Lords Grand Committee
Monday 26th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 days, 8 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Since we were interrupted on account of continuing and starting a new group quite unnecessarily, given the pressure of business in the faces today, I thought it would be helpful if I gave some summary of what the debate was when we last met last Wednesday. So, my noble friend Lords, Lord Lansley raised important questions of how the existing 2016 access regime will apply to infrastructure managers outside Great British Railways. And he left the minister with a specific question. He said with this amendment, all I'm looking for is the Minister to say there is no further intention than to apply the existing 2016 approach to infrastructure managers other than GBR.
That is the question that Minister was left with, and I'm hoping very much that he is going to answer that when he gets to his reply. My noble friend Lord Grayling, supported by my noble friend Lady Neville-rolfe, focused on the breadth of the powers in clause 71 and the risk that existing access rights could be altered in ways which go beyond what is genuinely necessary. The transition to the new structure. The powers are drafted extremely broadly. I think I'm correct in recalling that my noble friend, Lady Neville Roe, also made a point about the chilling effect on private sector investment in the railways, on which we will continue to be dependent as a result of the possible arbitrary exercise of these extremely broad powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly emphasized the importance of independent assessment of capacity. While my noble friend Lord Harper drew attention to the significant long term investment decisions made by open. Operators. I'm sorry. Quite difficult in this room to manipulate papers without hitting a microphone, but I will try to improve long term investment decisions made by open access operators and to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the breadth of these powers and the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to them. My noble friend again set a specific question to the Minister if the government's intention, as set out in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is genuinely that these are to be used only to make existing arrangements work under the new structure.
Why are the government taking powers that go much further? Again, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the minister, respond to that. I only have one amendment in this group to which I'm now going to turn, which is, in fact , that the whole clause, clause 71, Stan part, do not stand part of the bill. And the explanation for it is very simple. It rests entirely. The argument rests entirely on the arguments made by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Already we have simply chosen different methods to probe the effect of this clause, and they have chosen to do so by amending the powers that the government is seeking for itself.
I've chosen to do so simply by deleting the whole clause, but the purpose is to provoke this discussion and to hear from the noble Lord, the minister, why these egregious powers should be sought by the government so that we can consider, before we return on report, amending them more precisely so as to narrow their effect and remove the threat to the private operation of railways that they that they hang so, so unhelpfully above in the air. My Lords.
That is the question that Minister was left with, and I'm hoping very much that he is going to answer that when he gets to his reply. My noble friend Lord Grayling, supported by my noble friend Lady Neville-rolfe, focused on the breadth of the powers in clause 71 and the risk that existing access rights could be altered in ways which go beyond what is genuinely necessary. The transition to the new structure. The powers are drafted extremely broadly. I think I'm correct in recalling that my noble friend, Lady Neville Roe, also made a point about the chilling effect on private sector investment in the railways, on which we will continue to be dependent as a result of the possible arbitrary exercise of these extremely broad powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly emphasized the importance of independent assessment of capacity. While my noble friend Lord Harper drew attention to the significant long term investment decisions made by open. Operators. I'm sorry. Quite difficult in this room to manipulate papers without hitting a microphone, but I will try to improve long term investment decisions made by open access operators and to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the breadth of these powers and the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to them. My noble friend again set a specific question to the Minister if the government's intention, as set out in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is genuinely that these are to be used only to make existing arrangements work under the new structure.
Why are the government taking powers that go much further? Again, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the minister, respond to that. I only have one amendment in this group to which I'm now going to turn, which is, in fact , that the whole clause, clause 71, Stan part, do not stand part of the bill. And the explanation for it is very simple. It rests entirely. The argument rests entirely on the arguments made by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Already we have simply chosen different methods to probe the effect of this clause, and they have chosen to do so by amending the powers that the government is seeking for itself.
I've chosen to do so simply by deleting the whole clause, but the purpose is to provoke this discussion and to hear from the noble Lord, the minister, why these egregious powers should be sought by the government so that we can consider, before we return on report, amending them more precisely so as to narrow their effect and remove the threat to the private operation of railways that they that they hang so, so unhelpfully above in the air. My Lords.
15:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, turning first to clause 71 in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I want to begin by setting out why this power is needed. The government has been clear that it tends to honour existing schedule five rights. For clarity, these are contractual rights to access specific routes on the network and the existing charging determination set by the author for the remainder of this control period to 2029. The purpose of the power at clause 71 is therefore clearly not to remove those rights, but to ensure that existing contracts remain operable once responsibilities for access and charging transfer to Great British Railways and Framework comes into force.
Many existing contracts contain provisions that, for example, rely on functions currently currently carried out by the Office of Rail and Road. Without a mechanism to update those provisions, operators would be left with contracts that no longer work as intended, creating legal uncertainty and operational risk across the network. This would place significant financial risk on businesses, as inoperable contracts could result in an inability to run services or to make changes to those services. For those reasons, clause 71 is a necessary part of delivering the new railway framework. Network rail has already begun engaging with operators, with the intention of agreeing the precise changes that must be made.
This is an essential process that will be handled collaboratively, collaboratively and openly from the outset. Turning to amendments two, two, six, 7 to 2 seven one. Amendment two, six, seven focuses the power specifically on facilitating the transfer of management functions currently performed by Network Rail to Great British Railways. Whilst some necessary modifications may indeed be connected to the transfer of functions, others are required for different reasons. For example, existing contracts retain contain references to the functions, industry and processes that will no longer operate in the same way under the new arrangements. These are legitimate purposes for regulations, but would be outside the scope allowed by the Noble Lords amendment.
Network rail is consulting with existing contract holders to establish precisely what amendments may be required across the several hundred existing contracts that will need to be updated to operate under the new framework. It would therefore be undesirable to constrain the power in a way that could prevent necessary changes being made in order.
Many existing contracts contain provisions that, for example, rely on functions currently currently carried out by the Office of Rail and Road. Without a mechanism to update those provisions, operators would be left with contracts that no longer work as intended, creating legal uncertainty and operational risk across the network. This would place significant financial risk on businesses, as inoperable contracts could result in an inability to run services or to make changes to those services. For those reasons, clause 71 is a necessary part of delivering the new railway framework. Network rail has already begun engaging with operators, with the intention of agreeing the precise changes that must be made.
This is an essential process that will be handled collaboratively, collaboratively and openly from the outset. Turning to amendments two, two, six, 7 to 2 seven one. Amendment two, six, seven focuses the power specifically on facilitating the transfer of management functions currently performed by Network Rail to Great British Railways. Whilst some necessary modifications may indeed be connected to the transfer of functions, others are required for different reasons. For example, existing contracts retain contain references to the functions, industry and processes that will no longer operate in the same way under the new arrangements. These are legitimate purposes for regulations, but would be outside the scope allowed by the Noble Lords amendment.
Network rail is consulting with existing contract holders to establish precisely what amendments may be required across the several hundred existing contracts that will need to be updated to operate under the new framework. It would therefore be undesirable to constrain the power in a way that could prevent necessary changes being made in order.
15:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To allow me on that point, I'm very grateful to give away. My amendment was 268. Can I ask the Minister for question? I understand the point he's making, but will he then bring back a government amendment at report that still circumscribes the limitation on the use of this clause to prevent what I highlighted in my speech, which is a future minister, and I'm not casting aspersions on him himself, but he may not be always there, and it would be possible, theoretically, as I read the legislation at the moment, for a future ministers to simply say, as part of the transition to Great British Railways, there's not enough space on the West Coast main line, and therefore I'm going to reduce the number of open access operators to bring forward an amendment that makes that not possible for the Secretary of State to take that decision.
15:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So the answer to the noble Lord is that I won't guarantee to do such a thing, but I will reflect on all the discussions that we're that we're having on this, on these amendments in, in, in the time between now and the report stage, Network rail is consulting, as I said, with existing contract holders, to establish precisely what amendments may be required across the several hundred existing contracts that will need to be updated to operate under the new framework, therefore be undesirable. That could prevent necessary changes being made because inoperable contracts don't benefit anyone. My noble friend Lord Barclay also seeks to limit this power with amendments two six, eight, 8268 and 269.
However, a restriction based on broad and undefined concepts such as the nature of the bargain risks creating uncertainty and disputes about whether necessary amendments fall within the scope of the power. We should not allow restrictive drafting to undermine changes agreed to by all the parties. Clearly, that could risk frustrating the very transition that power, and that the power at clause 71 is intended to facilitate. Likewise, imposing an unduly strict test of necessity under amendment 268 suggests would hamper the purpose of this clause, which is to ensure a smooth transition to the new access regime, a test that also risks creating legal dispute and uncertainty as to whether a particular change is strictly necessary or merely merely desirable.
On amendment 269, a number of existing access contracts extend into the mid and late 2030s, far beyond the start of the next funding period in 2029, as proposed in this amendment, and it's therefore important that sufficient time is available to ensure contracts can continue to function effectively throughout their lifetime. A shorter sunset period could result in the power expiring before issues affecting longer contracts have been fully resolved. Even on amendment 271. The government strongly supports engagement with industry, and as I've mentioned, extensive consultation is already taking place. Network rail is currently consulting on draft model access contracts and the future industry codes.
Given that extensive given that extensive programme of engagement and consultation is currently live in the public domain, we do not consider it necessary to impose retrospectively a separate statutory consultation requirement or 71 itself, because it's already happening. The final amendment that looks to restrict this power as amendment 270. For the noble Baroness Pigeon, I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness that the effect she seeks is already achieved by the Bill. As drafted, all 71 applies only to access agreements and access rights, and I quote, so far as the agreements or rights have effect in relation to GBR infrastructure, the scope of the power is therefore already limited to those agreements and rights affected by the transition to the new GBR and access charging framework.
As a result, the power cannot be used to amend access agreements that relate to non GBR infrastructure. Those agreements will therefore continue to operate unamended under the existing framework, and I hope the noble Baroness is reassured of this. Turning to amendment 340 from the noble Lord Grayling, the government considers the negative procedure to be most appropriate in this case. This is because any future use of the power would be to make necessary technical changes to ensure that existing contracts remain operable under the new access framework established by the Bill, I should reiterate the power will not be used to alter the substantive access rights that operators currently hold.
It's purely in effect of the discussions that already continue between Network Rail and operators regarding the necessary amendments of contracts to ensure they remain operable. In the new framework put forward by the Bill. The government therefore considers the negative procedure, provides the appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight regulations where the purpose is to operationally implement this transition. Turning finally to amendment 266 from the noble Lord Lansley. The noble Lord is quite right that the bill revokes regulation five brackets, eight of the Access and Management Regulations, which places a duty on infrastructure managers to ensure that train operator rights to access their network is honoured.
Although GBR will not be an infrastructure manager for the purposes of these regulations, the regulations will continue to apply to non GBR infrastructure managers and I agree with the noble Lord that retaining this duty for non GBR infrastructure is important and its effect should be retained in these. In those regulations, the bill already achieves the Noble Lords objective because clause 70 amends regulation five one to make clear that it's the infrastructure manager who is required to grant access rights. As a result, regulation five eight is no longer needed because its effect will instead be achieved in the amended regulation five one.
For completeness, I'd also emphasise that the existing right of appeal to the Office of Rail and Road in Regulation five nine also remains unaffected by the bill, providing a clear right of recourse for operators. If an infrastructure manager who is not GBR sought to deny access to any operator in contravention of regulation five. I thank Noble Lords for their discussion on this topic. I do believe that the aspirations are aligned here because nobody wants inoperable contracts and nobody wants to remove the rights that operators have been legitimately granted to run trains on the network. The power is essential to make the railway work in the future, and that's why I'm defending it.
It will not be misused. And the government have put that on record in a number of ways, including binding, which today I hope this allows noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
However, a restriction based on broad and undefined concepts such as the nature of the bargain risks creating uncertainty and disputes about whether necessary amendments fall within the scope of the power. We should not allow restrictive drafting to undermine changes agreed to by all the parties. Clearly, that could risk frustrating the very transition that power, and that the power at clause 71 is intended to facilitate. Likewise, imposing an unduly strict test of necessity under amendment 268 suggests would hamper the purpose of this clause, which is to ensure a smooth transition to the new access regime, a test that also risks creating legal dispute and uncertainty as to whether a particular change is strictly necessary or merely merely desirable.
On amendment 269, a number of existing access contracts extend into the mid and late 2030s, far beyond the start of the next funding period in 2029, as proposed in this amendment, and it's therefore important that sufficient time is available to ensure contracts can continue to function effectively throughout their lifetime. A shorter sunset period could result in the power expiring before issues affecting longer contracts have been fully resolved. Even on amendment 271. The government strongly supports engagement with industry, and as I've mentioned, extensive consultation is already taking place. Network rail is currently consulting on draft model access contracts and the future industry codes.
Given that extensive given that extensive programme of engagement and consultation is currently live in the public domain, we do not consider it necessary to impose retrospectively a separate statutory consultation requirement or 71 itself, because it's already happening. The final amendment that looks to restrict this power as amendment 270. For the noble Baroness Pigeon, I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness that the effect she seeks is already achieved by the Bill. As drafted, all 71 applies only to access agreements and access rights, and I quote, so far as the agreements or rights have effect in relation to GBR infrastructure, the scope of the power is therefore already limited to those agreements and rights affected by the transition to the new GBR and access charging framework.
As a result, the power cannot be used to amend access agreements that relate to non GBR infrastructure. Those agreements will therefore continue to operate unamended under the existing framework, and I hope the noble Baroness is reassured of this. Turning to amendment 340 from the noble Lord Grayling, the government considers the negative procedure to be most appropriate in this case. This is because any future use of the power would be to make necessary technical changes to ensure that existing contracts remain operable under the new access framework established by the Bill, I should reiterate the power will not be used to alter the substantive access rights that operators currently hold.
It's purely in effect of the discussions that already continue between Network Rail and operators regarding the necessary amendments of contracts to ensure they remain operable. In the new framework put forward by the Bill. The government therefore considers the negative procedure, provides the appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight regulations where the purpose is to operationally implement this transition. Turning finally to amendment 266 from the noble Lord Lansley. The noble Lord is quite right that the bill revokes regulation five brackets, eight of the Access and Management Regulations, which places a duty on infrastructure managers to ensure that train operator rights to access their network is honoured.
Although GBR will not be an infrastructure manager for the purposes of these regulations, the regulations will continue to apply to non GBR infrastructure managers and I agree with the noble Lord that retaining this duty for non GBR infrastructure is important and its effect should be retained in these. In those regulations, the bill already achieves the Noble Lords objective because clause 70 amends regulation five one to make clear that it's the infrastructure manager who is required to grant access rights. As a result, regulation five eight is no longer needed because its effect will instead be achieved in the amended regulation five one.
For completeness, I'd also emphasise that the existing right of appeal to the Office of Rail and Road in Regulation five nine also remains unaffected by the bill, providing a clear right of recourse for operators. If an infrastructure manager who is not GBR sought to deny access to any operator in contravention of regulation five. I thank Noble Lords for their discussion on this topic. I do believe that the aspirations are aligned here because nobody wants inoperable contracts and nobody wants to remove the rights that operators have been legitimately granted to run trains on the network. The power is essential to make the railway work in the future, and that's why I'm defending it.
It will not be misused. And the government have put that on record in a number of ways, including binding, which today I hope this allows noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
15:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, may I ask. The noble Lord has spoken as if this power were there to be used . When there is agreement amongst all affected parties that some change is necessary in. For the purpose of efficiency. Do I understand that correctly? If I do understand it correctly, is the noble Lord saying that the power will not be used if any of the affected parties, and that might be only one of them, object to the exercise of the power in the way proposed.
15:59
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think the answer to the noble Lord is that certainly the. The government's intention in this is to is to obtain agreement, because everybody will want these things to work. But it's important for the government to retain some power for those who will not agree, for reasons that one would hope would, at least to them, be sensible reasons, but which, in the government's view, won't enable the regulations in future to work. So government would seek obviously, to have agreement, but the power is there to be used if agreement isn't forthcoming.
16:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
May I just ask, since the since the noble Lord has made clear that the powers can be used coercively against parties who do not wish to see them put into effect? If in those circumstances there were an instance where where the affected party demonstrate that they had had or would suffer financial loss as a result, what power does the government have to pay compensation? Or is it expected that there would be no financial compensation for having a position imposed on one which was both unwanted and expensive?
16:01
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The answer to the noble Lord is that for the very great part, the. The. This provision is designed to get agreement in order that things that are already happened continue to work. But in the event, in the event that there's a case for financial compensation, my understanding is still allows for that.
