to talk about the first pay settlement, which solved the long running issues in which cost around 850 million in foregone revenue over 2022 to 2024. But it probably is worth saying that at the time that the government took office, there was no productivity on the table.
And indeed, the noble Lord Harper might prefer to forget that one of the issues in that was that the owning groups were not prepared to release such proposals, because they didn't have an agreement about how much their cut of those proposals would be. And I think that the solution of that issue did passengers a huge favour by actually resolving the industrial disputes and putting the railway back to some form of reliable operation. And as the noble Baroness Pidgeon says, people are relying on the railway every day and they need it to work every day.
And the and the and the intermittent strikes which took place for two and a quarter years, were hugely damaging in. In that respect, we know that the trade unions support the creation of GBR, and they recognise that making GBR successful will require no. One, of course, wants to see a return to industrial action that disrupts passengers and customers, and which I said was rather too commonplace in the recent past in respect of amendment 316. Specifically, I'd reassure the noble Lord that secondary industrial industrial action between GBR subsidiaries, which is.
Amendment seeks to prohibit, is already prohibited under section 324 of the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Consolidation Act 1992. All of the rest of what he postulates and the noble your lung young postulates is conjecture because the noble Lord young is right. As rail operations transfer into the public sector, currently they will remain in their separate negotiated routes. What I would say is that in the history of the of the nationalised railway since 1948, there has never been a single rate of pay for any job because largely driver's jobs were in links with actually very different earnings as a consequence of what the what the individuals did.
And there are also some very significant geographical differences. And I'm not going to talk in this form about what negotiation, what negotiating position we would adopt with the trade unions if there is a bargain to be had and they know there is a bargain to be had, it will be established through the normal between between management and trade unions. And in fact, the rail and the rail engagement group is the forum in which we are engaging the high level, the trade unions to establish, to both inform them and their members how this is going to progress and to establish between us what they might want out of such a deal and what the government might want to.
And we're only now in the position that we're probably. We should have been two and a half years ago in terms of actually procuring a train service that actually worked. I don't feel that it's very productive to talk about the first pay settlement, which solved the long running issues in which cost around 850 million in foregone revenue over 2022 to 2024. But it probably is worth saying that at the time that the government took office, there was no productivity on the table.
And indeed, the noble Lord Harper might prefer to forget that one of the issues in that was that the owning groups were not prepared to release such proposals, because they didn't have an agreement about how much their cut of those proposals would be. And I think that the solution of that issue did passengers a huge favour by actually resolving the industrial disputes and putting the railway back to some form of reliable operation. And as the noble Baroness Pidgeon says, people are relying on the railway every day and they need it to work every day.
And the and the and the intermittent strikes which took place for two and a quarter years, were hugely damaging in. In that respect, we know that the trade unions support the creation of GBR, and they recognise that making GBR successful will require no. One, of course, wants to see a return to industrial action that disrupts passengers and customers, and which I said was rather too commonplace in the recent past in respect of amendment 316. Specifically, I'd reassure the noble Lord that secondary industrial industrial action between GBR subsidiaries, which is.
Amendment seeks to prohibit, is already prohibited under section 324 of the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Consolidation Act 1992. All of the rest of what he postulates and the noble your lung young postulates is conjecture because the noble Lord young is right. As rail operations transfer into the public sector, currently they will remain in their separate negotiated routes. What I would say is that in the history of the of the nationalised railway since 1948, there has never been a single rate of pay for any job because largely driver's jobs were in links with actually very different earnings as a consequence of what the what the individuals did.
And there are also some very significant geographical differences. And I'm not going to talk in this form about what negotiation, what negotiating position we would adopt with the trade unions if there is a bargain to be had and they know there is a bargain to be had, it will be established through the normal between between management and trade unions. And in fact, the rail and the rail engagement group is the forum in which we are engaging the high level, the trade unions to establish, to both inform them and their members how this is going to progress and to establish between us what they might want out of such a deal and what the government might want to.
17:10
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Just before the minister moves on. If you'll forgive me. So can I just check then the reassurance that he's attempted to provide to myself and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, that if the subsidiaries remain as they are, and it isn't to have a single strike, is it the government's intention, then , that that is going to remain the position and the government has no plans to bring any of those operations together? Because that was the thrust of what my noble friend Lord young said.
The government's intention that they remain as separate legal entities for the foreseeable future, or does the government have a different plan?
The government's intention that they remain as separate legal entities for the foreseeable future, or does the government have a different plan?
17:11
17:11
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
So the noble Lord, I'm sure will will know that actually at the time that the that the employees move into public ownership prevents such changes for for the immediate future. Well, I'm not saying anything about the future other than the fact that we need to have a serious discussion with the trade unions and the employees who are going into GBR. If there's to be a change, then we need to understand what their aspirations is for such a change.
And we also need to know what the conditions are from a management point of view, of making that, of making that change. For the moment, we are where we are, and over 40,000 employees have transferred into public ownership. And I think a largely very pleased to do so. And we'll take it from there in the forums that we have and the forums that we might need to establish if we're going to do something different. Turning to amendment three, two, four, what collective bargaining agreements will cover and what they will require of the parties under GBR has still to be determined, as I've just said, and will be subject to discussions with the trade unions.
The Noble Lords proposed clause is, is , is inappropriate and would prejudice those discussions, and it's not necessary to legislate to restrict what those discussions can cover by via legislation. As we've discussed so far, there's clearly a philosophical disagreement between this government and the last over how to treat trade unions. But our approach is collaborative, focused on getting the right outcomes, and is working on amendment three two, seven. I absolutely acknowledge that many people rely on train services to go about their daily life, and that's especially the case for those with disabilities, some of whom, as the noble Lord says, can't drive or may find the use of private hire vehicles or other means of transport unaffordable or impractical.
For those reasons, rail service disruption and cancellations due to industrial action or indeed any other reason, affect all these people and may affect some of them disproportionately. There are, of course, duties on all trade unions to give employers notice of industrial action. This means that rail employers can assess the likely impact on passengers should there be such action, which enables them to plan for communicate the details of any industrial action in good time. The Bill places accessibility at the heart of the future railway by ensuring that actively consider the needs of disabled passengers when making decisions, and therefore the responsibility will be for GBR to ensure it's taken account of disabled passengers in any preparation for industrial actions.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is the government's statutory adviser on transport needs of disabled people. It wouldn't be appropriate for them to carry out an assessment of the operational impacts of each instance of industrial action on disabled people. I think that's very much for the organisation in charge of the railway, which will be in charge of the railway GBR to think about in in accordance with its duties. Accordingly, I'd urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
And we also need to know what the conditions are from a management point of view, of making that, of making that change. For the moment, we are where we are, and over 40,000 employees have transferred into public ownership. And I think a largely very pleased to do so. And we'll take it from there in the forums that we have and the forums that we might need to establish if we're going to do something different. Turning to amendment three, two, four, what collective bargaining agreements will cover and what they will require of the parties under GBR has still to be determined, as I've just said, and will be subject to discussions with the trade unions.
The Noble Lords proposed clause is, is , is inappropriate and would prejudice those discussions, and it's not necessary to legislate to restrict what those discussions can cover by via legislation. As we've discussed so far, there's clearly a philosophical disagreement between this government and the last over how to treat trade unions. But our approach is collaborative, focused on getting the right outcomes, and is working on amendment three two, seven. I absolutely acknowledge that many people rely on train services to go about their daily life, and that's especially the case for those with disabilities, some of whom, as the noble Lord says, can't drive or may find the use of private hire vehicles or other means of transport unaffordable or impractical.
For those reasons, rail service disruption and cancellations due to industrial action or indeed any other reason, affect all these people and may affect some of them disproportionately. There are, of course, duties on all trade unions to give employers notice of industrial action. This means that rail employers can assess the likely impact on passengers should there be such action, which enables them to plan for communicate the details of any industrial action in good time. The Bill places accessibility at the heart of the future railway by ensuring that actively consider the needs of disabled passengers when making decisions, and therefore the responsibility will be for GBR to ensure it's taken account of disabled passengers in any preparation for industrial actions.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is the government's statutory adviser on transport needs of disabled people. It wouldn't be appropriate for them to carry out an assessment of the operational impacts of each instance of industrial action on disabled people. I think that's very much for the organisation in charge of the railway, which will be in charge of the railway GBR to think about in in accordance with its duties. Accordingly, I'd urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Anything about the future. It's what the noble Lord Minister just said in relation , admittedly to one particular issue, but I'd suggest that actually that applies almost to all of the issues raised in this debate, and it's increasingly becoming a motto for the government's approach to this committee. The thrust behind the government's argument is increasingly clear that you give us these extensive powers, and you will trust us to know how to carry them out in a way that is effective and appropriate.
And yet we have severe doubts about that, and we're entitled to those doubts, and we're entitled to see the bill amended. So the government is made accountable. GBR and the government are made accountable for delivering so that we understand clear objectives, clear lines of accountability and clear means of addressing success and failure. I won't pursue the debate we've had just now any further than that, because I think noble lords have set out very clearly what their concerns are.
I'm confident that we shall return to this debate at report stage, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
And yet we have severe doubts about that, and we're entitled to those doubts, and we're entitled to see the bill amended. So the government is made accountable. GBR and the government are made accountable for delivering so that we understand clear objectives, clear lines of accountability and clear means of addressing success and failure. I won't pursue the debate we've had just now any further than that, because I think noble lords have set out very clearly what their concerns are.
I'm confident that we shall return to this debate at report stage, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Not moved. No. No. Yeah. Okay. I'm just going to run through. Sorry. So amendment 97 Baroness Pidgeon not moved. Amendment 97 a Lord Nolan moved. Amendment 98. not moved removed amendment 99. Lord Grayling. not moved, not moved. Amendment 100. Lord Moylan not moved. The question is that clause 15 stand part of the bill.
As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 15, amendment 101. Lord Lansley. Not. Moved, not moved. Amendment 101. A Baroness Grey-thompson not moved. Amendment 102. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 103.
As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 15, amendment 101. Lord Lansley. Not. Moved, not moved. Amendment 101. A Baroness Grey-thompson not moved. Amendment 102. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 103.
17:17
17:17
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Not moved. Amendment 104. Lord Lansley. not moved, not moved. Amendment 105. Lord Beith not moved. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that clause 16 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Clause 17.
Amendment 106. Lord. Not moved, not moved. Thank you, Lord. 106 A Lord Grayling. Not moved, not moved. Thank you. Amendment 107. There's a preemption issue around that. I'm guessing it's not going to be moved. Baroness Pidgeon moved, not moved. And then amendment 108 Lord Grayling move not moved. Amendment 109 Lord Grayling moved.
The question is that clause 17 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say, content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 17, amendment 110, Baroness Pidgeon not moved, and then amendment 111. Earl Russell not moved, not moved. Amendment 112. Lord Moylan.
Amendment 106. Lord. Not moved, not moved. Thank you, Lord. 106 A Lord Grayling. Not moved, not moved. Thank you. Amendment 107. There's a preemption issue around that. I'm guessing it's not going to be moved. Baroness Pidgeon moved, not moved. And then amendment 108 Lord Grayling move not moved. Amendment 109 Lord Grayling moved.
The question is that clause 17 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say, content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 17, amendment 110, Baroness Pidgeon not moved, and then amendment 111. Earl Russell not moved, not moved. Amendment 112. Lord Moylan.
17:18
17:18
17:19
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords, the observant among you will have noticed that I am not Baroness Jones of Moleskin, my honourable friend in my noble friend apologises that she's currently occupied in the other chamber with the Public Office Accountability Bill, although I hope she'll be rejoining us the Committee shortly. And my qualifications for this taking part in this Committee of 14 years. I've spent an enormous number of train miles across these islands, and I'm passionate about greatly improving the reliability, affordability and practicality of train travel.
I just looked at my diary. In the next ten days I've got journeys to Kidderminster, Manningtree, Sheffield and Manchester. I have my fingers.
I just looked at my diary. In the next ten days I've got journeys to Kidderminster, Manningtree, Sheffield and Manchester. I have my fingers.
17:20
17:20
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
But I rise to move amendment 114 A and speak primarily to all the other amendments in this group. This rather diverse group described as general duties. In the name of my noble friend. I will, however, just very briefly express sympathy with amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I've heard the noble Lord on the subject of heritage railways many times before, and I look forward to hearing it again.
Thank you. But starting with amendment 114 A and 118 B, these are about the role we expect Great British Railways to play in people onto rail. and climate and environmental crises. At the moment this bill downgrades the role of the environment. And this, of course, is a time we absolutely cannot afford to do that. Transport is the UK's highest polluting sector. A modal shift duty is an absolute must.
Now there's a reference in clause 18 to the effect that railway services have on the environment, but it's a really relatively narrow formulation. It's essentially about minimising the harm caused by the railway. Really, we should be asking for something much more ambitious. How can the railway itself be a tool in reducing emissions, reducing car dependency, which also, of course, could have positive cost of living impacts for families and communities, and helping us to respond to the climate and nature emergencies.
There's a demonstrations across these islands about what's possible. Wales has put some very clear numbers on this. Its transport strategy aims for 45% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling or public transport. By 2040 it's net zero. Wales commitments include reducing car mileage per person by 10% by 2030, from a 2019 baseline, and increasing journeys by sustainable modes to 39% by 2030. Scotland has also recognised the importance of reducing car use.
It previously set a target to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030. From a 2019 baseline. The Scottish Government has since acknowledged that this target is off track and is revising it according to a longer term target aligned with its climate objectives. But the policy commitment is still there to reduce car use. And there's another important difference under section 44 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, Scottish public authorities already have a statutory duty when exercising their functions to act in a way best calculated to contribute to Scotland's climate targets and programmes.
But Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road and the Secretary of State will not have an equivalent overarching statutory climate duty under this Bill unless changes such as proposed here. Image now If Scotland and Wales can do this, why not us? I move then to one, two, seven on amendment one, two, seven on affordability. It's obvious that if we want people to choose trains over cars and planes, the train has to be affordable.
And I can cite many examples of where this clearly is not the case, which found a return journey from Edinburgh to Bournemouth, costing £127 by train. And I think I've done that journey and it's not a great pleasure. Compared £38 by plane, Glasgow to London was £101 by train, compared to £67 by plane at times. I'm sure we could actually find even worse examples. We cannot seriously expect people to choose rail if it costs two times or three times as much as flying.
And affordability is not just about the cheapest ticket you can find online. People have to travel when they need to travel. People on low incomes, shift workers, young people, passengers with disabilities, and people living in rural and coastal areas where there are few alternatives are often faced with simply impossible costs. We need a clear duty on the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to improve the affordability and fairness of affairs, and in particular regard to those groups.
I would therefore explicitly like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what the government's ambition is for affordable fares under Great British Railways, whether they would consider putting that ambition into the Bill. And then I come finally to 330 and 334 a the deregulation of licences. These are about the relationship between the general duties of this Bill and the licences that will govern the railway. Now, under the 1993 legislation.
Licence conditions have to have regard to the general duties. These amendments would make sure that this same connection is carried throughout this Bill. As I understand it, the way the bill is currently drawn, that link is being removed. It seems important because the bill gives us a set of general duties for Great British Railways, but then the licensing framework is no longer required to have regard to them. What will guide the conditions that are put on licence if the government is indeed taking away this duty.
Another direct question to the noble Lord, the Minister, and more broadly, where do these general duties sit in the hierarchy? Because if they're not reflected in the licences, while competition law and other regulatory requirements continue to have strong legal force, the duties could become more of a statement of intent than something that actually shapes how the railway is regulated. I beg to move.
Thank you. But starting with amendment 114 A and 118 B, these are about the role we expect Great British Railways to play in people onto rail. and climate and environmental crises. At the moment this bill downgrades the role of the environment. And this, of course, is a time we absolutely cannot afford to do that. Transport is the UK's highest polluting sector. A modal shift duty is an absolute must.
Now there's a reference in clause 18 to the effect that railway services have on the environment, but it's a really relatively narrow formulation. It's essentially about minimising the harm caused by the railway. Really, we should be asking for something much more ambitious. How can the railway itself be a tool in reducing emissions, reducing car dependency, which also, of course, could have positive cost of living impacts for families and communities, and helping us to respond to the climate and nature emergencies.
There's a demonstrations across these islands about what's possible. Wales has put some very clear numbers on this. Its transport strategy aims for 45% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling or public transport. By 2040 it's net zero. Wales commitments include reducing car mileage per person by 10% by 2030, from a 2019 baseline, and increasing journeys by sustainable modes to 39% by 2030. Scotland has also recognised the importance of reducing car use.
It previously set a target to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030. From a 2019 baseline. The Scottish Government has since acknowledged that this target is off track and is revising it according to a longer term target aligned with its climate objectives. But the policy commitment is still there to reduce car use. And there's another important difference under section 44 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, Scottish public authorities already have a statutory duty when exercising their functions to act in a way best calculated to contribute to Scotland's climate targets and programmes.
But Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road and the Secretary of State will not have an equivalent overarching statutory climate duty under this Bill unless changes such as proposed here. Image now If Scotland and Wales can do this, why not us? I move then to one, two, seven on amendment one, two, seven on affordability. It's obvious that if we want people to choose trains over cars and planes, the train has to be affordable.
And I can cite many examples of where this clearly is not the case, which found a return journey from Edinburgh to Bournemouth, costing £127 by train. And I think I've done that journey and it's not a great pleasure. Compared £38 by plane, Glasgow to London was £101 by train, compared to £67 by plane at times. I'm sure we could actually find even worse examples. We cannot seriously expect people to choose rail if it costs two times or three times as much as flying.
And affordability is not just about the cheapest ticket you can find online. People have to travel when they need to travel. People on low incomes, shift workers, young people, passengers with disabilities, and people living in rural and coastal areas where there are few alternatives are often faced with simply impossible costs. We need a clear duty on the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to improve the affordability and fairness of affairs, and in particular regard to those groups.
I would therefore explicitly like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what the government's ambition is for affordable fares under Great British Railways, whether they would consider putting that ambition into the Bill. And then I come finally to 330 and 334 a the deregulation of licences. These are about the relationship between the general duties of this Bill and the licences that will govern the railway. Now, under the 1993 legislation.
Licence conditions have to have regard to the general duties. These amendments would make sure that this same connection is carried throughout this Bill. As I understand it, the way the bill is currently drawn, that link is being removed. It seems important because the bill gives us a set of general duties for Great British Railways, but then the licensing framework is no longer required to have regard to them. What will guide the conditions that are put on licence if the government is indeed taking away this duty.
Another direct question to the noble Lord, the Minister, and more broadly, where do these general duties sit in the hierarchy? Because if they're not reflected in the licences, while competition law and other regulatory requirements continue to have strong legal force, the duties could become more of a statement of intent than something that actually shapes how the railway is regulated. I beg to move.
17:26
17:26
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for anticipating my amendment 118 and to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has signed it, and like the noble Baroness Lady Jones, and is in the chamber currently on the Public Accountability Public Office Accountability Bill and unable to take part in our debates here. As a result, our amendment 118 relates to the general duties of ministers, British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road.
We submit that these should be exercised in a manner best calculated to preserve a sustainable role for heritage rail services. We know that the noble Lord, the Minister, wants to preserve that sustainable role and as I've said before, and he is a great champion for rail and transport heritage in general. But if we are to approve and enact this bill, we want to ensure that it withstands any changes of ministers or government and would operate in a scenario where we're not so fortunate to have such a supportive and knowledgeable minister, or indeed such supporters in other areas of rail life should note as well our gratitude and appreciation to the Office of Rail and Road for the work that they've undertaken since the passing of the Employment Rights Act and on the publication of guidance this summer, which makes clear the role that young volunteers can play on our heritage railways.
So we are grateful for the support that there is presently, but we want to make sure that that is sustained. Our amendment is modest. It gives discretion to ministers, to GBR and to the order in how they do it. It simply seeks to preserve a sustainable role, but it does reflect a number of concerns and questions that heritage rail operators, particularly those operating on the main line, have raised with us. I've outlined those in my contributions at second reading and in the contribution that I made to my earlier amendment 90, which relates to the the clauses concerning the long term rail strategy.
So I won't rehearse them at length here, but they. They relate in passing to the questions of capacity constraints, which we. We see already affecting many operators that run either exclusively mainline services or a blend of the two, the North York Moors Railway, which runs to Whitby, is already running on lines which have capacity constraints. And if we're to see this in the future, then I think it's important that we give the steer to ministers, to GBR and to the order that they take these into account also in the decisions that they they take in relation to infrastructure.
We saw in the 1980s and 1990s how decisions that reduce the the things like passing loops and stabling sidings had an effect on those who operated charter rail services. So as with our amendment that looks at the long term rail strategy and the amendments that we'll touch on later in this committee about the access and use policy, we're looking for opportunities to ensure that everybody involved in the future of the railways continues to pay attention to the important role that that heritage, the heritage of our railways, has played in getting us to where we are and to inspiring the future generations of people who will shape our railway network.
We submit that these should be exercised in a manner best calculated to preserve a sustainable role for heritage rail services. We know that the noble Lord, the Minister, wants to preserve that sustainable role and as I've said before, and he is a great champion for rail and transport heritage in general. But if we are to approve and enact this bill, we want to ensure that it withstands any changes of ministers or government and would operate in a scenario where we're not so fortunate to have such a supportive and knowledgeable minister, or indeed such supporters in other areas of rail life should note as well our gratitude and appreciation to the Office of Rail and Road for the work that they've undertaken since the passing of the Employment Rights Act and on the publication of guidance this summer, which makes clear the role that young volunteers can play on our heritage railways.
So we are grateful for the support that there is presently, but we want to make sure that that is sustained. Our amendment is modest. It gives discretion to ministers, to GBR and to the order in how they do it. It simply seeks to preserve a sustainable role, but it does reflect a number of concerns and questions that heritage rail operators, particularly those operating on the main line, have raised with us. I've outlined those in my contributions at second reading and in the contribution that I made to my earlier amendment 90, which relates to the the clauses concerning the long term rail strategy.
So I won't rehearse them at length here, but they. They relate in passing to the questions of capacity constraints, which we. We see already affecting many operators that run either exclusively mainline services or a blend of the two, the North York Moors Railway, which runs to Whitby, is already running on lines which have capacity constraints. And if we're to see this in the future, then I think it's important that we give the steer to ministers, to GBR and to the order that they take these into account also in the decisions that they they take in relation to infrastructure.
We saw in the 1980s and 1990s how decisions that reduce the the things like passing loops and stabling sidings had an effect on those who operated charter rail services. So as with our amendment that looks at the long term rail strategy and the amendments that we'll touch on later in this committee about the access and use policy, we're looking for opportunities to ensure that everybody involved in the future of the railways continues to pay attention to the important role that that heritage, the heritage of our railways, has played in getting us to where we are and to inspiring the future generations of people who will shape our railway network.
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
committee will understand that the temptation not to support the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on this amendment is too strong to resist. It's a very important point, and this is one of the occasions when, in speaking in committee. It is quite right that I declare an interest. I was recently elected vice chair of the all party parliamentary group on the heritage rail industry. Very sadly, because of the death of our noble friend Lord Snape.
And I'm not here as a substitute for my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who could speak with much greater authority than I can. But I think it is important for the committee to know. One of the reasons for all party parliamentary groups is to bring together people from across parties with a common cause, and I have no financial interest whatsoever in the railways, but I am a very strong supporter of the heritage railway industry. And when Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle said that she was looking forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, well, so was I.
I haven't been disappointed. So I just wanted to endorse all the major points that he made . And and, you know, the she's one of the major attractions in this country of one kind or another. And it has been through difficult times and has to adjust to changing circumstances. The issue of supplies of coal, for example, if you take this year, 2026, which has been a record breaking year in terms of heat, I know for a fact, having discussed it in the all party parliamentary group, that different railways of different kinds have had problems of one kind or another related to the sheer heat.
And indeed, I think my noble Lord will correct me if I'm wrong. But there are now greater moves by the heritage railway industry to try to develop winter related events, because, sadly, this year showed that you cannot run steam railways, for example, because of the risks of fire. And the noble Lord has already mentioned volunteers, which are crucial. And I welcome what he said about the guidance that was issued and the things about capacity, restraints and infrastructure.
These are all very worthwhile points to make, and I simply wanted to briefly contribute to the committee by saying that I endorse them, and I hope my noble friend, the minister, when he comes to reply, who has greater knowledge of this as well, will feel able either to accept the amendment or at least to reassure the Committee to a great extent, that the needs of the heritage rail industry, which are a major benefit to this country, will be protected in the new era to which we are moving.
And I'm not here as a substitute for my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who could speak with much greater authority than I can. But I think it is important for the committee to know. One of the reasons for all party parliamentary groups is to bring together people from across parties with a common cause, and I have no financial interest whatsoever in the railways, but I am a very strong supporter of the heritage railway industry. And when Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle said that she was looking forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, well, so was I.
I haven't been disappointed. So I just wanted to endorse all the major points that he made . And and, you know, the she's one of the major attractions in this country of one kind or another. And it has been through difficult times and has to adjust to changing circumstances. The issue of supplies of coal, for example, if you take this year, 2026, which has been a record breaking year in terms of heat, I know for a fact, having discussed it in the all party parliamentary group, that different railways of different kinds have had problems of one kind or another related to the sheer heat.
And indeed, I think my noble Lord will correct me if I'm wrong. But there are now greater moves by the heritage railway industry to try to develop winter related events, because, sadly, this year showed that you cannot run steam railways, for example, because of the risks of fire. And the noble Lord has already mentioned volunteers, which are crucial. And I welcome what he said about the guidance that was issued and the things about capacity, restraints and infrastructure.
These are all very worthwhile points to make, and I simply wanted to briefly contribute to the committee by saying that I endorse them, and I hope my noble friend, the minister, when he comes to reply, who has greater knowledge of this as well, will feel able either to accept the amendment or at least to reassure the Committee to a great extent, that the needs of the heritage rail industry, which are a major benefit to this country, will be protected in the new era to which we are moving.
17:33
17:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords. It's good to have a a new colleague or a recycled colleague back in the in the railway. So I call it the greater market. And it's really good that he supports the all the amendments other days as well as today on the on the heritage sector, it's a big problem, but it's something that we, you know, we must continue to press ministers. Hopefully we will get some some support, but I'm sure we will.
I want to speak to. Well, I have a number of amendments in this group, including, I think 119123185 and 205. I may have got that wrong, but I don't think we need to discuss now because to some extent we have , we have we have talked about it. And it's a difference making a efficient use to value for money. And I think what what I'm keen on all these ones is to make it as a strong argument as possible.
May I just say a word or two about amendment one, two, six in my name? It's tried to be a catch all to ensure that GBR operates in a totally non-discriminatory manner. Of course, we've talked about this in the past and many. Earlier amendments, but I just felt it was useful to have something that would hopefully catch on, catch anything that we have missed and recognise that discrimination covers a multitude of things which we don't need to go into now.
But it's really important, I think, to have a duty here which recognises that this great big monopoly that is being created will actually recognize other players in the market, be they private or passenger or freight, and. Makes and ensures that the non-discrimination comes a very top of the pile, so to speak. And I'm sure that when it when it's necessary, the RR will be involved as well.
But I beg to move.
I want to speak to. Well, I have a number of amendments in this group, including, I think 119123185 and 205. I may have got that wrong, but I don't think we need to discuss now because to some extent we have , we have we have talked about it. And it's a difference making a efficient use to value for money. And I think what what I'm keen on all these ones is to make it as a strong argument as possible.
May I just say a word or two about amendment one, two, six in my name? It's tried to be a catch all to ensure that GBR operates in a totally non-discriminatory manner. Of course, we've talked about this in the past and many. Earlier amendments, but I just felt it was useful to have something that would hopefully catch on, catch anything that we have missed and recognise that discrimination covers a multitude of things which we don't need to go into now.