16:01
16:01
16:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
So it's just it's not yet five days since I moved the amendment two, six, six and it was a very. It's a very simple, probing amendment to which the noble Lord. The minister has given happily the reply that I was seeking, which is that the duties continue for infrastructure managers in the same way as they have under the 2016 regulations. It's just that GBR won't be treated as an infrastructure manager for these purposes. But before I just beg leave to withdraw, can I just leave with the minister? I don't expect him to answer now, but reading this and the continuing definition of a railway undertaking, which of course includes GBR and its subsidiary companies for the purposes of the 2016 regulations.
It just struck me that. So these infrastructure managers. So let's say, for example, HS1 has to give access rights to GBR if it seeks them. So is there any is there any limitation. Where is the limitation on GBR activity so far as, for example, seeking to run international passenger services in the future? Is that question because I'm prompted to ask it now, but subject to that and thanking the Minister for his response, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 266.
It just struck me that. So these infrastructure managers. So let's say, for example, HS1 has to give access rights to GBR if it seeks them. So is there any is there any limitation. Where is the limitation on GBR activity so far as, for example, seeking to run international passenger services in the future? Is that question because I'm prompted to ask it now, but subject to that and thanking the Minister for his response, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 266.
16:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 70 stand part of the Bill. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The amendment 267 Lord Grayling. And 268 Lord Berkeley not moved and two six a and 269 Lord Berkeley not moved, moved an amendment to 70. Baroness Pidgeon moved, moved 271 Lord Berkeley moved, moved. The question is that clause 71 stand part of the bill? As many as that opinion will say content. Content contrary not content. The contents have it in clause 72.
Amendment 272. Lord Harper.
Amendment 272. Lord Harper.
16:04
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm grateful. Just just before I start talking about my amendment, just on the last group, when the minister said 712 D of compensation, it says the regulations may provide for the payment of compensation, which of course means if the regulations don't provide for that, it doesn't say they have to. Then of course, there wouldn't be a mechanism to pay the compensation. So I think we had at an earlier stage a conversation about whether the regulations must provide for that. They only may. So that, I think, is the gap that my noble friend Lord Moylan was referring to.
Turning to my amendments, I've got a group of amendments here 272273274, 276 and two, seven nine. And I'll run through all of them briefly. The first thing I would say, the minister very helpfully wrote to me this morning in a slightly the private office, I think, sprayed up some letters this morning I had seven, which I haven't had a chance to look at all of them, but I have looked at the one relevant to this clause. I should just say to the minister, it does deal well, I think, with a concern that I didn't have, which was about whether this clause could be used effectively to nationalise non GBR infrastructure.
But I think the conversation we had, and certainly what I'm going to set out now, I think the the concern is, is a bit more nuanced than that, but nonetheless very important. And I'll set that out in due course. Part of the reason, by the way, for this concern , is Prime Minister keeps saying a lot about various businesses. He's very much in favour of public control of those businesses, but without necessarily going through all the palava of nationalising them and paying people lots of compensation, he isn't really spell out what he means by public control.
But he can't therefore be enormously surprised that when businesses here , the leader of the government say that he's quite keen on taking public control of things, they naturally think he's quite keen on taking control of their things without actually paying for proper compensation, which you'd have to do if you nationalised it. So I think that is that's the context, I think, in which businesses are perfectly, legitimately concerned. Now, the concern about clause 72, which refers to non GBR infrastructure, facilities and services, the concern, I think, is it's about the risk of open ended interventions taking place after companies have taken investment decisions.
And two, and if you don't address that, what that does is change the climate in which companies are making investment decisions. And in earlier clauses, we talked about one of the things which I think is a shared concern on both sides of the House, all sides of the House, is that we want to see private sector investment into rail infrastructure. And I see the minister nodding, and the danger is that I think the clause as drafted, and certainly the understanding that a number of private businesses have, is that it will put that at risk. And let me just set out what those concerns are, and then I'll run through the amendments in two.
Seven two is the lead amendment, which which I will then move. The first thing is that many of the investments that people, for example, rail freight terminals, is. There's a model set up under which rail freight companies pay per train. And the charges are set to recover the capital over a period and cover the ongoing and maintenance, the lifecycle risks, and all 72 as drafted does create a risk that the Secretary of State could intervene in that pricing or access policy after the decision had been taken. So, for example, there are things in here which talk about the terms, conditions and charges that people may make for the use of non GBR infrastructure and the provision and supply of facilities.
And if people think that it is possible for Secretary of State to make those changes retrospectively, it undermines the business is for making the investment in the first place by putting uncertainty over that revenue stream. Open ended powers also reduce certainty and increase the risk of different interpretations of the legislation, which again makes long term infrastructure harder to justify, particularly in in business areas where the margins are relatively low and you have to recover the cost over a very considerable period of time, and that that will then reduce the investment into rail terminals and the expansions of ports and so forth.
The other risk here is that government could set terminal charges or access terms and long terms. Logistics contracts rely on agreed access fees, and the concern that a number of businesses have got about clause 72 is it could require fee reductions, broader access for to for competitors attracting profitability, contract compliance and the competitiveness of the port against other hubs. There's also a concern that if clause 72 is opposed, is applied unevenly, then some businesses could face stricter requirements than other businesses, which is clearly an issue. And if you weaken the ability of the Office of Road and Rail to act as the independent regulator and appeals body, and we already had a lengthy debate in earlier groups, which I don't propose to revisit, about the basis on which you can refer things to the author, and that being on a judicial review model, rather than on a substantive debate about the detail, that then reduces people's confidence in the system.
And the final issue is, if you have that regulatory uncertainty, you risk reducing the investment into shifting away from being able to move freight from road onto rail, and also the investment that is going to be required in green infrastructure in our ports to ensure that that transport is low carbon. So both of those things are going to.
Turning to my amendments, I've got a group of amendments here 272273274, 276 and two, seven nine. And I'll run through all of them briefly. The first thing I would say, the minister very helpfully wrote to me this morning in a slightly the private office, I think, sprayed up some letters this morning I had seven, which I haven't had a chance to look at all of them, but I have looked at the one relevant to this clause. I should just say to the minister, it does deal well, I think, with a concern that I didn't have, which was about whether this clause could be used effectively to nationalise non GBR infrastructure.
But I think the conversation we had, and certainly what I'm going to set out now, I think the the concern is, is a bit more nuanced than that, but nonetheless very important. And I'll set that out in due course. Part of the reason, by the way, for this concern , is Prime Minister keeps saying a lot about various businesses. He's very much in favour of public control of those businesses, but without necessarily going through all the palava of nationalising them and paying people lots of compensation, he isn't really spell out what he means by public control.
But he can't therefore be enormously surprised that when businesses here , the leader of the government say that he's quite keen on taking public control of things, they naturally think he's quite keen on taking control of their things without actually paying for proper compensation, which you'd have to do if you nationalised it. So I think that is that's the context, I think, in which businesses are perfectly, legitimately concerned. Now, the concern about clause 72, which refers to non GBR infrastructure, facilities and services, the concern, I think, is it's about the risk of open ended interventions taking place after companies have taken investment decisions.
And two, and if you don't address that, what that does is change the climate in which companies are making investment decisions. And in earlier clauses, we talked about one of the things which I think is a shared concern on both sides of the House, all sides of the House, is that we want to see private sector investment into rail infrastructure. And I see the minister nodding, and the danger is that I think the clause as drafted, and certainly the understanding that a number of private businesses have, is that it will put that at risk. And let me just set out what those concerns are, and then I'll run through the amendments in two.
Seven two is the lead amendment, which which I will then move. The first thing is that many of the investments that people, for example, rail freight terminals, is. There's a model set up under which rail freight companies pay per train. And the charges are set to recover the capital over a period and cover the ongoing and maintenance, the lifecycle risks, and all 72 as drafted does create a risk that the Secretary of State could intervene in that pricing or access policy after the decision had been taken. So, for example, there are things in here which talk about the terms, conditions and charges that people may make for the use of non GBR infrastructure and the provision and supply of facilities.
And if people think that it is possible for Secretary of State to make those changes retrospectively, it undermines the business is for making the investment in the first place by putting uncertainty over that revenue stream. Open ended powers also reduce certainty and increase the risk of different interpretations of the legislation, which again makes long term infrastructure harder to justify, particularly in in business areas where the margins are relatively low and you have to recover the cost over a very considerable period of time, and that that will then reduce the investment into rail terminals and the expansions of ports and so forth.
The other risk here is that government could set terminal charges or access terms and long terms. Logistics contracts rely on agreed access fees, and the concern that a number of businesses have got about clause 72 is it could require fee reductions, broader access for to for competitors attracting profitability, contract compliance and the competitiveness of the port against other hubs. There's also a concern that if clause 72 is opposed, is applied unevenly, then some businesses could face stricter requirements than other businesses, which is clearly an issue. And if you weaken the ability of the Office of Road and Rail to act as the independent regulator and appeals body, and we already had a lengthy debate in earlier groups, which I don't propose to revisit, about the basis on which you can refer things to the author, and that being on a judicial review model, rather than on a substantive debate about the detail, that then reduces people's confidence in the system.
And the final issue is, if you have that regulatory uncertainty, you risk reducing the investment into shifting away from being able to move freight from road onto rail, and also the investment that is going to be required in green infrastructure in our ports to ensure that that transport is low carbon. So both of those things are going to.
16:11
16:11
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The government's own policy areas. So the amendments, as they're set out, do a number of things. So amendment 272, which is the amendment. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for having also signed it. This amendment limits the regulation making power in clause 72, specifically to the amendment, revocation, restatement or replacement of provisions in the existing railways, access management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings regulations. Now, those are the existing regulations which were set up in response to European Union directives that applied to us because we were members of the European Union at the time, and I think provide a a basis which people are comfortable is a an appropriate one.
And the the this amendment limits the extent to which changes can be made. Amendment 273 limits the use of that power in clause 72 to a single exercise in relation to each relevant provisions, and requires the power to be used only to facilitate the transition to the replacement regulatory framework. So in other words, you can't use it. Keep changing things. You can use it to do what the the intended purpose is set out to be, which is to make sure that the existing rules work under the new model. But you can't do under my amendment is keep changing the rules and effectively shifting the goalposts for private sector businesses.
Amendment 274 requires the regulations to apply consistently and without discrimination to persons, service facilities and locations in materially comparable circumstances. It does allow ministers to have objectively justified and proportionate differences in treatment, but they've got to be clearly justified. And that, again, is to deal with whether these are applied in a fair way. Amendment 276, and this comes slightly from the debate we've had on previous occasions. This effectively means that there is a right of appeal to the Orer for people affected by the use of decisions under clause 72, and it wouldn't just be on a judicial review basis.
It would mean you could bring an appeal on the grounds that the decision was inconsistent, inconsistent with a statutory duty, based on an error of fact or law or discriminatory or disproportionate. So it would be a much more comprehensive appeal mechanism. And that, I think, would provide investors and businesses with confidence that the power was not going to be misused. And the Final Amendment, Amendment 279. At the moment, the clause refers to some consultations. It says, before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
And what my amendment does is leave that bit out, and it sets out some a list of people who should be consulted. It means the Secretary of State would have to publish a draft of the regulations. It would have to consult the Scottish Ministers, Welsh ministers, TfL, any other relevant local government body, people who own, manage or operate non GBR infrastructure likely to be affected. In other words, the people who's the use of the power is going to affect. That is not provided for so far. It may be the Secretary of State feels like consulting them, but at the moment the Secretary of State wouldn't have to consult them, could just use the power operators of service facilities likely to be affected and such other persons likely to be affected.
There would have to be a reasonable period for representations. And then, before the statutory instrument was laid, the Secretary of State had to publish the representations and set out how the representations have been taken into account, so it doesn't force the state to take them in to do anything as a result of them. But it has to show how the Secretary of State has taken them into account. And I think that is very reasonable. And I think if you were to do that set of changes, it would still allow the government to do what it says it wants to do, which is to make sure that those existing 2016 regulations can be brought up to date and operate under the new structure.
But what it does do is it gives businesses that are investing in rail infrastructure in our ports, terminals and other non GBR facilities. The confidence that the agreements that they've got for access to those, to that infrastructure, which they need to get a return on investment, is protected. And if the government were to make any changes required, they would be consulted and the government would have to set out how it their concerns. So I think those are very reasonable. As I said, they cover things that Minister didn't touch on in his letter to me, which was focusing on taking things into public ownership.
But I think businesses have. Of course, they don't want that to happen, but I think businesses have more concerns other than just a straight grab of their assets. If you make a business unable to return a an economic return on its capital invested, that frankly is just as bad as taking the assets away. In fact, it's worse because you're not paying any compensation. So I think that is the the root of the concern with that clause, which businesses have got. And I think I'll listen carefully to what the minister says when he responds to this group.
And again, if there's anything in my depending on whether he thinks those concerns are justified or not, I'll listen carefully to what he says and whether he wants to bring something forward at report to tighten it up, or whether it'll be down to to us to do so. Having listened to his response and all that, I beg to move amendment 272 in my name.
And the the this amendment limits the extent to which changes can be made. Amendment 273 limits the use of that power in clause 72 to a single exercise in relation to each relevant provisions, and requires the power to be used only to facilitate the transition to the replacement regulatory framework. So in other words, you can't use it. Keep changing things. You can use it to do what the the intended purpose is set out to be, which is to make sure that the existing rules work under the new model. But you can't do under my amendment is keep changing the rules and effectively shifting the goalposts for private sector businesses.
Amendment 274 requires the regulations to apply consistently and without discrimination to persons, service facilities and locations in materially comparable circumstances. It does allow ministers to have objectively justified and proportionate differences in treatment, but they've got to be clearly justified. And that, again, is to deal with whether these are applied in a fair way. Amendment 276, and this comes slightly from the debate we've had on previous occasions. This effectively means that there is a right of appeal to the Orer for people affected by the use of decisions under clause 72, and it wouldn't just be on a judicial review basis.
It would mean you could bring an appeal on the grounds that the decision was inconsistent, inconsistent with a statutory duty, based on an error of fact or law or discriminatory or disproportionate. So it would be a much more comprehensive appeal mechanism. And that, I think, would provide investors and businesses with confidence that the power was not going to be misused. And the Final Amendment, Amendment 279. At the moment, the clause refers to some consultations. It says, before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
And what my amendment does is leave that bit out, and it sets out some a list of people who should be consulted. It means the Secretary of State would have to publish a draft of the regulations. It would have to consult the Scottish Ministers, Welsh ministers, TfL, any other relevant local government body, people who own, manage or operate non GBR infrastructure likely to be affected. In other words, the people who's the use of the power is going to affect. That is not provided for so far. It may be the Secretary of State feels like consulting them, but at the moment the Secretary of State wouldn't have to consult them, could just use the power operators of service facilities likely to be affected and such other persons likely to be affected.
There would have to be a reasonable period for representations. And then, before the statutory instrument was laid, the Secretary of State had to publish the representations and set out how the representations have been taken into account, so it doesn't force the state to take them in to do anything as a result of them. But it has to show how the Secretary of State has taken them into account. And I think that is very reasonable. And I think if you were to do that set of changes, it would still allow the government to do what it says it wants to do, which is to make sure that those existing 2016 regulations can be brought up to date and operate under the new structure.
But what it does do is it gives businesses that are investing in rail infrastructure in our ports, terminals and other non GBR facilities. The confidence that the agreements that they've got for access to those, to that infrastructure, which they need to get a return on investment, is protected. And if the government were to make any changes required, they would be consulted and the government would have to set out how it their concerns. So I think those are very reasonable. As I said, they cover things that Minister didn't touch on in his letter to me, which was focusing on taking things into public ownership.
But I think businesses have. Of course, they don't want that to happen, but I think businesses have more concerns other than just a straight grab of their assets. If you make a business unable to return a an economic return on its capital invested, that frankly is just as bad as taking the assets away. In fact, it's worse because you're not paying any compensation. So I think that is the the root of the concern with that clause, which businesses have got. And I think I'll listen carefully to what the minister says when he responds to this group.
And again, if there's anything in my depending on whether he thinks those concerns are justified or not, I'll listen carefully to what he says and whether he wants to bring something forward at report to tighten it up, or whether it'll be down to to us to do so. Having listened to his response and all that, I beg to move amendment 272 in my name.
16:17
16:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my amendment number 275. Now my noble friend Lord Harper has articulated the concerns that many of us on this side have about this specific section of the bill. I very well, so I'm not going to repeat all the points he's made, and I've highlighted the issue of specific facilities, and I should draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register. I say my work for Hutchison Ports Europe, but this is broader than that. It's not just about ports, it's actually about private sector facilities , in freight, in in ports and airports.
And the key point here is that, and I say this in the full knowledge that the minister is smart enough to realise the implications of the decisions he's taking. But as I said earlier, he will not always be the minister. And this is a government that has taken decisions which are sometimes ideological and sometimes ideological in a way that actually takes things into reverse rather than going forwards. And they know which , which some of those are. I do not have confidence in a Labour government not taking decisions for ideological reasons, and I don't have confidence that we will always have a minister that doesn't take decisions for ideological reasons.
And those decisions are taken for ideological reasons, can sometimes completely undermine the commercial viability of a new investment or an existing investment or an existing business. And the you know, we are talking about facilities that can be extremely important to the United Kingdom and where sometimes the public sector can encourage the private sector to open up, to do things that are positive, that it gets it wrong. The consequences are serious. And I think, you know, the obvious example that comes to my mind is the opening of the line to Okehampton, which the minister was involved in when he was at that rail.
And I was when I was Secretary of State. And it has, to my mind, been a great success. But the minister also knows that part of that route was a freight line controlled by a local quarry business. Now it. If the government were to take a decision to pass regulation and say, right, we want more services to open. If they would take a decision to extend the line beyond Okehampton, what happens to that quarry business? What happens to the facilities it has access to when the government, as I hope it does, proceeds with the support for the expansion of Heathrow Airport, the Minister will know that there is no scenario right now in which the taxpayer is going to be able to afford to pay for Western rail access and for southern rail access.
Those will be funded from the runway. So what will prevent a future minister taking a decision about access to the network, taking a decision about the line into and around Heathrow Airport, which materially impacts on the business case for private sector investment in those two essential rail routes. And so I think what we're looking for, and what Lord Harper rightly said he was looking for, is some degree of comfort provided by the minister at the report stage to indicate that there will be constraints on how the powers in this particular section can be used, and particularly constraints to prevent decisions which materially undermine the investments that are made by the private sector, which the minister has rightly said that he wants to see.
And then there's one other point in this clause, which I haven't tailored specifically to. I thought I'd issue a friendly challenge to the Secretary of State, to the minister, who has been extremely accommodating and on this subject, in in other areas, there is a reference in this particular clause to criminal prosecutions. Now, if those criminal prosecutions are to be focused purely on safety, it is absolutely right and proper that if the operator of a section of private infrastructure breaks safety rules in a way that is criminal, they should face sanction. Absolutely accept it. But I would like to see some degree of constraint on how this particular power can be used, because the Minister and I have discussed before on Civil Aviation Bill and earlier on this bill, it's very easy to stick a reference to criminality into a piece of legislation without a really clear idea of what it's for.
So could I ask the minister to go away and review that section and see whether some clarification before we get to report would be sensible, because neither he nor I want an open ended piece of legislation that allows a future minister to make pretty much anything in relation to this area a criminal act, and I hope the minister will be willing to to do that and come back to us with some thoughts that report. Oh.
And the key point here is that, and I say this in the full knowledge that the minister is smart enough to realise the implications of the decisions he's taking. But as I said earlier, he will not always be the minister. And this is a government that has taken decisions which are sometimes ideological and sometimes ideological in a way that actually takes things into reverse rather than going forwards. And they know which , which some of those are. I do not have confidence in a Labour government not taking decisions for ideological reasons, and I don't have confidence that we will always have a minister that doesn't take decisions for ideological reasons.
And those decisions are taken for ideological reasons, can sometimes completely undermine the commercial viability of a new investment or an existing investment or an existing business. And the you know, we are talking about facilities that can be extremely important to the United Kingdom and where sometimes the public sector can encourage the private sector to open up, to do things that are positive, that it gets it wrong. The consequences are serious. And I think, you know, the obvious example that comes to my mind is the opening of the line to Okehampton, which the minister was involved in when he was at that rail.
And I was when I was Secretary of State. And it has, to my mind, been a great success. But the minister also knows that part of that route was a freight line controlled by a local quarry business. Now it. If the government were to take a decision to pass regulation and say, right, we want more services to open. If they would take a decision to extend the line beyond Okehampton, what happens to that quarry business? What happens to the facilities it has access to when the government, as I hope it does, proceeds with the support for the expansion of Heathrow Airport, the Minister will know that there is no scenario right now in which the taxpayer is going to be able to afford to pay for Western rail access and for southern rail access.
Those will be funded from the runway. So what will prevent a future minister taking a decision about access to the network, taking a decision about the line into and around Heathrow Airport, which materially impacts on the business case for private sector investment in those two essential rail routes. And so I think what we're looking for, and what Lord Harper rightly said he was looking for, is some degree of comfort provided by the minister at the report stage to indicate that there will be constraints on how the powers in this particular section can be used, and particularly constraints to prevent decisions which materially undermine the investments that are made by the private sector, which the minister has rightly said that he wants to see.
And then there's one other point in this clause, which I haven't tailored specifically to. I thought I'd issue a friendly challenge to the Secretary of State, to the minister, who has been extremely accommodating and on this subject, in in other areas, there is a reference in this particular clause to criminal prosecutions. Now, if those criminal prosecutions are to be focused purely on safety, it is absolutely right and proper that if the operator of a section of private infrastructure breaks safety rules in a way that is criminal, they should face sanction. Absolutely accept it. But I would like to see some degree of constraint on how this particular power can be used, because the Minister and I have discussed before on Civil Aviation Bill and earlier on this bill, it's very easy to stick a reference to criminality into a piece of legislation without a really clear idea of what it's for.
So could I ask the minister to go away and review that section and see whether some clarification before we get to report would be sensible, because neither he nor I want an open ended piece of legislation that allows a future minister to make pretty much anything in relation to this area a criminal act, and I hope the minister will be willing to to do that and come back to us with some thoughts that report. Oh.
16:22
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lord, I have tabled an amendment to eight four, and I declare that I'm a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I was prompted to do so by our report when we looked at this bill, because what is 72 and 73 are both Henry VII's powers. And I'm tempted to say the dread Henry VII powers, because we are always concerned about the increasing power to the executive, away from parliamentary scrutiny of aspects. And we're well aware that secondary legislation cannot be amended. Now, one of the difficulties with this. This has all been dealt with in our publication Democracy Denied.
But the. In clause 72, I note that the noble lady, Baroness Pidgeon, has got an amendment down, and which, if I've interpreted it correctly, in part addresses our criticism from our report over clause 72. But we're still left with clause 73. And it's this Henry the Eighth power, because it includes the power to make consequential amendment that can amend acts of Parliament. Now, this clause defines GBR infrastructure. That's straightforward and logical. The term is fundamental to understanding the scope of the bill's provisions on access to infrastructure. In what circumstances might such a fundamental and straightforward definition , therefore need to be amended?
And so we looked at memorandum, and that gives rather short justification, because it says that it may be updated to remain consistent in the context of updates. And it also talks about new technological advances. Now, just to put this in context for the Committee on many bills, we see the term new technological advances being used as a justification for sweeping Henry VII's powers. And sometimes it's quite difficult to see what these technological advances will be that are so rapid and so great that we can't be coming back to Parliament with primary legislation. So, in fact, the power makes consequential provision which amends or repeals provisions contained in this or another Act of Parliament, and that links to clause 72, which I think the noble lady, Baroness Pigeon, will be addressing shortly.
But the example of covering technological advances really did seem inadequate. And in the light of inadequate justification from the government for the delegated powers in 732, we recommended that the power is removed from the bill. I should say that when our report came out, the minister made contact with me almost as soon as I tabled the amendment, and we had a very helpful discussion, and I had asked the minister in that discussion to ensure that he makes comments that justify this, Henry the Eighth power, because we can't just be putting more and more Henry VII powers in bills without really understanding what they do here.
But the. In clause 72, I note that the noble lady, Baroness Pidgeon, has got an amendment down, and which, if I've interpreted it correctly, in part addresses our criticism from our report over clause 72. But we're still left with clause 73. And it's this Henry the Eighth power, because it includes the power to make consequential amendment that can amend acts of Parliament. Now, this clause defines GBR infrastructure. That's straightforward and logical. The term is fundamental to understanding the scope of the bill's provisions on access to infrastructure. In what circumstances might such a fundamental and straightforward definition , therefore need to be amended?
And so we looked at memorandum, and that gives rather short justification, because it says that it may be updated to remain consistent in the context of updates. And it also talks about new technological advances. Now, just to put this in context for the Committee on many bills, we see the term new technological advances being used as a justification for sweeping Henry VII's powers. And sometimes it's quite difficult to see what these technological advances will be that are so rapid and so great that we can't be coming back to Parliament with primary legislation. So, in fact, the power makes consequential provision which amends or repeals provisions contained in this or another Act of Parliament, and that links to clause 72, which I think the noble lady, Baroness Pigeon, will be addressing shortly.
But the example of covering technological advances really did seem inadequate. And in the light of inadequate justification from the government for the delegated powers in 732, we recommended that the power is removed from the bill. I should say that when our report came out, the minister made contact with me almost as soon as I tabled the amendment, and we had a very helpful discussion, and I had asked the minister in that discussion to ensure that he makes comments that justify this, Henry the Eighth power, because we can't just be putting more and more Henry VII powers in bills without really understanding what they do here.
16:26
16:26
16:26
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Move my amendment 280 A in my name and and to comment on two of the other amendments in this group. I should, first of all declare an interest that I'm non-executive chair of a company called Gemini that's trying to run. Trains from London to the continent on the high speed line. So we are in discussions. One gets involved in all the issues which are happening and we've been debating this afternoon, including the role of the the government and the role of the infrastructure manager when it's not Network Rail and many other things as well. But one example, which I think makes me concerned is.
Is the fact that 2 or 3 weeks ago, DB cargo, which is the German, the UK part of German railways, Deutsche Bahn was put up for sale. And this is something to do with European regulations and the DB. Concerns in Germany. Nothing to do with the UK except that they've been told that they've got to put it out, to put it out, to tender and sell it by the end of the year. And it doesn't give them doesn't give them a lot of time. So I suppose my question would be to the minister. This is a company which, as far as we know, has been operating quite happily for many years.
Is this something that GBR would would think about buying, in which case you're going to have a state owned freight company competing with 3 or 4 non-state owned freight companies? How will it be assessed for fairness, especially if the IRR is not allowed to go into it too deeply? And secondly, of course, if DB cargo owned certainly owns terminals, it may own the odd port rail facilities at port, I can't really remember. But again, government might decide that it would like to own the rail facilities at port to put some money in, to invest in it and make it operate more effectively.
And again, what will the big ports that are in the private sector. Like Felixstowe or Southampton, what would they think that this was fair and how would they go about challenging the government to demonstrate it? And they probably have to take it eventually to the competition people. But I think it would be very interesting to know from my noble friend whether there's any ability in the bill for GBR to own a rail freight company or own a terminal at a port or an inland terminal, it doesn't matter where, where, which could accept customers from all around the country, but it's how would they be able to demonstrate that it would be done fairly?
I look forward to my noble friend's comments.
Is the fact that 2 or 3 weeks ago, DB cargo, which is the German, the UK part of German railways, Deutsche Bahn was put up for sale. And this is something to do with European regulations and the DB. Concerns in Germany. Nothing to do with the UK except that they've been told that they've got to put it out, to put it out, to tender and sell it by the end of the year. And it doesn't give them doesn't give them a lot of time. So I suppose my question would be to the minister. This is a company which, as far as we know, has been operating quite happily for many years.
Is this something that GBR would would think about buying, in which case you're going to have a state owned freight company competing with 3 or 4 non-state owned freight companies? How will it be assessed for fairness, especially if the IRR is not allowed to go into it too deeply? And secondly, of course, if DB cargo owned certainly owns terminals, it may own the odd port rail facilities at port, I can't really remember. But again, government might decide that it would like to own the rail facilities at port to put some money in, to invest in it and make it operate more effectively.
And again, what will the big ports that are in the private sector. Like Felixstowe or Southampton, what would they think that this was fair and how would they go about challenging the government to demonstrate it? And they probably have to take it eventually to the competition people. But I think it would be very interesting to know from my noble friend whether there's any ability in the bill for GBR to own a rail freight company or own a terminal at a port or an inland terminal, it doesn't matter where, where, which could accept customers from all around the country, but it's how would they be able to demonstrate that it would be done fairly?
I look forward to my noble friend's comments.
16:30
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I can be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Falconer of Worcester and I have amendment 282 in this group, which simply seeks to ask the. The noble Lord, the minister, whether the powers at clause 72 for the Secretary of State include any infrastructure or asset of a preserved or heritage railway, I. When reading the clause, I don't think that's the case, but it would be very helpful to have that reassurance from the noble Lord. The Minister on the record from the despatch box, if he's able to give it.
16:30
16:30
16:31
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My Lords, it would be remiss of me if I didn't intervene briefly to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and Lord Faulkner, both of whom happen to be in the room. I've already said on record, my interests in this area, which are completely not financial. And I should add, when I'm on my feet, that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, I also have reservations for the reasons outlined about clause 72, section four.
This raises issues that go far beyond this particular bill.
This raises issues that go far beyond this particular bill.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and clearly many of them are trying to achieve a similar result. I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his detailed correspondence that was sent out this morning, which I think really did provide a lot of assurance. And I'd like to thank Baroness Finlay for raising really important points from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Let me focus on the two clauses. So clause 72 grants the Secretary of State significant powers that could be exercised beyond the limited justification described in the explanatory note.
Whilst clearly there is a desire to ensure smooth regulatory interfaces between Great British Railways and other rail infrastructure managers, for organisations like London Saint Pancras, high speed alignment with regulatory processes in Europe remains really important, and this is because any international passenger services will need to pass through the Channel Tunnel and onto European infrastructure changes, for example, to the timetable change date could make securing new services more challenging by creating additional regulatory and process friction. So London Saint Pancras High Speed is concerned that secondary legislation could be used to prevent non Great British Railways infrastructure managers from offering large discounts currently permitted by the Railways Regulations 2016.
Modify procedures governing operator access to non great British Railway facilities and services which are essential for train operators such as Temple Mills Depot, which we all know well, and making changes to the Rail Regulations 2016, which make the growth of international traffic harder by increasing divergence with European rail processes and timelines. So there is wide concern. I outlined London Saint Pancras high speed, but also in the freight sector that this clause would distort the market disincentivise private sector investment and add additional regulation. So my amendment 283 would prevent regulations under clause 72 from affecting the arrangements of a non great British Railways infrastructure Manager, unless the Secretary of State has consulted those affected and published an impact assessment, it would also bar provisions that materially alter the economic effect of existing arrangements or prevent the manager levying charges charges unless expressly approved or necessary, and it would also restrict regulations requiring alignment of processes for international services, where this would create inconsistency with channel tunnel or European rail processes.
So in terms of this clause, will the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that the intent is alignment only and consider tightening the clause so the power cannot be used beyond that purpose. In relation to non great British Railway infrastructure managers? Can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that no changes will be made to the regulatory framework which would restrict growth in international traffic by adding complexity between the regimes and I would hope the noble Lord, the Minister would be sympathetic to these concerns and respond accordingly, and provide from the despatch box the assurance that is clearly needed.
And then clause 73, my amendment 285, prevents regulations from redefining GBR infrastructure capture non GBR operated assets, which could include high speed one or freight terminal without consultation, impact assessment and parliamentary approval. And the reason for this amendment is the clause 732 says that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the definition of GBR infrastructure, and that is what is worrying for organisations that interface with the railway, whether it's high speed one or indeed private sector freight infrastructure and service facilities. How will these organisations be able to secure funding? As we've already heard, when there are clauses 72 and 73 written as they are, how people are interpreting them as they are, so will the noble Lord.
The Minister confirm on the record that high speed one and other private freight facilities are not intended to be reclassified as Great British Rail Infrastructure, and that clause 73 will not be used in a way that would unintentionally bring these within the scope of the Bill. I am hopeful of clarification from the noble Lord, the minister. The sector is concerned about this and any unintended consequences for non Great British Railways Organisation, so I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, and that assurance that the sector so desperately needs.
Whilst clearly there is a desire to ensure smooth regulatory interfaces between Great British Railways and other rail infrastructure managers, for organisations like London Saint Pancras, high speed alignment with regulatory processes in Europe remains really important, and this is because any international passenger services will need to pass through the Channel Tunnel and onto European infrastructure changes, for example, to the timetable change date could make securing new services more challenging by creating additional regulatory and process friction. So London Saint Pancras High Speed is concerned that secondary legislation could be used to prevent non Great British Railways infrastructure managers from offering large discounts currently permitted by the Railways Regulations 2016.