But it's really important, I think, to have a duty here which recognises that this great big monopoly that is being created will actually recognize other players in the market, be they private or passenger or freight, and. Makes and ensures that the non-discrimination comes a very top of the pile, so to speak. And I'm sure that when it when it's necessary, the RR will be involved as well.
But I beg to move.
17:35
17:35
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Forgive my being a bit slow getting up. I just want to make two points, the first of which relates to Baroness Jones's amendment, which in turn reflects an amendment. I moved in a previous group to which I felt we had a disappointing reply from the minister about the coordination of rail travel with buses and other modes. Multi-Modal travel is still the minds of many people. I think a gamble there may be a gamble about whether the train arrives, but the idea that the bus will connect with the train and the bus will actually exist when you get there, is one surrounded by uncertainty and not protected by any great area of policy or provision by the operators.
And until we address that, modal travel will not be a norm. And that's important. When we were trying to get more people out of the car for commuter services, even out of the car for the distance from their home to the railway station. And it's important when we want to encourage longer distance travel and significant parts of the country, which are not readily accessible by rail or at all by rail, where there's this dependence on multi-modal travel, which, as I say, is far too often seen as too risky a gamble.
And would it be better to take the car? The other point I want to make relates to heritage rail, and it's simply to show support, and I declare my interest as a vice president of the Allen Valley Railway. There are many circumstances now in which the interaction between heritage railways and the. The main railway industry has important features, especially as a number of lines, either some already and some hopeful for the future.
Run into station mainline stations and obviously quite a challenge for the relationship between railway industry and heritage railway industry. But it's a challenge , which is also an opportunity, and I hope that the minister will continue to be supportive and encouraging in that respect.
And until we address that, modal travel will not be a norm. And that's important. When we were trying to get more people out of the car for commuter services, even out of the car for the distance from their home to the railway station. And it's important when we want to encourage longer distance travel and significant parts of the country, which are not readily accessible by rail or at all by rail, where there's this dependence on multi-modal travel, which, as I say, is far too often seen as too risky a gamble.
And would it be better to take the car? The other point I want to make relates to heritage rail, and it's simply to show support, and I declare my interest as a vice president of the Allen Valley Railway. There are many circumstances now in which the interaction between heritage railways and the. The main railway industry has important features, especially as a number of lines, either some already and some hopeful for the future.
Run into station mainline stations and obviously quite a challenge for the relationship between railway industry and heritage railway industry. But it's a challenge , which is also an opportunity, and I hope that the minister will continue to be supportive and encouraging in that respect.
17:37
17:37
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, my amendments in in this group relate to value for money. But may I say, to begin with, how very much I am pleased to see Lord Parkinson's amendment, which I wholeheartedly support. And there is a feeling that there is widespread support for ensuring the sustainability of the Heritage Railway. And let us hope that if the minister cannot actually accept Lord Parkinson's amendment as a whole, that he might reassure the committee that the government does take the heritage railway industry seriously and will give direction that it ought to be ought to be preserved.
That's probably the wrong word. Deserved and and nurtured as part of our very important national heritage. My Lords, my amendments 119 A and 122 a aim to achieve a similar outcome to those tabled by several noble Lords, including amendment 119 in the name of Lords Moylan and Barclay, namely, the strengthening of the duties on ministers G, b r and the ORR with regard to delivering value for money. A perennial problem when you take the market out of an operation.
It is, of course, a right that those in charge of our railways have to balance numerous duties and goals, and noble lords would agree that having a punctual railway is important. But, my Lords, you may remember that during the pandemic, the punctuality of the railway soared because there were very few passengers travelling. I'm not suggesting, not for a moment, that minimising the number of passengers travelling is a desirable goal.
I'm merely illustrating and you will all remember it, my lords, that. Oh, when one part of the balance moves, so do the other parts of the balance, and that . It is important that we are aiming not only for punctuality, but also for widespread use. As the honourable Lady said in introducing this, this, this group, of course, we all want to see greater use of the railways, but we don't want to see crowded trains.
So where does the balance come in? And that's where the definition of value for money is an important one. I would contend that the current wording on the face of the bill with regard to financial efficiency is actually too vague and is open to being interpreted in too many different ways, and therefore loses its clarity. What is the context of efficient use of public funds? Does it mean in a specific fiscal year? Does it mean in the five year control period or in the multi-decade horizon of the envisaged long term rail strategy? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to thinking in.
We all know that in a constrained fiscal environment and in public hands, the railways will be even more subject to these pressures than at present in a constrained fiscal environment, spending and investment will have to be prioritised. As the Minister has said many times before, our railways consume many billions of public funds, many billion pounds of taxpayers money every year, and somebody has to be accountable for that. My amendments, therefore, seek to require ministers, GBR and the Orr to apply a more comprehensive value for money test and to be accountable for it in determining how we invest in our railways.
It will require those in charge to look beyond a vague efficiency test and consider whole life costs. Also, the opportunity cost of investing in one specific project at the expense of another. A quality risk management test to avoid unnecessary gold plating of standards, and the knock on costs from infrastructure spending on the operation of services. Let me draw as an example on the analogy of PFI contracts, which illustrate my point rather sadly, in the short term, PFI contracts to build new schools and hospitals could be regarded as an efficient use of public funds , as they enabled the assets to be built much earlier and at a much lower cost to the public purse than would have been the case had they been funded in a more traditional manner.
But as we now know, in the long term, these contracts have saddled the public purse with exorbitant long term costs that, taking a longer term perspective, cannot possibly be regarded as efficient. And if the longer term perspective had been put into the balance at the time that the crucial decisions were made, the question of efficiency might have been might have been held in the balance rather differently than it was. Similarly, the procurement of new rolling stock may have an attractive purchase price, but if the contract comes with hefty maintenance contracts with the OEM, does the whole life cost represent value for money? I'm sure the minister will be able to enlighten us as to how he sees these matters, the government proudly announced a few weeks ago the procurement of a new fleet of battery electric trains to run on the upgraded TransPennine route, for example.
On the face of it, it's a good deal that would pass a broad efficiency test. What we need to know if that procurement, in the context of the infrastructure investment, was actually the best value for money, there is an apparent mismatch between the specifications of the trains and those of the infrastructure grade. The trains will have a lower running speed than the new maximum speed for the line, and are considerably shorter than the length of extended platforms.
There may be good reasons for that, but we need to know if the project as a whole represents value for money in the way it has been designed and delivered, and we need to know that there has not been an over specification of infrastructure or an under specification of infrastructure. So it's all a question of where all these matters are put in the balance. I'm not pretending for a moment that it's an easy balance to achieve, but it would be helpful for the committee to know from the minister just where the government thinks it can strike this balance, and with what extent of accuracy.
Thank you.
That's probably the wrong word. Deserved and and nurtured as part of our very important national heritage. My Lords, my amendments 119 A and 122 a aim to achieve a similar outcome to those tabled by several noble Lords, including amendment 119 in the name of Lords Moylan and Barclay, namely, the strengthening of the duties on ministers G, b r and the ORR with regard to delivering value for money. A perennial problem when you take the market out of an operation.
It is, of course, a right that those in charge of our railways have to balance numerous duties and goals, and noble lords would agree that having a punctual railway is important. But, my Lords, you may remember that during the pandemic, the punctuality of the railway soared because there were very few passengers travelling. I'm not suggesting, not for a moment, that minimising the number of passengers travelling is a desirable goal.
I'm merely illustrating and you will all remember it, my lords, that. Oh, when one part of the balance moves, so do the other parts of the balance, and that . It is important that we are aiming not only for punctuality, but also for widespread use. As the honourable Lady said in introducing this, this, this group, of course, we all want to see greater use of the railways, but we don't want to see crowded trains.
So where does the balance come in? And that's where the definition of value for money is an important one. I would contend that the current wording on the face of the bill with regard to financial efficiency is actually too vague and is open to being interpreted in too many different ways, and therefore loses its clarity. What is the context of efficient use of public funds? Does it mean in a specific fiscal year? Does it mean in the five year control period or in the multi-decade horizon of the envisaged long term rail strategy? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to thinking in.
We all know that in a constrained fiscal environment and in public hands, the railways will be even more subject to these pressures than at present in a constrained fiscal environment, spending and investment will have to be prioritised. As the Minister has said many times before, our railways consume many billions of public funds, many billion pounds of taxpayers money every year, and somebody has to be accountable for that. My amendments, therefore, seek to require ministers, GBR and the Orr to apply a more comprehensive value for money test and to be accountable for it in determining how we invest in our railways.
It will require those in charge to look beyond a vague efficiency test and consider whole life costs. Also, the opportunity cost of investing in one specific project at the expense of another. A quality risk management test to avoid unnecessary gold plating of standards, and the knock on costs from infrastructure spending on the operation of services. Let me draw as an example on the analogy of PFI contracts, which illustrate my point rather sadly, in the short term, PFI contracts to build new schools and hospitals could be regarded as an efficient use of public funds , as they enabled the assets to be built much earlier and at a much lower cost to the public purse than would have been the case had they been funded in a more traditional manner.
But as we now know, in the long term, these contracts have saddled the public purse with exorbitant long term costs that, taking a longer term perspective, cannot possibly be regarded as efficient. And if the longer term perspective had been put into the balance at the time that the crucial decisions were made, the question of efficiency might have been might have been held in the balance rather differently than it was. Similarly, the procurement of new rolling stock may have an attractive purchase price, but if the contract comes with hefty maintenance contracts with the OEM, does the whole life cost represent value for money? I'm sure the minister will be able to enlighten us as to how he sees these matters, the government proudly announced a few weeks ago the procurement of a new fleet of battery electric trains to run on the upgraded TransPennine route, for example.
On the face of it, it's a good deal that would pass a broad efficiency test. What we need to know if that procurement, in the context of the infrastructure investment, was actually the best value for money, there is an apparent mismatch between the specifications of the trains and those of the infrastructure grade. The trains will have a lower running speed than the new maximum speed for the line, and are considerably shorter than the length of extended platforms.
There may be good reasons for that, but we need to know if the project as a whole represents value for money in the way it has been designed and delivered, and we need to know that there has not been an over specification of infrastructure or an under specification of infrastructure. So it's all a question of where all these matters are put in the balance. I'm not pretending for a moment that it's an easy balance to achieve, but it would be helpful for the committee to know from the minister just where the government thinks it can strike this balance, and with what extent of accuracy.
Thank you.
17:46
17:46
17:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To my noble friend Lord Parkinson on his Heritage rail amendment. Growing up in the northeast, I used to visit the North Yorkshire Moors Railway as it was developing back in the 70s very often, and it's heartening to hear that it's now extending its service to Whitby, which it wasn't at the . And that must necessarily bring a lot more tourists and a lot more users onto that rail than than were available previously. Returning to amendment 120, this seeks to expand and improve clause 18 of the bill.
Clause 18, subsection two, lists six duties for GBR and the Minister to were to stick to and in fact, subsection three lists four more. By seeking to define words like public interest and railway service performance, which are necessarily vague in in subsection two. So what I'm suggesting, what I what my amendment would would achieve is to add six more duties to subsection two. They would be listed from G to L, and line nine would need to be amended to to reflect that to.
The first of these is to have a duty to increase passenger numbers. One of the great successes of railway privatisation over the years has been an increase in passenger numbers and use of the railways. That's something we all want to see. I think the government would would disagree with that as a proposition, as a priority. The second is to drive, and I appreciate that there are different definitions of economic growth. All I'm really asking for here is that whatever the government decides are their economic priorities are also actually supported by the railway.
The railway network, that seems to be to be a sensible thing. The third and fourth additions would be to prioritise attracting private sector investment and reducing public subsidy. We've already heard during debate this afternoon about the tight financial situation that the government finds itself in. It is an unfortunate truth, and it certainly was last time. The railways were broadly in public ownership, that taxpayers money tends to go to other projects instead. And in addition to health and and education, which we're always seen as priorities, we now also have the need to provide defence for our country, which will not come cheap, and that the the fear that we have is really that the railway network will come a long way down the list of priorities when it comes to taxpayer funding.
So to seek additional private sector investment and to try to limit the subsidy would seem to be very sensible things to do in these circumstances. Indeed, in in any circumstance, the fifth the fifth of these of these sections seeks to bring in improving passenger satisfaction as measured by the Passengers Council, and this would give greater strength to the proposed Passengers Council. I've got a number of amendments to discuss on the Passengers Council later on, and we will return to those in some detail.
But it does seem to me that perhaps a better measure of satisfaction going forward will be what the Passenger Council determines is important to to the rail users right now, of course, its reliability and the mitigation of overcrowding as the. The paragraph three rightly highlights. But in future these things may change and something which which I look at in later amendments is wi fi connection on trains, the availability of electric sockets for people to plug in on trains, the sort of things that you wouldn't have considered important in the past, and the way that technology is developing very fast now and outpacing our ability to legislate for it.
I can see there will be other things in the future, other services that passengers will think are important on trains and which are not included in the legislation. So we can include those sort of things by having the passenger council keep abreast of of developments and actually put the passenger councils requirements into the duties as this amendment does. The final extra duty would be to improve efficiency and productivity. We've heard quite a lot about productivity this afternoon, and I think everyone agrees that it is a good thing, and perhaps we've not had enough of it in the past, and certainly we will want more of it in the future.
I recognise that with a piece of legislation like this, you can carry on putting new priorities into it until you've filled several pages, and I suspect the minister will suggest that these are not necessarily of high priority as the others. But if that's the case, I would like to hear his justification for that, because it seems to me that none of the the six important issues that I've set out here are actually any, any less important than the ones that have already been identified in the bill.
I believe that my amendment will improve the the quality of this part of the bill.
Clause 18, subsection two, lists six duties for GBR and the Minister to were to stick to and in fact, subsection three lists four more. By seeking to define words like public interest and railway service performance, which are necessarily vague in in subsection two. So what I'm suggesting, what I what my amendment would would achieve is to add six more duties to subsection two. They would be listed from G to L, and line nine would need to be amended to to reflect that to.
The first of these is to have a duty to increase passenger numbers. One of the great successes of railway privatisation over the years has been an increase in passenger numbers and use of the railways. That's something we all want to see. I think the government would would disagree with that as a proposition, as a priority. The second is to drive, and I appreciate that there are different definitions of economic growth. All I'm really asking for here is that whatever the government decides are their economic priorities are also actually supported by the railway.
The railway network, that seems to be to be a sensible thing. The third and fourth additions would be to prioritise attracting private sector investment and reducing public subsidy. We've already heard during debate this afternoon about the tight financial situation that the government finds itself in. It is an unfortunate truth, and it certainly was last time. The railways were broadly in public ownership, that taxpayers money tends to go to other projects instead. And in addition to health and and education, which we're always seen as priorities, we now also have the need to provide defence for our country, which will not come cheap, and that the the fear that we have is really that the railway network will come a long way down the list of priorities when it comes to taxpayer funding.
So to seek additional private sector investment and to try to limit the subsidy would seem to be very sensible things to do in these circumstances. Indeed, in in any circumstance, the fifth the fifth of these of these sections seeks to bring in improving passenger satisfaction as measured by the Passengers Council, and this would give greater strength to the proposed Passengers Council. I've got a number of amendments to discuss on the Passengers Council later on, and we will return to those in some detail.
But it does seem to me that perhaps a better measure of satisfaction going forward will be what the Passenger Council determines is important to to the rail users right now, of course, its reliability and the mitigation of overcrowding as the. The paragraph three rightly highlights. But in future these things may change and something which which I look at in later amendments is wi fi connection on trains, the availability of electric sockets for people to plug in on trains, the sort of things that you wouldn't have considered important in the past, and the way that technology is developing very fast now and outpacing our ability to legislate for it.
I can see there will be other things in the future, other services that passengers will think are important on trains and which are not included in the legislation. So we can include those sort of things by having the passenger council keep abreast of of developments and actually put the passenger councils requirements into the duties as this amendment does. The final extra duty would be to improve efficiency and productivity. We've heard quite a lot about productivity this afternoon, and I think everyone agrees that it is a good thing, and perhaps we've not had enough of it in the past, and certainly we will want more of it in the future.
I recognise that with a piece of legislation like this, you can carry on putting new priorities into it until you've filled several pages, and I suspect the minister will suggest that these are not necessarily of high priority as the others. But if that's the case, I would like to hear his justification for that, because it seems to me that none of the the six important issues that I've set out here are actually any, any less important than the ones that have already been identified in the bill.
I believe that my amendment will improve the the quality of this part of the bill.
17:52
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lords, I rise to both support my noble friend and his remarks about his own amendment, which I've added my name, and also the two further amendments which I've tabled in this group. I'm not going to go through them line by line, but I think I would describe these as the. Please do not go back to British Rail Group. The reality is British Rail did some good things, but it also did some bad things.
And it also failed to deliver in many respects. And what we've got to avoid is just going back to what was there before. All of us grew up. And it did say some things well, but an awful lot of things were not done for the passengers. You just take one simple example, the the changes to the Chiltern line, which is the line I grew up on, which pre privatisation was frankly being lined up to become a coach route.
Marylebone Station was going to be closed. There were serious discussions about not running trains anymore. Services were more limited by far than they are now. Post-privatisation with innovation, the service was completely transformed. The quality improved in every respect. The range of services improved, the stations improved and my big concern about what the government is doing. I supported the reunification of track and train wholeheartedly. I started that process.
I never intended us to end here in this particular structure, but we are where we are. But what the government must not do is allow, firstly, the new Great British Railways approach to exclude the private sector in a whole variety of different ways. And my amendment are requiring them to look for value for money. The taxpayer is based around concerns that I can see more and more just being taken in-house.
Maintenance. We've already had the unions saying, well, let's just take DB cargo back in. House is up for sale. And the reality is the private sector can and does offer innovation in the public sector generally does not to the same degree. And my concern is that there has to be a clear duty on Great British Railways to look for the best option, and it's got to look for the best option in a way that genuinely benefits passengers.
And I go back to I think it was to some degree unfair, but it was common parlance discussion about British Rail at the time that it was about running a railway rather than delivering a service for passengers. And British Railways must not do that. We know that the public sector has never been great at delivering a high quality service for its customers. I'm not sure I understand why Great British Railways in the public sector is going to be any different, and so therefore it is beholden upon us to really challenge the minister and challenge those who are going to be running Great British Railways and demonstrate why they will do the things set out in these amendments, why they will constantly seek best value to try and deliver for the taxpayer and also, frankly, deliver for the railway and passengers , because the best value they get, the more likelihood there is that we will have some funds available in future to do some of the improvements, for example, for rail freight that we discussed earlier.
So I'm looking for reassurance from the minister that Great British Railways is still going to kick the tires on getting best value, that it is still going to look at doing innovative things to improve the quality for passengers, that it is not simply going to be subsumed each year in the budget round, where other parts of the public sector take precedence on the funding that's available, as has always happened in the past, and that we're not going to go back to the world where when that happened and when the pressures came on in the the budget rounds, what they did was put up fares, closed services, closed lines, strip out single lines from, you know, the double track from a section of double track to a single track railway, all of the things that actually left our rail network today, much less substantial than it should be, and much less able to adapt to the needs of the moment.
And I'm simply looking for reassurance from the minister as to how he's going to make sure none of that happens.
And it also failed to deliver in many respects. And what we've got to avoid is just going back to what was there before. All of us grew up. And it did say some things well, but an awful lot of things were not done for the passengers. You just take one simple example, the the changes to the Chiltern line, which is the line I grew up on, which pre privatisation was frankly being lined up to become a coach route.
Marylebone Station was going to be closed. There were serious discussions about not running trains anymore. Services were more limited by far than they are now. Post-privatisation with innovation, the service was completely transformed. The quality improved in every respect. The range of services improved, the stations improved and my big concern about what the government is doing. I supported the reunification of track and train wholeheartedly. I started that process.
I never intended us to end here in this particular structure, but we are where we are. But what the government must not do is allow, firstly, the new Great British Railways approach to exclude the private sector in a whole variety of different ways. And my amendment are requiring them to look for value for money. The taxpayer is based around concerns that I can see more and more just being taken in-house.
Maintenance. We've already had the unions saying, well, let's just take DB cargo back in. House is up for sale. And the reality is the private sector can and does offer innovation in the public sector generally does not to the same degree. And my concern is that there has to be a clear duty on Great British Railways to look for the best option, and it's got to look for the best option in a way that genuinely benefits passengers.
And I go back to I think it was to some degree unfair, but it was common parlance discussion about British Rail at the time that it was about running a railway rather than delivering a service for passengers. And British Railways must not do that. We know that the public sector has never been great at delivering a high quality service for its customers. I'm not sure I understand why Great British Railways in the public sector is going to be any different, and so therefore it is beholden upon us to really challenge the minister and challenge those who are going to be running Great British Railways and demonstrate why they will do the things set out in these amendments, why they will constantly seek best value to try and deliver for the taxpayer and also, frankly, deliver for the railway and passengers , because the best value they get, the more likelihood there is that we will have some funds available in future to do some of the improvements, for example, for rail freight that we discussed earlier.
So I'm looking for reassurance from the minister that Great British Railways is still going to kick the tires on getting best value, that it is still going to look at doing innovative things to improve the quality for passengers, that it is not simply going to be subsumed each year in the budget round, where other parts of the public sector take precedence on the funding that's available, as has always happened in the past, and that we're not going to go back to the world where when that happened and when the pressures came on in the the budget rounds, what they did was put up fares, closed services, closed lines, strip out single lines from, you know, the double track from a section of double track to a single track railway, all of the things that actually left our rail network today, much less substantial than it should be, and much less able to adapt to the needs of the moment.
And I'm simply looking for reassurance from the minister as to how he's going to make sure none of that happens.
17:56
17:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I just want to speak briefly in this group. There have been many very good points made, but I just want to focus on one amendment . That is amendment one, two, three, in the name of noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. And the purpose of amendment one, two, three is to take out from clause 18 its final subclause four, which effectively says that insofar as Great British Railways applies its capacity duty from clause 63 and you'll remember the capacity duty is essentially about GBR protecting itself and its ability to maintain its timetable, or its access to infrastructure from anything that might, so it can control the capacity from anything that might impede it providing its own services.
So this clause now says these general duties are where GBR is concerned, are not to have effect. If the section 63 capacity duty is being applied by Great British Railways. So I looked at this and thank you to noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for drawing the attention of the committee to this important point. So I looked at this capacity duty, and I thought to myself, well, under what circumstances would Great British Railways do something using the capacity duty that would be contrary to any of these general duties? And when I did that, I just very quickly, it seemed to me they would not do it and could not justify doing so if it didn't promote the interests of the users of railway passenger services, since that's who they're meant to be.
They should not be able to do so so as not to promote high standards of railway service performance. And clearly that could be doing something in the short run. But and benefit in the long run, they should not be doing something if it cannot be demonstrated to be best calculated to be in the public interest, they should not be doing it. If it can't justify that, it is that it is a need within the need to make efficient use of public funds.
So we're left with two general duties, which might be prejudiced by the application of the capacity duty by Great British Railways, and those are so as to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance , and promoting the use of the railway network for the carriage of goods. So it seems to me what we're left with is a provision that allows Great British Railways so to invoke its capacity duty for its own purposes, to the prejudicial interests of freight, and indeed those like open access operators who are providers of railway services.
I don't think we should permit that to happen. And when the time comes, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will persist in amendment one, two, three and that we support it.
So this clause now says these general duties are where GBR is concerned, are not to have effect. If the section 63 capacity duty is being applied by Great British Railways. So I looked at this and thank you to noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for drawing the attention of the committee to this important point. So I looked at this capacity duty, and I thought to myself, well, under what circumstances would Great British Railways do something using the capacity duty that would be contrary to any of these general duties? And when I did that, I just very quickly, it seemed to me they would not do it and could not justify doing so if it didn't promote the interests of the users of railway passenger services, since that's who they're meant to be.
They should not be able to do so so as not to promote high standards of railway service performance. And clearly that could be doing something in the short run. But and benefit in the long run, they should not be doing something if it cannot be demonstrated to be best calculated to be in the public interest, they should not be doing it. If it can't justify that, it is that it is a need within the need to make efficient use of public funds.
So we're left with two general duties, which might be prejudiced by the application of the capacity duty by Great British Railways, and those are so as to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance , and promoting the use of the railway network for the carriage of goods. So it seems to me what we're left with is a provision that allows Great British Railways so to invoke its capacity duty for its own purposes, to the prejudicial interests of freight, and indeed those like open access operators who are providers of railway services.
I don't think we should permit that to happen. And when the time comes, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will persist in amendment one, two, three and that we support it.
17:59
17:59
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
But, my Lords, just briefly, to support two amendments in this group. So amendment 118, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, just really to shamelessly use it as an opportunity to advertise the Dean Forest Railway, which operates, which is the steam railway, which operates in the forest of Dean, four and a half miles, five stations. And it interacts. But this is the important point. It interacts with Network Rail at Lydney and also interacts probably somewhat, not always helpfully, the author on a number of occasions, including, for example, when you have to have level crossings and so forth.
And so therefore, it's really important that this amendment is supported to make sure that GBR interaction with heritage railways, as my noble friend said, does not depend on no. Is a fantastic supporter for heritage railways, but will withstand a change of. Minister, even if you had a minister who really didn't like heritage railways at all, the legal duties would be in here to protect them. So I strongly support that. The second one I just wanted to support was amendment 120, that my noble friend Evers of Guisborough moved.
Now I. He alluded to the fact that perhaps adding all of these duties in. It may be quite a long list, and I suspect one of the things the Minister will say is everything can't be a priority, because if you have a very long list, nothing's a priority. So what I would helpfully suggest , perhaps, is I was particularly attracted by, in amendment 120 by line or section J, which is in S , calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways.
I would suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister took that, but inserted it instead of paragraph F, because I think taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the efficiency is a bit weak and doesn't really have a strong enough impetus to drive down the cost to the taxpayer. Now, the minister ought to be able to accept that, because it is my understanding that in the last spending review, and I'm sure this was entirely voluntarily done by the Department for transport, I'm sure the Treasury did not put the thumbscrews on at all.
The Department has signed up to over the spending review period, a significant reduction in. I see the minister nodding a significant reduction in the public subsidy. Now, my own view is given that the government, as I said, doesn't seem to have any significant plans for doing that. And the the way that it's increased the cost of the railways, and that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, is no longer in his place, pointed out about.
And so therefore, it's really important that this amendment is supported to make sure that GBR interaction with heritage railways, as my noble friend said, does not depend on no. Is a fantastic supporter for heritage railways, but will withstand a change of. Minister, even if you had a minister who really didn't like heritage railways at all, the legal duties would be in here to protect them. So I strongly support that. The second one I just wanted to support was amendment 120, that my noble friend Evers of Guisborough moved.
Now I. He alluded to the fact that perhaps adding all of these duties in. It may be quite a long list, and I suspect one of the things the Minister will say is everything can't be a priority, because if you have a very long list, nothing's a priority. So what I would helpfully suggest , perhaps, is I was particularly attracted by, in amendment 120 by line or section J, which is in S , calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways.
I would suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister took that, but inserted it instead of paragraph F, because I think taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the efficiency is a bit weak and doesn't really have a strong enough impetus to drive down the cost to the taxpayer. Now, the minister ought to be able to accept that, because it is my understanding that in the last spending review, and I'm sure this was entirely voluntarily done by the Department for transport, I'm sure the Treasury did not put the thumbscrews on at all.
The Department has signed up to over the spending review period, a significant reduction in. I see the minister nodding a significant reduction in the public subsidy. Now, my own view is given that the government, as I said, doesn't seem to have any significant plans for doing that. And the the way that it's increased the cost of the railways, and that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, is no longer in his place, pointed out about.
18:02
18:02
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
myself. He wasn't in the place he was in early. He is still here. He is just now in a different place. Which is what? Which is what threw me, I think, the committee's indulgence for my temporary. Not. He moved, driving up the cost, which is all going to actually increase the subsidy required for the railway rather than reducing it. And I think it's really important that reducing the cost of public subsidy is there, because otherwise all the temptation for ministers is to dump all the costs, keep prices, just dump it all on the taxpayer and hide it away somewhere and hope that nobody notices.
So I think actually replacing what is in the bill already F, which I think is a bit weak and actually isn't arguably consistent with what the government, the department has actually already signed up to do with the much more robust J. In my noble friend's excellent amendment, which puts an impetus on the department to drive down public subsidy, I think is much more in keeping with what the Department has actually signed up to do already. And I therefore hope when the minister responds, he's able to say that he supports not the whole amendment.
That might be going a bit too far, but actually he can at least accept one part of it and replace part of what was in the bill with that, because it's consistent with what the government says it's already intending to do. And I look forward to hearing him say such words shortly.
So I think actually replacing what is in the bill already F, which I think is a bit weak and actually isn't arguably consistent with what the government, the department has actually already signed up to do with the much more robust J. In my noble friend's excellent amendment, which puts an impetus on the department to drive down public subsidy, I think is much more in keeping with what the Department has actually signed up to do already. And I therefore hope when the minister responds, he's able to say that he supports not the whole amendment.
That might be going a bit too far, but actually he can at least accept one part of it and replace part of what was in the bill with that, because it's consistent with what the government says it's already intending to do. And I look forward to hearing him say such words shortly.
18:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, there's such a wide range of amendments in this group, all focusing on value for money fares and some additional duties, some of which we have actually covered in our debate to date on other groups. For example, the issue of passenger growth target we discussed on a previous day. But I think the point the Baroness raised at the start about reducing emissions and modal shift, I think is really, really important. And my noble friend Lord Beith talked about multi-modal travel being a gamble.
It absolutely is in parts of the country. I recall turning up somewhere many years ago by train, just assuming there would be a cab rank where I ended up and there wasn't. I was in the middle of middle of a forest somewhere and, you know, trying to get on to visit someone in a hospital. I just assumed, because I was used to that level of service in the capital city. So he's absolutely right there. We've had a really strong reminder again, about the importance of the heritage sector, and that should be considered with all, where appropriate, by different parts of the rail industry, as it were, set out really clearly by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
And it is such an important part of our tourist offer. I would hope that that would be supported. The debate that we've had embarrassed, Baroness Lang really talked about value for money, productivity, best value, actually, it's really hard to define that, and it's something I sit on. The public Services Committee, we have really been trying to look at how can we look at that sort of work, how do we define it? And it's actually really, really important that we do.
But it's very hard to do that. But I would expect any company, private or public to look at how it can operate in an increasingly particular financial envelope, looking at how you innovate, use technology and being mindful of the cost base. And I, I'm sure Great British Railways would be no exception to that. But we need confirmation of this. I look forward to the minister's response to this broad group.
It absolutely is in parts of the country. I recall turning up somewhere many years ago by train, just assuming there would be a cab rank where I ended up and there wasn't. I was in the middle of middle of a forest somewhere and, you know, trying to get on to visit someone in a hospital. I just assumed, because I was used to that level of service in the capital city. So he's absolutely right there. We've had a really strong reminder again, about the importance of the heritage sector, and that should be considered with all, where appropriate, by different parts of the rail industry, as it were, set out really clearly by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
And it is such an important part of our tourist offer. I would hope that that would be supported. The debate that we've had embarrassed, Baroness Lang really talked about value for money, productivity, best value, actually, it's really hard to define that, and it's something I sit on. The public Services Committee, we have really been trying to look at how can we look at that sort of work, how do we define it? And it's actually really, really important that we do.
But it's very hard to do that. But I would expect any company, private or public to look at how it can operate in an increasingly particular financial envelope, looking at how you innovate, use technology and being mindful of the cost base. And I, I'm sure Great British Railways would be no exception to that. But we need confirmation of this. I look forward to the minister's response to this broad group.
18:06
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, before I turn to my amendment in this group, can I just refer to the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Grayling, who made powerful and passionate appeal, that we do not go back to a situation he characterised as being the old British Rail, where the response to a decay in demand and provision is a further decay and further cut in demand and provision. So a sort of doom spiral that we were in before, and I think all noble lords felt the passion of what he was saying.
I certainly did, being unsentimental about it for a moment. However, I think the noble Lord will be the first with his experience to recognise that this is going to be very strong, very much connected with how much money is available and the fact money is not going up. It's going down and behind all of this bill and its great plans for 30 year visions and so on, there is that that hard reality that the country is under a severe financial squeeze.
So it seems to me particularly foolish that the government should be squeezing out, quite deliberately on ideological grounds, that amount of capital investment that might be available from the private sector for the provision of passenger services. Now, I might agree that that provision, that capital might be relatively marginal in the big picture, I grant, but surely it is better to be open to the private sector to allow what is possible to be done rather than have have this hard trade union driven left wing line that we are going to have a Soviet people's railway and there will be no private sector turn at all.
So that's my rather sad response to what I thought was a very powerful intervention by my noble friend. It is just so foolish what the government is doing. My Lords, I have only one amendment in my name in this group and I will speak to it. It's terribly nerdish, but then I'm going to I will speak to a few other amendments. Not every amendment in the group. Clause 18 creates a number of duties which are allocated to various different people so that the.
The exercise by Great British Rail of its statutory functions. But the exercise by the author of its functions relating to railway. Their different functions match to different people. And yet subsection two begins. They must exercise the functions in the following fashion. Well, who is the they that is being referred to, and I think as a point simply of improved drafting. And this is intended entirely helpfully, to the noble Lord.
If the. They actually spelt out what I suggest it should say, which is the relevant person specified under subsection one. It would remove any possible confusion about who was accountable for particular actions in carrying and for carrying them out in a certain way. So I won't go further on it. I think it is an improvement to the drafting. I offer it for free to the noble Lord. There's a lot of shoddy drafting in the bill I think we found.
But that one he could have, as I say, or free considerably. My Lords, if I turn to amendments 119 185 and 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to which I've added my name. All three of these relate to imposing a value for money obligation on, respectively, respectively. GBR , London, Travelwatch and. And the third one, which escapes me just for the moment. But all three of them are to be put under an obligation for value for money.
There is a requirement in the bill that they use funds efficiently, but an obligation to to achieve value for money suggests something more than that. It suggests, in particular, an obligation to examine and compare different options, how you might do things. And some of those options might be in the private sector. I'm not talking necessarily here of the provision of passenger services, because that has been ruled out on ideological grounds. But there are many other things which these bodies are going to procure and do, and in many cases, they could be done better through outsourcing, which is permitted by the bill than rather than being done in-house.
And the value for money obligation is intended to encourage them to do that in the interests of saving the taxpayer money and making more money, if you like, available for the railways, if that's what the government chooses, as opposed to giving it back to the hard pressed taxpayer as a tax cut, which would also be welcome if I turn to amendment 126. Also in Lord Barclay's name, the noble Lords name. This is addressing a point that we have been making as well.
Aebr will have every incentive to favour its own operations to. So an explicit duty to act fairly and without discrimination in the duties section, and not lost somewhere else in the Bill, but in the duty section explicit duty would be present. The noble Lord has put his finger on that, and I support him in it. Turning to amendments 120 and 121, tabled respectively, by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough and Lord Grayling.
It seems essential that criteria such as economic growth, private sector investment, reducing public subsidy, passenger satisfaction and efficiency should be part of the duties of GBR. Now, it might be the case that this could be redrafted so that they are more focused into into more. Rather than have six duties, they be consolidated perhaps into 1 or 2 specific duties be followed which encompass all of these. That is a matter of drafting which we could turn to return to on report.
But surely there must be an obligation on GBR to do these things, and if it is not in the duties section, then it will not be taken very seriously. And finally, I turn to amendment 121, which is, Lord, that of my noble friend. I've mentioned that it's my noble friend, Lord Grayling. Amendment 21 is equally important. We should not leave it entirely to GBR discretion whether to consider private sector provision.
It should be required to assess government from private businesses could deliver value for money. It should be an obligation. So that is the theme I take from this group. I know that other issues have been raised. We've had another excursus into heritage railways and no doubt I think we're going to have another one in a in a later group come back heritage railways, but nothing much to add to what I said on heritage railways before.
Very good thing heritage railways. They are very important to many people. They add to the tourist attraction. They're not. They don't make a huge, if any, contribution to the great bulk of what great British Railways is intended to achieve under this bill, which is the provision of passenger rail services, but they are nonetheless precious and cherished for that. I'm happy to repeat that when we come back to the next debate on heritage railways, but this value for money theme is what I take principally from it, and that involves an engagement and an embrace of the private sector.
And these these these these two elements, I think, will come back together when we reach report stage, because I think they are clearly important noble lords across a wide a wide range of members of the Committee.
I certainly did, being unsentimental about it for a moment. However, I think the noble Lord will be the first with his experience to recognise that this is going to be very strong, very much connected with how much money is available and the fact money is not going up. It's going down and behind all of this bill and its great plans for 30 year visions and so on, there is that that hard reality that the country is under a severe financial squeeze.
So it seems to me particularly foolish that the government should be squeezing out, quite deliberately on ideological grounds, that amount of capital investment that might be available from the private sector for the provision of passenger services. Now, I might agree that that provision, that capital might be relatively marginal in the big picture, I grant, but surely it is better to be open to the private sector to allow what is possible to be done rather than have have this hard trade union driven left wing line that we are going to have a Soviet people's railway and there will be no private sector turn at all.
So that's my rather sad response to what I thought was a very powerful intervention by my noble friend. It is just so foolish what the government is doing. My Lords, I have only one amendment in my name in this group and I will speak to it. It's terribly nerdish, but then I'm going to I will speak to a few other amendments. Not every amendment in the group. Clause 18 creates a number of duties which are allocated to various different people so that the.
The exercise by Great British Rail of its statutory functions. But the exercise by the author of its functions relating to railway. Their different functions match to different people. And yet subsection two begins. They must exercise the functions in the following fashion. Well, who is the they that is being referred to, and I think as a point simply of improved drafting. And this is intended entirely helpfully, to the noble Lord.
If the. They actually spelt out what I suggest it should say, which is the relevant person specified under subsection one. It would remove any possible confusion about who was accountable for particular actions in carrying and for carrying them out in a certain way. So I won't go further on it. I think it is an improvement to the drafting. I offer it for free to the noble Lord. There's a lot of shoddy drafting in the bill I think we found.
But that one he could have, as I say, or free considerably. My Lords, if I turn to amendments 119 185 and 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to which I've added my name. All three of these relate to imposing a value for money obligation on, respectively, respectively. GBR , London, Travelwatch and. And the third one, which escapes me just for the moment. But all three of them are to be put under an obligation for value for money.
There is a requirement in the bill that they use funds efficiently, but an obligation to to achieve value for money suggests something more than that. It suggests, in particular, an obligation to examine and compare different options, how you might do things. And some of those options might be in the private sector. I'm not talking necessarily here of the provision of passenger services, because that has been ruled out on ideological grounds. But there are many other things which these bodies are going to procure and do, and in many cases, they could be done better through outsourcing, which is permitted by the bill than rather than being done in-house.
And the value for money obligation is intended to encourage them to do that in the interests of saving the taxpayer money and making more money, if you like, available for the railways, if that's what the government chooses, as opposed to giving it back to the hard pressed taxpayer as a tax cut, which would also be welcome if I turn to amendment 126. Also in Lord Barclay's name, the noble Lords name. This is addressing a point that we have been making as well.
Aebr will have every incentive to favour its own operations to. So an explicit duty to act fairly and without discrimination in the duties section, and not lost somewhere else in the Bill, but in the duty section explicit duty would be present. The noble Lord has put his finger on that, and I support him in it. Turning to amendments 120 and 121, tabled respectively, by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough and Lord Grayling.
It seems essential that criteria such as economic growth, private sector investment, reducing public subsidy, passenger satisfaction and efficiency should be part of the duties of GBR. Now, it might be the case that this could be redrafted so that they are more focused into into more. Rather than have six duties, they be consolidated perhaps into 1 or 2 specific duties be followed which encompass all of these. That is a matter of drafting which we could turn to return to on report.
But surely there must be an obligation on GBR to do these things, and if it is not in the duties section, then it will not be taken very seriously. And finally, I turn to amendment 121, which is, Lord, that of my noble friend. I've mentioned that it's my noble friend, Lord Grayling. Amendment 21 is equally important. We should not leave it entirely to GBR discretion whether to consider private sector provision.
It should be required to assess government from private businesses could deliver value for money. It should be an obligation. So that is the theme I take from this group. I know that other issues have been raised. We've had another excursus into heritage railways and no doubt I think we're going to have another one in a in a later group come back heritage railways, but nothing much to add to what I said on heritage railways before.
Very good thing heritage railways. They are very important to many people. They add to the tourist attraction. They're not. They don't make a huge, if any, contribution to the great bulk of what great British Railways is intended to achieve under this bill, which is the provision of passenger rail services, but they are nonetheless precious and cherished for that. I'm happy to repeat that when we come back to the next debate on heritage railways, but this value for money theme is what I take principally from it, and that involves an engagement and an embrace of the private sector.
And these these these these two elements, I think, will come back together when we reach report stage, because I think they are clearly important noble lords across a wide a wide range of members of the Committee.
18:14
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
No. My my Lords, this group is a very varied group and many valuable points have been raised. My belief is that the Bill does address the majority of these points raised, but I am happy to discuss any of them further. If I don't cover them in the speech that I'm about to make. Turning first to 114 and 120, these proposals are duplicative of GBS duty, not only to promote the interests of users, but also potential users of railway railway passenger services, which already requires GBR to consider how best to encourage new users onto the railways.
Considering the interests of potential users will incentivise GBR to think about under-utilised markets and their interests. For example, we know that older people, on average travel less, and to meet this duty, I would expect GBR to be thinking about what it can do to attract these groups to use the railway. As I've explained before, I don't think we should have an additional or stronger passenger growth duty, as I'm concerned that it could push the duties out of balance and undermine the incentive for GBR to promote freight.
As GBR revenue comes from passengers already. And there will naturally be pressure to increase its revenue, there's already an inherent risk that GBR might seek to prioritise passengers the detriment of freight. So the bill seeks to address this by having two freight duties and only one duty designed to address passenger growth. Our amendment 114 A in slightly more detail, as I appreciate it also includes explicit modal shift and intermodal elements, as does amendment 118 B.
I can confirm that the long term rail strategy will reference and indeed encourage modal shift and connectivity between modes and noble Lord Beith and other noble Lords are right to emphasise this. GBR will include in its business plan how it will work towards the modal shift objectives in the long term rail strategy, and will also need to take account of the strategies of Scottish and Welsh Ministers, which the noble Baroness Bennett mentioned. The long term rail strategy is also being developed in tandem with, and will be informed by the government's Integrated National Transport Strategy.
Indeed, the discussion document, published last month on the Long Term Rail Strategy, outlines how encouraging modal shift, by increasing the attractiveness of rail is key to the government's sustainability objective. The bill also supports this objective through the inclusion of the public interest duty at clause 18, which explicitly includes the effect on the environment in its definition. This not only not only ensures that GBR is bound by this duty when making key decisions, but also when the long term rail strategy via its business plan, meaning that modal shift is actively considered throughout.
I also recognise the noble Lord Evans's points about the other duties he proposes. But in fact, he said himself that although these things are important now, times may change. I will address with him separately how the six issues he raises will will all be addressed. Turning to railway performance on amendment 122. We know from passengers, and we've known for a long time that the main issues affecting their journeys reliability, punctuality and overcrowding.
That is exactly why we've referred specifically referred to those issues, these issues in the definition. However, the different definition isn't exhaustive or limiting. GBR and the O will be able to consider any other factors of railway service performance that they assess is relevant on passenger comfort. Specifically, this would already be considered as part of the interests of passengers and potential passengers, and so is already accounted for by the duties in this bill.
And I would say to the noble Lord that actually the comments about the previous reputation of of British Rail, which is now over 30 years old, notwithstanding, it is interesting in the current situation how the reputation of lNer is so much better, despite it having been in the public sector for quite a long time. And conversely, application of Avanti is, despite it being in the private.
Considering the interests of potential users will incentivise GBR to think about under-utilised markets and their interests. For example, we know that older people, on average travel less, and to meet this duty, I would expect GBR to be thinking about what it can do to attract these groups to use the railway. As I've explained before, I don't think we should have an additional or stronger passenger growth duty, as I'm concerned that it could push the duties out of balance and undermine the incentive for GBR to promote freight.
As GBR revenue comes from passengers already. And there will naturally be pressure to increase its revenue, there's already an inherent risk that GBR might seek to prioritise passengers the detriment of freight. So the bill seeks to address this by having two freight duties and only one duty designed to address passenger growth. Our amendment 114 A in slightly more detail, as I appreciate it also includes explicit modal shift and intermodal elements, as does amendment 118 B.
I can confirm that the long term rail strategy will reference and indeed encourage modal shift and connectivity between modes and noble Lord Beith and other noble Lords are right to emphasise this. GBR will include in its business plan how it will work towards the modal shift objectives in the long term rail strategy, and will also need to take account of the strategies of Scottish and Welsh Ministers, which the noble Baroness Bennett mentioned. The long term rail strategy is also being developed in tandem with, and will be informed by the government's Integrated National Transport Strategy.
Indeed, the discussion document, published last month on the Long Term Rail Strategy, outlines how encouraging modal shift, by increasing the attractiveness of rail is key to the government's sustainability objective. The bill also supports this objective through the inclusion of the public interest duty at clause 18, which explicitly includes the effect on the environment in its definition. This not only not only ensures that GBR is bound by this duty when making key decisions, but also when the long term rail strategy via its business plan, meaning that modal shift is actively considered throughout.
I also recognise the noble Lord Evans's points about the other duties he proposes. But in fact, he said himself that although these things are important now, times may change. I will address with him separately how the six issues he raises will will all be addressed. Turning to railway performance on amendment 122. We know from passengers, and we've known for a long time that the main issues affecting their journeys reliability, punctuality and overcrowding.
That is exactly why we've referred specifically referred to those issues, these issues in the definition. However, the different definition isn't exhaustive or limiting. GBR and the O will be able to consider any other factors of railway service performance that they assess is relevant on passenger comfort. Specifically, this would already be considered as part of the interests of passengers and potential passengers, and so is already accounted for by the duties in this bill.
And I would say to the noble Lord that actually the comments about the previous reputation of of British Rail, which is now over 30 years old, notwithstanding, it is interesting in the current situation how the reputation of lNer is so much better, despite it having been in the public sector for quite a long time. And conversely, application of Avanti is, despite it being in the private.
18:19
18:19
18:19
18:19
18:19
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Indeed the noble Lord is right, and of course I can, because actually at that stage the railway didn't have many trains on it. And one of the principal benefits of the post 1993 situation was the ability of franchisees to run more service. However, we're not dealing with the railway in that circumstance. Now. We're dealing with the the post Covid railway, in which very few actors in the operational space have any interest in in developing the passenger market, and that's why the government is in the position it's in.
And that's why public ownership is now is now is now the right, the right, the right thing to do. I would contend that actually, in fact, the although so far that the way in which we propose to manage the railway, which is people in charge of the railway on a routes and regional basis, is the way in which you see innovation encouraged, and is the way in which you seek to develop the passenger market.
And that's why public ownership is now is now is now the right, the right, the right thing to do. I would contend that actually, in fact, the although so far that the way in which we propose to manage the railway, which is people in charge of the railway on a routes and regional basis, is the way in which you see innovation encouraged, and is the way in which you seek to develop the passenger market.
18:20
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Just before the Minister moves on. I wasn't going to intervene, but I can't let that point that he just made there pass about the private sector having no interest. He will know perfectly well that during the pandemic, the government basically took control of the profit and loss account for railway industry. And one of the things we were trying to do over time was to move back some of the financial incentives for operators to grow the number of passengers they had on their services.
Now, I accept that we could have done that faster, perhaps, but that's the direction of travel that I think would have been a more successful strategy than simply nationalising all of the operators. Now that's a choice that the government's made, but it wasn't the only choice available. There were a range of choices, and the government has chosen the one that it's chosen. I happen to think that the alternative, more opportunities for private operators to grow revenue would have been a more successful one.
Now, I accept that we could have done that faster, perhaps, but that's the direction of travel that I think would have been a more successful strategy than simply nationalising all of the operators. Now that's a choice that the government's made, but it wasn't the only choice available. There were a range of choices, and the government has chosen the one that it's chosen. I happen to think that the alternative, more opportunities for private operators to grow revenue would have been a more successful one.
18:21
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Well, the noble Lord raises a really interesting point because. Although the noble Lord Moylan says, I clearly didn't learn much in the last three weeks, one of the things that I did do in the last three weeks was to reread the Williams report, and of course, it proposed, in effect, the concession model for for providing passenger train operations. But sadly, despite the fact the report was substantially written in 2021 but not published until 2022, the previous government actually absolutely no action to to to enact it, which is why we are where we are now.
18:22
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lord. It's disingenuous. It's disingenuous for the labour law to say that whatever criticism he may level of the government for trying in a post-COVID environment to implement the Williams review and not implementing it fast enough. Of course, one can say that, but it is not the case that that is why we are nationalising the railways. Now, it might be the case why we haven't implemented the Williams review at . Why we hadn't implemented the Williams Review in 2024, when the general election was called.
And that might be a point of criticism, but he can't say that's where we are now. As a result of that , Williams review and the concession model, which we would tend to support, is a perfectly valid, realistic way ahead and reforming the railways. And we admit there is a need for reform. I did that when we spoke on the Rail Passenger Services bill. There is a need for reform, there is a need for change, but there's absolutely an ideological commitment largely dictated by union funders, that we should be having a nationalised railway on this model.
It is not because of anything the last government did.
And that might be a point of criticism, but he can't say that's where we are now. As a result of that , Williams review and the concession model, which we would tend to support, is a perfectly valid, realistic way ahead and reforming the railways. And we admit there is a need for reform. I did that when we spoke on the Rail Passenger Services bill. There is a need for reform, there is a need for change, but there's absolutely an ideological commitment largely dictated by union funders, that we should be having a nationalised railway on this model.
It is not because of anything the last government did.
18:23
18:23
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
last government did nothing about it. And in fact, what I would say is that is that the the government's commitment to the public ownership of passenger train operations has been very consistent in the leading up to the last election and is, in fact still was then and still is very popular with the public. Let's move on to amendment 126, which is, as I said, a duty, as I've said before, duty on fairness and non-discrimination is unnecessary because this requirement will already apply to GBR.
These matters have protected through the Competition Act 1998. GBR will be subject to competition law, which prohibits anti-competitive behaviour and the abuse of a dominant position in the Office of Rail and Road, and the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to provide independent enforcement. Rail sector turning to the general duties about value for money, the. The intention of these amendments, I would contend, are already achieved through the duty to consider the effective use of, of, of of public funds.
All bodies subject to this duty will need to consider carefully how resources are used. This will naturally mean that the options available in both the public and the private sector when assessing value for money, which I know is a particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. And I would say that it's essential that GBR leverages the best of the private sector to provide the best service for passengers, and that's why it's been set up in this way.
There's nothing in this. There's nothing in this legislation which prevents that. And I think that the duty to consider the efficient use of public funds is a crucially important one, and will include looking for innovative approaches and will include looking for private sector providers. The statistic that I've used before in this is that at my estimation, our estimation is that about 60% of GB's total expenditure will be in the private sector.
Even following the public ownership of of, of train, train, passenger train operations. And I would expect that to continue. Many of the tests of value for money suggested by the noble are indeed those which I would expect. A body like GBR with a long term outlook will be able to consider. And in fact, it should be able to consider the. More easily than it is. It is at present the duties proposed by the noble Lords in these amendments, and the duties already contained in the Bill are, for all practical purposes seeking the same outcome, and I therefore urge the Lords to withdraw them on amendment 118 B 120.
On affordable fares. I absolutely appreciate the concerns raised here, and I agree that GBR has to get fares right. We do have a grouping later on about fares, but the government has been clear that GBR will have a greater level of autonomy and flexibility over fares setting than train operating companies do today, and it is absolutely crucial that we allow GBR to simplify fares, ensuring that passengers have clear choices and can get better value for money on their tickets.
Secretary of state has absolute priority is that people can rely on them. We have frozen regulated rail fares for a year from March 2026 to help with the cost of living, and we've also made changes to the 16 to 17 saver railcard, meaning 18 year olds will now benefit from half price travel on most train services. Noble lords should be assured of our genuine, committed intention to improve fares across the country, and I hope that they can see at least some evidence that we're working towards that.
On the noble Baroness Jones, which noble Baroness Bennett spoke to her amendments the transparency and reporting concerns the government is committed to interacting with GBR transparently. I'm happy to reassure her and the noble Lord Grayling, that we will publish our assumptions, objectives and criteria relating to fares. We will publish the parameters set out for GBR and fares, and GBR will ultimately publish its fares policy. However, this is just good government.
It doesn't need legislation on amendment 123 tabled by my noble friend Lord Barclay, but spoken to by the noble Lord Lansley, I. I should say we do have a whole section on access later on, but in the meantime, GBR determines the best use of the network by proposing the optimum allocation by type of service freight, open access heritage GBR. It records this in its infrastructure capacity plan, which is dealt with at at clause 60 of the bill.
So when GBR determines best use by designing its infrastructure capacity plan, it mustn't unreasonably favour its own services and the duties at clause 18 apply in full. The capacity duty doesn't apply at all. The purpose of clause 63 comes after the determination of the best use of the network, and that capacity duty ensures exists to ensure that GBR maintains sufficient capacity to operate the passenger services which it previously determined it should be allocated and which it has therefore been funded to run.
That's because taxpayers are contributing billions of pounds each year to support the railway, and it's right that the government has a mechanism to protect that investment and ensure that GBR runs the trains, that it has been funded to run. But the capacity duty is not intended to influence the best use assessment or to exclude other operators from access to the network. I'm sure we'll come back to that in the access section.
These matters have protected through the Competition Act 1998. GBR will be subject to competition law, which prohibits anti-competitive behaviour and the abuse of a dominant position in the Office of Rail and Road, and the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to provide independent enforcement. Rail sector turning to the general duties about value for money, the. The intention of these amendments, I would contend, are already achieved through the duty to consider the effective use of, of, of of public funds.
All bodies subject to this duty will need to consider carefully how resources are used. This will naturally mean that the options available in both the public and the private sector when assessing value for money, which I know is a particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. And I would say that it's essential that GBR leverages the best of the private sector to provide the best service for passengers, and that's why it's been set up in this way.
There's nothing in this. There's nothing in this legislation which prevents that. And I think that the duty to consider the efficient use of public funds is a crucially important one, and will include looking for innovative approaches and will include looking for private sector providers. The statistic that I've used before in this is that at my estimation, our estimation is that about 60% of GB's total expenditure will be in the private sector.
Even following the public ownership of of, of train, train, passenger train operations. And I would expect that to continue. Many of the tests of value for money suggested by the noble are indeed those which I would expect. A body like GBR with a long term outlook will be able to consider. And in fact, it should be able to consider the. More easily than it is. It is at present the duties proposed by the noble Lords in these amendments, and the duties already contained in the Bill are, for all practical purposes seeking the same outcome, and I therefore urge the Lords to withdraw them on amendment 118 B 120.
On affordable fares. I absolutely appreciate the concerns raised here, and I agree that GBR has to get fares right. We do have a grouping later on about fares, but the government has been clear that GBR will have a greater level of autonomy and flexibility over fares setting than train operating companies do today, and it is absolutely crucial that we allow GBR to simplify fares, ensuring that passengers have clear choices and can get better value for money on their tickets.