Modify procedures governing operator access to non great British Railway facilities and services which are essential for train operators such as Temple Mills Depot, which we all know well, and making changes to the Rail Regulations 2016, which make the growth of international traffic harder by increasing divergence with European rail processes and timelines. So there is wide concern. I outlined London Saint Pancras high speed, but also in the freight sector that this clause would distort the market disincentivise private sector investment and add additional regulation. So my amendment 283 would prevent regulations under clause 72 from affecting the arrangements of a non great British Railways infrastructure Manager, unless the Secretary of State has consulted those affected and published an impact assessment, it would also bar provisions that materially alter the economic effect of existing arrangements or prevent the manager levying charges charges unless expressly approved or necessary, and it would also restrict regulations requiring alignment of processes for international services, where this would create inconsistency with channel tunnel or European rail processes.
So in terms of this clause, will the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that the intent is alignment only and consider tightening the clause so the power cannot be used beyond that purpose. In relation to non great British Railway infrastructure managers? Can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that no changes will be made to the regulatory framework which would restrict growth in international traffic by adding complexity between the regimes and I would hope the noble Lord, the Minister would be sympathetic to these concerns and respond accordingly, and provide from the despatch box the assurance that is clearly needed.
And then clause 73, my amendment 285, prevents regulations from redefining GBR infrastructure capture non GBR operated assets, which could include high speed one or freight terminal without consultation, impact assessment and parliamentary approval. And the reason for this amendment is the clause 732 says that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the definition of GBR infrastructure, and that is what is worrying for organisations that interface with the railway, whether it's high speed one or indeed private sector freight infrastructure and service facilities. How will these organisations be able to secure funding? As we've already heard, when there are clauses 72 and 73 written as they are, how people are interpreting them as they are, so will the noble Lord.
The Minister confirm on the record that high speed one and other private freight facilities are not intended to be reclassified as Great British Rail Infrastructure, and that clause 73 will not be used in a way that would unintentionally bring these within the scope of the Bill. I am hopeful of clarification from the noble Lord, the minister. The sector is concerned about this and any unintended consequences for non Great British Railways Organisation, so I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, and that assurance that the sector so desperately needs.
16:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, may I start by aligning myself completely with the words just spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon. My only point of departure from her is that while she is hopeful of clarification, I am doubtful whether clarification will be sufficient given the. The extent of the Henry the Eighth powers contained in the bill. Words from the noble Lord. The Minister, as to his intentions sincerely meant, I have no doubt, are not a sufficient binding of these powers. If they are needed, then it should be explained what they are going to be used for. If they are not needed, they should be.
They should be written down to something boiled down to something in the text of the bill, which removes the objectionable features. I'm going to start very briefly with amendments two, seven, eight and 280, which I've supported, which are require broad consultation. Other noble lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, have spoken to the principle of this. I don't expect much comfort from the Minister, because I don't think so far he's actually accepted any suggestion made by the Committee, with one possible exception some time ago. I turn now to the clauses, to the to the amendments 277 and 284, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendations.
They've been very clearly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Findlay, and they are very broad. Henry the Eighth powers as drafted regulations could amend not only existing primary legislation, but acts passed in future sessions of Parliament that that is quite honestly intolerable. If someone is going to pass an Act of Parliament in the future, knowing full well that this statute is on the books, then they should write it, taking account of the fact that this statute is on the books. It should not be written in such a way that it might need to be changed in the future to make it compliant with this act.
My amendment prevents regulations under this section from amending or repealing provisions contained in acts passed in future sessions of Parliament. The Delegated Powers Committee pointed out that the government has provided no justification for taking such an unusual power desirable, no doubt from the government's point of view, but nonetheless unusual. We don't normally put up with this. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Findlay, to which I have signed my name. This removes subsection two of clause 73 and I think it's been explained. I don't need to go through it further. The definition of G, b, r infrastructure contained in clause 73 can be.
That is contained in clause 73 of an Act of Parliament and be rewritten by the Secretary of State using regulations which are, as we know, subject to relatively light scrutiny in your lordships House, and are in any event, Unamendable and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clear that the government had not justified why such a fundamental definition should be capable of being changed by secondary legislation. It won't be enough. I, I venture to say for the noble Lord to say that an amendment to the definition may be needed in the future. For practical reasons, everyone knows a definition may be.
A change may be needed in the future. For practical reasons. We're all willing to concede that what. We're not willing to concede that the definition contained in is that the definition contained in statute should be changed by ministers using powers that are very skimpy of scrutiny. And if I turn to clause two to amendment 281 and my. Motion, that clause 72 do not stand part of the Bill, the Minister has provided us with some assurance today that this clause is not going to be used for wholesale nationalisation of private infrastructure. But as my noble friend Lord Harper said, while that sort of concern can never be totally dismissed from the minds of right thinking people, given the the way in which this government seeks constantly to hark back to the 1970s and and the features of the economy in the 1970s, which certainly included widespread nationalisation.
Nonetheless, it wasn't our primary concern. So the letter that came this morning at 9:00, while welcome in what it says and clear in what it says and an important contribution to the to the to this debate and to the government's commitment at the despatch box to what it to which it can be bound in the future, nonetheless didn't actually address the issue that concerns the issues that concern us so much. It really is quite a poorly drafted bill. And these some of these issues arise because of the poor drafting. But it isn't fair. I think, my Lords, for the government to say that they may need these powers in the future and therefore they should have these huge powers that they are not going to be referred back to Parliament.
They should be written down to something boiled down to something in the text of the bill, which removes the objectionable features. I'm going to start very briefly with amendments two, seven, eight and 280, which I've supported, which are require broad consultation. Other noble lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, have spoken to the principle of this. I don't expect much comfort from the Minister, because I don't think so far he's actually accepted any suggestion made by the Committee, with one possible exception some time ago. I turn now to the clauses, to the to the amendments 277 and 284, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendations.
They've been very clearly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Findlay, and they are very broad. Henry the Eighth powers as drafted regulations could amend not only existing primary legislation, but acts passed in future sessions of Parliament that that is quite honestly intolerable. If someone is going to pass an Act of Parliament in the future, knowing full well that this statute is on the books, then they should write it, taking account of the fact that this statute is on the books. It should not be written in such a way that it might need to be changed in the future to make it compliant with this act.
My amendment prevents regulations under this section from amending or repealing provisions contained in acts passed in future sessions of Parliament. The Delegated Powers Committee pointed out that the government has provided no justification for taking such an unusual power desirable, no doubt from the government's point of view, but nonetheless unusual. We don't normally put up with this. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Findlay, to which I have signed my name. This removes subsection two of clause 73 and I think it's been explained. I don't need to go through it further. The definition of G, b, r infrastructure contained in clause 73 can be.
That is contained in clause 73 of an Act of Parliament and be rewritten by the Secretary of State using regulations which are, as we know, subject to relatively light scrutiny in your lordships House, and are in any event, Unamendable and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clear that the government had not justified why such a fundamental definition should be capable of being changed by secondary legislation. It won't be enough. I, I venture to say for the noble Lord to say that an amendment to the definition may be needed in the future. For practical reasons, everyone knows a definition may be.
A change may be needed in the future. For practical reasons. We're all willing to concede that what. We're not willing to concede that the definition contained in is that the definition contained in statute should be changed by ministers using powers that are very skimpy of scrutiny. And if I turn to clause two to amendment 281 and my. Motion, that clause 72 do not stand part of the Bill, the Minister has provided us with some assurance today that this clause is not going to be used for wholesale nationalisation of private infrastructure. But as my noble friend Lord Harper said, while that sort of concern can never be totally dismissed from the minds of right thinking people, given the the way in which this government seeks constantly to hark back to the 1970s and and the features of the economy in the 1970s, which certainly included widespread nationalisation.
Nonetheless, it wasn't our primary concern. So the letter that came this morning at 9:00, while welcome in what it says and clear in what it says and an important contribution to the to the to this debate and to the government's commitment at the despatch box to what it to which it can be bound in the future, nonetheless didn't actually address the issue that concerns the issues that concern us so much. It really is quite a poorly drafted bill. And these some of these issues arise because of the poor drafting. But it isn't fair. I think, my Lords, for the government to say that they may need these powers in the future and therefore they should have these huge powers that they are not going to be referred back to Parliament.
16:42
16:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Clause 72 enables us to ensure that the existing regulatory framework applying to non GBR infrastructure can continue to operate alongside the new access and charging framework for that infrastructure. Although GBR infrastructure will not be subject to the access management regulations, adjacent , including high speed one, the core valley lines and some transport for London infrastructure will remain subject to those regulations as they are today. When the new GBR framework is introduced and as it subsequently develops, it is possible that inconsistencies, gaps or operational frictions may emerge between the two regimes. This could increase complexity for operators who run services across both GBR and GBR infrastructure.
As with any reform of this scale, it is not realistic to expect that every technical, consequential or operational issue which may arise can be identified in advance. Clause 72, therefore, provides the power to make regulations with the flexibility necessary to ensure the two frameworks can operate effectively alongside one another, preserve alignment as the GBR framework evolves and to make other, other necessary or beneficial changes where appropriate. An example one example concerns the main annual timetable change date currently in December, enshrined in the existing Access Management Regulations. If GBR were to change this to a different date because it's actually a rather unsuitable time to change railway timetables just before Christmas and other infrastructure managers wish to follow suit, this would require a change in the existing regulations as well as supporting regulatory alignment.
The power also provides opportunities that non GBR infrastructure managers may wish to take advantage of. For example, the Welsh Government have indicated a desire to reform the current arrangements as they apply to the core valley lines in South Wales, and in particular to integrate the management and operation of track and train. The power in clause 72 would be important in facilitating such reforms. Removing clause 72 from the Bill would therefore risk GBR and GBR regimes diverge time, creating inconsistencies and adding complexity for operators, as well as losing the opportunity to support the Welsh Ministers aspirations and other potential improvements.
I do want to make absolutely clear from the outset that clause 72 cannot be used to bring other infrastructure operators of privately funded freight only facilities or any of their assets into application. Nor do we intend to interfere with the operation of private freight facilities, or alter the fundamental principles governing access to them. I should also.
As with any reform of this scale, it is not realistic to expect that every technical, consequential or operational issue which may arise can be identified in advance. Clause 72, therefore, provides the power to make regulations with the flexibility necessary to ensure the two frameworks can operate effectively alongside one another, preserve alignment as the GBR framework evolves and to make other, other necessary or beneficial changes where appropriate. An example one example concerns the main annual timetable change date currently in December, enshrined in the existing Access Management Regulations. If GBR were to change this to a different date because it's actually a rather unsuitable time to change railway timetables just before Christmas and other infrastructure managers wish to follow suit, this would require a change in the existing regulations as well as supporting regulatory alignment.
The power also provides opportunities that non GBR infrastructure managers may wish to take advantage of. For example, the Welsh Government have indicated a desire to reform the current arrangements as they apply to the core valley lines in South Wales, and in particular to integrate the management and operation of track and train. The power in clause 72 would be important in facilitating such reforms. Removing clause 72 from the Bill would therefore risk GBR and GBR regimes diverge time, creating inconsistencies and adding complexity for operators, as well as losing the opportunity to support the Welsh Ministers aspirations and other potential improvements.
I do want to make absolutely clear from the outset that clause 72 cannot be used to bring other infrastructure operators of privately funded freight only facilities or any of their assets into application. Nor do we intend to interfere with the operation of private freight facilities, or alter the fundamental principles governing access to them. I should also.
16:45
16:45
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, the government believes that actually as as drafted it. It is not drafted to enable it to be used. I would sorry I lost my train of thought. I would also emphasize the safeguards that apply to any proposed use of the power. The Secretary of State must consult on any regulations made under this clause, and any regulations would be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and debate in both houses before any changes can be made. Turning to amendments two, 72, two, 82, two and three from numerous noble Lords, I should reiterate the power cannot be used and we believe the clauses are so drafted that that is the effect of them to bring other infrastructure managers, the operators of those facilities or any of their assets into public ownership, whether they are freight, open access or indeed heritage.
Clause 721 sets out the matters about which the Secretary of State may make provision by regulations, and neither those matters nor the consequential power in subsection four confer a power to transfer ownership of infrastructure or assets into public ownership. If the bill intended to confer a power to transfer ownership, it would have needed to spell that out explicitly. Equally in. In. It is not not intended to disrupt the way for such facilities are operated, change their commercial basis, or weaken the protections that underpin private investment. As I've explained, its purpose is to ensure that the adjacent regulatory frameworks remain coherent and workable alongside the new arrangements of GBR.
However, I should emphasise that any regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning they cannot be made without first being considered and approved by both houses. Turning to my noble friend Lord Barclay's Amendment 280 a, I've already made it clear that clause 72 can't be used to bring public private infrastructure into public ownership. However, there may be circumstances in which changes affecting the wider railway require amendments to regulations that apply to non EPR infrastructure, including freight only facilities. Excluding such infrastructure entirely from the scope of the power could unnecessarily prevent necessary changes.
The noble, my noble friend raised the sale of DB cargo. My understanding currently is that there are a number of bids, all of which treat the company as a going concern. The government is not considering or or taking any action to buy the company. Neither does it intend to buy its terminals, though some . Many of them are protected by by covenants to ensure the use of freight. And the government's intention is is not not to is to leave freight operations in private ownership, constraining the power and way suggested by these amendments risks making it ineffective, as well as limiting the opportunity to make future improvements sought by the Welsh Government or other infrastructure managers.
But I'd also emphasise that restricting this power could ultimately be detrimental to the very infrastructure managers these amendments seek to protect. As the new GBR arrangements bed in, changes to the wider railway could have unintended consequences for non GBR infrastructure, potentially affecting its ability to operate effectively alongside and remain connected to, connected to the wider network. Without the flexibility provided by clause 72, we could find ourselves unable to make the regulatory changes necessary to address these consequences, leaving non GBR infrastructure managers worse off. But I do agree with the noble Lord Harper that if the existing regulations need to be amended or replaced using the clause 72 power, it is the access and management regulations that are most likely to be affected.
However, railway legislation is interconnected, so amendments to one piece of legislation may require consequential amendments to other acts or regulations. It would therefore be unwise to exclude the possibility of such amendments as doing so could risk preventing necessary or beneficial changes in the future in relation to international rail services. Whilst the Bill doesn't directly impact those services, I do recognise the importance of maintaining effective cross-border operations, including services operated on high speed one through the Channel Tunnel. We agree that consultation with those involved would be particularly important, where proposed changes to the domestic framework could create misalignment with European arrangements.
However, clause 72 already requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as she considers appropriate before making regulations, providing the flexibility to engage with relevant parties where these issues arise. With these points in mind and also recalling the consultation requirements and parliamentary scrutiny provided for in the Bill, the government considers that clause 72 strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight. Turning to amendments two and five, two, seven, eight two, seven nine and 280, I am mindful this is also relevant to the noble Baroness Pigeon's Amendment 283. I completely agree that consultation is an important principle, and that the Secretary of State should consult those affected.
As I've said, clause 72 does already require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as she considers appropriate, and the Secretary of State must act reasonably in deciding who to consult, where facility owners, operators or users affected by proposed changes are affected by proposed changes. We would certainly expect that they would be consulted, and we would also expect consultation to include the Office of Rail and Road. The amendment would also require the publication of an impact assessment before regulations could be made. However, established government processes already require the impact of regulatory proposals to be assessed proportionately .
Where appropriate, an impact assessment or other supporting analysis would accompany the regulations, providing transparency on the expected impacts and effects of the proposed changes. We therefore don't consider a statutory requirement is necessary. The noble Lord Grayling raised the issue of criminal sanctions at clause 723 A, and in the light of our previous discussions about criminal sanctions, I will consider what he says further. Amendment 274 and 276 focuses on appeals and non-discrimination, and on amendment 274. Public law principles already require the Secretary of State to act proportionately, rationally and fairly, whilst when exercising this power, meaning that an additional test for non-discrimination is not necessary.
The amendment also creates ambiguity and uncertainty, as it means the scope of the power depends on judgements about whether or not different people are affected by regulations are in materially comparable circumstances. Rather than introduce this uncertainty, we've instead designed the power so that a combination of public law principles and appropriate scrutiny provide the necessary safeguards against it being used unfairly. Amendment 276 would require regulations to provide a right of appeal to the order and decisions made under the regulations, but that's unnecessary because the Access and management regulations already provide for a right of appeal under regulation 32.