Secretary of state has absolute priority is that people can rely on them. We have frozen regulated rail fares for a year from March 2026 to help with the cost of living, and we've also made changes to the 16 to 17 saver railcard, meaning 18 year olds will now benefit from half price travel on most train services. Noble lords should be assured of our genuine, committed intention to improve fares across the country, and I hope that they can see at least some evidence that we're working towards that.
On the noble Baroness Jones, which noble Baroness Bennett spoke to her amendments the transparency and reporting concerns the government is committed to interacting with GBR transparently. I'm happy to reassure her and the noble Lord Grayling, that we will publish our assumptions, objectives and criteria relating to fares. We will publish the parameters set out for GBR and fares, and GBR will ultimately publish its fares policy. However, this is just good government.
It doesn't need legislation on amendment 123 tabled by my noble friend Lord Barclay, but spoken to by the noble Lord Lansley, I. I should say we do have a whole section on access later on, but in the meantime, GBR determines the best use of the network by proposing the optimum allocation by type of service freight, open access heritage GBR. It records this in its infrastructure capacity plan, which is dealt with at at clause 60 of the bill.
So when GBR determines best use by designing its infrastructure capacity plan, it mustn't unreasonably favour its own services and the duties at clause 18 apply in full. The capacity duty doesn't apply at all. The purpose of clause 63 comes after the determination of the best use of the network, and that capacity duty ensures exists to ensure that GBR maintains sufficient capacity to operate the passenger services which it previously determined it should be allocated and which it has therefore been funded to run.
That's because taxpayers are contributing billions of pounds each year to support the railway, and it's right that the government has a mechanism to protect that investment and ensure that GBR runs the trains, that it has been funded to run. But the capacity duty is not intended to influence the best use assessment or to exclude other operators from access to the network. I'm sure we'll come back to that in the access section.
18:29
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend for his comments. But do I do I understand from what he's just said that if there's been a major investment in infrastructure by GBR, then automatically, so to speak, GBR passenger trains will be given priority when it comes to sorting out capacity. I'm sure we didn't mean that, but that's the way I understood it.
18:30
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
With respect to my noble friend, I don't think what I said and it certainly isn't what I meant. That's why we've separated the infrastructure capacity plan from the operation of GBR. One of the purposes of this of this bill, which I which I hope Noble Lords would accept, is that actually we've invested quite a lot in railway infrastructure capacity and found ourselves in the past rather unable to utilise some of the capacity allowed by the investment simply because the structures aren't there.
Use the capacity in the best way of the railway. So it's not the case that the investment in the infrastructure should should allow the determination of the best use of the network by optimal allocation of the type of service. The subsequent duty in clause 63 is designed to make sure that GBR operates the passenger service which IT services, which it's allocated under clause 60 and which it's therefore funded to run. I'm very happy to further when we get to the access group, but that's the.
I hope I've explained the basic principles. I'm turning to amendment 118 from the Lord Parkinson, supported very ably by my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, the noble Viscount Stansgate, and other noble Lords. They. Heritage railways are, of course, an essential part of tourism, cultural and educational life in this country that no government will be interested in allowing the decline of such an important and thriving sector. I am assuming that the noble Lord is referring to those heritage services on the main line.
Charter operators, including the operation of heritage locomotives on the main line, because he will also know from my discussions with him at outside this committee , that we're attempting not to use this bill to unduly or adversely influence heritage railways in their own regard only as much as they interact with the national railway network. We know today's access system of contractual access rights and timetabling rules provides the charter with a clear process to follow to secure paths in a timetable, both in respect of regular operations.
For example, the British Pullman at one end of maybe the the the the luxury band and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway to Whitby at the other have regular operations which have paths in the timetable. But we also know that there are many, many once off charter operations. And in 2025, I think I've used this statistic with an overlord before, but there were 1155 paths bid for bids for paths from charter operators. Some of those were subsequently subsequently withdrawn by the operators, but only eight were withdrawn because Network Rail was unable to offer suitable paths.
GBR will have, as I said, a clause 60 of the Bill a clear remit to allocate capacity fairly, taking into account the range of users including passengers, freight, heritage charter and open access operators and GBR function in clause three of the Bill to facilitate the provision and use of railway services will apply to all providers of railway services and not just those provided by GBR itself. The Future Access Framework is intended to build on, rather than replace many of the mechanisms familiar to heritage and charter operators.
Today, charter operators will continue to be able to secure access to access contracts, including capacity commitments. And I can say to the noble Lord today that the specialist team currently within Network Rail that currently supports heritage and charter operators and in particular facilitates once off paths, will continue under GBR, ensuring continuity of expertise and a clear point of engagement for the sector. Finally, GBR will have to ensure that heritage and charter operators have the certainty they need as part of GBR duty in clause 18 to ensure that businesses can plan their future with a reasonable degree of assurance.
This will make sure that these operators have the stability they need to continue enriching the lives of passengers and the community with the experiences they offer. Turning to amendments amendment 115 from the noble Lord Moylan. Clause 18, subsection one, explains who the duties apply to. They must be discharged by ministers GBR and the Orer exercised their statutory functions as outlined in clause 18. This is designed to ensure a common set of incentives and objectives for all the key players on the railway to reduce conflict and fragmentation, and create a railway in which everyone is pulling together towards the same goals.
On amendments 330 and 334 A what I've just said in relation in relation to amendment 115 means that the Secretary of State will be bound by these duties when issuing GBR licence, and that the RR will be bound by them when issuing licences and statements of national regulatory provisions for other operators. The RR will also be bound by them when enforcing GBR licence. There's no loophole for GBR to avoid the duty for its licence and the two mechanisms are already joined up.
I thank noble Lords for this debate, and I hope my Lords able them to withdraw their amendment.
Use the capacity in the best way of the railway. So it's not the case that the investment in the infrastructure should should allow the determination of the best use of the network by optimal allocation of the type of service. The subsequent duty in clause 63 is designed to make sure that GBR operates the passenger service which IT services, which it's allocated under clause 60 and which it's therefore funded to run. I'm very happy to further when we get to the access group, but that's the.
I hope I've explained the basic principles. I'm turning to amendment 118 from the Lord Parkinson, supported very ably by my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, the noble Viscount Stansgate, and other noble Lords. They. Heritage railways are, of course, an essential part of tourism, cultural and educational life in this country that no government will be interested in allowing the decline of such an important and thriving sector. I am assuming that the noble Lord is referring to those heritage services on the main line.
Charter operators, including the operation of heritage locomotives on the main line, because he will also know from my discussions with him at outside this committee , that we're attempting not to use this bill to unduly or adversely influence heritage railways in their own regard only as much as they interact with the national railway network. We know today's access system of contractual access rights and timetabling rules provides the charter with a clear process to follow to secure paths in a timetable, both in respect of regular operations.
For example, the British Pullman at one end of maybe the the the the luxury band and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway to Whitby at the other have regular operations which have paths in the timetable. But we also know that there are many, many once off charter operations. And in 2025, I think I've used this statistic with an overlord before, but there were 1155 paths bid for bids for paths from charter operators. Some of those were subsequently subsequently withdrawn by the operators, but only eight were withdrawn because Network Rail was unable to offer suitable paths.
GBR will have, as I said, a clause 60 of the Bill a clear remit to allocate capacity fairly, taking into account the range of users including passengers, freight, heritage charter and open access operators and GBR function in clause three of the Bill to facilitate the provision and use of railway services will apply to all providers of railway services and not just those provided by GBR itself. The Future Access Framework is intended to build on, rather than replace many of the mechanisms familiar to heritage and charter operators.
Today, charter operators will continue to be able to secure access to access contracts, including capacity commitments. And I can say to the noble Lord today that the specialist team currently within Network Rail that currently supports heritage and charter operators and in particular facilitates once off paths, will continue under GBR, ensuring continuity of expertise and a clear point of engagement for the sector. Finally, GBR will have to ensure that heritage and charter operators have the certainty they need as part of GBR duty in clause 18 to ensure that businesses can plan their future with a reasonable degree of assurance.
This will make sure that these operators have the stability they need to continue enriching the lives of passengers and the community with the experiences they offer. Turning to amendments amendment 115 from the noble Lord Moylan. Clause 18, subsection one, explains who the duties apply to. They must be discharged by ministers GBR and the Orer exercised their statutory functions as outlined in clause 18. This is designed to ensure a common set of incentives and objectives for all the key players on the railway to reduce conflict and fragmentation, and create a railway in which everyone is pulling together towards the same goals.
On amendments 330 and 334 A what I've just said in relation in relation to amendment 115 means that the Secretary of State will be bound by these duties when issuing GBR licence, and that the RR will be bound by them when issuing licences and statements of national regulatory provisions for other operators. The RR will also be bound by them when enforcing GBR licence. There's no loophole for GBR to avoid the duty for its licence and the two mechanisms are already joined up.
I thank noble Lords for this debate, and I hope my Lords able them to withdraw their amendment.
18:35
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Before the noble Lords sits down. I'm sorry to be pernickety about this, but I just feel he ought to have answered my amendment. However nerdish it is, he told us what clause 18, subsection one says he didn't answer the point. My point is about how clause clause 18, subsection two, might be amended. Drafting told us what subsection one said, which is uncontroversial. In fact, I sort of sort of, in a stumbling way, read it out myself.
And then he read it out rather more clearly. I mean, we're all agreed on what it says.
And then he read it out rather more clearly. I mean, we're all agreed on what it says.
18:36
18:36
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I'd just say to the noble Lord, may, May, maybe I should have a discussion with the noble Lord separately, because I think as as set out, the bill is, is, is clear enough about how they they are. I thought I'd answered it. If he doesn't think I have, then I have a meeting with him tomorrow and I can discuss with him further whether or not my interpretation works or whether his does.
18:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, and everyone who's taken part in this rather long and varied group of amendments. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I'm not planning to run through all the amendments. I will, however, just make a couple of points. I do have to respond to the noble Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Lord. Lord Grayling said that , well, public sector often doesn't deliver good value for money.
It doesn't deliver good value for services. Value of services. Well, of course, many people in Britain have suffered over the past decade seeing the poor quality and value for money services offered by the private sector, whether that be in railways or indeed water companies and many other areas. So I think we have an issue here that needs to be not see the public sector singled out. I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, for, I think, a really interesting thoughts about value for money.
The noble lady left me thinking of the. I don't know if this is still the case, but I've been on a number of times. The two car train from Newport in Wales to Hereford, on which literally. I have seen people being shoved in the door. It might be very good value for money in terms of cost per passenger mile, but it's really not a great way to travel. And that was what the noble lady made me think of.
And the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to the issue of public subsidy in cutting public subsidies. Of course, it's important that we also consider the value value from those public subsidies in terms of encouraging public health, in terms of the climate and nature issues that my amendments raise, that we this is a cost. There's also benefits that go beyond the benefit of the actual train journey itself. So just very briefly, in responding to the noble Lord, the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments, I think in a number of these cases, talking about and talking about climate and nature, the noble Lord referred to strategy as being the alternative approach that the that the government plans to use.
But of course, a strategy is not something that's the same as on the face of the bill. And that applies whether we're talking about also about issues about affordability and the flexibility that Great British Railways is being offered. The simplification of fares, as the noble Lord was thinking, I was thinking of many chain journeys I've made, particularly to Manchester and Liverpool, where I have paid well over £100 for a journey that I might expect in continental Europe to cross £40, and sat on a train that was perhaps at best sixth or seventh full thinking what an awful waste it was that lots of people were undoubtedly in their cars making the same journey at that time, because of the cost of the rail fare.
It doesn't deliver good value for services. Value of services. Well, of course, many people in Britain have suffered over the past decade seeing the poor quality and value for money services offered by the private sector, whether that be in railways or indeed water companies and many other areas. So I think we have an issue here that needs to be not see the public sector singled out. I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, for, I think, a really interesting thoughts about value for money.
The noble lady left me thinking of the. I don't know if this is still the case, but I've been on a number of times. The two car train from Newport in Wales to Hereford, on which literally. I have seen people being shoved in the door. It might be very good value for money in terms of cost per passenger mile, but it's really not a great way to travel. And that was what the noble lady made me think of.
And the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to the issue of public subsidy in cutting public subsidies. Of course, it's important that we also consider the value value from those public subsidies in terms of encouraging public health, in terms of the climate and nature issues that my amendments raise, that we this is a cost. There's also benefits that go beyond the benefit of the actual train journey itself. So just very briefly, in responding to the noble Lord, the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments, I think in a number of these cases, talking about and talking about climate and nature, the noble Lord referred to strategy as being the alternative approach that the that the government plans to use.
But of course, a strategy is not something that's the same as on the face of the bill. And that applies whether we're talking about also about issues about affordability and the flexibility that Great British Railways is being offered. The simplification of fares, as the noble Lord was thinking, I was thinking of many chain journeys I've made, particularly to Manchester and Liverpool, where I have paid well over £100 for a journey that I might expect in continental Europe to cross £40, and sat on a train that was perhaps at best sixth or seventh full thinking what an awful waste it was that lots of people were undoubtedly in their cars making the same journey at that time, because of the cost of the rail fare.
18:40
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Just before she concludes that section of her remarks, it's worth saying it's not that those other countries have cheaper rail services. They just hide the cost and dump it all on the taxpayer, most of whom don't use the rail services. We're just more transparent here, and we have a fairer share of the cost between the rail user, the taxpayer. That's the bit that she's missing in her argument.
18:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think the noble Lord, in saying that, might like to look at the cost that road travel is imposing all on all of us in terms of air pollution, in terms of noise, in terms of the cost of maintenance of those roads and where the cost is borne by all of us with those. And indeed, the comparative changes that have happened over the past couple of decades, where we've seen in real terms car travel, transport costs have gone up far less than rail transport costs have gone up.
That's the historical reality. However, I think I have no doubt that my noble friend Baroness Jones will want to look very closely at what the noble Lord, the minister said. I'm afraid I don't think, particularly on climate, nature and affordability, that we have got to where we need to. But of course, for the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordship?
That's the historical reality. However, I think I have no doubt that my noble friend Baroness Jones will want to look very closely at what the noble Lord, the minister said. I'm afraid I don't think, particularly on climate, nature and affordability, that we have got to where we need to. But of course, for the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordship?
18:41
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
The amendment withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave withdrawn. We now come to clause 18115. Lord Moylan not moved. And now 116. Lord Holmes, Baroness Grey-thompson. Right. Thank you, my Lords. Both the noble Lord, Lord Holmes and the noble lady, Baroness Brinton, apologised. They're not able to be in their places today. Both their amendments names are on amendment 116, which I probably should have added my name to, but I already have six eight amendments in this group.
My amendments do intertwine, and I thought rather than going through each of them in detail, it might be better to give a flavour of the problem that disabled people would like to be fixed. So one two, one a the current general duty does appear to be unenforceable and has produced no measurable improvement, so I believe a statutory duty to make continuous improvements is necessary. Transport all. For all told, the Transport Select Committee that the accessibility duties in the Bill are, and I quote, vague and unenforceable, limited to requiring bodies to have particular regard to disabled passengers rather than imposing clear, measurable accessibility obligations.
And the phrase have particular regard is broad, subjective and difficult to enforce. It sets no minimum expectations for action and does not define accessibility, should influence the council's decisions, priorities or scrutiny functions. The Transport Select Committee itself concluded that the clause 18 duty, and I quote, should be amended to require these bodies to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network with one four for a passenger, assistance is unreliable at scale, and the regulator has found operators capability to improve to be seriously deficient.
Obviously, low floor trains in the recent announcement is is very positive news and a rolling programme of platform height change will have an impact, and I'll be picking up on that for the next week. But while we've been in this debate this afternoon, at least two disabled people have been in touch with me to let me know about assistance failures and also about lift reliability on the network, not least the lift at Saint Pancras. And I think if the DWP were categorized in its working status, they'd probably describe it as a fluctuating condition.
It's back working again as of this afternoon. It wasn't over the weekend, but we'll probably see how long that lasts. And the new lift at Northolt was out three times in the first ten days of it being installed. So, you know, even if we get passenger assistance rights, if all the other things don't slot into place, we're we're struggling.
My amendments do intertwine, and I thought rather than going through each of them in detail, it might be better to give a flavour of the problem that disabled people would like to be fixed. So one two, one a the current general duty does appear to be unenforceable and has produced no measurable improvement, so I believe a statutory duty to make continuous improvements is necessary. Transport all. For all told, the Transport Select Committee that the accessibility duties in the Bill are, and I quote, vague and unenforceable, limited to requiring bodies to have particular regard to disabled passengers rather than imposing clear, measurable accessibility obligations.
And the phrase have particular regard is broad, subjective and difficult to enforce. It sets no minimum expectations for action and does not define accessibility, should influence the council's decisions, priorities or scrutiny functions. The Transport Select Committee itself concluded that the clause 18 duty, and I quote, should be amended to require these bodies to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network with one four for a passenger, assistance is unreliable at scale, and the regulator has found operators capability to improve to be seriously deficient.
Obviously, low floor trains in the recent announcement is is very positive news and a rolling programme of platform height change will have an impact, and I'll be picking up on that for the next week. But while we've been in this debate this afternoon, at least two disabled people have been in touch with me to let me know about assistance failures and also about lift reliability on the network, not least the lift at Saint Pancras. And I think if the DWP were categorized in its working status, they'd probably describe it as a fluctuating condition.
It's back working again as of this afternoon. It wasn't over the weekend, but we'll probably see how long that lasts. And the new lift at Northolt was out three times in the first ten days of it being installed. So, you know, even if we get passenger assistance rights, if all the other things don't slot into place, we're we're struggling.
18:44
18:44
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
But with passenger assistance in 24, 20, 24, 25, 11% of passengers who booked assistance received none of it, according to the first annual benchmarking report. So with over 1.6 million pre-booked assists requested in that period, and that's an 18% increase on the previous year. This represents approximately 176,000 failed assists annually. And that doesn't even take into account our legal rights to turn up and go. And if we look at some other figures that northern trains, 18% of respondents reported receiving none of the assistance they booked.
They found that Northern's initial response, and I quote, did not reassure us that it understood its own performance, the cause of its failings, or that it had robust plans in place. In 2025. There are identified significant gaps in Northern's delivery of disability awareness training, with around 800 passenger facing staff having not completed the disability awareness training, the Orr has now opened a formal investigation, but West Midlands Trains provided limited and inconsistent evidence of its capability to improve, with gaps in data analysis and clear feedback loops and training weaknesses, and accept reliability varies significantly by operator.
But this system is way too ad hoc. I now move to 186 A and the Passengers Council, and I think it lacks the enforcement powers necessary to protect disabled people's rights . Transport for all, said a watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passenger rights or drive accessibility improvements. When the council identifies accessibility failings, it must refer them to the Or, but they retain full discretion over whether to investigate or even take enforcement action.
Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and the indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability, creating further delays, weakening
They found that Northern's initial response, and I quote, did not reassure us that it understood its own performance, the cause of its failings, or that it had robust plans in place. In 2025. There are identified significant gaps in Northern's delivery of disability awareness training, with around 800 passenger facing staff having not completed the disability awareness training, the Orr has now opened a formal investigation, but West Midlands Trains provided limited and inconsistent evidence of its capability to improve, with gaps in data analysis and clear feedback loops and training weaknesses, and accept reliability varies significantly by operator.
But this system is way too ad hoc. I now move to 186 A and the Passengers Council, and I think it lacks the enforcement powers necessary to protect disabled people's rights . Transport for all, said a watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passenger rights or drive accessibility improvements. When the council identifies accessibility failings, it must refer them to the Or, but they retain full discretion over whether to investigate or even take enforcement action.
Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and the indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability, creating further delays, weakening
18:46
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Further delays, weakening enforcement, confusing to passengers and results in inconsistent redress, and the Transport Select Committee recommended the bill should be amended to require that at least two members of the passenger's council have lived experience of travelling as a disabled person. That's a start, but we can't just rely on two people being the voice of everyone. Actually, what's needed is to understand and act on the problems that we see. 220 A it's all well understood.
Co-Production leads to better outcomes. The National Centre for Accessible Transport has highlighted this and raises a really important point that lack of co-production just means accessibility is treated as an afterthought. Sustrans transport for all research and. This was a nationally survey representative of over 1107 disabled adults, recommends that you need to pay disabled people to be part of these access panels and advise on transport decisions. Just expecting disabled people to hand over all their knowledge for free doesn't feel very fair.
220 C and this is another iteration from that. Inaccessible decisions impose enormous economic costs. The evidence based decision making could avoid. I raised much of this at second reading. That lack of accessibility and this is. Research by Motability, costs the UK economy £72 billion every year. 1 in 4 disabled people say inaccessible transport limits their job opportunities. 1 in 10 report affects their education, and 39% of people with learning disabilities didn't go out in the past month due to concerns about public transport.
Disabled adults take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled adults in England on to two £0.20 the UK is failing to meet its international legal obligations under the UN cRPD, and the statutory involvement that is required to comply with article 43 requires the UK to consult and actively involve disabled people. Article nine requires the UK to take appropriate measures to ensure disabled people have equal access to the physical environment and transport and equality, and Human Rights Commission has found that despite some improvements, disabled people continue to face difficulties in accessing public transport and that further measures are needed.
Just very briefly on amendment 336 in the name of Baroness Jones of Molluscum. This is an important one as well in terms of accessibility and the Passenger Railway Services Public Ownership Act 2020 4th May train operators fully subject to public service equality duty. However, this status seems to be weakened by this bill and will only list the parent company, GBR and the Equality Act 2010 schedule. So I think we do need to ensure that it's not just GBR, but all the companies underneath that comply.
And finally, my Lords, I've got some questions which I completely understand why the minister might not have access to these figures to hand, but these are the real crux of the problems that we see disabled people facing. And that's actually how much money is getting spent. I believe in the wrong areas in terms of access, and this is around the compensation status of many cases that we're seeing. So actually, how much has been paid by each operator in the last five years in compensation or redress for passenger assistance failures.
This is not delayed repay this is failure to help somebody off a train. How much has been spent on legal costs, defending or settling those claims? How many claims have operators successfully defended and how many have been lost or settled? Does the order capture complaints through social media? And if not, why not? I mean, it's maybe not the best place to resolve some of those issues, but there are a lot more issues that are discussed on social media that ever than ever get through to complaints process.
And the final one was, was His Majesty's government require or at least consider quarterly operator level publication of compensations legal costs and claim. I suspect a lot of money is being spent on failure rather than investing in infrastructure. On a more positive note, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for meeting this morning with myself and Baroness Brinton. And as we discussed, it would be very useful to have another meeting once we're through the accessibility amendments, to see what we can actually change , to make it far more better for disabled people than it currently is.
Co-Production leads to better outcomes. The National Centre for Accessible Transport has highlighted this and raises a really important point that lack of co-production just means accessibility is treated as an afterthought. Sustrans transport for all research and. This was a nationally survey representative of over 1107 disabled adults, recommends that you need to pay disabled people to be part of these access panels and advise on transport decisions. Just expecting disabled people to hand over all their knowledge for free doesn't feel very fair.
220 C and this is another iteration from that. Inaccessible decisions impose enormous economic costs. The evidence based decision making could avoid. I raised much of this at second reading. That lack of accessibility and this is. Research by Motability, costs the UK economy £72 billion every year. 1 in 4 disabled people say inaccessible transport limits their job opportunities. 1 in 10 report affects their education, and 39% of people with learning disabilities didn't go out in the past month due to concerns about public transport.
Disabled adults take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled adults in England on to two £0.20 the UK is failing to meet its international legal obligations under the UN cRPD, and the statutory involvement that is required to comply with article 43 requires the UK to consult and actively involve disabled people. Article nine requires the UK to take appropriate measures to ensure disabled people have equal access to the physical environment and transport and equality, and Human Rights Commission has found that despite some improvements, disabled people continue to face difficulties in accessing public transport and that further measures are needed.
Just very briefly on amendment 336 in the name of Baroness Jones of Molluscum. This is an important one as well in terms of accessibility and the Passenger Railway Services Public Ownership Act 2020 4th May train operators fully subject to public service equality duty. However, this status seems to be weakened by this bill and will only list the parent company, GBR and the Equality Act 2010 schedule. So I think we do need to ensure that it's not just GBR, but all the companies underneath that comply.
And finally, my Lords, I've got some questions which I completely understand why the minister might not have access to these figures to hand, but these are the real crux of the problems that we see disabled people facing. And that's actually how much money is getting spent. I believe in the wrong areas in terms of access, and this is around the compensation status of many cases that we're seeing. So actually, how much has been paid by each operator in the last five years in compensation or redress for passenger assistance failures.
This is not delayed repay this is failure to help somebody off a train. How much has been spent on legal costs, defending or settling those claims? How many claims have operators successfully defended and how many have been lost or settled? Does the order capture complaints through social media? And if not, why not? I mean, it's maybe not the best place to resolve some of those issues, but there are a lot more issues that are discussed on social media that ever than ever get through to complaints process.
And the final one was, was His Majesty's government require or at least consider quarterly operator level publication of compensations legal costs and claim. I suspect a lot of money is being spent on failure rather than investing in infrastructure. On a more positive note, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for meeting this morning with myself and Baroness Brinton. And as we discussed, it would be very useful to have another meeting once we're through the accessibility amendments, to see what we can actually change , to make it far more better for disabled people than it currently is.
18:51
18:51
18:51
18:51
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble lady, Baroness Grey-thompson, and to say that that is possibly one of the most important parts of this committee, and it's absolutely crucial that the government listens to what the noble lady has to say. That's in terms of the interest of people with disabilities. But it's also in the interests of all of us. If we make the railways more accessible, safe, reliable for people with disabilities, it's better for all of us.
Just to give one practical example of that, on the issue of lift availability, speaking as someone who last week was lugging a very large suitcase full of books down the steps at rugby train station because the lift was out, that is something that matters to many people under many different circumstances, so we'd all be better off. And I also really want to just pick up the point the noble lady made about co-production, and particularly that when co-production is being engaged with, it's really crucial that people also receive appropriate remuneration for their effort, their knowledge.
Far too often we expect people to volunteer for those roles, and actually, they should receive some return for putting in that contribution, for sharing their expertise in the village and their time. So having said those, I just want to specifically address primarily amendment three three, six, which the noble lady, Baroness Grey-thompson, has already addressed. And as the noble lady said, this ensures that the public sector equality duty applies not just to Great British Railways itself, but also to GBR companies.
Now, the 2024 act extended this duty to public sector train operators by adding them to schedule 19 of the Equality Act 20. However, the provisions in this bill appear to leave a gap because the existing reference is to legislation that will no longer exist. The bill adds Great British Railways to the schedule, but is not explicitly include GBR companies. That matters because the new rail structure could involve different companies carrying out important functions, from operating train services to potentially managing ticket retailing and function functions currently undertaken by the Rail Delivery Group.
Equality protection should not depend on which part of the new structure is delivering a service by explicitly including GBR companies. This amendment will provide clarity and legal certainty, ensuring that the public sector Equality duty continues to apply across the new rail system. I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will agree that this is a necessary clarification to preserve the existing protections and ensure consistency as Great British Railways takes shape.
Just to give one practical example of that, on the issue of lift availability, speaking as someone who last week was lugging a very large suitcase full of books down the steps at rugby train station because the lift was out, that is something that matters to many people under many different circumstances, so we'd all be better off. And I also really want to just pick up the point the noble lady made about co-production, and particularly that when co-production is being engaged with, it's really crucial that people also receive appropriate remuneration for their effort, their knowledge.
Far too often we expect people to volunteer for those roles, and actually, they should receive some return for putting in that contribution, for sharing their expertise in the village and their time. So having said those, I just want to specifically address primarily amendment three three, six, which the noble lady, Baroness Grey-thompson, has already addressed. And as the noble lady said, this ensures that the public sector equality duty applies not just to Great British Railways itself, but also to GBR companies.