So I can reassure noble Lords that there is no intention to remove that. Turning to amendments 273 and 277, the government doesn't consider the restriction in amendment 273 to be workable. As I've set out, one possible use of the regulations is to avoid inconsistencies, gaps or operational frictions emerging between the GBR and non GBR regimes. This could arise not only when the new regime is introduced, but also successively over time as the GBR regime evolves. I would also point again to the Welsh Government's aspirations for the core valley lines, and as an example of why that would be inappropriate, the power was used only once to help align the GBR and non GBR regimes.
It could not then be used again to amend the same provisions to support those aspirations. On amendment 277, I have read the report of the Delegated Powers Committee carefully. I take the committee's recommendation seriously and of course, will take today's debate into account, as I consider to as I continue to consider them prior to the report stage. Turning to amendment 285, I should like to reassure the noble Baroness Pigeon that the concern underlying this amendment has already been addressed during the Bill's passage. It's certainly not the government's intention that the third party infrastructure should be brought into the scope of the GBR access regime, and indeed, earlier in this year.
Earlier this year, the government identified a risk that the original definition of GBR infrastructure could have been interpreted as including infrastructure operated by GBR on behalf of another infrastructure manager under a contractual arrangement, for example, a high speed one amongst others. A government amendment was therefore made in the other place to clarify that infrastructure managed or operated by GBR on behalf of another person does not fall within the definition of GBR infrastructure in clause 731. The change was specifically intended to ensure that infrastructure adjacent to GBR and managed by GBR under contractual arrangements, as the noble Baroness describes, remains outside the GBR access and charging framework.
The bill therefore also. The Bill therefore already draws a clear distinction between infrastructure, which GBR is responsible in its own right and infrastructure that it may operate in future on behalf of a third party such as the specialist Network Rail. High speed delivers to high speed one today. To be clear, the bill following this amendment ensures that high speed one that the high speed one concessionaire can continue to outsource various activities for operations, maintenance and renewal without impacting the nature of the concession agreement itself and without bringing that infrastructure into the GBR access regime. Furthermore, the government recognises that any future change to the definition of GBR infrastructure would be significant, which is why regulations made under clause 732 would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve any such change before it could take effect.
And I have already set out the government's approach to assessing the impacts of the proposed regulations, and I'm. I'm happy to confirm government is not intending to reclassify freight facilities as one or any other private infrastructure in the way the noble Baroness pigeon has described. Finally, turning to amendment 284 from the noble Baroness Finlay. I understand the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee that the definition of GBR infrastructure ought not to require amendment and this definition is of fundamental importance because it determines which railway assets fall within the new GBR access and charging regime created by the Bill, and which are to remain subject to the existing regime.
The government does consider that, given the importance of defining the boundary between the two regimes, there should be a means shorter primary legislation to update the definition should circumstances change. Whilst the definition is intended to provide a clear and enduring boundary between the two regimes, it is not possible to anticipate every future development in the structure, ownership or operation of railway infrastructure. For example, new infrastructure could be built under commercial or contractual arrangements that differ from those used today. Circumstances it may be necessary to adjust the definition to ensure that the relevant infrastructure falls within the correct regulatory framework.
The power may also be needed to provide clarity and certainty where questions arise about the application of the definition in particular circumstances. And indeed, as I've just explained in relation to amendment 286, the government brought forward an amendment earlier in the bill's passage to make sure that the definition not capture infrastructure operated or maintained by GBR on behalf of a third party, which enables us to reassure stakeholders that their particular commercial arrangements would not be unintentionally affected by the Bill. The power could be used in a significant way. Of course, I understand that any change to the definition would be significant, and that's precisely why the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, and any affected parties would also be appropriately consulted before any such changes were brought forward.
I, I, I hope the noble Baroness Finlay has reassured by what I've said. And of course, as I've also said before, we will also be responding formally to the Delegated Powers Committee report before report stage, where I will set that out in further detail.
Clause 721 sets out the matters about which the Secretary of State may make provision by regulations, and neither those matters nor the consequential power in subsection four confer a power to transfer ownership of infrastructure or assets into public ownership. If the bill intended to confer a power to transfer ownership, it would have needed to spell that out explicitly. Equally in. In. It is not not intended to disrupt the way for such facilities are operated, change their commercial basis, or weaken the protections that underpin private investment. As I've explained, its purpose is to ensure that the adjacent regulatory frameworks remain coherent and workable alongside the new arrangements of GBR.
However, I should emphasise that any regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning they cannot be made without first being considered and approved by both houses. Turning to my noble friend Lord Barclay's Amendment 280 a, I've already made it clear that clause 72 can't be used to bring public private infrastructure into public ownership. However, there may be circumstances in which changes affecting the wider railway require amendments to regulations that apply to non EPR infrastructure, including freight only facilities. Excluding such infrastructure entirely from the scope of the power could unnecessarily prevent necessary changes.
The noble, my noble friend raised the sale of DB cargo. My understanding currently is that there are a number of bids, all of which treat the company as a going concern. The government is not considering or or taking any action to buy the company. Neither does it intend to buy its terminals, though some . Many of them are protected by by covenants to ensure the use of freight. And the government's intention is is not not to is to leave freight operations in private ownership, constraining the power and way suggested by these amendments risks making it ineffective, as well as limiting the opportunity to make future improvements sought by the Welsh Government or other infrastructure managers.
But I'd also emphasise that restricting this power could ultimately be detrimental to the very infrastructure managers these amendments seek to protect. As the new GBR arrangements bed in, changes to the wider railway could have unintended consequences for non GBR infrastructure, potentially affecting its ability to operate effectively alongside and remain connected to, connected to the wider network. Without the flexibility provided by clause 72, we could find ourselves unable to make the regulatory changes necessary to address these consequences, leaving non GBR infrastructure managers worse off. But I do agree with the noble Lord Harper that if the existing regulations need to be amended or replaced using the clause 72 power, it is the access and management regulations that are most likely to be affected.
However, railway legislation is interconnected, so amendments to one piece of legislation may require consequential amendments to other acts or regulations. It would therefore be unwise to exclude the possibility of such amendments as doing so could risk preventing necessary or beneficial changes in the future in relation to international rail services. Whilst the Bill doesn't directly impact those services, I do recognise the importance of maintaining effective cross-border operations, including services operated on high speed one through the Channel Tunnel. We agree that consultation with those involved would be particularly important, where proposed changes to the domestic framework could create misalignment with European arrangements.
However, clause 72 already requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as she considers appropriate before making regulations, providing the flexibility to engage with relevant parties where these issues arise. With these points in mind and also recalling the consultation requirements and parliamentary scrutiny provided for in the Bill, the government considers that clause 72 strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight. Turning to amendments two and five, two, seven, eight two, seven nine and 280, I am mindful this is also relevant to the noble Baroness Pigeon's Amendment 283. I completely agree that consultation is an important principle, and that the Secretary of State should consult those affected.
As I've said, clause 72 does already require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as she considers appropriate, and the Secretary of State must act reasonably in deciding who to consult, where facility owners, operators or users affected by proposed changes are affected by proposed changes. We would certainly expect that they would be consulted, and we would also expect consultation to include the Office of Rail and Road. The amendment would also require the publication of an impact assessment before regulations could be made. However, established government processes already require the impact of regulatory proposals to be assessed proportionately .
Where appropriate, an impact assessment or other supporting analysis would accompany the regulations, providing transparency on the expected impacts and effects of the proposed changes. We therefore don't consider a statutory requirement is necessary. The noble Lord Grayling raised the issue of criminal sanctions at clause 723 A, and in the light of our previous discussions about criminal sanctions, I will consider what he says further. Amendment 274 and 276 focuses on appeals and non-discrimination, and on amendment 274. Public law principles already require the Secretary of State to act proportionately, rationally and fairly, whilst when exercising this power, meaning that an additional test for non-discrimination is not necessary.
The amendment also creates ambiguity and uncertainty, as it means the scope of the power depends on judgements about whether or not different people are affected by regulations are in materially comparable circumstances. Rather than introduce this uncertainty, we've instead designed the power so that a combination of public law principles and appropriate scrutiny provide the necessary safeguards against it being used unfairly. Amendment 276 would require regulations to provide a right of appeal to the order and decisions made under the regulations, but that's unnecessary because the Access and management regulations already provide for a right of appeal under regulation 32.
So I can reassure noble Lords that there is no intention to remove that. Turning to amendments 273 and 277, the government doesn't consider the restriction in amendment 273 to be workable. As I've set out, one possible use of the regulations is to avoid inconsistencies, gaps or operational frictions emerging between the GBR and non GBR regimes. This could arise not only when the new regime is introduced, but also successively over time as the GBR regime evolves. I would also point again to the Welsh Government's aspirations for the core valley lines, and as an example of why that would be inappropriate, the power was used only once to help align the GBR and non GBR regimes.
It could not then be used again to amend the same provisions to support those aspirations. On amendment 277, I have read the report of the Delegated Powers Committee carefully. I take the committee's recommendation seriously and of course, will take today's debate into account, as I consider to as I continue to consider them prior to the report stage. Turning to amendment 285, I should like to reassure the noble Baroness Pigeon that the concern underlying this amendment has already been addressed during the Bill's passage. It's certainly not the government's intention that the third party infrastructure should be brought into the scope of the GBR access regime, and indeed, earlier in this year.
Earlier this year, the government identified a risk that the original definition of GBR infrastructure could have been interpreted as including infrastructure operated by GBR on behalf of another infrastructure manager under a contractual arrangement, for example, a high speed one amongst others. A government amendment was therefore made in the other place to clarify that infrastructure managed or operated by GBR on behalf of another person does not fall within the definition of GBR infrastructure in clause 731. The change was specifically intended to ensure that infrastructure adjacent to GBR and managed by GBR under contractual arrangements, as the noble Baroness describes, remains outside the GBR access and charging framework.
The bill therefore also. The Bill therefore already draws a clear distinction between infrastructure, which GBR is responsible in its own right and infrastructure that it may operate in future on behalf of a third party such as the specialist Network Rail. High speed delivers to high speed one today. To be clear, the bill following this amendment ensures that high speed one that the high speed one concessionaire can continue to outsource various activities for operations, maintenance and renewal without impacting the nature of the concession agreement itself and without bringing that infrastructure into the GBR access regime. Furthermore, the government recognises that any future change to the definition of GBR infrastructure would be significant, which is why regulations made under clause 732 would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve any such change before it could take effect.
And I have already set out the government's approach to assessing the impacts of the proposed regulations, and I'm. I'm happy to confirm government is not intending to reclassify freight facilities as one or any other private infrastructure in the way the noble Baroness pigeon has described. Finally, turning to amendment 284 from the noble Baroness Finlay. I understand the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee that the definition of GBR infrastructure ought not to require amendment and this definition is of fundamental importance because it determines which railway assets fall within the new GBR access and charging regime created by the Bill, and which are to remain subject to the existing regime.
The government does consider that, given the importance of defining the boundary between the two regimes, there should be a means shorter primary legislation to update the definition should circumstances change. Whilst the definition is intended to provide a clear and enduring boundary between the two regimes, it is not possible to anticipate every future development in the structure, ownership or operation of railway infrastructure. For example, new infrastructure could be built under commercial or contractual arrangements that differ from those used today. Circumstances it may be necessary to adjust the definition to ensure that the relevant infrastructure falls within the correct regulatory framework.
The power may also be needed to provide clarity and certainty where questions arise about the application of the definition in particular circumstances. And indeed, as I've just explained in relation to amendment 286, the government brought forward an amendment earlier in the bill's passage to make sure that the definition not capture infrastructure operated or maintained by GBR on behalf of a third party, which enables us to reassure stakeholders that their particular commercial arrangements would not be unintentionally affected by the Bill. The power could be used in a significant way. Of course, I understand that any change to the definition would be significant, and that's precisely why the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, and any affected parties would also be appropriately consulted before any such changes were brought forward.
I, I, I hope the noble Baroness Finlay has reassured by what I've said. And of course, as I've also said before, we will also be responding formally to the Delegated Powers Committee report before report stage, where I will set that out in further detail.
16:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down, he speaks in relation to that delegated power, as if it were likely to be used in connection with, for example, very large scale infrastructure, new very large scale infrastructure. But does he not agree that if there were new very large infrastructure, it's very likely, given past practice, that it would be approved after many years, subject to a hybrid bill in Parliament? And if that was so, such a bill could contain an amendment of the definition appropriate amendment of the definition at that stage in a way that would not require a power to rewrite acts of Parliament.
Now, he may have other possibilities in mind. New infrastructure that doesn't require a hybrid bill, but but it would encourage the use of a hybrid bill. I think the main point I want to make is that whatever method is used, be it a hybrid bill, a transport and Works Act order, planning permission under a development consent order, there will be no new infrastructure built at short notice. I mean, that would be very surprising given the history of rail infrastructure in this country. All new infrastructure will be built after a very long period of time, and that long period of time would allow the government to find an appropriate bill that was passing through Parliament, which would carry the amendment that it needed, even if a hybrid bill was not actually required for the approval of the infrastructure.
Now, he may have other possibilities in mind. New infrastructure that doesn't require a hybrid bill, but but it would encourage the use of a hybrid bill. I think the main point I want to make is that whatever method is used, be it a hybrid bill, a transport and Works Act order, planning permission under a development consent order, there will be no new infrastructure built at short notice. I mean, that would be very surprising given the history of rail infrastructure in this country. All new infrastructure will be built after a very long period of time, and that long period of time would allow the government to find an appropriate bill that was passing through Parliament, which would carry the amendment that it needed, even if a hybrid bill was not actually required for the approval of the infrastructure.
17:00
17:00
17:00
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I think the noble Lords rather rather made my point, because it is, of course, possible a hybrid Bill might consider how the infrastructure that it's proposing to build would be considered in the future. But the other routes that he talks about, which I agree with him, are also routes to the construction of new infrastructure, Transport and Works Act orders and other and other routes that involve planning powers, and are very unlikely to consider that as part of the approval process.
And that might go on for many years. So the government.
And that might go on for many years. So the government.
17:01
17:01
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Many years, many years, some of them, of course, smaller than others. But the government thinks that the point of this is to is, is to try as far as possible to make sure that the management arrangements are running, the railways reflect future that reflect what's needed in future to clarify and assess so far as that's possible to do so?
17:01
17:01
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Well where to start? Let me start with the easy, uncontroversial bit, which is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and the noble Lord Walker of Worcester for once again Crowbarring reference to heritage railways into this group of amendments. They've done so brilliantly through the course of the committee stage, and I congratulate them again. And it's an excuse to mention the fantastic Dean Forest Railway. Yeah, in my home area. Yeah they would they would be very disappointed if I didn't. I was considering raising the concerns that the Delegated Powers Committee set out so ably in its report myself, and then I spied the Baroness Finlay over there, and I assumed, because I don't think she's been at one of our sessions, I assume she was here in order to do that.
And it was much more powerful coming from her as a member of the committee, and I think she set it out very well. The only thing I would suggest to the committee, if I can be so bold, is that they have the Henry the Eighth definition which they use, I'm afraid they're forced to use quite a lot. And to be fair, not just under this government, the. If we're going to see an increasing reference, though, to this ability to not just amend existing legislation, but to amend future legislation, perhaps I could suggest them an amended definition of a perhaps a Henry the Eighth power sort of crossed with Doctor Who.
I don't quite know what that would look like. Able to go into the future and change future pieces of legislation. They clearly need another definition, just to show that Henry VII's powers are not actually the ultimate in terribleness legislatively. But there's actually worse terribleness, which is amending things that haven't even been written yet, which you could, of course, just write properly in the first place, which I think Noble Friend suggested. If you were passing future legislation, perhaps you should just do it right, rather than have to rely on powers in existing legislation to fix the stuff you haven't yet written, which you could have just done properly in the first place.
But she set that out very well. I listened carefully to the noble lady pigeon, who also had similar concerns. The point, the only point I would make is it should have been obvious listening to the debate, and I would say this not just to the minister but also to the whip. The concern seem to be coming from across the House, from all of the groups represented here. And I'm sure the the whip will be doing the maths ahead of reports day. So I would gently suggest to the minister that he might just want to reflect on that and a well crafted amendment from the government that can address at least some of the concerns we've got, I think would be would be well advised.
Now, just let me touch on the points that he said in response to the concerns, particularly that I set out before I ask the committee's permission to withdraw my amendment. So first of all, he repeated, well, he set up another straw man, which was suggesting that people wanted to get rid of clause 72 in its entirety. My amendment specifically, don't just abolish rule 72. They heavily amend it. Yes, and constrain it. But I think I recognise that you do need to have some powers to to bring regimes in alignment. I don't think there's I don't think I heard any dispute about that in the committee.
So that was a bit of a straw man, because I don't think anybody was suggesting that in the first place. He also repeated the point that I'd set out that I said in my introduction about his letter that he helpfully said today, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Moyne is helpful to have it on the record. But the point about public ownership isn't really the point, and I think I. My noble friend Lord Grayling, challenged the minister a bit. I mean, I think I reading the rule 72, I don't think it does give government the right to take ownership of the assets.
But the problem, the problem, and I come back to the point the Prime Minister keeps making, talking about public control, if you can take if you can make provisions about the management and operation of them and how they work and the pricing and all of that, you actually do something worse than taking ownership of them, because if you took ownership of them, you'd have to pay somebody for them and compensate them. The danger here is that you can alter their economic use without having to pay for it. That is the thing that investors and operators of these assets are concerned about.
And I don't think I heard anything from the minister that would have reassured them on the issue about, in amendment 276, about the right of appeal to the order, unless I'm missing the point here. He. Minister referred to the Access and Management regulations already containing a right of appeal. But of course, the point here is this isn't about access to the GBR network. This is about the basis on which people can use these private sector assets, the ability to charge for them. And unless I'm very confused, I don't think the access and management regulations cover that point.
So I don't think the right of appeal to the order covers that. And as we've talked about in previous debates, being able to appeal on a judicial review is quite narrow and I don't think encompasses the concerns that operators have got. The final point I would turn to is just on this point. That came up in clause 73 about the definition of GBR infrastructure. I think the minister slightly. Talking at cross purposes to himself, he said, I think I've got this right. He wanted the definition of GBR, of sorry, of non of GBR infrastructure and therefore definition non GBR infrastructure to be enduring.
And I think that's a good thing. Enduring though means something that's set last for a long time and you don't keep fiddling with. And therefore you should actually, if you're going to have an enduring definition that people have confidence in, that really ought to be something that's set out in primary legislation that can't be amended by secondary legislation, because as soon as you can amend it by secondary legislation, it's not really a very enduring definition anymore, because it can be fiddled about with by ministers pretty much at their whim. And and I think my final point, which is connected to this, is the one my noble friend Lord Moylan set out, which is we might lament this fact, but it isn't the case that this infrastructure pops up at no notice.
And the minister, I think, in his response to my noble friend and accepted that this stuff takes a very long time, and I'm afraid in those circumstances it will be up to the government to find a. I don't think this is that hard and appropriate, primarily legislative vehicle. Now, I accept that would be an issue if you were trying to do it within a year or so, but over a number of years, it does not seem to be impossible. If you were talking about a significant piece of capital investment. We're talking here about things like freight terminals and ports and all sorts of things.
These are hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds worth of capital investment. And if someone's making that sort of investment into the country, it doesn't seem to me an enormous challenge for the government to come up with a short piece of primary legislation to deal with any ambiguities or difficulties there might be in ensuring that asset can operate. I mean, it's not going to be invested in plant gone through the planning process, built and constructed and and starting to operate in less than a number of years. And so I think that concern is not really one that we should worry about.
So I think just before I withdraw my amendment, all I would say is I don't think based on what the minister has said so far, any of the concerns that people have set out have been addressed. So what I would say to him is to reflect a bit further following this debate on the points that are made. We'll look very closely at his written response to the delegated Powers and Committee's report, and then we can reflect on that before we get to report stage, to see whether we need to table any amendments again, or whether the minister accepts that there is an issue to be dealt with.
And even if perhaps it doesn't go as far as we would ideally like, he may wish to bring forward amendments of his own to constrain that, not to get rid of Paul 72 and 70, but to constrain the powers in a way that would reassure investors and those that operate these on GB infrastructure. I think on that point, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment 272.
And it was much more powerful coming from her as a member of the committee, and I think she set it out very well. The only thing I would suggest to the committee, if I can be so bold, is that they have the Henry the Eighth definition which they use, I'm afraid they're forced to use quite a lot. And to be fair, not just under this government, the. If we're going to see an increasing reference, though, to this ability to not just amend existing legislation, but to amend future legislation, perhaps I could suggest them an amended definition of a perhaps a Henry the Eighth power sort of crossed with Doctor Who.
I don't quite know what that would look like. Able to go into the future and change future pieces of legislation. They clearly need another definition, just to show that Henry VII's powers are not actually the ultimate in terribleness legislatively. But there's actually worse terribleness, which is amending things that haven't even been written yet, which you could, of course, just write properly in the first place, which I think Noble Friend suggested. If you were passing future legislation, perhaps you should just do it right, rather than have to rely on powers in existing legislation to fix the stuff you haven't yet written, which you could have just done properly in the first place.
But she set that out very well. I listened carefully to the noble lady pigeon, who also had similar concerns. The point, the only point I would make is it should have been obvious listening to the debate, and I would say this not just to the minister but also to the whip. The concern seem to be coming from across the House, from all of the groups represented here. And I'm sure the the whip will be doing the maths ahead of reports day. So I would gently suggest to the minister that he might just want to reflect on that and a well crafted amendment from the government that can address at least some of the concerns we've got, I think would be would be well advised.
Now, just let me touch on the points that he said in response to the concerns, particularly that I set out before I ask the committee's permission to withdraw my amendment. So first of all, he repeated, well, he set up another straw man, which was suggesting that people wanted to get rid of clause 72 in its entirety. My amendment specifically, don't just abolish rule 72. They heavily amend it. Yes, and constrain it. But I think I recognise that you do need to have some powers to to bring regimes in alignment. I don't think there's I don't think I heard any dispute about that in the committee.
So that was a bit of a straw man, because I don't think anybody was suggesting that in the first place. He also repeated the point that I'd set out that I said in my introduction about his letter that he helpfully said today, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Moyne is helpful to have it on the record. But the point about public ownership isn't really the point, and I think I. My noble friend Lord Grayling, challenged the minister a bit. I mean, I think I reading the rule 72, I don't think it does give government the right to take ownership of the assets.
But the problem, the problem, and I come back to the point the Prime Minister keeps making, talking about public control, if you can take if you can make provisions about the management and operation of them and how they work and the pricing and all of that, you actually do something worse than taking ownership of them, because if you took ownership of them, you'd have to pay somebody for them and compensate them. The danger here is that you can alter their economic use without having to pay for it. That is the thing that investors and operators of these assets are concerned about.
And I don't think I heard anything from the minister that would have reassured them on the issue about, in amendment 276, about the right of appeal to the order, unless I'm missing the point here. He. Minister referred to the Access and Management regulations already containing a right of appeal. But of course, the point here is this isn't about access to the GBR network. This is about the basis on which people can use these private sector assets, the ability to charge for them. And unless I'm very confused, I don't think the access and management regulations cover that point.
So I don't think the right of appeal to the order covers that. And as we've talked about in previous debates, being able to appeal on a judicial review is quite narrow and I don't think encompasses the concerns that operators have got. The final point I would turn to is just on this point. That came up in clause 73 about the definition of GBR infrastructure. I think the minister slightly. Talking at cross purposes to himself, he said, I think I've got this right. He wanted the definition of GBR, of sorry, of non of GBR infrastructure and therefore definition non GBR infrastructure to be enduring.
And I think that's a good thing. Enduring though means something that's set last for a long time and you don't keep fiddling with. And therefore you should actually, if you're going to have an enduring definition that people have confidence in, that really ought to be something that's set out in primary legislation that can't be amended by secondary legislation, because as soon as you can amend it by secondary legislation, it's not really a very enduring definition anymore, because it can be fiddled about with by ministers pretty much at their whim. And and I think my final point, which is connected to this, is the one my noble friend Lord Moylan set out, which is we might lament this fact, but it isn't the case that this infrastructure pops up at no notice.
And the minister, I think, in his response to my noble friend and accepted that this stuff takes a very long time, and I'm afraid in those circumstances it will be up to the government to find a. I don't think this is that hard and appropriate, primarily legislative vehicle. Now, I accept that would be an issue if you were trying to do it within a year or so, but over a number of years, it does not seem to be impossible. If you were talking about a significant piece of capital investment. We're talking here about things like freight terminals and ports and all sorts of things.
These are hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds worth of capital investment. And if someone's making that sort of investment into the country, it doesn't seem to me an enormous challenge for the government to come up with a short piece of primary legislation to deal with any ambiguities or difficulties there might be in ensuring that asset can operate. I mean, it's not going to be invested in plant gone through the planning process, built and constructed and and starting to operate in less than a number of years. And so I think that concern is not really one that we should worry about.
So I think just before I withdraw my amendment, all I would say is I don't think based on what the minister has said so far, any of the concerns that people have set out have been addressed. So what I would say to him is to reflect a bit further following this debate on the points that are made. We'll look very closely at his written response to the delegated Powers and Committee's report, and then we can reflect on that before we get to report stage, to see whether we need to table any amendments again, or whether the minister accepts that there is an issue to be dealt with.
And even if perhaps it doesn't go as far as we would ideally like, he may wish to bring forward amendments of his own to constrain that, not to get rid of Paul 72 and 70, but to constrain the powers in a way that would reassure investors and those that operate these on GB infrastructure. I think on that point, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment 272.
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:11
17:11
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 280 Lord Berkeley to eight one. Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 282 Lord Parkinson. not moved moved number 283 Baroness Pigeon moved. Question is that clause 72 stand part of the bill as many of that opinion will say. Content. Content not content. The contents have it in clause 73 amendments two, eight, three A and 283 B Baroness Lang move amendment 284 Finlay moved 18285. Baroness Pigeon moved. Question is clause 73 stand part of the bill? As many of that opinion will say. Content. Content not content. The contents have it in clause 74.
Amendments two eight 6 to 2 nine one. Lord Moylan moved, moved. We come now to amendment 291 a Lord Dixon of Jericho.
Amendments two eight 6 to 2 nine one. Lord Moylan moved, moved. We come now to amendment 291 a Lord Dixon of Jericho.
17:12
17:12
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I will also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. I'm grateful to Lord Moylan for adding his name to all of them. This is the first chance that we've had since the publication of the draft Retail code to look at issues of data and a public potential subsidy. So in general, I'm very sympathetic to high level principles based approaches of regulation. But in these specific areas, I think the code is actually less future proof and will be more cumbersome in practice than it needs to be. I'll start with data and then go to money.
So despite many attempts to specify that data should be more open and easier to use over the years, we're in a complete mess. So fair's come as large XML file dumps 11 operators. As I said last time we spoke about this published accessibility in 11 different formats. One of them is a PDF. And the problem here is essentially that the draft retail code takes the same approach. That's failed time and again for many years. It's deliberately and consciously high level principles only. And and I think we can do it differently and better. So I'm acutely aware in, in this that we need to be future proofed.
So technology, we've just said while infrastructure moves slower than legislation, technology moves faster than legislation. And people are right to worry that a detailed technical standard that looks right in 2027 looks odd in 2035 and then unworkable by 2040. The code presents that as a binary choice between high level principles and short term, short sighted technical detail. But my Lords, that is a false choice. And that framing is exactly what's got into the mess that we've got into today. And I urge us not to make the same mistake again. So amendment 330 JD tries to reframe how we think about this problem.
And if you'll forgive me, the core idea is basically that GBR must eat its own cooking. So the simplest way to make sure a meal tastes good is to make the person who cooked it eat it, and not. We have to make sure that it's good, not just to itself, but also to everyone else. So in practice, that means that GBR retail app must use the same services it offers to everyone else. So the same data, the same functions, the same pipe. And that is essentially the whole idea. And the rest is basically detail. So if you get that incentive right, it means that the thing works without you having to police it.
So if Pbr's own app depends on a set of interfaces, they have every reason to make them fast, reliable, and well documented. And if it were ever tempted to give a competitor a slower feed or a new fare a week late, it would be doing the same thing to itself. So you don't need the regulator to spot discrimination after the event because it's fundamentally baked in this. This isn't at all new as an idea, so it's exactly how Amazon Web Services has worked since 2002. It's how Openreach works. It's section 89 A of the Communications Act has basically the same mechanism.
It's pretty much how open banking works. So the interface third party apps use must have the same level of availability and performance as the banks own. And really importantly, certainly from from our point of view, this is extremely simple to deliver and police. So it is far easier to maintain one code base. So one kitchen and set of ingredients in food terms. And it will result in far less work for lawyers than the proposed principle in the draft code of non-discriminatory access, which would have to be reinterpreted every single time something new launches. I know that some noble lords will see words in my amendment, like application programming, interfaces and test environment, and wonder how much this is really about eating your own cooking, and whether this level of technical language belongs in an act.
So I want to reassure local lords that my amendment uses only concepts that have remained consistent for more than 20 years in in the internet. So and that does actually happen. So while many things change, if you want to put data into an Amazon S3 bucket, which is essentially the store that most of the internet runs on, you use a get and a put call. And those were first written in March 2006, and they still work today. So you can use commands that are more than 23 years old to access some of the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world.
You just have to make sure you specify the thing in the right way. And and reassuringly, Parliament itself first defined an application program interface in the Communications Act in 2003, and it used the same term again in last year's Data Use and Access Act. So so it can be done. We do use words like this in legislation, and it would make it much simpler. So briefly, amendment three three Ojb deals with the data itself and builds on an amendment from noble Lord Moylan on publishing railway data. His amendment says what should be published. This is about making it usable.
So that's documented interfaces notice before they change. To developer can actually build on what's published. So this is not for the existing suppliers really. It's not for the for the main private companies that are in this world now. It's for the people who will build the British companies of tomorrow, and the people who use those services to book trains and get refunds quickly, easily and simply. They don't need a license to negotiation. They don't need they need an interface they can rely on. So the minister said on the first day he wants all retailers to be able to sell all tickets.
Those two amendments are the simplest, cheapest way of making sure that is true in practice, in our view. And then I'll turn to money and to being able to tell the difference, essentially, between a public service and a subsidy. And I'll be brief here, largely because I, I largely agree with the minister's big picture argument in this area, and I hope the amendments themselves are a bit easier to understand than the ones I've just talked through. The bill's approach is essentially for GBR to publish numbers in a business plan with no requirements for separate financial accounting.
And the trouble is that without any numbers, no one can tell whether the subsidy. So. And if no one is looking, subsidy is definitely more likely. So I've tried to find the lightest thing that would work. Amendment three three Ojk doesn't ask for separate statutory accounts. The government's already said no to that. It asks for one annual statement of what it costs GBR to sell a ticket online. The categories in it aren't mine. I'm very grateful. Discussion for discussions with ministers officials about how you measure it. They gave me the five headings that are in the amendment, and officials have told me that comparing those categories with the commission, independent retailers receive was the acid test in this area.
I agree with them. So the amendment asks GBR to publish the result of that test and the. Or to give its view on it, and the Secretary of State to lay both before Parliament. So as I've. As I've argued, I think possibly in private, the the sums here aren't small. So passenger revenue is about 12 billion a year, 4.3% of that is hundreds of millions of pounds. And at the moment, almost nobody outside and very few people I can't find one inside. The industry can say where that goes in any level of detail. Two amendments 291 A and 291 B, taken together a lighter alternative.
So if the ministers concern is commercial sensitivity, the detail will go to the regulator and the public will just see the verdict. Either approach would turn the ministers commitment into transparency, into something that someone, somewhere can actually check. I want to thank you all for your patience. I hope that makes the intention of my amendments and the thinking behind them clear. And I want to close by saying thank you very much to both the minister and the officials for the frank and constructive way they've engaged with me on this.
It's been really helpful.
So despite many attempts to specify that data should be more open and easier to use over the years, we're in a complete mess. So fair's come as large XML file dumps 11 operators. As I said last time we spoke about this published accessibility in 11 different formats. One of them is a PDF. And the problem here is essentially that the draft retail code takes the same approach. That's failed time and again for many years. It's deliberately and consciously high level principles only. And and I think we can do it differently and better. So I'm acutely aware in, in this that we need to be future proofed.
So technology, we've just said while infrastructure moves slower than legislation, technology moves faster than legislation. And people are right to worry that a detailed technical standard that looks right in 2027 looks odd in 2035 and then unworkable by 2040. The code presents that as a binary choice between high level principles and short term, short sighted technical detail. But my Lords, that is a false choice. And that framing is exactly what's got into the mess that we've got into today. And I urge us not to make the same mistake again. So amendment 330 JD tries to reframe how we think about this problem.