Now, the 2024 act extended this duty to public sector train operators by adding them to schedule 19 of the Equality Act 20. However, the provisions in this bill appear to leave a gap because the existing reference is to legislation that will no longer exist. The bill adds Great British Railways to the schedule, but is not explicitly include GBR companies. That matters because the new rail structure could involve different companies carrying out important functions, from operating train services to potentially managing ticket retailing and function functions currently undertaken by the Rail Delivery Group.
Equality protection should not depend on which part of the new structure is delivering a service by explicitly including GBR companies. This amendment will provide clarity and legal certainty, ensuring that the public sector Equality duty continues to apply across the new rail system. I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will agree that this is a necessary clarification to preserve the existing protections and ensure consistency as Great British Railways takes shape.
18:54
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords, just a brief intervention since I think a long one isn't necessary because the noble lady, Baroness Grey-thompson, comprehensively introduced this set of amendments. I think two. Two points I would make one. I think she, as she almost invariably does, focused on what's important, which is the outcome. Are we actually getting more accessible services? So one of the problems in this conversation sometimes is we talk about the duties and some of the legislation, but actually the important thing is to think about is it actually going to make a real difference? There are lots of duties on all of these organisations.
And what my noble friend, if I may call her that brings to this, is reminding us when that hasn't delivered the actual outcome in practice. So the amendments that I was particularly struck with were the ones thinking back to my time as the disability minister, the ones about co-production involving disabled people in thinking about those services, looking at the design of them through that lens and actually getting people involved early, because one of the things I learned, particularly in that role, but also as transport Secretary, is when you come to these things late, delivering accessible services just ends up being very much more expensive.
If you thought about it at the beginning, you'd have a better outcome. And my final point, because I do like to take opportunities to agree with people who I don't always agree with, is to agree with the noble lady, Baroness Bennett, on the issue about making services more accessible for disabled people is good for everybody, and sometimes we miss that point. As she said, if you make a service a better for somebody with a who is a wheelchair user, it will also be better for somebody with carrying heavy luggage.
If you make you think about how you do wayfinding and sign signage, if that's more accessible for somebody with a visual impairment or with a learning disability, then it will be better for everybody because it will be less confusing and more straightforward. So, so actually thinking about how we deliver these services for people who perhaps have more needs than the average person, will make it better for the typical rail user as well. So it's a no win.
It's a no lose situation. I think sometimes people overlook that and think that this is about delivering a more accessible service for a maybe a large group, maybe a small group, but a narrow group of people actually more accessibility, better. It doesn't make life more definitely doesn't make life more difficult for anybody. And generally it makes life better for everybody. And you need to think about it at the beginning when you're designing those services, not at the end of the process.
And when the minister responds to this group, I'd like him to perhaps focus on that. How can you really embed thinking about accessibility at the beginning of these journeys for delivering services, both infrastructure and the service, rather than coming at the end and trying to bolt it on afterwards?
And what my noble friend, if I may call her that brings to this, is reminding us when that hasn't delivered the actual outcome in practice. So the amendments that I was particularly struck with were the ones thinking back to my time as the disability minister, the ones about co-production involving disabled people in thinking about those services, looking at the design of them through that lens and actually getting people involved early, because one of the things I learned, particularly in that role, but also as transport Secretary, is when you come to these things late, delivering accessible services just ends up being very much more expensive.
If you thought about it at the beginning, you'd have a better outcome. And my final point, because I do like to take opportunities to agree with people who I don't always agree with, is to agree with the noble lady, Baroness Bennett, on the issue about making services more accessible for disabled people is good for everybody, and sometimes we miss that point. As she said, if you make a service a better for somebody with a who is a wheelchair user, it will also be better for somebody with carrying heavy luggage.
If you make you think about how you do wayfinding and sign signage, if that's more accessible for somebody with a visual impairment or with a learning disability, then it will be better for everybody because it will be less confusing and more straightforward. So, so actually thinking about how we deliver these services for people who perhaps have more needs than the average person, will make it better for the typical rail user as well. So it's a no win.
It's a no lose situation. I think sometimes people overlook that and think that this is about delivering a more accessible service for a maybe a large group, maybe a small group, but a narrow group of people actually more accessibility, better. It doesn't make life more definitely doesn't make life more difficult for anybody. And generally it makes life better for everybody. And you need to think about it at the beginning when you're designing those services, not at the end of the process.
And when the minister responds to this group, I'd like him to perhaps focus on that. How can you really embed thinking about accessibility at the beginning of these journeys for delivering services, both infrastructure and the service, rather than coming at the end and trying to bolt it on afterwards?
18:57
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton is in the chamber today, leading for our party in the Public Office Accountability Bill and gives her apologies to Grand Committee. Lady Brinton had signed amendments in this group 116, 121, A, 144, A 186, a 220, a 220 and two £0.20 and these amendments have been proposed by either Baroness Grey-thompson or Lord Holmes, two respected disability champions in this House, and Baroness Brinton also does support amendment 336, but had not managed in time to add her name to that.
When we in the previous group, my noble friend Lord Beith, talked about multimodal travel being a gamble. Well, I think what Darren Thompson has described is travelling as a disabled passenger. You know, even on one mode is a high risk sport effectively. And the figures that she outlined for us today, I think are astonishing and really rather frightening, to be honest. The level of poor service, if any, service that disabled passengers receive, and for that to be happening in this day and age is quite astonishing.
There's a key issue principle in this group of amendments. And first of all, I do want to thank the Minister and the government for recognising the rights of disabled passengers need to be strengthened and clarified. This is only half of the compact that needs to be corrected in order to ensure that disabled passengers can travel safely on time, and with the service that is available to all other passengers. So if the organisations that must deliver the services to disabled passengers have no formal responsibilities, it doesn't matter what rights disabled passengers may have.
Disabled people see this mismatch in many different parts of their lives and it's understandably infuriating. We've an equality act, a public sector equality, duty and human rights. But if the service itself has no specific responsibility to deliver those, it's unlikely to do so or do so consistently because there are other priorities. So that's why amendments 116 and 121 A both set out the need for bodies to secure and advance the statutory rights of disabled passengers, ensuring access to all rail services and why 144 A gives a statutory duty to Great British Railways and the Orer, and why 186 A gives a duty to the Passenger Council.
But this will not work if this bodies don't work closely with disabled people co-producing as we've been discussing. So 220 A and 220 P specify that really importantly, and amendment 220 C proposes that Great British Railways must consider accessibility evidence in key design and delivery decisions so that, for example, for example, shameful delays by previous governments and ensuring level boarding will be a thing of the past. And finally, amendment 336 specifies that Great British Railways and its companies must follow the public sector equality duty, because in reality, this has not been happening.
This may seem to be too much detail to go on the face of the bill, and I'm sure we'll hear from the noble Lord, the Minister , on that. But disabled people quite rightly feel they don't receive the service they need. And that's because across the board, the railway organisations and bodies do not automatically include disability and access at the heart of their design, contract and delivery decisions. And that's why things go wrong. And this matters because every day without that statutory responsibility, disabled people easily or there are no staff to help them on a train or a wheelchair.
Space is filled with cases and this absolutely ruins their days. This happened again and again, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. And warm words without relevant statutory duties will never change anything. But these amendments will. So we on these benches really support them and the spirit they're written in. And we really hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will respond positively to this group.
When we in the previous group, my noble friend Lord Beith, talked about multimodal travel being a gamble. Well, I think what Darren Thompson has described is travelling as a disabled passenger. You know, even on one mode is a high risk sport effectively. And the figures that she outlined for us today, I think are astonishing and really rather frightening, to be honest. The level of poor service, if any, service that disabled passengers receive, and for that to be happening in this day and age is quite astonishing.
There's a key issue principle in this group of amendments. And first of all, I do want to thank the Minister and the government for recognising the rights of disabled passengers need to be strengthened and clarified. This is only half of the compact that needs to be corrected in order to ensure that disabled passengers can travel safely on time, and with the service that is available to all other passengers. So if the organisations that must deliver the services to disabled passengers have no formal responsibilities, it doesn't matter what rights disabled passengers may have.
Disabled people see this mismatch in many different parts of their lives and it's understandably infuriating. We've an equality act, a public sector equality, duty and human rights. But if the service itself has no specific responsibility to deliver those, it's unlikely to do so or do so consistently because there are other priorities. So that's why amendments 116 and 121 A both set out the need for bodies to secure and advance the statutory rights of disabled passengers, ensuring access to all rail services and why 144 A gives a statutory duty to Great British Railways and the Orer, and why 186 A gives a duty to the Passenger Council.
But this will not work if this bodies don't work closely with disabled people co-producing as we've been discussing. So 220 A and 220 P specify that really importantly, and amendment 220 C proposes that Great British Railways must consider accessibility evidence in key design and delivery decisions so that, for example, for example, shameful delays by previous governments and ensuring level boarding will be a thing of the past. And finally, amendment 336 specifies that Great British Railways and its companies must follow the public sector equality duty, because in reality, this has not been happening.
This may seem to be too much detail to go on the face of the bill, and I'm sure we'll hear from the noble Lord, the Minister , on that. But disabled people quite rightly feel they don't receive the service they need. And that's because across the board, the railway organisations and bodies do not automatically include disability and access at the heart of their design, contract and delivery decisions. And that's why things go wrong. And this matters because every day without that statutory responsibility, disabled people easily or there are no staff to help them on a train or a wheelchair.
Space is filled with cases and this absolutely ruins their days. This happened again and again, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. And warm words without relevant statutory duties will never change anything. But these amendments will. So we on these benches really support them and the spirit they're written in. And we really hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will respond positively to this group.
19:02
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, I will be brief. So the noble Lord mustn't relax too much before respond I . As before, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson, has given us on her own behalf and on behalf of the noble. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and noble Baroness Lady Brinton. A distressing and convincing account of the difficulties that people with disabilities have when travelling on the railways. We all, I think, have sympathy with that, and, as on previous occasions, I tend to support what she has been advancing.
I will, however, probe a little bit further on one point. I'm sure the noble Lord. The minister has grasped this, but the question of the public sector equality. Duty that the noble Baroness mentioned. Now, I have to say, conservatives are no longer enthusiastic about supporting the public sector equality duty and might indeed, in due course, scrap it. But nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, I think it's important to understand what is being said here.
So when the the private sector talks were taken into national ownership under the Rail Passenger Rail Services Bill of two years ago, they were made subject to the public sector equality duty. So each individual talk was done. So that was achieved by amending a particular section of the 19931995 Railways Act, 1993 or 1995. I can't quite remember. Hansard would put it right. Railways Act, but one of the effects of this bill is to abolish that section so that that assuming the those bodies into the public sector equality duty is being taken away.
Instead, GBR is being made subject to the public sector equality duty, but it is not clear that that continues to apply to the subsidiary companies who will be operating the services and effectively taking the place of the private sector. Private sector talks that were nationalised or where the services were nationalised. So that is the point. I'm only trying to be helpful. I think that is the point the noble Baroness was making, and it's one that I think is acutely interesting.
Now, it may be the noble Lords answer that was that if the duty applies to the parent company, then it applies to the subsidiary companies, and nothing more needs to be said. But then the question arises, which subsidiary companies? Because, as we know from previous discussions, GBR, a bit like the sort of theories of the Constitution in the 17th century, GBR has two bodies. It is GBR, the railway body, and GBR, the company that exists under the.
The the Companies Act and different obligations and different impositions arise depending on which role the the the the. The GBR is acting in. So for example, the Secretary of State can't give directions to GBR in relation to matters which are. Company matters, matters, and. And the most obvious one of these is the development of property, possibly in partnership with. With the private sector company direction cannot be given by the Secretary of State in relation to such an activity.
If one says simply that it covers subsidiaries automatically, then does it cover subsidiaries, for example, which are engaged in property development or other activities? Or maybe, I don't know, the provision of training and consulting. I'm not suggesting this is going to be high on the agenda GBR, but it might happen in due course. The provision of training and consultancy to railway operators outside the United Kingdom for a profit and so on are perfectly respectable activity.
So does it apply to those as well? Simply because if it goes to all subsidiaries, why not to those? So I don't think it's going to be an entirely satisfactory answer to say that because it captures GBR, it captures all the subsidiaries. Unless there's a means of distinguishing the subsidiaries you wish to capture, or you wish to say that all subsidiaries, irrespective of their activities, are going to be captured by the public sector equality, duty.
And this clarity, I think, would be helpful.
I will, however, probe a little bit further on one point. I'm sure the noble Lord. The minister has grasped this, but the question of the public sector equality. Duty that the noble Baroness mentioned. Now, I have to say, conservatives are no longer enthusiastic about supporting the public sector equality duty and might indeed, in due course, scrap it. But nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, I think it's important to understand what is being said here.
So when the the private sector talks were taken into national ownership under the Rail Passenger Rail Services Bill of two years ago, they were made subject to the public sector equality duty. So each individual talk was done. So that was achieved by amending a particular section of the 19931995 Railways Act, 1993 or 1995. I can't quite remember. Hansard would put it right. Railways Act, but one of the effects of this bill is to abolish that section so that that assuming the those bodies into the public sector equality duty is being taken away.
Instead, GBR is being made subject to the public sector equality duty, but it is not clear that that continues to apply to the subsidiary companies who will be operating the services and effectively taking the place of the private sector. Private sector talks that were nationalised or where the services were nationalised. So that is the point. I'm only trying to be helpful. I think that is the point the noble Baroness was making, and it's one that I think is acutely interesting.
Now, it may be the noble Lords answer that was that if the duty applies to the parent company, then it applies to the subsidiary companies, and nothing more needs to be said. But then the question arises, which subsidiary companies? Because, as we know from previous discussions, GBR, a bit like the sort of theories of the Constitution in the 17th century, GBR has two bodies. It is GBR, the railway body, and GBR, the company that exists under the.
The the Companies Act and different obligations and different impositions arise depending on which role the the the the. The GBR is acting in. So for example, the Secretary of State can't give directions to GBR in relation to matters which are. Company matters, matters, and. And the most obvious one of these is the development of property, possibly in partnership with. With the private sector company direction cannot be given by the Secretary of State in relation to such an activity.
If one says simply that it covers subsidiaries automatically, then does it cover subsidiaries, for example, which are engaged in property development or other activities? Or maybe, I don't know, the provision of training and consulting. I'm not suggesting this is going to be high on the agenda GBR, but it might happen in due course. The provision of training and consultancy to railway operators outside the United Kingdom for a profit and so on are perfectly respectable activity.
So does it apply to those as well? Simply because if it goes to all subsidiaries, why not to those? So I don't think it's going to be an entirely satisfactory answer to say that because it captures GBR, it captures all the subsidiaries. Unless there's a means of distinguishing the subsidiaries you wish to capture, or you wish to say that all subsidiaries, irrespective of their activities, are going to be captured by the public sector equality, duty.
And this clarity, I think, would be helpful.
19:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've made a contribution to this group, and of course, I. I completely agree with Noble Lords on the importance of making our railway more accessible. In the spirit of collaboration, I also agree with the noble Lord Harper that there are benefits for everyone in this. He mentioned signage and all I'd say is that actually having station names in the same typeface written in black on white on a white background would be a huge benefit for many, many partially and poorly sighted passengers.
I have in my office one station name expressed in 18 typefaces with different colours, backgrounds, and they've all got the same station name and even my freshly, freshly done cataracts. I can't read some of them still, so we can do a lot better by being consistent, but look too often and and listening to the noble Baroness. Of course, the railway has let down disabled passengers and it does need to change. And under this bill GB ministers and the Orr will all have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers, including in particular, the needs of the needs of disabled persons.
That is a significant step forward and for the first time, the Railways major players will be bound by a specific accessibility duty. I think this will make a huge difference. And no, at present no equivalent duty applies to train operating companies or Network Rail, meaning that accessibility, as we've heard, is too often an afterthought. Under GBR, it will become a core responsibility, shaping decisions about services, stations, rolling stock investment and the overall passenger experience. Amendments 116 121 A and 144 A will seek to strengthen the accessibility duty, and if I may, I'll take them together.
The duty has been drafted broadly, so it applies across the full range of gbr's functions, which means it won't be treated as a secondary issue considered in each and every decision GBR takes. Promoting the interests of disabled passengers can and should include consideration of how services can be improved over time, how barriers can be removed, and how access to the railway can be expanded. Just as the noble Baroness Grey-thompson proposes in amendment 144 A.
That's why the duty as drafted covers both current and future passengers by including the words, wording users and potential users of the railway. In our duty, we require GBR to consider how decisions can remove barriers and make enable more people, including more disabled people, to travel by rail. The government, therefore, believes that the duty already encompasses the full range of. Ways in which the interests of disabled passengers can be advanced, including through continuous improvement of services.
As the noble Baroness highlights in amendment 121, a GBR couldn't fulfill its accessibility duty if it didn't take measures to improve things continuously for disabled passengers across all aspects of accessibility and the change to the accessibility duty. Being proactive is a proactive duty to promote the interests of disabled passengers, not just have regard to them as characterized by the by the quotation the noble Baroness used from transport for all. On the topic of disabled rights, the drafting of the accessibility duty.
It ensures that disabled passengers interests are actively considered, even where no specific legal right is. For example, on trains with a catering provision, it's in the interests of disabled people for staff to offer an at seat. There's no legal right to act seat catering, providing the service is precisely the kind of operational decision I want GBR to take with disabled people in mind, and indeed a few train operators do that, and some of them could and don't.
And that's what the duty and the bill will require it to do. Duty in clause 18 doesn't exist in isolation. Rather, it sits alongside wider protections. I can reassure noble Lords that, unlike the privatised train operators, GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty as provided for in schedule four of the Bill, and that will require GBR to give proactive consideration to the rights of disabled people across everything.
It does. The duty to the needs of disabled people is complementary and additional to the public sector equality duty, meaning that disabled people's rights, interests and needs are all enshrined in the Bill. In in in reference to the reporting proposal in amendment 144 a, I reassure the noble Baroness that accessibility outcomes will be subject to robust transparency and scrutiny. Noble Baroness has rightly mentioned failures of passenger assist, in particular as later amendments to address this issue directly.
I'll return to that topic in more detail in subsequent debates. For now, let me say that it's quite clear to me that there is significant scope for GBR to improve the services, and action is already underway, with £11.5 million in funding and delivery of a national training package. GBR will publish assessments of its performance, including its delivery of accessibility commitments, as part of the business planning process. In practice, these assessments will form part of the Business Plans annual update.
The updates will also report on the outcomes of Gbr's compliance with mandatory accessibility standards, and if these plans aren't good enough or there are failures, the watchdog, the LRR and the Secretary of State will ensure swift redress using their respective levers up to and including mandatory directions for GBR to change its behaviors. I hope this clarifies the rationale for the drafting of the duty in clause 18, and reassures the noble, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that amendments 116, 121 and 144 already captured by the government's plans and the Bill as drafted on amendment 186.
A I should mention that the Bill contains two accessibility duties. The first, which we have already discussed, applies to GBR, the author and the UK, Scottish and Welsh Government ministers. There is also a separate duty on the passenger watchdog, the subject of amendment 168 186 a. I completely agree with the noble Baroness that the passenger watchdog should protect the rights of disabled people, reduce barriers to accessibility and promote independent travel. The bill requires the watchdog to consider the interests and needs of disabled people in all its decisions, and as the passenger champion, it couldn't fulfill its accessibility duty without promoting accessibility and addressing the barriers that disabled passengers face.
In fact, I can confirm that we expect the watchdog to develop new accessibility standards in consultation with disabled people as one of its first priorities. We're very pleased to discuss with the noble Baroness what these standards might entail outside the committee, outside this committee, we will certainly return to the subject of the watchdog in later debates, but for now, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we share the same aims. Although the drafting of the duty, in my view, doesn't need to be changed to achieve them.
On amendment two, 22, 23 and two £0.20. I absolutely agree that better accessibility benefits both passengers and the wider economy, ensuring that decisions are informed by the evidence and the lived experience of disabled people will help remove barriers to opportunity and support economic growth. I will commit to this committee that the my Department will publish a new accessible travel charter by the end of 2026. It will require the operators and railway organisations who sign up to it to commit to regular and meaningful experience with disabled people, and to record how lived experiences, informed decision making, training and service delivery.
I'll commit now that GBR will be a signatory to it, and once again I hope to discuss the contents of the charter with noble Baroness ahead of report stage through our roadmap to Access to an Accessible Railway, published last November, we've committed to strengthen the role of disabled passengers in decision making by 2027 through enhanced regional accessibility panels overseen by a national accessible, which will be stood up in the near future. This marks a cultural and structural shift moving beyond consultation towards a meaningful, system wide partnership with disabled people at every level.
In addition, as I agreed with accessibility stakeholders, the GBR licence will require GBR to engage actively with accessibility groups. This requirement will be monitored and enforced by the LRR. In summary, I wholeheartedly agree that accessibility is most effective when it's developed with disabled people and not not somehow done to them. That's why we have implemented a number of measures to involve disabled people in running the railway, and I hope the noble Baroness is reassured by these actions and feels able to report her amendments on amendment 336.
I can confirm that the Public Sector Equality duty will apply to all GBR companies and subsidiaries whenever they are carrying out their public railway functions. I am rather shocked to hear that the noble Lord Moylan, says that his own party's policy might be to abolish it, but in the meantime, this government is respecting it and that that what I've just said is, is the consequence of that. The government hasn't included GBR companies in schedule 19 of the Equality Act 2010, because this would apply the duty to all their activities, including those of a purely commercial nature.
This might include, for example, property development or consultancy services, and these activities are not relevant to supporting disabled people to travel, nor to the other public activities GBR will undertake. And I hope that allows the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Just to sum up, I've listened carefully to the points raised by noble Lords, and of course I've listened very carefully to the noble Baroness with her eloquent but very disturbing descriptions of people's practical experience on the railway.
They've rightly highlighted areas where the current system doesn't deliver the experience that disabled passengers deserve, and the creation of GBR is an important opportunity to address those challenges and improve accessibility across the network. I look forward to returning to those issues in subsequent debates, and I hope I've reassured Noble Lords for now, that the accessibility duties in the Bill are robust and will support the improvements we all want to see. This is a matter of huge importance to me, and I'm committed to ensuring that our reforms make a meaningful difference for disabled passengers.
To that end, as the noble Baroness knows and she referred to earlier, I'll be happy to meet further with her, with noble Baroness Brinton and any other noble lords with an interest in the topic, to discuss in more detail the meaningful and proportionate adjustments that the GBR should make. Finally, I'm not going to bother the committee with a precise explanation about whether the lifts at Saint Pancras work or not, but in what the noble Baroness told me this morning, I could give her a very accurate description of when they were working and what was done to fix them, or rather, when they weren't.
But more, more, more more practically, she asked. Noble Baroness asked me some questions at the end of her opening speech, and of course I'll answer them as far as I'm able to in writing. I understand the point of her questions, and like her, I would much rather spend the money she refers to in compensation and and legal proceedings to spend it on accessibility, which is obviously a much better and completely the right thing to do.
I have in my office one station name expressed in 18 typefaces with different colours, backgrounds, and they've all got the same station name and even my freshly, freshly done cataracts. I can't read some of them still, so we can do a lot better by being consistent, but look too often and and listening to the noble Baroness. Of course, the railway has let down disabled passengers and it does need to change. And under this bill GB ministers and the Orr will all have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers, including in particular, the needs of the needs of disabled persons.
That is a significant step forward and for the first time, the Railways major players will be bound by a specific accessibility duty. I think this will make a huge difference. And no, at present no equivalent duty applies to train operating companies or Network Rail, meaning that accessibility, as we've heard, is too often an afterthought. Under GBR, it will become a core responsibility, shaping decisions about services, stations, rolling stock investment and the overall passenger experience. Amendments 116 121 A and 144 A will seek to strengthen the accessibility duty, and if I may, I'll take them together.
The duty has been drafted broadly, so it applies across the full range of gbr's functions, which means it won't be treated as a secondary issue considered in each and every decision GBR takes. Promoting the interests of disabled passengers can and should include consideration of how services can be improved over time, how barriers can be removed, and how access to the railway can be expanded. Just as the noble Baroness Grey-thompson proposes in amendment 144 A.
That's why the duty as drafted covers both current and future passengers by including the words, wording users and potential users of the railway. In our duty, we require GBR to consider how decisions can remove barriers and make enable more people, including more disabled people, to travel by rail. The government, therefore, believes that the duty already encompasses the full range of. Ways in which the interests of disabled passengers can be advanced, including through continuous improvement of services.
As the noble Baroness highlights in amendment 121, a GBR couldn't fulfill its accessibility duty if it didn't take measures to improve things continuously for disabled passengers across all aspects of accessibility and the change to the accessibility duty. Being proactive is a proactive duty to promote the interests of disabled passengers, not just have regard to them as characterized by the by the quotation the noble Baroness used from transport for all. On the topic of disabled rights, the drafting of the accessibility duty.
It ensures that disabled passengers interests are actively considered, even where no specific legal right is. For example, on trains with a catering provision, it's in the interests of disabled people for staff to offer an at seat. There's no legal right to act seat catering, providing the service is precisely the kind of operational decision I want GBR to take with disabled people in mind, and indeed a few train operators do that, and some of them could and don't.
And that's what the duty and the bill will require it to do. Duty in clause 18 doesn't exist in isolation. Rather, it sits alongside wider protections. I can reassure noble Lords that, unlike the privatised train operators, GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty as provided for in schedule four of the Bill, and that will require GBR to give proactive consideration to the rights of disabled people across everything.
It does. The duty to the needs of disabled people is complementary and additional to the public sector equality duty, meaning that disabled people's rights, interests and needs are all enshrined in the Bill. In in in reference to the reporting proposal in amendment 144 a, I reassure the noble Baroness that accessibility outcomes will be subject to robust transparency and scrutiny. Noble Baroness has rightly mentioned failures of passenger assist, in particular as later amendments to address this issue directly.
I'll return to that topic in more detail in subsequent debates. For now, let me say that it's quite clear to me that there is significant scope for GBR to improve the services, and action is already underway, with £11.5 million in funding and delivery of a national training package. GBR will publish assessments of its performance, including its delivery of accessibility commitments, as part of the business planning process. In practice, these assessments will form part of the Business Plans annual update.
The updates will also report on the outcomes of Gbr's compliance with mandatory accessibility standards, and if these plans aren't good enough or there are failures, the watchdog, the LRR and the Secretary of State will ensure swift redress using their respective levers up to and including mandatory directions for GBR to change its behaviors. I hope this clarifies the rationale for the drafting of the duty in clause 18, and reassures the noble, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that amendments 116, 121 and 144 already captured by the government's plans and the Bill as drafted on amendment 186.
A I should mention that the Bill contains two accessibility duties. The first, which we have already discussed, applies to GBR, the author and the UK, Scottish and Welsh Government ministers. There is also a separate duty on the passenger watchdog, the subject of amendment 168 186 a. I completely agree with the noble Baroness that the passenger watchdog should protect the rights of disabled people, reduce barriers to accessibility and promote independent travel. The bill requires the watchdog to consider the interests and needs of disabled people in all its decisions, and as the passenger champion, it couldn't fulfill its accessibility duty without promoting accessibility and addressing the barriers that disabled passengers face.
In fact, I can confirm that we expect the watchdog to develop new accessibility standards in consultation with disabled people as one of its first priorities. We're very pleased to discuss with the noble Baroness what these standards might entail outside the committee, outside this committee, we will certainly return to the subject of the watchdog in later debates, but for now, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we share the same aims. Although the drafting of the duty, in my view, doesn't need to be changed to achieve them.