And if you'll forgive me, the core idea is basically that GBR must eat its own cooking. So the simplest way to make sure a meal tastes good is to make the person who cooked it eat it, and not. We have to make sure that it's good, not just to itself, but also to everyone else. So in practice, that means that GBR retail app must use the same services it offers to everyone else. So the same data, the same functions, the same pipe. And that is essentially the whole idea. And the rest is basically detail. So if you get that incentive right, it means that the thing works without you having to police it.
So if Pbr's own app depends on a set of interfaces, they have every reason to make them fast, reliable, and well documented. And if it were ever tempted to give a competitor a slower feed or a new fare a week late, it would be doing the same thing to itself. So you don't need the regulator to spot discrimination after the event because it's fundamentally baked in this. This isn't at all new as an idea, so it's exactly how Amazon Web Services has worked since 2002. It's how Openreach works. It's section 89 A of the Communications Act has basically the same mechanism.
It's pretty much how open banking works. So the interface third party apps use must have the same level of availability and performance as the banks own. And really importantly, certainly from from our point of view, this is extremely simple to deliver and police. So it is far easier to maintain one code base. So one kitchen and set of ingredients in food terms. And it will result in far less work for lawyers than the proposed principle in the draft code of non-discriminatory access, which would have to be reinterpreted every single time something new launches. I know that some noble lords will see words in my amendment, like application programming, interfaces and test environment, and wonder how much this is really about eating your own cooking, and whether this level of technical language belongs in an act.
So I want to reassure local lords that my amendment uses only concepts that have remained consistent for more than 20 years in in the internet. So and that does actually happen. So while many things change, if you want to put data into an Amazon S3 bucket, which is essentially the store that most of the internet runs on, you use a get and a put call. And those were first written in March 2006, and they still work today. So you can use commands that are more than 23 years old to access some of the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world.
You just have to make sure you specify the thing in the right way. And and reassuringly, Parliament itself first defined an application program interface in the Communications Act in 2003, and it used the same term again in last year's Data Use and Access Act. So so it can be done. We do use words like this in legislation, and it would make it much simpler. So briefly, amendment three three Ojb deals with the data itself and builds on an amendment from noble Lord Moylan on publishing railway data. His amendment says what should be published. This is about making it usable.
So that's documented interfaces notice before they change. To developer can actually build on what's published. So this is not for the existing suppliers really. It's not for the for the main private companies that are in this world now. It's for the people who will build the British companies of tomorrow, and the people who use those services to book trains and get refunds quickly, easily and simply. They don't need a license to negotiation. They don't need they need an interface they can rely on. So the minister said on the first day he wants all retailers to be able to sell all tickets.
Those two amendments are the simplest, cheapest way of making sure that is true in practice, in our view. And then I'll turn to money and to being able to tell the difference, essentially, between a public service and a subsidy. And I'll be brief here, largely because I, I largely agree with the minister's big picture argument in this area, and I hope the amendments themselves are a bit easier to understand than the ones I've just talked through. The bill's approach is essentially for GBR to publish numbers in a business plan with no requirements for separate financial accounting.
And the trouble is that without any numbers, no one can tell whether the subsidy. So. And if no one is looking, subsidy is definitely more likely. So I've tried to find the lightest thing that would work. Amendment three three Ojk doesn't ask for separate statutory accounts. The government's already said no to that. It asks for one annual statement of what it costs GBR to sell a ticket online. The categories in it aren't mine. I'm very grateful. Discussion for discussions with ministers officials about how you measure it. They gave me the five headings that are in the amendment, and officials have told me that comparing those categories with the commission, independent retailers receive was the acid test in this area.
I agree with them. So the amendment asks GBR to publish the result of that test and the. Or to give its view on it, and the Secretary of State to lay both before Parliament. So as I've. As I've argued, I think possibly in private, the the sums here aren't small. So passenger revenue is about 12 billion a year, 4.3% of that is hundreds of millions of pounds. And at the moment, almost nobody outside and very few people I can't find one inside. The industry can say where that goes in any level of detail. Two amendments 291 A and 291 B, taken together a lighter alternative.
So if the ministers concern is commercial sensitivity, the detail will go to the regulator and the public will just see the verdict. Either approach would turn the ministers commitment into transparency, into something that someone, somewhere can actually check. I want to thank you all for your patience. I hope that makes the intention of my amendments and the thinking behind them clear. And I want to close by saying thank you very much to both the minister and the officials for the frank and constructive way they've engaged with me on this.
It's been really helpful.
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:19
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, has introduced so ably. He'll remember we had a. We covered this issue. I covered this issue , as did he at second reading, and I think it's really important if I just take the two the two aspects separately, I think. Amendments 291 A, nine one B and 330 G, which are about stopping Cross-subsidy from GB , are other operations to its retail ticketing arm and also putting some transparency. And those are both mutually reinforcing measures I think is really important. There are existing successful businesses that operate competitively and only exist because they serve their customers.
If they didn't serve their customers, they wouldn't exist. And I, I am very concerned, as are they perfectly reasonably that GB are they're not concerned, I should say that GB are if there's proper competition on a level playing field, they're perfectly content that they can operate in that space and they can compete perfectly well and, and they'll either be good at it and which they think they will or they won't be. And that's fine. And they have no complaint about that. What they are worried about is that GB will use its non retailing revenues or its access to the infrastructure and the cost that it has to pay for that and unfairly compete with them.
And I think we saw on a previous group where we were talking about the fact that GB was wasn't going to have to pay the passenger services. Part of GBR wasn't going to have to pay for the access charges to GBR infrastructure. The other part of the business, well, if you take that, if you're a retail operator and you look at that model and you think, well, hang on, does that mean does that mean GB are retail operation can access the data and the infrastructure that it needs to run that operation without having to pay for it?
Well, clearly, if it can do that, that's kind of what the bill is setting out. Then clearly that means it's not competing on a level playing field, and that means the taxpayer is effectively subsidising GBR to put out of business . A company which employs staff, makes profits, pays taxes and innovated to produce a model which serves customers very well, and that would clearly not be welcome. So I think the Noble Lords amendments, all they do, as far as I can tell, is they make sure that GBR can't cross-subsidise. And he set out a number of ways in that in which that could be done in all.
And also recognizing the fact that there are some commercial constraints here. And again, if the minister doesn't like the way they've been worded, it's completely open to the minister to raise those concerns and come back, either make those suggestions to the noble Lord or to come back with some of his own amendments. But these are real concerns that real businesses have got, and, frankly, that passengers will have they might not have them now, but they will. If any of these commercial businesses stop existing and and they get left with one government monopolistic operator, because that's selling the tickets, because that's never been a a recipe for innovation and great customer service, which is what people are used to at the moment.
The second part of the amendments, which I also support, is about access to the data, and I strongly support that. It was something which the the coalition government did. When my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham was the relevant minister in the Cabinet Office and I think led the world in making available lots of government and official data in an open and transparent way, and led to the development by the private sector of of innumerable apps that have been of enormous benefit to the public. And that's what the noble, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, is trying to do here is to make sure that that GBR has to make that data available.
And I think his solution is an excellent one, which is both consistent with best practice and industry already. So it's not a it's not a legislated vehicle that's not going to work. It's how, as he said, many other businesses operate already. And it ensures in a very future proofed way that GB retail operation has to treat, has to run a good operation in terms of the data, because it's going to be using the same systems and interfaces that all of its competitors have. And if it wants to disadvantage its competitors, it has to disadvantage itself in the same way.
And and vice versa. And it seems to me that's a very good solution because it means that it's future proofed. It doesn't require an enormous amount of regulation. And, and somebody else managing a very complicated structure. And it's a model which we know works in technology and retail businesses because we've seen it in others, including those that are heavily regulated, that he gave the example of Openreach, for example. So I think these amendments have a lot to recommend them. And again, I think the concerns, as highlighted by the fact that my noble friend Lord Moylan, signed several of the amendments.
I think our shared. And I think I remember back to second reading, the. These concerns were shared again across the House, and we'll listen carefully to what the minister has got to say in response to see whether he can deal with it. The only point I would make is. Setting out assurances about how he himself is going to conduct himself is obviously helpful, but but we're passing laws here that have to operate. And particularly, as he says, if they're going to endure under governments of potentially many complexions, with many different ministers with very many attitudes.
And it's the legislation that matters, not just what the minister says about it. And I think the legislation at the moment is too weak, and I think it requires tightening up. And these are excellent amendments which have a lot to recommend them to the committee, and I look forward to the minister's response.
If they didn't serve their customers, they wouldn't exist. And I, I am very concerned, as are they perfectly reasonably that GB are they're not concerned, I should say that GB are if there's proper competition on a level playing field, they're perfectly content that they can operate in that space and they can compete perfectly well and, and they'll either be good at it and which they think they will or they won't be. And that's fine. And they have no complaint about that. What they are worried about is that GB will use its non retailing revenues or its access to the infrastructure and the cost that it has to pay for that and unfairly compete with them.
And I think we saw on a previous group where we were talking about the fact that GB was wasn't going to have to pay the passenger services. Part of GBR wasn't going to have to pay for the access charges to GBR infrastructure. The other part of the business, well, if you take that, if you're a retail operator and you look at that model and you think, well, hang on, does that mean does that mean GB are retail operation can access the data and the infrastructure that it needs to run that operation without having to pay for it?
Well, clearly, if it can do that, that's kind of what the bill is setting out. Then clearly that means it's not competing on a level playing field, and that means the taxpayer is effectively subsidising GBR to put out of business . A company which employs staff, makes profits, pays taxes and innovated to produce a model which serves customers very well, and that would clearly not be welcome. So I think the Noble Lords amendments, all they do, as far as I can tell, is they make sure that GBR can't cross-subsidise. And he set out a number of ways in that in which that could be done in all.
And also recognizing the fact that there are some commercial constraints here. And again, if the minister doesn't like the way they've been worded, it's completely open to the minister to raise those concerns and come back, either make those suggestions to the noble Lord or to come back with some of his own amendments. But these are real concerns that real businesses have got, and, frankly, that passengers will have they might not have them now, but they will. If any of these commercial businesses stop existing and and they get left with one government monopolistic operator, because that's selling the tickets, because that's never been a a recipe for innovation and great customer service, which is what people are used to at the moment.
The second part of the amendments, which I also support, is about access to the data, and I strongly support that. It was something which the the coalition government did. When my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham was the relevant minister in the Cabinet Office and I think led the world in making available lots of government and official data in an open and transparent way, and led to the development by the private sector of of innumerable apps that have been of enormous benefit to the public. And that's what the noble, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, is trying to do here is to make sure that that GBR has to make that data available.
And I think his solution is an excellent one, which is both consistent with best practice and industry already. So it's not a it's not a legislated vehicle that's not going to work. It's how, as he said, many other businesses operate already. And it ensures in a very future proofed way that GB retail operation has to treat, has to run a good operation in terms of the data, because it's going to be using the same systems and interfaces that all of its competitors have. And if it wants to disadvantage its competitors, it has to disadvantage itself in the same way.
And and vice versa. And it seems to me that's a very good solution because it means that it's future proofed. It doesn't require an enormous amount of regulation. And, and somebody else managing a very complicated structure. And it's a model which we know works in technology and retail businesses because we've seen it in others, including those that are heavily regulated, that he gave the example of Openreach, for example. So I think these amendments have a lot to recommend them. And again, I think the concerns, as highlighted by the fact that my noble friend Lord Moylan, signed several of the amendments.
I think our shared. And I think I remember back to second reading, the. These concerns were shared again across the House, and we'll listen carefully to what the minister has got to say in response to see whether he can deal with it. The only point I would make is. Setting out assurances about how he himself is going to conduct himself is obviously helpful, but but we're passing laws here that have to operate. And particularly, as he says, if they're going to endure under governments of potentially many complexions, with many different ministers with very many attitudes.
And it's the legislation that matters, not just what the minister says about it. And I think the legislation at the moment is too weak, and I think it requires tightening up. And these are excellent amendments which have a lot to recommend them to the committee, and I look forward to the minister's response.
17:26
17:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, I rise to speak to this really important group. Noble friend Lord Dixon, who's gone into great detail and shows his extensive knowledge in this area. And I think it's really important that we have this debate now, because we had a debate earlier before the draft retail code had been published, and we that was, you know, going to solve every problem. But actually it clearly hasn't. And certainly the independent rail retailers in a briefing note they sent to me have stressed that this is a principle based only, and the mechanisms proposed are not enough to deliver these outcomes.
And it's silent on many areas, as we've heard, a fair, open and competitive market and including funding and transparency. And it does not yet provide the protections retailers have repeatedly called for or those the government itself has promised. So I think it's really important that we make sure, and I think these amendments, even if the government wish to redraft, I think, in this space, deal with a lot of the issues we discussed on the earlier day, that data has got to be open and easier to use for all operators, including future ones. I think the point, really strong point is that actually in this space, we've seen so much creativity across the country.
We saw that many years ago when transport for London put all their data out there. I mean, how many bus apps popped up within a week or two? Absolutely. Transforming how we use transport networks. So it's really important. But the data is in a format that is simple to use. Not even with my lack of technological skill. I know a PDF with data in is next to useless, so it's really important that Great British Railways provides it in that that way and that great British Rail retail must use the same as everyone else. And I did raise on the previous committee day the issue that I had recently found.
And it may just I will say it may just be my technological skill, but I couldn't find on my usual app the discounted fares on Southwest Railways. I had to buy it through Southwest Railways to get my £12 fair. Fair enough. I got a cheap ticket, but actually, why wasn't it available on my regular app? Were they, you know, promoting it through their own first? So third party retailers have to have equal access and it has got to be usable. And as we've had an interface that they can rely on. And I think the other point is clearly understanding whether there's subsidy or not.
SNCF, I'm told, have a separate retail arm. They work differently, and I think it needs to be looked at carefully. But the idea of whether it's an annual statement either publicly or through the regulator, would help provide some assurance in this space, which I think the whole sector would appreciate. So I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the minister's thoughts on this, and whether we might see a future government amendment just to tighten up in this space.
And it's silent on many areas, as we've heard, a fair, open and competitive market and including funding and transparency. And it does not yet provide the protections retailers have repeatedly called for or those the government itself has promised. So I think it's really important that we make sure, and I think these amendments, even if the government wish to redraft, I think, in this space, deal with a lot of the issues we discussed on the earlier day, that data has got to be open and easier to use for all operators, including future ones. I think the point, really strong point is that actually in this space, we've seen so much creativity across the country.
We saw that many years ago when transport for London put all their data out there. I mean, how many bus apps popped up within a week or two? Absolutely. Transforming how we use transport networks. So it's really important. But the data is in a format that is simple to use. Not even with my lack of technological skill. I know a PDF with data in is next to useless, so it's really important that Great British Railways provides it in that that way and that great British Rail retail must use the same as everyone else. And I did raise on the previous committee day the issue that I had recently found.
And it may just I will say it may just be my technological skill, but I couldn't find on my usual app the discounted fares on Southwest Railways. I had to buy it through Southwest Railways to get my £12 fair. Fair enough. I got a cheap ticket, but actually, why wasn't it available on my regular app? Were they, you know, promoting it through their own first? So third party retailers have to have equal access and it has got to be usable. And as we've had an interface that they can rely on. And I think the other point is clearly understanding whether there's subsidy or not.
SNCF, I'm told, have a separate retail arm. They work differently, and I think it needs to be looked at carefully. But the idea of whether it's an annual statement either publicly or through the regulator, would help provide some assurance in this space, which I think the whole sector would appreciate. So I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the minister's thoughts on this, and whether we might see a future government amendment just to tighten up in this space.
17:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, it's difficult for me to disagree with any of the remarks made by noble Lords in this debate so far. I did have an amendment in an earlier group to require the release of open access data, open data by Great British Railways and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho. Being much cleverer than me at these things, has also shown how that could be. Has also proposed an amendment showing how that could be made useful, not simply published, but made published in a usable way. He also has ingeniously proposed a mechanism that, in his view , and this, of course, is something the Minister may wish to challenge, but on the face of it, in his view, would allow.
A level playing field to be maintained between GBR as retailer and private sector retailers, without having to rely on subjective considerations, as is contained in the in the in the retail policy document that has been produced now, that would be a huge advantage. It would be a self-correcting mechanism. And again, it is for the noble Lords, the Minister, to say why the subjective method that he has advocated is preferable to one that would, at least on the face of it, be self-correcting and not require subjective judgement. Now, he could do that in two ways. One is by showing that, for all its surface brilliance, the Noble Lords proposal doesn't work.