On amendment two, 22, 23 and two £0.20. I absolutely agree that better accessibility benefits both passengers and the wider economy, ensuring that decisions are informed by the evidence and the lived experience of disabled people will help remove barriers to opportunity and support economic growth. I will commit to this committee that the my Department will publish a new accessible travel charter by the end of 2026. It will require the operators and railway organisations who sign up to it to commit to regular and meaningful experience with disabled people, and to record how lived experiences, informed decision making, training and service delivery.
I'll commit now that GBR will be a signatory to it, and once again I hope to discuss the contents of the charter with noble Baroness ahead of report stage through our roadmap to Access to an Accessible Railway, published last November, we've committed to strengthen the role of disabled passengers in decision making by 2027 through enhanced regional accessibility panels overseen by a national accessible, which will be stood up in the near future. This marks a cultural and structural shift moving beyond consultation towards a meaningful, system wide partnership with disabled people at every level.
In addition, as I agreed with accessibility stakeholders, the GBR licence will require GBR to engage actively with accessibility groups. This requirement will be monitored and enforced by the LRR. In summary, I wholeheartedly agree that accessibility is most effective when it's developed with disabled people and not not somehow done to them. That's why we have implemented a number of measures to involve disabled people in running the railway, and I hope the noble Baroness is reassured by these actions and feels able to report her amendments on amendment 336.
I can confirm that the Public Sector Equality duty will apply to all GBR companies and subsidiaries whenever they are carrying out their public railway functions. I am rather shocked to hear that the noble Lord Moylan, says that his own party's policy might be to abolish it, but in the meantime, this government is respecting it and that that what I've just said is, is the consequence of that. The government hasn't included GBR companies in schedule 19 of the Equality Act 2010, because this would apply the duty to all their activities, including those of a purely commercial nature.
This might include, for example, property development or consultancy services, and these activities are not relevant to supporting disabled people to travel, nor to the other public activities GBR will undertake. And I hope that allows the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Just to sum up, I've listened carefully to the points raised by noble Lords, and of course I've listened very carefully to the noble Baroness with her eloquent but very disturbing descriptions of people's practical experience on the railway.
They've rightly highlighted areas where the current system doesn't deliver the experience that disabled passengers deserve, and the creation of GBR is an important opportunity to address those challenges and improve accessibility across the network. I look forward to returning to those issues in subsequent debates, and I hope I've reassured Noble Lords for now, that the accessibility duties in the Bill are robust and will support the improvements we all want to see. This is a matter of huge importance to me, and I'm committed to ensuring that our reforms make a meaningful difference for disabled passengers.
To that end, as the noble Baroness knows and she referred to earlier, I'll be happy to meet further with her, with noble Baroness Brinton and any other noble lords with an interest in the topic, to discuss in more detail the meaningful and proportionate adjustments that the GBR should make. Finally, I'm not going to bother the committee with a precise explanation about whether the lifts at Saint Pancras work or not, but in what the noble Baroness told me this morning, I could give her a very accurate description of when they were working and what was done to fix them, or rather, when they weren't.
But more, more, more more practically, she asked. Noble Baroness asked me some questions at the end of her opening speech, and of course I'll answer them as far as I'm able to in writing. I understand the point of her questions, and like her, I would much rather spend the money she refers to in compensation and and legal proceedings to spend it on accessibility, which is obviously a much better and completely the right thing to do.
19:19
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
My Lords, I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed in this short debate, and I will also be brief. And I do understand there's a lot of pressure on the network, not just money. As the noble Lord, the minister says, if we can't get even just station signs to match up, there are big things that we have to try and address and absolutely, we have to make it better for everyone. We just need to work out what those very specific things are.
You know, the current barriers that people face. It's infrastructure working an accessible toilets on the platform and on board a number of staff who is trained, who actually manages to get themselves being exempt from ramp training so they don't have to get a wheelchair user on or off a train. And that's even before we get to the aspiration of having level boarding. And I guess there's that sort of conflict between the duty is listed and what actually happens.
And it comes back to how hard it is for disabled people to complain, because it can be quite exhausting. And I'm very glad the noble Lord, the minister, raised catering provision. So it might not be a legal duty, but actually these are the things that matter to disabled people when they are travelling. And the two companies that I use most, lNer, are Grand Central. They do offer this, you know, there's lots of good stuff that happens on the network, but I think it was back in 2020 when train company who just bought new trains was getting very excited about it.
And I'm probably going to very badly quote what happened on social media. I don't have it in front of me. I was trying to look for it when the new trains were sort of pictured and social media. We very quickly realised that as a wheelchair user, you might have the accessible space in that carriage, but you couldn't actually get to the cafe bar. And when lots of questions were asked about it, someone from their social media team posted back and said, don't worry, you'll be in sight of the cafe bar.
In all my years of campaigning, I think I tweeted something or around about this, which was in all my years of campaigning, I've dreamt of being in sight of a cafe, bar and. And then the disability rights campaigners had quite a lot of fun with it, called an egg and cress gate and looked at it. And sometimes you do need a sense of humour which which gets you through it. But on a serious note, it was like so close and yet so far.
And that comes back to actually thinking ahead about these things. I guess the great advantage of having some time between committee and report is an opportunity for us to think very creatively about how we can improve the system, and actually what in reality needs to be on the face of the bill. And I will take the noble Lord, the minister, and his team up on his offer of a more substantive meeting with Lord Holmes, Baroness Brinton and anyone else who would like to join, because actually, for disabled people, this is a once in a lifetime chance.
I've been talking about accessible railways since 1995, and I probably don't have another 40 years of my life left to keep doing it. So, you know, this is genuinely it's it's an opportunity to do something really important. I will be bringing amendments back at report stage. I have to work out which are the best ones to to bring back. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
You know, the current barriers that people face. It's infrastructure working an accessible toilets on the platform and on board a number of staff who is trained, who actually manages to get themselves being exempt from ramp training so they don't have to get a wheelchair user on or off a train. And that's even before we get to the aspiration of having level boarding. And I guess there's that sort of conflict between the duty is listed and what actually happens.
And it comes back to how hard it is for disabled people to complain, because it can be quite exhausting. And I'm very glad the noble Lord, the minister, raised catering provision. So it might not be a legal duty, but actually these are the things that matter to disabled people when they are travelling. And the two companies that I use most, lNer, are Grand Central. They do offer this, you know, there's lots of good stuff that happens on the network, but I think it was back in 2020 when train company who just bought new trains was getting very excited about it.
And I'm probably going to very badly quote what happened on social media. I don't have it in front of me. I was trying to look for it when the new trains were sort of pictured and social media. We very quickly realised that as a wheelchair user, you might have the accessible space in that carriage, but you couldn't actually get to the cafe bar. And when lots of questions were asked about it, someone from their social media team posted back and said, don't worry, you'll be in sight of the cafe bar.
In all my years of campaigning, I think I tweeted something or around about this, which was in all my years of campaigning, I've dreamt of being in sight of a cafe, bar and. And then the disability rights campaigners had quite a lot of fun with it, called an egg and cress gate and looked at it. And sometimes you do need a sense of humour which which gets you through it. But on a serious note, it was like so close and yet so far.
And that comes back to actually thinking ahead about these things. I guess the great advantage of having some time between committee and report is an opportunity for us to think very creatively about how we can improve the system, and actually what in reality needs to be on the face of the bill. And I will take the noble Lord, the minister, and his team up on his offer of a more substantive meeting with Lord Holmes, Baroness Brinton and anyone else who would like to join, because actually, for disabled people, this is a once in a lifetime chance.
I've been talking about accessible railways since 1995, and I probably don't have another 40 years of my life left to keep doing it. So, you know, this is genuinely it's it's an opportunity to do something really important. I will be bringing amendments back at report stage. I have to work out which are the best ones to to bring back. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
19:22
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Is it Lord president, this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave. Withdrawn. Bear with me, my Lords. I have quite a lot of things to go through. 116 A Lord Moylan moved 117 Lord Young of Cookham not moved 118. Lord Parkinson not moved, I presume. 118 A withdrawn 118 B Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved 119 Lord Berkeley not moved 119 a Baroness Lang of Elderslie not moved 120 Lord Evans not moved 121 Lord Grayling not moved.
121 A Baroness Grey-thompson not moved 122 Lord Grayling moved, not moved 122 a Baroness Lang not moved 123 Lord Berkeley not moved. So the question now is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. We now come to one, two, four and one, two, five. Lord Moylan not moved one two, six.
Lord Berkeley not moved 127 and 128. Baroness Jones not moved. Just one second. 129. Baroness Willis not moved. 130 Lord Holmes not moved. 130 A and B Baroness Jones not moved right. We now come to clause 19131 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
121 A Baroness Grey-thompson not moved 122 Lord Grayling moved, not moved 122 a Baroness Lang not moved 123 Lord Berkeley not moved. So the question now is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. We now come to one, two, four and one, two, five. Lord Moylan not moved one two, six.
Lord Berkeley not moved 127 and 128. Baroness Jones not moved. Just one second. 129. Baroness Willis not moved. 130 Lord Holmes not moved. 130 A and B Baroness Jones not moved right. We now come to clause 19131 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
19:24
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, my Lords. What a pleasure it is to be back in the railway Bill with a dozen transport nerds. It's such a wonderful way to spend my Monday evening. And to the noble Lady Gray Thompson, I would just like to say I've been talking about climate change for 38 years and. And barely closer to what I was talking about at the very beginning. So I've got four amendments in this particular group one, three, one, one, three, two, one, four four and three, three, eight.
And what I want to do is explore the tension between safety and competition in this bill, because the Railways Bill retains the competition law framework established during privatisation. In fact, extending it further. Lost the minister.
And what I want to do is explore the tension between safety and competition in this bill, because the Railways Bill retains the competition law framework established during privatisation. In fact, extending it further. Lost the minister.
19:25
19:25
19:25
19:25
19:25
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
We can call this the ultimate legal framework. The entire bill, the concerns go beyond the duty to promote competition under 67, under section 67, three of the Railways Act 1993, the Office of Rail and Road also has significant powers to enforce competition law alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. These are much stronger powers than simply encouraging competition. The problem is that the bill gives these competition functions priority over several other responsibilities, including the general duties and, in some circumstances, its safety duties.
It also limits the guidance that UK and Scottish ministers can give the o r on competition matters. In effect, competition regulation is being given priority over wider public interest decisions and democratic oversight, and we actually have to ask if that is appropriate for a publicly owned railway. Why should we carry forward and even extend a competition framework inherited from privatisation, rather than put the public interest at the centre of how our railways operate? There's some reassurance in the fact that safety functions are also protected in several of these provisions, but that does not resolve every potential conflict between safety and competition regulation.
Wherever those responsibilities could pull in different directions, the government needs to explain how that conflict will be resolved and why competition should ever take precedence over safety. Sorry, that was amendment one one, three one and now on amendment one, three, two. First. And it's actually quite shocking the new safety duty of ministers and or of clause 19, in which they must take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.
Now, this clearly hasn't exemption for competition regulation, which can only mean that in a trade off between competition and public safety, competition will win. This exemption should be struck and we need a proper explanation of why it's present in the first place. And clause 19 safety duty does not currently apply to GBR only R, R, R and ministers. And so I'd like to know the reason for that. And is it also in any way competition related amendment 131 would explicitly add Great British Railways to the safety duty in clause 19.
So not just ministers or ORR. As we move to a new rail structure, it should be clear that Great British Railways has a responsibility to put safety first when carrying out its functions. It is difficult to see why decisions about competition should be exempt from a duty that exists to protect passengers and railway workers. Competition decisions can have wider consequences for how the railway operates, and safety has to be part of those considerations.
More broadly, I'm concerned that this bill gives too much weight to competition, rather than putting the interests, public interests at the core of our railways. The purpose of our rail network should be to provide safe, reliable, well integrated services for passengers, not to create more opportunities for commercial operators. Amendment 144 ultimately, the safety function should be above all other duties. This is the railway, one of the most potentially dangerous industries there is.
It's not satisfactory, even if safety is formally equivalent to competition. Rather, safety must take precedence over competition regulation. And that's why amendment 144 proposes a priority of safety functions clause, ensuring there cannot be a trade off between competition and the safety of the public and rail workers under any circumstances, and that this priority is made clear and distinct in law. Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the safety duties on Great British Railways and the ORR and make clear that safety must come first.
Public ownership has got to be more about than just changing who runs our railways. It should mean putting passengers, railway workers and the public interest ahead of competition. And that's also why I've called for clause 20 to be removed from the Bill. We do not believe that a statutory duty to promote competition belongs in this bill. It puts competition at the centre of the regulator's responsibilities, rather than focusing on what passengers actually need from their railway.
Plus, there is already too little in this bill about tackling the climate crisis and making rail travel affordable. We should be looking at how to get more people onto public transport, reduce reliance on cars and make sure that taking the train is a realistic option for people on ordinary incomes. Those should be central priorities for our railway. Amendment 338. Then there's the question of the status of the safety duties under the Deregulation Act 2015, inserted by the Economic Growth Regulatory Functions Order 2017.
This isn't mentioned in the bill as it stands, but this probing amendment suggests that ORR is removed from this order. The reason is not, in this case, anti-growth. It's because, as few people seem to be aware, it relates to the safety functions, specifically requiring it to consider the importance of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that a regulatory function is taken only when it's needed, and be any action taken is proportionate, although this in itself does not override safety duties, it's clearly intended to influence decisions about what to investigate, when to intervene and whether to use formal enforcement.
It's fair to say it fundamentally has the effect of putting safety enforcement below competition regulation. In a hierarchical sense. I beg to move.
It also limits the guidance that UK and Scottish ministers can give the o r on competition matters. In effect, competition regulation is being given priority over wider public interest decisions and democratic oversight, and we actually have to ask if that is appropriate for a publicly owned railway. Why should we carry forward and even extend a competition framework inherited from privatisation, rather than put the public interest at the centre of how our railways operate? There's some reassurance in the fact that safety functions are also protected in several of these provisions, but that does not resolve every potential conflict between safety and competition regulation.
Wherever those responsibilities could pull in different directions, the government needs to explain how that conflict will be resolved and why competition should ever take precedence over safety. Sorry, that was amendment one one, three one and now on amendment one, three, two. First. And it's actually quite shocking the new safety duty of ministers and or of clause 19, in which they must take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.
Now, this clearly hasn't exemption for competition regulation, which can only mean that in a trade off between competition and public safety, competition will win. This exemption should be struck and we need a proper explanation of why it's present in the first place. And clause 19 safety duty does not currently apply to GBR only R, R, R and ministers. And so I'd like to know the reason for that. And is it also in any way competition related amendment 131 would explicitly add Great British Railways to the safety duty in clause 19.
So not just ministers or ORR. As we move to a new rail structure, it should be clear that Great British Railways has a responsibility to put safety first when carrying out its functions. It is difficult to see why decisions about competition should be exempt from a duty that exists to protect passengers and railway workers. Competition decisions can have wider consequences for how the railway operates, and safety has to be part of those considerations.
More broadly, I'm concerned that this bill gives too much weight to competition, rather than putting the interests, public interests at the core of our railways. The purpose of our rail network should be to provide safe, reliable, well integrated services for passengers, not to create more opportunities for commercial operators. Amendment 144 ultimately, the safety function should be above all other duties. This is the railway, one of the most potentially dangerous industries there is.
It's not satisfactory, even if safety is formally equivalent to competition. Rather, safety must take precedence over competition regulation. And that's why amendment 144 proposes a priority of safety functions clause, ensuring there cannot be a trade off between competition and the safety of the public and rail workers under any circumstances, and that this priority is made clear and distinct in law. Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the safety duties on Great British Railways and the ORR and make clear that safety must come first.
Public ownership has got to be more about than just changing who runs our railways. It should mean putting passengers, railway workers and the public interest ahead of competition. And that's also why I've called for clause 20 to be removed from the Bill. We do not believe that a statutory duty to promote competition belongs in this bill. It puts competition at the centre of the regulator's responsibilities, rather than focusing on what passengers actually need from their railway.
Plus, there is already too little in this bill about tackling the climate crisis and making rail travel affordable. We should be looking at how to get more people onto public transport, reduce reliance on cars and make sure that taking the train is a realistic option for people on ordinary incomes. Those should be central priorities for our railway. Amendment 338. Then there's the question of the status of the safety duties under the Deregulation Act 2015, inserted by the Economic Growth Regulatory Functions Order 2017.
This isn't mentioned in the bill as it stands, but this probing amendment suggests that ORR is removed from this order. The reason is not, in this case, anti-growth. It's because, as few people seem to be aware, it relates to the safety functions, specifically requiring it to consider the importance of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that a regulatory function is taken only when it's needed, and be any action taken is proportionate, although this in itself does not override safety duties, it's clearly intended to influence decisions about what to investigate, when to intervene and whether to use formal enforcement.
It's fair to say it fundamentally has the effect of putting safety enforcement below competition regulation. In a hierarchical sense. I beg to move.
19:31
19:31
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords. My lords, I find. Some of the comments in these statements given by the noble Baroness very interesting, but to try and legislate to balance the needs for safety and anything else. Means that we have to put a value on safety and. Taken to its logical conclusion, that actually means that the safest railway in the world is one in which no trains run.
Which may be fine for people who want to be 100% safe if they're going to go, if they're going to walk the track and not not get run over by a train, so be it. But there has to be a balance and it's all then comes down to cost, and I just can't see how you can have a , a railway where safety comes first on everything because it'll mean that B no trains running. I mean, you go down on the underground in London and stand on the platform.
You're very safe until somebody tries to push you, but you're very safe if there's no trains there. If a train comes, you get on it and you hope. You hope you're safe. So I just don't understand the benefits of this, because actually the logical consequence is that there'll be no trains.
Which may be fine for people who want to be 100% safe if they're going to go, if they're going to walk the track and not not get run over by a train, so be it. But there has to be a balance and it's all then comes down to cost, and I just can't see how you can have a , a railway where safety comes first on everything because it'll mean that B no trains running. I mean, you go down on the underground in London and stand on the platform.
You're very safe until somebody tries to push you, but you're very safe if there's no trains there. If a train comes, you get on it and you hope. You hope you're safe. So I just don't understand the benefits of this, because actually the logical consequence is that there'll be no trains.
19:33
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, I'm very glad that the Public Accountability Bill has enabled the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to rejoin us in committee. Sadly, it continues to detain my. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, with whom I have brought amendment 133, which is a probing amendment relating to the Heritage Rail Safety and Standards Board that we would like to see come about. Sadly, the improvements to the operational railways have often been forged in the wake of tragedy.
The story of Britain's railways isn't just one of engineering prowess, but one of constant learning, adapting and improving not only in terms of speed and service, but of safety too. Since the days of William Huskisson, the Tory MP and statesman who was sadly struck down and fatally injured by Stephenson's rocket at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830. We've known how focused minds and driven improvement it was. The Armagh rail disaster of 1899, in which 80 people lost their lives, many of them very sadly, Sunday School children on an excursion which prompted Parliament to pass the Regulation of Railways Act.
Just two months later. My Lords, the devastating rush hour crash at Harrow and Wealdstone in 1952 accelerated the adoption of the automated warning system across our railways that sadly involved the death of 112 people. The Ladbroke Grove crash in 1999, in which 31 were killed and more than 400 injured, and Lord Cullen's inquiry into it led to the creation of the Rail Safety and Standards Board and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, and it was the Croydon tram derailment of 2016, which involved seven fatalities and more than 60 injuries, which saw the creation which led to the creation of the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board.
Both that and the Rail Safety and Standards Board are our publicly funded and have driven many improvements to our railways across the country. Mercifully, the heritage rail sector has not had a comparable significant incident, thanks in large part to the diligence and high standards of those who work and volunteer in it. But they are operating old technology , built and designed for different age and with the skills and knowledge base, which is always changing and needs to be passed on to new generations.
So they are acutely aware of the the dangers that are involved in all forms of of rail travel . In the wake of the Croydon tram derailment and the AAIB report, the then Chief Inspector of Railways recommended the establishment of a Safety and Standards Board dedicated to Heritage rail. In the absence of public funding, as we have for the rail and the Light Rail Safety and Standards Boards, the Heritage Railway Association, of which I'm the chairman, and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester, as president, has on its own initiative, established a volunteer run safety and Standards Board.
This has led to the publication of one very detailed standard for the sector and with two more nearing completion. But it is a painstakingly slow process and not really what the Chief Inspector I think had in mind. Now. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, has kindly given us some time ahead of this committee and I'm most grateful to him for it. He and the noble lady. The Minister may argue this is not an issue for this.
This bill, neither the rail nor the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board needed to wait for legislation to come into existence. And our amendment 133 does perhaps put the tender before the engine, rather, in an effort to find a way to raise this issue in committee. But I hope they will understand why it is on from the Croydon derailment. We want to ensure that the very highest standards can be maintained, and to reassure all those who enjoy visiting and travelling on heritage railways and tramways that they can continue to do so safely and securely.
So I'd be very grateful if we're able to continue the discussions on how we can see the establishment of a Heritage Rail Safety and Standards Board in line with those which have been established for other parts of our rail sector.
The story of Britain's railways isn't just one of engineering prowess, but one of constant learning, adapting and improving not only in terms of speed and service, but of safety too. Since the days of William Huskisson, the Tory MP and statesman who was sadly struck down and fatally injured by Stephenson's rocket at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830. We've known how focused minds and driven improvement it was. The Armagh rail disaster of 1899, in which 80 people lost their lives, many of them very sadly, Sunday School children on an excursion which prompted Parliament to pass the Regulation of Railways Act.
Just two months later. My Lords, the devastating rush hour crash at Harrow and Wealdstone in 1952 accelerated the adoption of the automated warning system across our railways that sadly involved the death of 112 people. The Ladbroke Grove crash in 1999, in which 31 were killed and more than 400 injured, and Lord Cullen's inquiry into it led to the creation of the Rail Safety and Standards Board and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, and it was the Croydon tram derailment of 2016, which involved seven fatalities and more than 60 injuries, which saw the creation which led to the creation of the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board.
Both that and the Rail Safety and Standards Board are our publicly funded and have driven many improvements to our railways across the country. Mercifully, the heritage rail sector has not had a comparable significant incident, thanks in large part to the diligence and high standards of those who work and volunteer in it. But they are operating old technology , built and designed for different age and with the skills and knowledge base, which is always changing and needs to be passed on to new generations.
So they are acutely aware of the the dangers that are involved in all forms of of rail travel . In the wake of the Croydon tram derailment and the AAIB report, the then Chief Inspector of Railways recommended the establishment of a Safety and Standards Board dedicated to Heritage rail. In the absence of public funding, as we have for the rail and the Light Rail Safety and Standards Boards, the Heritage Railway Association, of which I'm the chairman, and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester, as president, has on its own initiative, established a volunteer run safety and Standards Board.
This has led to the publication of one very detailed standard for the sector and with two more nearing completion. But it is a painstakingly slow process and not really what the Chief Inspector I think had in mind. Now. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, has kindly given us some time ahead of this committee and I'm most grateful to him for it. He and the noble lady. The Minister may argue this is not an issue for this.
This bill, neither the rail nor the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board needed to wait for legislation to come into existence. And our amendment 133 does perhaps put the tender before the engine, rather, in an effort to find a way to raise this issue in committee. But I hope they will understand why it is on from the Croydon derailment. We want to ensure that the very highest standards can be maintained, and to reassure all those who enjoy visiting and travelling on heritage railways and tramways that they can continue to do so safely and securely.
So I'd be very grateful if we're able to continue the discussions on how we can see the establishment of a Heritage Rail Safety and Standards Board in line with those which have been established for other parts of our rail sector.
19:38
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Pleasure to take part in this this group, and before I speak to amendment 210 in my name, firstly, as a former director of the wonderful. If we're if we're in the business of talking about heritage railways, I shall talk about the Great Central Railway in Loughborough, and as a founding chair of the all party parliamentary group on Heritage Rail, I just want to support the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. And I also want to add my support and I've added my name to amendment 207.
In the name of the noble lady, Lady Pigeon. And I will leave her obviously to to move that. But it is ironic that I am looking at the timing of this debate and wondering actually what late night train I'm going to have to. go for an hour and a half journey. And so the amendment of both lighting, but also transport infrastructure that works. So as Noble Lady said, there's a taxi when you arrive somewhere, if you haven't got a car , is something very much on my mind, but I really rise to move.
Amendment 210. I'm very thankful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has added his name. I'm sorry that I couldn't speak at second reading of this bill. I would like to thank the the noble, the Minister, for his engagement on this issue. I'm sorry he's not here at the moment, but I know that the noble lady will respond to the points that have been made in this group. And I know, as I say, this is an issue that he has told me and written to me about and made clear his support.
I've already heard, and I'm sure previous committee. We know that millions of people rely on the rail network. It brings people together. It allows them to get to work as well as participate in education or leisure activities. It contributes over £36 billion annually to the UK economy, provides around 600,000 jobs. So there can be no question that our rail network is the backbone to an equal opportunity.
In the name of the noble lady, Lady Pigeon. And I will leave her obviously to to move that. But it is ironic that I am looking at the timing of this debate and wondering actually what late night train I'm going to have to. go for an hour and a half journey. And so the amendment of both lighting, but also transport infrastructure that works. So as Noble Lady said, there's a taxi when you arrive somewhere, if you haven't got a car , is something very much on my mind, but I really rise to move.
Amendment 210. I'm very thankful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has added his name. I'm sorry that I couldn't speak at second reading of this bill. I would like to thank the the noble, the Minister, for his engagement on this issue. I'm sorry he's not here at the moment, but I know that the noble lady will respond to the points that have been made in this group. And I know, as I say, this is an issue that he has told me and written to me about and made clear his support.
I've already heard, and I'm sure previous committee. We know that millions of people rely on the rail network. It brings people together. It allows them to get to work as well as participate in education or leisure activities. It contributes over £36 billion annually to the UK economy, provides around 600,000 jobs. So there can be no question that our rail network is the backbone to an equal opportunity.
19:40
19:40
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
critical for independent social mobility, especially for women. But it also needs to remember that millions of people rely on their public transport being safe. And there are still huge issues regarding safety on our trains, especially for women, for members of our society and for disabled passengers, as we heard in the previous group, and these have not been addressed. According to the ONS, 58% of women aged 16 year old reported feeling unsafe using public transport alone after dark, whilst 34% have witnessed assault or harassment and 19% report themselves having been assaulted or harassed.
Sexual offences specifically have risen by 10% and is up by 6%. So it is no surprise, therefore, that the issue.
Sexual offences specifically have risen by 10% and is up by 6%. So it is no surprise, therefore, that the issue.
19:41
19:41
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Women and girls is seen as a national emergency, according to the National Police Chiefs Council, the solution is not nearly two thirds 63% of women to just avoid travelling alone, nor is it for them to have to undertake what I quote normalised behaviour like being very choosy about where they sit, or assiduously avoiding making eye contact with anyone. Instead, more innovative solutions need to be put in place to help assure their safety, and in moving this, I can't, unfortunately, not point to the recent horrific case of Simon Levy, a man who murdered two people, raped another whilst on bail.
for and had previous convictions for 13 sexual offences against women, including ten assaults on London's transport network between October 2023 and May 2025. But sadly, it is no surprise he was allowed to be free when only 3% of cases of violence against women and girls on the railways resulted in a charge or summons. Now I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the minister, has written to the British Transport Police about their track record on violence against women and girls, issues relating to violence against women and girls, and I would like to ask him, through the noble lady, if he will publish that correspondence for the benefit of noble Lords, as he and I have discussed.
Now, it is true that Network Rail stated at the very top of their website that the safety of their passengers is paramount. We know Network Rail, train operating companies, transport for London and the British Transport Police support White Ribbon UK campaign. The government has stated that nationalisation should improve safety. The problem is that safety on the railways often isn't seen in the context of violence against women and girls specifically, but there is little guidance as to how this nationalisation, which provides us opportunity to improve safety, is going to happen in a practical sense.
And so I hope that amendment 210 offers a path forward, and I think it fits in well with what the government is trying to achieve in this bill. With nationalisation, the government has the perfect opportunity to reset the standard following the Royal Assent of Passenger Railway Services Public Ownership Bill 2024, the Department instructed DFT operators to assume responsibility for train operators ownership in England and to provide, quote, safe, secure and sustainable transport. It was clarified in response to a question asked by me in the House recently that the Department, I quote, will have increasing control over the design of trains and, in particular standards of lighting and closed circuit television as quotes.
Designing out opportunities for such violence to happen is a real priority. Now, I note the publication of the recent rolling stock and infrastructure strategy for GB Railways, which does very briefly. I found one reference to. It mentioned violence against women and girls and related rolling stock design. So amendment 210 would mandate GB Railways to record data around violence against women and girls on trains responsible for safety and security, to consult with the industry regarding innovation and technology that can help reduce violence against women and girls, and develop guidelines for rolling stock operators that would lay out a gold standard of technology that should be implemented to improve safety standards on trains, by embedding broad considerations into public into planning and transport guidance, it would ensure that safety of over 50% of the population, at least, is built into the fabric of our public rail network, and would also show the government could have true oversight of this issue and engage with those organisations that specialise in developing the technology and innovation needed to help drive confidence in passengers, particularly women.
They would ensure that manufacturers are subject to a gold standard for as long as rolling stock manufacturers can continue to have, failing to include extra specifications related to safety of female passengers that cost money but don't seem to bring them any financial return, they are less likely to install such measures, especially in economic environment where security is under pressure. The innovation is there for ministers are aware, but companies are forever looking to new markets and new ways of improving life.
Companies specialise in innovation. Within the rail sector are no different. Companies like Beaver Rail, who are developing innovative lighting and call to aid solutions to help operators move beyond reactive measures towards proactive prevention. These and others are thoughtful, passenger focused innovations which can and should be integrated physical design of the rail network, contributing to the wider industry effort to make Britain's railways safer for all. There is a precedent for this.
Jenny Gilruth, who served as Scottish Government's minister for transport between 2022 and 2024, identified that there needed to be an upgrade in lighting for all transport services and that she said it was down to the Scottish Government to, I quote, work with transport operators and stakeholders to carefully consider these recommendations and how we can implement them quickly and effectively to ensure our transport network is safe and more secure for all who use it. In conclusion, we know it's accepted that the issue of violence against women and girls is a national emergency.
Women and girls often feel unsafe on our trains. If the government legislated to ensure that the matters highlighted in subsection two of amendment 210 were introduced, things would improve and it would send a very clear signal to the whole rail sector of the focus on this issue. From the top of the department, gold standard on safety should not be negotiable. It should be implemented by ministers and be a requirement on GB railways. And I beg to move.
for and had previous convictions for 13 sexual offences against women, including ten assaults on London's transport network between October 2023 and May 2025. But sadly, it is no surprise he was allowed to be free when only 3% of cases of violence against women and girls on the railways resulted in a charge or summons. Now I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the minister, has written to the British Transport Police about their track record on violence against women and girls, issues relating to violence against women and girls, and I would like to ask him, through the noble lady, if he will publish that correspondence for the benefit of noble Lords, as he and I have discussed.
Now, it is true that Network Rail stated at the very top of their website that the safety of their passengers is paramount. We know Network Rail, train operating companies, transport for London and the British Transport Police support White Ribbon UK campaign. The government has stated that nationalisation should improve safety. The problem is that safety on the railways often isn't seen in the context of violence against women and girls specifically, but there is little guidance as to how this nationalisation, which provides us opportunity to improve safety, is going to happen in a practical sense.
And so I hope that amendment 210 offers a path forward, and I think it fits in well with what the government is trying to achieve in this bill. With nationalisation, the government has the perfect opportunity to reset the standard following the Royal Assent of Passenger Railway Services Public Ownership Bill 2024, the Department instructed DFT operators to assume responsibility for train operators ownership in England and to provide, quote, safe, secure and sustainable transport. It was clarified in response to a question asked by me in the House recently that the Department, I quote, will have increasing control over the design of trains and, in particular standards of lighting and closed circuit television as quotes.
Designing out opportunities for such violence to happen is a real priority. Now, I note the publication of the recent rolling stock and infrastructure strategy for GB Railways, which does very briefly. I found one reference to. It mentioned violence against women and girls and related rolling stock design. So amendment 210 would mandate GB Railways to record data around violence against women and girls on trains responsible for safety and security, to consult with the industry regarding innovation and technology that can help reduce violence against women and girls, and develop guidelines for rolling stock operators that would lay out a gold standard of technology that should be implemented to improve safety standards on trains, by embedding broad considerations into public into planning and transport guidance, it would ensure that safety of over 50% of the population, at least, is built into the fabric of our public rail network, and would also show the government could have true oversight of this issue and engage with those organisations that specialise in developing the technology and innovation needed to help drive confidence in passengers, particularly women.
They would ensure that manufacturers are subject to a gold standard for as long as rolling stock manufacturers can continue to have, failing to include extra specifications related to safety of female passengers that cost money but don't seem to bring them any financial return, they are less likely to install such measures, especially in economic environment where security is under pressure. The innovation is there for ministers are aware, but companies are forever looking to new markets and new ways of improving life.
Companies specialise in innovation. Within the rail sector are no different. Companies like Beaver Rail, who are developing innovative lighting and call to aid solutions to help operators move beyond reactive measures towards proactive prevention. These and others are thoughtful, passenger focused innovations which can and should be integrated physical design of the rail network, contributing to the wider industry effort to make Britain's railways safer for all. There is a precedent for this.
Jenny Gilruth, who served as Scottish Government's minister for transport between 2022 and 2024, identified that there needed to be an upgrade in lighting for all transport services and that she said it was down to the Scottish Government to, I quote, work with transport operators and stakeholders to carefully consider these recommendations and how we can implement them quickly and effectively to ensure our transport network is safe and more secure for all who use it. In conclusion, we know it's accepted that the issue of violence against women and girls is a national emergency.
Women and girls often feel unsafe on our trains. If the government legislated to ensure that the matters highlighted in subsection two of amendment 210 were introduced, things would improve and it would send a very clear signal to the whole rail sector of the focus on this issue. From the top of the department, gold standard on safety should not be negotiable. It should be implemented by ministers and be a requirement on GB railways. And I beg to move.
19:47
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
My Lords, I rise briefly to support amendment one. But I would say in the light of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, that I have, like other parents, first hand knowledge of the way in which young women feel unsafe. My own daughter, who used rail network regularly to go back from school. There are times when she asked me to go to the station to meet her in order to make sure that she could get home safely.
So it's a very serious issue. Now, of course, this amendment 133 ably moved, if I may put it this way, by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, supported by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. And I apologise to both for not having added my name to that. But these short debates related to Heritage Rail have given members the opportunity to mention their favourite heritage railways. The noble lady herself just mentioned the Great Central Railway.
Lord Evans referred to the Royal Railway. The noble Lord Harper has just referred to the forest of Dean railway and these are all, of course, substantial railways, and I just want the committee to know that they're not all like that. And I drove past the Mangapps railway in the Dengie Peninsula in Essex. It's a very small heritage rail centre. It's family owned, which makes it extremely unusual. But they do a valiant job with the resources that they have, and they have no prospect of ever being connected to a main line.
But anyway, I wanted to say about this amendment to my noble friend, the minister, who's going to be replying. I know governments can sometimes resist amendments that officials are urging ministers to resist amendments which they think are unnecessary. And I do understand that that can be at work. But this is a very modest amendment. I know it's appropriate. It's very modest. I think it is a very necessary amendment. It's very sensible amendment.
AM I noble to refer to him in this context, raised the issue of some major actions, and it is true in the history of the railways, major disasters have been the occasion for change. You mentioned the crash in 1999, at that time on a railway that I took regularly, and the Croydon Tramlink. My Lords, I journeyed to the house this morning on the Croydon tram, and I passed the very spot where that terrible accident occurred.
I can at least report to the committee that the restrictions, speed restrictions in place are very severe and very obvious, and I have every hope and expectation will never happen again. But it is a constant reminder. But anyway, I think that everything that has been said by my noble friend is worthy of serious consideration by the minister, and I look forward to what is said. Surely it should be possible to have the equivalent for the rail and heritage rail industry of a measure that applies to the other two listed in the amendment.
So it's a very serious issue. Now, of course, this amendment 133 ably moved, if I may put it this way, by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, supported by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. And I apologise to both for not having added my name to that. But these short debates related to Heritage Rail have given members the opportunity to mention their favourite heritage railways. The noble lady herself just mentioned the Great Central Railway.
Lord Evans referred to the Royal Railway. The noble Lord Harper has just referred to the forest of Dean railway and these are all, of course, substantial railways, and I just want the committee to know that they're not all like that. And I drove past the Mangapps railway in the Dengie Peninsula in Essex. It's a very small heritage rail centre. It's family owned, which makes it extremely unusual. But they do a valiant job with the resources that they have, and they have no prospect of ever being connected to a main line.
But anyway, I wanted to say about this amendment to my noble friend, the minister, who's going to be replying. I know governments can sometimes resist amendments that officials are urging ministers to resist amendments which they think are unnecessary. And I do understand that that can be at work. But this is a very modest amendment. I know it's appropriate. It's very modest. I think it is a very necessary amendment. It's very sensible amendment.
AM I noble to refer to him in this context, raised the issue of some major actions, and it is true in the history of the railways, major disasters have been the occasion for change. You mentioned the crash in 1999, at that time on a railway that I took regularly, and the Croydon Tramlink. My Lords, I journeyed to the house this morning on the Croydon tram, and I passed the very spot where that terrible accident occurred.
I can at least report to the committee that the restrictions, speed restrictions in place are very severe and very obvious, and I have every hope and expectation will never happen again. But it is a constant reminder. But anyway, I think that everything that has been said by my noble friend is worthy of serious consideration by the minister, and I look forward to what is said. Surely it should be possible to have the equivalent for the rail and heritage rail industry of a measure that applies to the other two listed in the amendment.
19:50
19:50
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords. It's a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I look forward to the noble lady, Baroness Dacres, responding to it. A couple of couple of points. First of all, I think the central point that my noble friend Baroness Morgan made is an important one, which is about as far as we can designing out crime. Some of that's about the the physical layout of stations and rolling stock.
Some of it's about CCTV and things like that. Some of it's about how the services operate. I think that's very welcome. We did did. There was a period when we successfully designed out entirely, but very significantly the ability of people to steal cars. We made them very much more difficult. And that was very successful. So I think that the thrust of her amendment is a very welcome one, and I support it.
I specifically wanted to talk about a specific issue about the British Transport Police, which was raised with me at the weekend. Now, I'm a big fan of the British Transport Police, and I had a lot of dealings with their fantastic Chief Constable, Lucy D'orsi, when I was the Secretary of State. She's been a leader in the police service in terms of weeding out bad officers, officers who have no right to be police officers, and has taken significant steps in improving standards of integrity in her force.
She also, I know personally has a very clear priority for dealing with violence against women and girls and takes it very seriously and believes in robust policing. So I think in terms of the leadership there, I think whatever correspondence the minister has had, I think he would be absolutely pushing at an open door. I've also seen myself the very successful work that BTP and their officers
Some of it's about CCTV and things like that. Some of it's about how the services operate. I think that's very welcome. We did did. There was a period when we successfully designed out entirely, but very significantly the ability of people to steal cars. We made them very much more difficult. And that was very successful. So I think that the thrust of her amendment is a very welcome one, and I support it.
I specifically wanted to talk about a specific issue about the British Transport Police, which was raised with me at the weekend. Now, I'm a big fan of the British Transport Police, and I had a lot of dealings with their fantastic Chief Constable, Lucy D'orsi, when I was the Secretary of State. She's been a leader in the police service in terms of weeding out bad officers, officers who have no right to be police officers, and has taken significant steps in improving standards of integrity in her force.
She also, I know personally has a very clear priority for dealing with violence against women and girls and takes it very seriously and believes in robust policing. So I think in terms of the leadership there, I think whatever correspondence the minister has had, I think he would be absolutely pushing at an open door. I've also seen myself the very successful work that BTP and their officers
19:52
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Two stations in London about dealing with people carrying weapons, people trafficking drugs, particularly using some of their dogs. Very effective at dealing with that. And I've also seen some of the work they do, for example, remembering it's a national police force in Wales, for example, seeing some of the work they did in combating county lines gangs and the movement of money using the rail network. So that's that's all that's all the good stuff that I've seen.
My specific question arose on a recent journey on GWR, and this was a specific question from a train manager. We were having a conversation, and I happened to mention I can't remember the context about British Transport Police. He was a bit less positive about it than me, but but based on his experience, and I made the point that I've just made here about the work they do in some of our busy transport hubs, his point was on more isolated services, less busy services.
He has had the experience of having to deal with people committing violence, breaking up big groups of of drunken, I suspect, men. And when he has tried to get support from the British Transport Police, it's either not been forthcoming or it hasn't been forthcoming more quickly. So I suppose my question is, is just in terms of the the funding that goes to the force and the priorities, how do we balance? Because we do have to look at where the numbers of people are, but how do we balance the resources that go into our busiest stations and our busier services? But recognising that that, that that doesn't mean we can't clearly police them to the same level, but on our less busy services, not our less busy stations, how do we deliver effective policing? And the reason why I mentioned it in this context is I think that my noble friend, Lady Morgan, puts her finger on it in her amendment is it's about design and technology.
Clearly, you can't have infinite numbers of police officers everywhere, but it's about how do you use technology to, first of all, deter crime, but also then to be able to respond to it quickly and spot it coming so that police officers with the appropriate powers, skills and training are able to support railway personnel who do their best. But really, whatever the training they've got, they are not the right people to deal with people committing serious criminality on the railway.
That requires officers who are properly trained, properly equipped with the powers and, if necessary, the ability to escalate the support they have. If you have people committing serious violence or people with serious weapons. And so that's really my question to the noble Baroness, is just how do we balance that across the network? And I'd be interested in listening to her reply.
My specific question arose on a recent journey on GWR, and this was a specific question from a train manager. We were having a conversation, and I happened to mention I can't remember the context about British Transport Police. He was a bit less positive about it than me, but but based on his experience, and I made the point that I've just made here about the work they do in some of our busy transport hubs, his point was on more isolated services, less busy services.
He has had the experience of having to deal with people committing violence, breaking up big groups of of drunken, I suspect, men. And when he has tried to get support from the British Transport Police, it's either not been forthcoming or it hasn't been forthcoming more quickly. So I suppose my question is, is just in terms of the the funding that goes to the force and the priorities, how do we balance? Because we do have to look at where the numbers of people are, but how do we balance the resources that go into our busiest stations and our busier services? But recognising that that, that that doesn't mean we can't clearly police them to the same level, but on our less busy services, not our less busy stations, how do we deliver effective policing? And the reason why I mentioned it in this context is I think that my noble friend, Lady Morgan, puts her finger on it in her amendment is it's about design and technology.
Clearly, you can't have infinite numbers of police officers everywhere, but it's about how do you use technology to, first of all, deter crime, but also then to be able to respond to it quickly and spot it coming so that police officers with the appropriate powers, skills and training are able to support railway personnel who do their best. But really, whatever the training they've got, they are not the right people to deal with people committing serious criminality on the railway.
That requires officers who are properly trained, properly equipped with the powers and, if necessary, the ability to escalate the support they have. If you have people committing serious violence or people with serious weapons. And so that's really my question to the noble Baroness, is just how do we balance that across the network? And I'd be interested in listening to her reply.
19:55
19:55
19:55
19:55
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
This is a really important group . And security on the railway and making rail an attractive option for everyone. As I mentioned at second reading, a recent survey published by Transport Focus showed that personal safety and security on the train and at stations is an increasing priority for passengers. 12,000 rail passengers ranked various aspects of travelling by train. These safety concerns came second and third, behind trains running on time and not being cancelled.
So whilst the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, doesn't see the need for this group of amendments and clearly feels safe travelling for some personal safety and security on trains top their list of what matters, including women, disabled people and passengers from black and minority ethnic communities. As we have already heard, passengers feel that increased staff visibility, including ticket checking and challenging low level anti-social behaviour. The use of CCTV in the moment, not just to provide evidence, will help.
So I want to put my remarks in the context of that passenger research in my amendment 207 in this group, which I'm delighted. A number of Lords have kindly added their names to, including Lord Moylan, Lord Hampton and Baroness Morgan of Cotes requires that within six months of this act, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of rail passenger safety and this should consider, in particular, women and disabled passengers and look at things as we've discussed, like staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly late at night, CCTV lighting, real time reporting.
It would also look at staff on trains routinely patrolling, walking up and down the carriages. You know, the current passenger experience around the visibility of guards, conductors or other staff on trains is not consistent. I travelled up in the Lake District. The member of staff went and hid himself in his little cabin at the end, rather than walking up and down seeing passengers. Yet it could be a straightforward way to provide that assurance and that support that passengers need.
Visible presence can offer peace of mind, particularly those who perhaps feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and it can build confidence in people using the rail network. Now, my noble friend Baroness Brinton and I are both supportive of amendment 210 in this group laid by Lady Morgan of Cotes, which aims to strengthen the safety of women and girls. And as with the previous group, Baroness Brinton gives her apologies as she is in the chamber currently.
Lady Morgan's amendment follows the government welcome strategy on the reduction of violence against women and girls, and Lady Morgan's speech, I felt, was comprehensive and specific about the duties that the railway sector needs to deliver to ensure that we understand the scope of the incidents against women Who data collection, and what the sector must do to reduce incidents and protect women. I think data collection is critical to understanding the size of the problem, and it's going to help far better to train station staff and train staff.
And vitally, it will help rail companies and Great British Railways to ensure that there are enough staff trained to minimise incidents and call for help from either the British Transport Police or the police nearest to the next station as appropriate. Lady Brinton told me of an incident she witnessed on a train a couple of years ago, where a group of young men had surrounded a young woman and she was frightened by their increasingly aggressive behaviour.
The conductor came into the carriage and used the skills that he had learned to defuse the situation, and remained the same coach until the next station, where he had asked staff to help him to remove the men from the train. But she has also witnessed very unpleasant behaviour, where other passengers have had to try to intervene because, sadly, there aren't always staff on hand to help before things become aggressive and violent. So we also need to reduce the opportunity for attacks on women and girls through future design of trains and stations, as Lady Morgan outlined.
So this amendment sets sensible and practical routes to reducing violence against women and girls on the railway network. And from these benches, we really support it. I look forward to the noble lady, the Minister's response to this important group of amendments, and I hope that the noble lady is supportive of the aims of the amendments that I have mentioned in my words.
So whilst the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, doesn't see the need for this group of amendments and clearly feels safe travelling for some personal safety and security on trains top their list of what matters, including women, disabled people and passengers from black and minority ethnic communities. As we have already heard, passengers feel that increased staff visibility, including ticket checking and challenging low level anti-social behaviour. The use of CCTV in the moment, not just to provide evidence, will help.
So I want to put my remarks in the context of that passenger research in my amendment 207 in this group, which I'm delighted. A number of Lords have kindly added their names to, including Lord Moylan, Lord Hampton and Baroness Morgan of Cotes requires that within six months of this act, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of rail passenger safety and this should consider, in particular, women and disabled passengers and look at things as we've discussed, like staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly late at night, CCTV lighting, real time reporting.
It would also look at staff on trains routinely patrolling, walking up and down the carriages. You know, the current passenger experience around the visibility of guards, conductors or other staff on trains is not consistent. I travelled up in the Lake District. The member of staff went and hid himself in his little cabin at the end, rather than walking up and down seeing passengers. Yet it could be a straightforward way to provide that assurance and that support that passengers need.
Visible presence can offer peace of mind, particularly those who perhaps feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and it can build confidence in people using the rail network. Now, my noble friend Baroness Brinton and I are both supportive of amendment 210 in this group laid by Lady Morgan of Cotes, which aims to strengthen the safety of women and girls. And as with the previous group, Baroness Brinton gives her apologies as she is in the chamber currently.
Lady Morgan's amendment follows the government welcome strategy on the reduction of violence against women and girls, and Lady Morgan's speech, I felt, was comprehensive and specific about the duties that the railway sector needs to deliver to ensure that we understand the scope of the incidents against women Who data collection, and what the sector must do to reduce incidents and protect women. I think data collection is critical to understanding the size of the problem, and it's going to help far better to train station staff and train staff.
And vitally, it will help rail companies and Great British Railways to ensure that there are enough staff trained to minimise incidents and call for help from either the British Transport Police or the police nearest to the next station as appropriate. Lady Brinton told me of an incident she witnessed on a train a couple of years ago, where a group of young men had surrounded a young woman and she was frightened by their increasingly aggressive behaviour.
The conductor came into the carriage and used the skills that he had learned to defuse the situation, and remained the same coach until the next station, where he had asked staff to help him to remove the men from the train. But she has also witnessed very unpleasant behaviour, where other passengers have had to try to intervene because, sadly, there aren't always staff on hand to help before things become aggressive and violent. So we also need to reduce the opportunity for attacks on women and girls through future design of trains and stations, as Lady Morgan outlined.
So this amendment sets sensible and practical routes to reducing violence against women and girls on the railway network. And from these benches, we really support it. I look forward to the noble lady, the Minister's response to this important group of amendments, and I hope that the noble lady is supportive of the aims of the amendments that I have mentioned in my words.
20:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, this has been a very important debate. I'm going to start, if I may, on a slightly philosophical note, in trying to reconcile the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in their opposing views, because I think they illustrate a very important point, a very important point of disagreement, which we actually have to reconcile if we're going to operate a railway. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, says that safety has to be the top priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, points out that if safety is your top priority, you wouldn't run any trains. So then there is truth on on both sides. It always irked me when I was deputy chairman of transport for London, that if ever there was an incident on the railway, the comms people would be out there with their standard line immediately saying safety is our top priority. And I always thought, no . Running a public transport system carrying millions of people a day is your top priority.
But what is safety? Safety is, so to speak, the condition without which you can't get out of bed. It's not an objective. It's not a priority. It is a, so to speak, mission of operating at all. If ever the public get the impression that railway operators are cavalier about safety, then there would be no railway, there would be no passenger demand for it. And so the noble Baroness is right to say that safety needs to be thoroughly embedded in the Bill.
Now, in saying this, I'm not endorsing any of her particular amendments, but just to say that there is something to the general thrust of what she has been saying, and the noble Lord, Lord Barclay's right to say that. You can't describe that as your top priority. As I say, it is, so to speak, part of your licence to operate, not the licence referred to in the Bill, the legal licence, but your moral licence to be able to operate in the first place.
So I do think, I hope there's some way that we need to get round this issue because it is very important actually, and in many cases it can engage people operating the railway in a very practical way day to day. We need to understand that safety has a crucial role to play, even if it isn't actually, so to speak. The main purpose of what the railway is doing, it is an essential precondition of operating at all.
Now, in that light and with a view to strengthening the reputation of the railway for safety. And it's not just its reputation, it's actual effectiveness. I rise to speak to my amendment two, eight nine, which essentially requires we are to implement recommendations that relate one, two, nine. Yes. Which two, eight, nine did I say 289 essentially requires GBR to implement recommendations from the Rail Safety and Standards Board so that it becomes an obligation in the bill for them to do so.
Now, you might say that that is taken for granted, and it is fair to say that the safety record of railways in Britain has been very high. And part of that is because of lessons learned. The trouble is, as other noble lords have said, some of those lessons have historically been very expensive in terms of lives and and injury, some of them very seriously. But lessons have been learnt and things have improved, but I, so I do I do think that actually embedding in the bill an obligation to learn the lessons that as they accumulate in the future and as articulated by the Rail Safety and Standards Board, is an important point that should be inserted.
Turning to other matters that have been mentioned, I want to come, of course, to the question of the individual passenger safety. I'm discussing systemic safety in my amendment, making the system safe, as indeed was the noble Baroness Lady Jones when she moved her amendment at the beginning. But there is this additional parallel and crucially important debate going on about the individual sense of safety of passengers. And, of course, I've indicated already my view of I'm not going to speak at length to individual amendments.
I've indicated my view of the ones I would certainly support by adding my name to them, and indeed, I would probably support some of the others as well, but didn't get round to doing so because that sense of safety and I know the noble Lord, the minister, if he were participating in this particular debate, would agree with me, is crucial to passenger commitment and involvement in the railways. And it isn't simply when travelling on the train, it's also in the station, the approach to the station and so on and all of the things.
And there are practical techniques that can improve a sense of safety. Many of them are well understood. They need to be implemented universally, and they are to do with things like lighting, being visibility, not having hidden corners, having having staff on the station, visible staff on the station, having help points, mechanical or electrical help points that are visible and accessible, and people can hit and actually hit a button and actually get a response and so forth.
So these things can be done. There are other things that need to be done to. It needs to be a very prominent part of GBS activities, as I say, because it is, in a sense, part of its moral license to operate granted to it by the public at large, which is paying for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, points out that if safety is your top priority, you wouldn't run any trains. So then there is truth on on both sides. It always irked me when I was deputy chairman of transport for London, that if ever there was an incident on the railway, the comms people would be out there with their standard line immediately saying safety is our top priority. And I always thought, no . Running a public transport system carrying millions of people a day is your top priority.
But what is safety? Safety is, so to speak, the condition without which you can't get out of bed. It's not an objective. It's not a priority. It is a, so to speak, mission of operating at all. If ever the public get the impression that railway operators are cavalier about safety, then there would be no railway, there would be no passenger demand for it. And so the noble Baroness is right to say that safety needs to be thoroughly embedded in the Bill.
Now, in saying this, I'm not endorsing any of her particular amendments, but just to say that there is something to the general thrust of what she has been saying, and the noble Lord, Lord Barclay's right to say that. You can't describe that as your top priority. As I say, it is, so to speak, part of your licence to operate, not the licence referred to in the Bill, the legal licence, but your moral licence to be able to operate in the first place.
So I do think, I hope there's some way that we need to get round this issue because it is very important actually, and in many cases it can engage people operating the railway in a very practical way day to day. We need to understand that safety has a crucial role to play, even if it isn't actually, so to speak. The main purpose of what the railway is doing, it is an essential precondition of operating at all.
Now, in that light and with a view to strengthening the reputation of the railway for safety. And it's not just its reputation, it's actual effectiveness. I rise to speak to my amendment two, eight nine, which essentially requires we are to implement recommendations that relate one, two, nine. Yes. Which two, eight, nine did I say 289 essentially requires GBR to implement recommendations from the Rail Safety and Standards Board so that it becomes an obligation in the bill for them to do so.
Now, you might say that that is taken for granted, and it is fair to say that the safety record of railways in Britain has been very high. And part of that is because of lessons learned. The trouble is, as other noble lords have said, some of those lessons have historically been very expensive in terms of lives and and injury, some of them very seriously. But lessons have been learnt and things have improved, but I, so I do I do think that actually embedding in the bill an obligation to learn the lessons that as they accumulate in the future and as articulated by the Rail Safety and Standards Board, is an important point that should be inserted.
Turning to other matters that have been mentioned, I want to come, of course, to the question of the individual passenger safety. I'm discussing systemic safety in my amendment, making the system safe, as indeed was the noble Baroness Lady Jones when she moved her amendment at the beginning. But there is this additional parallel and crucially important debate going on about the individual sense of safety of passengers. And, of course, I've indicated already my view of I'm not going to speak at length to individual amendments.
I've indicated my view of the ones I would certainly support by adding my name to them, and indeed, I would probably support some of the others as well, but didn't get round to doing so because that sense of safety and I know the noble Lord, the minister, if he were participating in this particular debate, would agree with me, is crucial to passenger commitment and involvement in the railways. And it isn't simply when travelling on the train, it's also in the station, the approach to the station and so on and all of the things.
And there are practical techniques that can improve a sense of safety. Many of them are well understood. They need to be implemented universally, and they are to do with things like lighting, being visibility, not having hidden corners, having having staff on the station, visible staff on the station, having help points, mechanical or electrical help points that are visible and accessible, and people can hit and actually hit a button and actually get a response and so forth.
So these things can be done. There are other things that need to be done to. It needs to be a very prominent part of GBS activities, as I say, because it is, in a sense, part of its moral license to operate granted to it by the public at large, which is paying for it.
20:07
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I'd like to start off with amendments 207 and 210, and I'd like to thank the noble Baroness for their commitment and work that they have done continuously over a number of years . When it's come to safety, and particularly those involving women and girls. The Office of Rail and Road has led responsibility for independently reviewing, monitoring and enforcing railway safety across Great Britain. It is right that this role sits with an independent regulator, rather than the Secretary of State, as the author has the right expertise to ensure high standards across the network, and that will allow for a degree of consistency.
Understandably, passenger safety has been in the spotlight recently following the devastating situation in Bedford and the subsequent derailment over the summer, and a number of incidents that have been mentioned here this evening. However, let me reassure the committee that the annual Health and Safety report, published on the 14th of July, found that passenger safety and overall risk of harm remains at a. Historically. From British Railways, and that Britain continues to be one of the safest railways in the world on which to travel as a passenger by other colleagues here this evening.
However, the report also identified areas where further improvements are needed and set out priorities for that which include tackling violence and harassment and strengthening the management of key safety risks. These improvements are of particular importance as the data shows that while the risk of harm remains at a historically low level, the number of passenger assaults on railways has increased over the past year and to be frank, one is one too many, which is why the government, industry and O.
RR and the British Transport Police are already working together to act on these findings and drive further improvements in safety performance. For example, measures are being taken across the network to increase the visible policing, strengthening intelligence sharing, expanding the use of body worn video and improved support for frontline railway staff. These are a vital measure which studies show show in body worn video in particular, reduces the risk of staff assaults by 47%.
And I would add that it's important that railway staff feel safe so that they can interject and step in when they see things occurring. Operators also continue to invest in stations and on board CCTV customers, help points and visible staff presence across the network. Helping passengers to travel with greater confidence is of priority as well. The Department of Transport has already been looking into the the funding for the British Transport Police.
They have already announced that they will be providing an additional £63 million to the British Transport Police, and they have announced £70 million of funding to help connect the existing station, CCTV , to policing and authorised rail staff, so the evidence can be accessed quickly and securely, helping to identify offenders. And I can confirm that the levy case correspondence will be shared with my noble Lords. Further measures include the introduction of railway benefit notices in June 2026, which strengthens the railways ability to exclude repeat offenders from stations and new intelligent systems with data database integration to support industry wide reporting.
And I think that will help some of the points that was also raised by my noble Lord regarding, for example, drugs, county lines and anti-social behaviour. Having that in place in terms of safety of disabled people, I can assure the committee that this government is determined to leave accessibility in a much better place than it found it. Passenger assist must get better. Any mistake is a mistake too many, and no one's safety should ever be compromised because of a failure of staffing or organisation.
A new national training package is already being rolled out, with online learning modules for all staff, backed by regular refresher training to ensure that passenger assist is delivered consistently, regardless of which train company a customer is travelling with. This will improve the quality and consistency of support for many passengers whose journeys involve more than one operator and will be delivered alongside the wider programme of improvements set out by the accessibility roadmap. I also want to touch on violence against women and girls on our train.
I know the noble Lord Hendy was grateful to meet with the noble Baroness Morgan of Coates and and Baroness Pidgeon to discuss this recently, and I know they have been long standing champions. As I've said, earlier in May we launched the Safer Railway Scheme. Which requires rail operators to appoint a named senior executive who is responsible for security and safeguarding within their organisation for the first time. The new scheme introduces mandatory commitments for rail operators to make their services safer for women and girls.
As an operator, do BR will be expected to meet those same requirements, including having accessible, credible and formally agreed safeguarding and security strategies. Additionally, recently published rolling stock and in and infrastructure strategy makes it clear that the government's wider ambition to tackle violence against women and girls will be an important consideration in future train designs. As has been mentioned. As already, you know there is great merit in building to design out crime to make it safer, and the 17 or 60 3 or £70 million I mentioned earlier going to British Transport Police in enabling them to connect the CCTV so they are more real time access by different services, be it rail staff with the police services, to be able to capture and respond quickly and have the evidence to be able to secure prosecutions is something that will definitely be beneficial when we are trying to tackle violence against women and girls.
Understandably, passenger safety has been in the spotlight recently following the devastating situation in Bedford and the subsequent derailment over the summer, and a number of incidents that have been mentioned here this evening. However, let me reassure the committee that the annual Health and Safety report, published on the 14th of July, found that passenger safety and overall risk of harm remains at a. Historically. From British Railways, and that Britain continues to be one of the safest railways in the world on which to travel as a passenger by other colleagues here this evening.
However, the report also identified areas where further improvements are needed and set out priorities for that which include tackling violence and harassment and strengthening the management of key safety risks. These improvements are of particular importance as the data shows that while the risk of harm remains at a historically low level, the number of passenger assaults on railways has increased over the past year and to be frank, one is one too many, which is why the government, industry and O.
RR and the British Transport Police are already working together to act on these findings and drive further improvements in safety performance. For example, measures are being taken across the network to increase the visible policing, strengthening intelligence sharing, expanding the use of body worn video and improved support for frontline railway staff. These are a vital measure which studies show show in body worn video in particular, reduces the risk of staff assaults by 47%.
And I would add that it's important that railway staff feel safe so that they can interject and step in when they see things occurring. Operators also continue to invest in stations and on board CCTV customers, help points and visible staff presence across the network. Helping passengers to travel with greater confidence is of priority as well. The Department of Transport has already been looking into the the funding for the British Transport Police.
They have already announced that they will be providing an additional £63 million to the British Transport Police, and they have announced £70 million of funding to help connect the existing station, CCTV , to policing and authorised rail staff, so the evidence can be accessed quickly and securely, helping to identify offenders. And I can confirm that the levy case correspondence will be shared with my noble Lords. Further measures include the introduction of railway benefit notices in June 2026, which strengthens the railways ability to exclude repeat offenders from stations and new intelligent systems with data database integration to support industry wide reporting.
And I think that will help some of the points that was also raised by my noble Lord regarding, for example, drugs, county lines and anti-social behaviour. Having that in place in terms of safety of disabled people, I can assure the committee that this government is determined to leave accessibility in a much better place than it found it. Passenger assist must get better. Any mistake is a mistake too many, and no one's safety should ever be compromised because of a failure of staffing or organisation.
A new national training package is already being rolled out, with online learning modules for all staff, backed by regular refresher training to ensure that passenger assist is delivered consistently, regardless of which train company a customer is travelling with. This will improve the quality and consistency of support for many passengers whose journeys involve more than one operator and will be delivered alongside the wider programme of improvements set out by the accessibility roadmap. I also want to touch on violence against women and girls on our train.
I know the noble Lord Hendy was grateful to meet with the noble Baroness Morgan of Coates and and Baroness Pidgeon to discuss this recently, and I know they have been long standing champions. As I've said, earlier in May we launched the Safer Railway Scheme. Which requires rail operators to appoint a named senior executive who is responsible for security and safeguarding within their organisation for the first time. The new scheme introduces mandatory commitments for rail operators to make their services safer for women and girls.
As an operator, do BR will be expected to meet those same requirements, including having accessible, credible and formally agreed safeguarding and security strategies. Additionally, recently published rolling stock and in and infrastructure strategy makes it clear that the government's wider ambition to tackle violence against women and girls will be an important consideration in future train designs. As has been mentioned. As already, you know there is great merit in building to design out crime to make it safer, and the 17 or 60 3 or £70 million I mentioned earlier going to British Transport Police in enabling them to connect the CCTV so they are more real time access by different services, be it rail staff with the police services, to be able to capture and respond quickly and have the evidence to be able to secure prosecutions is something that will definitely be beneficial when we are trying to tackle violence against women and girls.
20:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Just before the minister moves on, can I just take her back to her point on the the BTP budget since she mentioned it again, could she just set out if she hasn't got all the details at hand? And also it's a bit dull for everybody listening to it. I'm very happy for her to write to me because she just set out that £63 million, I think, increase over what period and is that revenue or capital? Because she seemed to suggest it was also for paying for some of that extra connectivity.
And I just know whether the Transport Police Authority and BTP itself has set out what it's going to do with that money. I think Noble Lords would be grateful to know the extent to which it's going to help with the issues of the day. On violence against women and girls. I'm very happy if she needs to write to us.
And I just know whether the Transport Police Authority and BTP itself has set out what it's going to do with that money. I think Noble Lords would be grateful to know the extent to which it's going to help with the issues of the day. On violence against women and girls. I'm very happy if she needs to write to us.
20:15
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Okay. Very happy to write to you. But what I can say, just as a top line, is that the 70 million that will go towards, you know, CCTV cameras and connectivity is separate from £63 million. And amongst that sort of top lines was about increasing the numbers of staff, including having I think it's about 36 staff members that are particularly focused on violence against women and girls. So that's amongst the top line.
But we can, you know, send out further or details as much as we have at this present moment in time, if that helps, my Lords.
But we can, you know, send out further or details as much as we have at this present moment in time, if that helps, my Lords.
20:15
20:15
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you. I just see where I was, okay. Additionally, the recent published rolling stock and infrastructure strategy makes clear that this government's wider ambition to tackle women and girls. Was to work is to work closely with British Transport Police, passengers and their representatives and other partners to identify opportunities for train design, technology and operational practices to reduce risk, improve confidence and support rapid response when incidents occur. For example, as laid out in the strategy, Northern Trains is currently trialling onboard video systems designed to enhance operational visibility, increased timely interventions and create a reassuring environment for passengers.
My Lords, I hope it is therefore clear that passenger safety is already prioritised and is supported by a substantial programme of continuous improvement across government and industry. There is also already a process in place for regular reviews of safety by the Or, with action taken to implement proposed changes each year. Hope this reassurance allows the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments, and this government would be very happy to continue working with them on this important issue outside this bill.
I now turn to amendments one, three, one, 132 and 144. Nothing in this railway bill will change the current safety regime. This is exactly why clause 19 of the bill replicates the existing safety duties under section four of the Rail Railway Act 1993, which applies to the or the Secretary of State and to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Additionally, the RR general duties includes the duty to promote competition already , specifically disapplied from the RR safety function to ensure that the existing competitive, comprehensive legal framework around safety is not compromised by anything in this Bill.
This duty to promote competition is, however, distinct from section 67, subsection three of the Railway Act of 1993, which enshrines the role as the competition regulator for the railways, which it carries out alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure regulation is effective and enforced consistently, the Competition and Markets Authority and the RR must be working under the same rules. This is why the existing duties under section four of the Railway Act 1993, including its safety duties, do not apply when RR is exercising competition functions under the Competition Act of 1998.
This is right because when the RR and the Competition Market Authority are acting as competition regulators, they must apply competition law rules and to . And to apply this to all operators fairly and must assess compliance objectively. Enforcement should be based on whether it should be based on whether or not operators are complying with the rules, not based on other priorities, which may lead to further unfair outcomes. That said, I do not dispute that safety is of paramount importance in all cases.
That is why the RR explicitly states in its competition guidance that it should and should anti-competitive conduct be objectively necessary for health and safety reasons. This will be considered as part of their overall decision, and I think noble Lords have mentioned about having the right balance, and that is something that we should all bear in mind. Turning to GBR, we have deliberately not applied the general safety duty to GBR, as it will already be subject to extensive legal requirements under the Health and Safety at Work etc.
act of 1974 and the Railways and other guided Transport Systems. Safety regulation of 2006. These obligations include duties to manage safety risks, maintain appropriate safety management systems and comply with regulatory oversight, including separate duties of GBR, which would only duplicate existing requirements, creating potential unnecessary overlap and confusion. I must rush on now to amendment one, three, three, which has really stirred my in laws this evening.
Firstly, I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson's, support for the heritage rail and safety boards and the benefits that it could bring to the sector. This is a view that we in government share , and any organisation that furthers safety in the sector is welcomed. But it must be integrated in existing safety structures, processes, forums which ensure that British railways remain one of the safest in the world or are already has strong relationships with the heritage sector and will continue to engage with them effectively.
And I'm also happy to meet with those at Heritage Rail to discuss further as as I appreciate, this is an important issue for the sector. But legislation doesn't need is not needed to guarantee the development of the heritage Rail safety boards, standards boards for it to continue. Discussions around the benefits take place. It should be noted that Rail Safety Standard Boards is not a statutory body established in legislation, so I hope my noble Lord agrees with me that the Heritage, Rail Safety and Standards boards similarly does not need to be established in legislation.
As I mentioned, I'm more than happy to meet with him and others who are very interested in this area, so that we can sort of look into this in further details.
My Lords, I hope it is therefore clear that passenger safety is already prioritised and is supported by a substantial programme of continuous improvement across government and industry. There is also already a process in place for regular reviews of safety by the Or, with action taken to implement proposed changes each year. Hope this reassurance allows the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments, and this government would be very happy to continue working with them on this important issue outside this bill.
I now turn to amendments one, three, one, 132 and 144. Nothing in this railway bill will change the current safety regime. This is exactly why clause 19 of the bill replicates the existing safety duties under section four of the Rail Railway Act 1993, which applies to the or the Secretary of State and to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Additionally, the RR general duties includes the duty to promote competition already , specifically disapplied from the RR safety function to ensure that the existing competitive, comprehensive legal framework around safety is not compromised by anything in this Bill.
This duty to promote competition is, however, distinct from section 67, subsection three of the Railway Act of 1993, which enshrines the role as the competition regulator for the railways, which it carries out alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure regulation is effective and enforced consistently, the Competition and Markets Authority and the RR must be working under the same rules. This is why the existing duties under section four of the Railway Act 1993, including its safety duties, do not apply when RR is exercising competition functions under the Competition Act of 1998.
This is right because when the RR and the Competition Market Authority are acting as competition regulators, they must apply competition law rules and to . And to apply this to all operators fairly and must assess compliance objectively. Enforcement should be based on whether it should be based on whether or not operators are complying with the rules, not based on other priorities, which may lead to further unfair outcomes. That said, I do not dispute that safety is of paramount importance in all cases.
That is why the RR explicitly states in its competition guidance that it should and should anti-competitive conduct be objectively necessary for health and safety reasons. This will be considered as part of their overall decision, and I think noble Lords have mentioned about having the right balance, and that is something that we should all bear in mind. Turning to GBR, we have deliberately not applied the general safety duty to GBR, as it will already be subject to extensive legal requirements under the Health and Safety at Work etc.
act of 1974 and the Railways and other guided Transport Systems. Safety regulation of 2006. These obligations include duties to manage safety risks, maintain appropriate safety management systems and comply with regulatory oversight, including separate duties of GBR, which would only duplicate existing requirements, creating potential unnecessary overlap and confusion. I must rush on now to amendment one, three, three, which has really stirred my in laws this evening.
Firstly, I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson's, support for the heritage rail and safety boards and the benefits that it could bring to the sector. This is a view that we in government share , and any organisation that furthers safety in the sector is welcomed. But it must be integrated in existing safety structures, processes, forums which ensure that British railways remain one of the safest in the world or are already has strong relationships with the heritage sector and will continue to engage with them effectively.
And I'm also happy to meet with those at Heritage Rail to discuss further as as I appreciate, this is an important issue for the sector. But legislation doesn't need is not needed to guarantee the development of the heritage Rail safety boards, standards boards for it to continue. Discussions around the benefits take place. It should be noted that Rail Safety Standard Boards is not a statutory body established in legislation, so I hope my noble Lord agrees with me that the Heritage, Rail Safety and Standards boards similarly does not need to be established in legislation.
As I mentioned, I'm more than happy to meet with him and others who are very interested in this area, so that we can sort of look into this in further details.
20:22
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I just one point? There was something she said, which I was a little concerned about, because I've seen the impact of this locally is that it's she's absolutely right that we need to make sure that when heritage railways are operating, they're operating safely. Because when she talks about the imposition of all of the safety rules of the industry, you do have to be mindful that these are often smaller organisations with volunteers. And yes, they need to be safe, but we also need to make sure we don't smother them and effectively put them out of business.
So there is again, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said, there's a balance to strike. And I think that's something that I know the noble Lord Parkinson wants. We just need to get that balance right.
So there is again, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said, there's a balance to strike. And I think that's something that I know the noble Lord Parkinson wants. We just need to get that balance right.
20:22
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you for your contribution there. And I would just say that you're right. And thanks to all the volunteers that work in, you know, in these areas and other areas as well. You know, I'm sure this country wouldn't run as well as it is without volunteers in various sectors from football, which we spoke about in previous debates through to Heritage Railway. But I think it's important also to, to know that in this bill, we shouldn't be looking to to legislate on what that looks like.
We need to take this outside the bill so that those conversations can what is appropriate? What can smaller groups do? And that's why I think it's important that this conversation continues.
We need to take this outside the bill so that those conversations can what is appropriate? What can smaller groups do? And that's why I think it's important that this conversation continues.
20:23
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much. I'm sorry to interrupt the noble lady, the minister, again, but just to thank thank you very much for that response and the offer of a meeting. We certainly would welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation in this way. And to echo the point that my noble friend Lord Harper made. What we're seeing here is not legislation, as I noted, the. Neither the Rail Safety and Standards Board nor the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board is is is set out in statute.
The difficulty that the heritage rail sector has is, as my noble friend says, it's it's smaller. It's run by volunteers. Many of the organisations are charities or small businesses that make a loss. So if we're able to continue the conversation with that, with that point in mind, as I think she hopefully is indicating, that would be most welcome. Indeed. Thank you.
The difficulty that the heritage rail sector has is, as my noble friend says, it's it's smaller. It's run by volunteers. Many of the organisations are charities or small businesses that make a loss. So if we're able to continue the conversation with that, with that point in mind, as I think she hopefully is indicating, that would be most welcome. Indeed. Thank you.
20:24
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you. Yes, absolutely. We can continue the discussion. As I said, we do recognise volunteers in the work that they do. And, you know, at the same time, we don't want it to make things too onerous. It's got to fit right. And that's why these conversations must continue. If I can move quickly on to amendment 338, may be helpful that I clarified that the growth duty contained in section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015 does not require the author to prioritise economic growth over its existing responsibilities.
Rather, it requires the regulator to consider the impact of its decisions on economic growth when exercising specific specified regulatory functions. As I've mentioned, our remains the independent rail safety regulator and continues to be subject to extensive statutory duties and powers in relation to rail safety. The growth duty does not override these. It sits alongside them and the RR must continue to meet the existing statutory obligations, including its responsibility in relation to rail safety.
I withdraw the noble Baronesses attention to the fact that the growth duty has applied to all safety functions since 2017, and there is no evidence that it has compromised or his approach to safety. Rather, it encourages its delivery to deliver its safety responsibilities in a way that minimizes unnecessary burdens on investment and growth without affecting our ability to meet statutory safety duties. The government's view is that the regulator should be able to consider the impact of their decision their decisions may have on investment, growth and innovation, while continuing to uphold the protections and safeguards found in legislation.
I therefore, urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Rather, it requires the regulator to consider the impact of its decisions on economic growth when exercising specific specified regulatory functions. As I've mentioned, our remains the independent rail safety regulator and continues to be subject to extensive statutory duties and powers in relation to rail safety. The growth duty does not override these. It sits alongside them and the RR must continue to meet the existing statutory obligations, including its responsibility in relation to rail safety.
I withdraw the noble Baronesses attention to the fact that the growth duty has applied to all safety functions since 2017, and there is no evidence that it has compromised or his approach to safety. Rather, it encourages its delivery to deliver its safety responsibilities in a way that minimizes unnecessary burdens on investment and growth without affecting our ability to meet statutory safety duties. The government's view is that the regulator should be able to consider the impact of their decision their decisions may have on investment, growth and innovation, while continuing to uphold the protections and safeguards found in legislation.
I therefore, urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
20:26
20:26
20:26
20:26
20:27
20:27
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Right sorry regarding 289. I should have mentioned that when I mentioned 133 actually. So I mentioned that the government does believe that we need legislation for this, but we're happy to continue having those conversations. I also want to confirm that we are preserving the important statutory role of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in preserving that legal duty. It's a specific point that you wanted me to mention.
20:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The Rail Standards and Safety Board, not the rail Accident Investigation of Rail Standards and Safety Board is the body that produces recommendations. And the proposal in the amendment is that those recommendations that GBR has to implement those recommendations. So while I fully expect they would, it isn't it wouldn't be left as a matter to their discretion. It would be something that they'd be obliged to, to accommodate. And I appreciate the noble Baroness is doing a sterling job, and she may want to write to noble Lords with a more formal response afterwards, unless she finds it in her notes.
I do have my
I do have my
20:28
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
notes, thank you, Lord Moylan. Industry bodies such as the Rail Safety and Standards Board have made important contributions to the railways strong safety records, and nothing in this bill prevents GBR from continuing to engage with them and draw on that expertise to consider how best to improve its safety standards. I hope that this , what I've just said will satisfy my Lords regarding his amendments.
20:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, my Lords, I leave the matter now. Clearly I nothing prevents them from engaging with them. That's taken for granted. The question is whether they should be obliged or under some sort of duty to implement their recommendations, so that it doesn't remain as a matter of discretion, bearing in. mind the tension expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Barclay, a general attention which they expressed early in the debate.
But clearly I probably won't get very much more now, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't address the point.
But clearly I probably won't get very much more now, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't address the point.
20:29
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Okay, well, more than happy to write to you, but I would just add that it's the the role of o. RR is to take on board any concerns when it comes to safety and, and safety and standards. So they would be engaging with them. And if something was to come to light, then that's something that they would either work with in collaboration with them or the, the specific road rail provider, GBR or otherwise to ensure that that safety standards are met.
But we will write to you.
But we will write to you.
20:30
20:30
20:30
20:30
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
They are a treasure. On the noble lady pigeon. And Morgan's comments about violence against women and girls, of course. Absolutely. And you know, any measures that are necessary. We live in a misogynist society, and apart from actually trying to educate men and boys, then we have to put in all the other structures that keep women safe. I would like to repeat a short story of my own that somebody might have had already, but I was travelling home to on the railway to Sherborne and five railway workers got on.
They were. They. I think they were conductors, but they were all wearing uniforms of some sort and they. They sort of scattered themselves around me. I was sitting in a corner seat, minding our own business, and clearly they completely ignored this little old lady who was sitting on her own. And they began the most misogynist conversation. And I actually sat there, staggered. I should have taped it.
I don't know why I didn't tape it. And and after a bit, I did stand up and say, you should be ashamed of yourselves, blah, blah, blah. So I'm suggesting that actually the staff need to be, you know, thoroughly trained. And I did speak to the CEO of the railway line, obviously, but I hadn't taken their names and I, I didn't want in the end to make a complaint and. Anything else.
Oh, my point about safety versus competition, I think is, is a crucial one because there is a tension between those two things. As noble Lord, Lord Berkeley pointed out, I didn't support it really a word he said, but it was kind of him to say it. And I feel we are sometimes in danger of the balance tipping the wrong way. That's my concern, that competition becomes so important, that safety perhaps just has a lower station on the noble Lord, Lord Moylan 289 I when I first read it, I thought, oh yeah, it's reasonable.
And then it says. Implementation where reasonably practicable. That goes back to my original point about the balance. Anyway, what a lovely way to spend one's evening. I've really enjoyed myself so far, and I'm trying to speak until 8:45 so that we don't get on to the next group, but I think I'm failing and.
They were. They. I think they were conductors, but they were all wearing uniforms of some sort and they. They sort of scattered themselves around me. I was sitting in a corner seat, minding our own business, and clearly they completely ignored this little old lady who was sitting on her own. And they began the most misogynist conversation. And I actually sat there, staggered. I should have taped it.
I don't know why I didn't tape it. And and after a bit, I did stand up and say, you should be ashamed of yourselves, blah, blah, blah. So I'm suggesting that actually the staff need to be, you know, thoroughly trained. And I did speak to the CEO of the railway line, obviously, but I hadn't taken their names and I, I didn't want in the end to make a complaint and. Anything else.
Oh, my point about safety versus competition, I think is, is a crucial one because there is a tension between those two things. As noble Lord, Lord Berkeley pointed out, I didn't support it really a word he said, but it was kind of him to say it. And I feel we are sometimes in danger of the balance tipping the wrong way. That's my concern, that competition becomes so important, that safety perhaps just has a lower station on the noble Lord, Lord Moylan 289 I when I first read it, I thought, oh yeah, it's reasonable.
And then it says. Implementation where reasonably practicable. That goes back to my original point about the balance. Anyway, what a lovely way to spend one's evening. I've really enjoyed myself so far, and I'm trying to speak until 8:45 so that we don't get on to the next group, but I think I'm failing and.
20:33
20:33
20:33
20:33
20:33
20:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
No, but seriously, the story that the noble lady recounted does actually make a very good point, which is in the focus against on violence against women and girls. It is it's not it's not 100% true, but it's almost invariably true that the violence against women and girls is perpetrated by men. So actually, part of this, I mean, there was a kernel of very solid point there, which is about educating men to behave differently, but also encouraging people on the rail network when they see bad behaviour to do something about it.
Now, that doesn't mean everyone should intervene themselves, because that can itself be dangerous. But do something as in report it, draw it to somebody's attention, report it to the British Transport Police. I must be one of the few people that actually thinks see it, say it sorted and the number is actually a good thing because you actually can remember it, which is actually the point of it. But she made a I think there was a solid point, what she said, and actually it's something perhaps that the government should reflect on is how can we educate everybody to behave in a way that makes women and girls, disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic communities feel safer and therefore be more likely to use the train than they would otherwise?
Now, that doesn't mean everyone should intervene themselves, because that can itself be dangerous. But do something as in report it, draw it to somebody's attention, report it to the British Transport Police. I must be one of the few people that actually thinks see it, say it sorted and the number is actually a good thing because you actually can remember it, which is actually the point of it. But she made a I think there was a solid point, what she said, and actually it's something perhaps that the government should reflect on is how can we educate everybody to behave in a way that makes women and girls, disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic communities feel safer and therefore be more likely to use the train than they would otherwise?
20:35
20:35
20:35
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
stopping. Are we? Oh, good. Okay, the point, the point for me about that particular incident was that I was so shocked that I didn't take their names. I could have taped it. I was I was shocked that it happened at all. And I regret I didn't do more about it, but I think I will. I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.
20:35
20:35
20:36
20:36
20:36
20:36
20:36
20:36
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Amendment 136. Lord Moylan Not moved. Amendment one, three, seven and 138 . Rod Moylan moved. Amendment 139 not moved not and 140 Lord Moylan not moved. The question is that clause 20 stand part of the bill as many of that opinion will say. Content not content. The contents have it. Amendment 141 Lord Holmes of Richmond I think not moved 142. Lord Boateng not moved in amendment 143.
Lord Lansley, Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 144 Baroness. Sorry, the question is that clause 21 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Content not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 22 stand part of the Bill . As a matter of that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it. Amendment 144 Baroness Jones not moved.
Not. Moved and 144 a Baroness Grey-thompson Britain not moved. Amendment 145 Lord Moylan. Not
Lord Lansley, Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 144 Baroness. Sorry, the question is that clause 21 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Content not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 22 stand part of the Bill . As a matter of that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it. Amendment 144 Baroness Jones not moved.
Not. Moved and 144 a Baroness Grey-thompson Britain not moved. Amendment 145 Lord Moylan. Not
20:37
20:37
20:37
20:37
20:37
20:37
20:37