I wouldn't be one to judge that, but I'd understand the nature of the argument he was making. The alternative would be for him to say that he. He thinks his own subjective judgement is better. I suspect that when we come to hear him reply, it'll be the latter. That will be a less convincing argument. Indeed, I don't think it. At all. I. I just want to say that turning to amendment 291 A and 291 B concerning Cross-subsidy and financial transparency. This also. We debated earlier in committee, but I don't believe the Minister provided a satisfactory answer.
He relied in part on managing public money, which is a document. But managing public money is a treasure is Treasury guidance. It is not a statutory prohibition on cross Cross-subsidising GBRS online retailer, which is what the committee has been looking for, and it does not provide an independent retailer with an enforceable statutory right to economic parity with GBR, there is also a significant issue concerning subsidy control. The minister told the committee earlier that the public service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 would be the relevant subsidy control legislation for retail sections 481 B, three of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 provides that the ordinary subsidy control requirements under that act do not apply to subsidies given in accordance with those regulations.
The difficulty is that online retailing is an independent commercial activity of considerable scale, taking place in an open and competitive market. It should not simply be conflated with the wider public service obligation to provide passenger services or physical ticketing facilities. I just repeat that point again. The Subsidy Control Act does not apply if the transport, the public service obligations in transport regulations do apply, and it is the government's argument that the Subsidy Control Act doesn't apply. Therefore, it is the regulations that apply. And the argument is that those regulations are inadequate. That's what I've been trying to say.
There's an obvious distinction between maintaining ticket offices, call centres and other physical channels, which GBR may be required to provide as a public service, and operating an online retailer in direct competition with Trainline and other independent businesses. The minister himself acknowledged in committee that physical retail channels are substantially more expensive to provide. I think we all know that independent retailers generally operate on a commission of around 4.5% on most ticket sales, from which they must meet their technology, payment fraud, customer service and other costs. Evidence to the transport committee described that 4.5% as the lowest cost of sale in the industry.
If GB s online retailer is able to operate beyond comparable commercial economics because costs can be absorbed elsewhere within the wider organisation, there's a clear risk of market distortion without separately identifiable costs. Revenues and public funding are the Orer, the CMA, Parliament or indeed competitors supposed to establish what is actually happening? The minister's minister told us in committee that there would be 100% transparency because GBR would put its costs into its business plan. But aggregate figures for a broad retail function are not the same thing as separately identifiable accounts. For an online business competing directly against private companies.
I turn to amendment 330JB concerning open railway data. GBR will control important market wide systems and data on which its competitors depend. The principle should surely be that where data is necessary to allow independent retailers to develop products and compete effectively, they should have open and equivalent access to them. The draft retail code itself recognises that access to relevant data must be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. Which brings me to amendment three three O, J, D and equal access to products, services and interfaces. Earlier in committee, the Minister assured us that the retail code, which hadn't we hadn't seen at that stage, would require GBR to ensure access to products and provide services and data on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms.
We have now seen the draft code, and the wording is rather narrower than that assurance might have suggested. Paragraph 611 applies the guarantee to fairs, products and passenger facing services that form a core part of the online customer offer, and only where another retailer cannot reasonably provide that product or service independently of GBR. Pay as You go, for example, is expressly, expressly excluded. What constitutes core is not defined. This leaves us with some important questions. Passenger assist is an obvious example. The government has explicitly promised that passengers using the new GBR app will be able to buy their ticket and book passenger assist in the same place, yet the draft code does not expressly mention passenger assist, and the minister confirmed this again today.
Independent retailers have been asking for access to passenger assistance functionality for years. Indeed. Precise issue this precise issue was raised during the Commons committee. Evidence. If GBR can offer an integrated ticket and assistance service , while independent retailers cannot, disabled passengers who want that function may effectively be pushed towards Gbr's own app that would constrain customer choice. The same principle applies to future propositions such as loyalty schemes. There should be nothing wrong with GBR innovating, but if it creates a commercial loyalty offer, that offer should compete on its own economics. The concern would arise if GBR could offer comparable advantages while their cost was absorbed elsewhere.
Amendment 330JD therefore ensures where GBR s own online retailer relies on retail interface or market wide functionality, competing retailers should be able to obtain equivalent access on equivalent terms. And finally, amendment 330JC concerns transparency over the actual cost of GBR online retailer. We have repeatedly asked what this project will cost repeatedly here and through written questions in our earlier debate, the minister has said that much of the information remained commercially sensitive while procurement was underway, and that it would be published in the usual way once available.
Well, when is it going to be available?
A level playing field to be maintained between GBR as retailer and private sector retailers, without having to rely on subjective considerations, as is contained in the in the in the retail policy document that has been produced now, that would be a huge advantage. It would be a self-correcting mechanism. And again, it is for the noble Lords, the Minister, to say why the subjective method that he has advocated is preferable to one that would, at least on the face of it, be self-correcting and not require subjective judgement. Now, he could do that in two ways. One is by showing that, for all its surface brilliance, the Noble Lords proposal doesn't work.
I wouldn't be one to judge that, but I'd understand the nature of the argument he was making. The alternative would be for him to say that he. He thinks his own subjective judgement is better. I suspect that when we come to hear him reply, it'll be the latter. That will be a less convincing argument. Indeed, I don't think it. At all. I. I just want to say that turning to amendment 291 A and 291 B concerning Cross-subsidy and financial transparency. This also. We debated earlier in committee, but I don't believe the Minister provided a satisfactory answer.
He relied in part on managing public money, which is a document. But managing public money is a treasure is Treasury guidance. It is not a statutory prohibition on cross Cross-subsidising GBRS online retailer, which is what the committee has been looking for, and it does not provide an independent retailer with an enforceable statutory right to economic parity with GBR, there is also a significant issue concerning subsidy control. The minister told the committee earlier that the public service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 would be the relevant subsidy control legislation for retail sections 481 B, three of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 provides that the ordinary subsidy control requirements under that act do not apply to subsidies given in accordance with those regulations.
The difficulty is that online retailing is an independent commercial activity of considerable scale, taking place in an open and competitive market. It should not simply be conflated with the wider public service obligation to provide passenger services or physical ticketing facilities. I just repeat that point again. The Subsidy Control Act does not apply if the transport, the public service obligations in transport regulations do apply, and it is the government's argument that the Subsidy Control Act doesn't apply. Therefore, it is the regulations that apply. And the argument is that those regulations are inadequate. That's what I've been trying to say.
There's an obvious distinction between maintaining ticket offices, call centres and other physical channels, which GBR may be required to provide as a public service, and operating an online retailer in direct competition with Trainline and other independent businesses. The minister himself acknowledged in committee that physical retail channels are substantially more expensive to provide. I think we all know that independent retailers generally operate on a commission of around 4.5% on most ticket sales, from which they must meet their technology, payment fraud, customer service and other costs. Evidence to the transport committee described that 4.5% as the lowest cost of sale in the industry.
If GB s online retailer is able to operate beyond comparable commercial economics because costs can be absorbed elsewhere within the wider organisation, there's a clear risk of market distortion without separately identifiable costs. Revenues and public funding are the Orer, the CMA, Parliament or indeed competitors supposed to establish what is actually happening? The minister's minister told us in committee that there would be 100% transparency because GBR would put its costs into its business plan. But aggregate figures for a broad retail function are not the same thing as separately identifiable accounts. For an online business competing directly against private companies.
I turn to amendment 330JB concerning open railway data. GBR will control important market wide systems and data on which its competitors depend. The principle should surely be that where data is necessary to allow independent retailers to develop products and compete effectively, they should have open and equivalent access to them. The draft retail code itself recognises that access to relevant data must be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. Which brings me to amendment three three O, J, D and equal access to products, services and interfaces. Earlier in committee, the Minister assured us that the retail code, which hadn't we hadn't seen at that stage, would require GBR to ensure access to products and provide services and data on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms.
We have now seen the draft code, and the wording is rather narrower than that assurance might have suggested. Paragraph 611 applies the guarantee to fairs, products and passenger facing services that form a core part of the online customer offer, and only where another retailer cannot reasonably provide that product or service independently of GBR. Pay as You go, for example, is expressly, expressly excluded. What constitutes core is not defined. This leaves us with some important questions. Passenger assist is an obvious example. The government has explicitly promised that passengers using the new GBR app will be able to buy their ticket and book passenger assist in the same place, yet the draft code does not expressly mention passenger assist, and the minister confirmed this again today.
Independent retailers have been asking for access to passenger assistance functionality for years. Indeed. Precise issue this precise issue was raised during the Commons committee. Evidence. If GBR can offer an integrated ticket and assistance service , while independent retailers cannot, disabled passengers who want that function may effectively be pushed towards Gbr's own app that would constrain customer choice. The same principle applies to future propositions such as loyalty schemes. There should be nothing wrong with GBR innovating, but if it creates a commercial loyalty offer, that offer should compete on its own economics. The concern would arise if GBR could offer comparable advantages while their cost was absorbed elsewhere.
Amendment 330JD therefore ensures where GBR s own online retailer relies on retail interface or market wide functionality, competing retailers should be able to obtain equivalent access on equivalent terms. And finally, amendment 330JC concerns transparency over the actual cost of GBR online retailer. We have repeatedly asked what this project will cost repeatedly here and through written questions in our earlier debate, the minister has said that much of the information remained commercially sensitive while procurement was underway, and that it would be published in the usual way once available.
Well, when is it going to be available?
17:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho for these amendments. And he, of course, is reflecting on the publication of the draft code and the accompanying Office of Rail and Road Consultation, which which we sent out earlier in October. Let me start with amendments two and 291 B government is committed to fair and transparent funding arrangements at GBR passenger services, including its retail activities. GBR retail activities will be funded through the wider passenger service framework in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, which is the relevant subsidy control regime in this space and will be reflected in GBR integrated Business Plan.
Funding will be linked to specific specified activities and cannot exceed the net cost of delivering those obligations, nor can funding be diverted from infrastructure activities to support retail operations. The approach will be based on the on the principle, GBR will be funded to deliver its business plan. It will include retail activities and there should be sufficient transparency to allow parties to understand the level of funding being provided for those broader retail activities, and to form a view whether they consider that to be distorted of the market.
Funding will be linked to specific specified activities and cannot exceed the net cost of delivering those obligations, nor can funding be diverted from infrastructure activities to support retail operations. The approach will be based on the on the principle, GBR will be funded to deliver its business plan. It will include retail activities and there should be sufficient transparency to allow parties to understand the level of funding being provided for those broader retail activities, and to form a view whether they consider that to be distorted of the market.
17:41
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Can I just press the minister a little bit on what he's just said? I was listening to it when he said that the that GBR can be funded to cover its net costs. Of course, the problem with that is in a state body is that means it can decide it wants to throw a load of money at a problem, and then the taxpayer happily chucks all the money in. And that may mean that it has a competitive advantage over a business, which has to worry about things like return on capital and all those sorts of things.
So just just saying it can only cover its costs doesn't actually tell us that doesn't really, I don't think, provide any reassurance to a private business at all.
So just just saying it can only cover its costs doesn't actually tell us that doesn't really, I don't think, provide any reassurance to a private business at all.
17:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, I think I think the noble Lord, I did just say that actually there will be sufficient transparency to allow parties to understand the level of funding being provided for the broader retail activities, and to form a view whether they consider that to be distorted of of the market. And I think that is important because if we're saying, as we are, that that actually we believe in a, in a, in a, in a level playing field, then what I'm saying is that actually the business plan will show sufficient transparency for parties to understand that that level of funding amendments 291 and 291291 A and 291 B also seek to ensure that GBR pays its fair share towards retail system systems.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the draft retail code of practice already contains an explicit provision requiring GBR to make a proportionate contribution towards the cost of systems and services relied upon by retailers. GBR will also be subject to competition law . When discharging its functions and using public funding, it will need to act in a way that does not exclude competitors, distort the online retail market or abuse a dominant position. This includes any distortive cross-subsidisation of its retail activities. The lrr is the sector's competitive competition. Regulator already has the powers that it needs to monitor the market, obtain information and investigate concerns where they arise.
It can initiate investigations through its own market monitoring or in response to complaints. Such investigations rely on detailed, case specific information requests tailored to the circumstances of the case, rather than routine reporting exercises. The additional monitoring duty proposed by the amendments that therefore add little to the existing framework, whilst creating an unnecessary regulatory burden on amendment 330 JK. I agree that transparency is important. However, however, the level of disaggregation proposed does not reflect the nature of GBR integrated business. Many of GBR costs will be shared across activities. For example, its customer service centre will support a wide range of passenger enquiries, not just ticket sales.
This will provide a enemies of scale reflective as it's of its role as a public transport operator, not a retailer. The framework I've described will provide greater transparency into retail costs than exists today. However, it won't facilitate like for like comparisons with independent retailers because of GBR broader role as a passenger services operator selling tickets across online station and on train retail channels, requiring the publication of the Sensitive information about GBS resources, priorities and strategy, and retailers are not required to disclose equivalent information, so a fair and open market should apply as much to GBS retail business as to its competitors.
Proper financial transparency will therefore be delivered through wider funding and business planning framework in a way that supports accountability, whilst protecting commercially sensitive information. On amendment 330 JD, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the government is committed to ensuring that all retailers can access the retail product systems, data and related services they need. They need to be able to compete effectively in the market and deliver a high quality service to passengers. That's why our draft retail code of practice includes fair access to products, systems and data as one of the fundamental principles that will underpin the retail market.
Under GDPR, the principle commits GB to ensuring access is provided on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms, ensuring that all retailers will be operating on an equivalent level of back office service to support their passenger facing retail platforms. This is a significant step forward compared with where no such commitment exists and has been positively, positively received by retail industry stakeholders in their public responses to the draft code. The commitment also provides certainty to potential new market entrants, guaranteeing that there will be no second class service for independent retailers, as has been seen in some comparator European markets.
The government, therefore, believes that the objectives of this amendment have already been delivered in the draft Retail Code of Practice, placing detailed technical solutions of the kind proposed in primary legislation is unnecessary and lacks the flexibility to adapt. With the pace of technological technological change in an innovative market. On amendment 330 GB, the government shares the Noble Lords ambition. In fact, the industry already publishes data on several of the categories listed, including timetables, train running, disruption, crowding and accessibility for free as it has done for over over a decade, and this will continue. The bill already enables GBR to disclose information wherever such disclosure supports the performance of its functions, and in practice, that will allow GBR to provide an open by default approach whilst allowing it to make responsible decisions about what should be shared in what form and on what terms.
Many of the categories of data of this amendment lists are of interest primarily to current or future ticket retailers. The draft Retail Code of Practice places additional obligations on GBR to ensure much of this data is made available to all retailers on the fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms, compliance of which is a condition of GBS licence. However, it will still be for GBR to decide how to make the data available and that flexibility matters. The amendment would impose a single approach across a wide range of data, including a universal requirement for publication without restriction. Fixed technical standards and for charging data.
A 62nd deadline. In practice, the right approach will. The right appropriate approach will vary between data sets. GBR will need to consider data quality, technical feasibility, security. Personal data, commercial, commercial confidentiality, intellectual property and whether whether it has the legal right to disclose the information. GBR may also need to legitimately charge for data in some circumstances. Core railway data has long been available without charge and we expect that to continue. However, when, when where data has been specially processed or compiled at taxpayer expense for a particular third party use, GBR should retain discretion to charge where appropriate.
The government's approach supports useful and responsible disclosure.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the draft retail code of practice already contains an explicit provision requiring GBR to make a proportionate contribution towards the cost of systems and services relied upon by retailers. GBR will also be subject to competition law . When discharging its functions and using public funding, it will need to act in a way that does not exclude competitors, distort the online retail market or abuse a dominant position. This includes any distortive cross-subsidisation of its retail activities. The lrr is the sector's competitive competition. Regulator already has the powers that it needs to monitor the market, obtain information and investigate concerns where they arise.
It can initiate investigations through its own market monitoring or in response to complaints. Such investigations rely on detailed, case specific information requests tailored to the circumstances of the case, rather than routine reporting exercises. The additional monitoring duty proposed by the amendments that therefore add little to the existing framework, whilst creating an unnecessary regulatory burden on amendment 330 JK. I agree that transparency is important. However, however, the level of disaggregation proposed does not reflect the nature of GBR integrated business. Many of GBR costs will be shared across activities. For example, its customer service centre will support a wide range of passenger enquiries, not just ticket sales.
This will provide a enemies of scale reflective as it's of its role as a public transport operator, not a retailer. The framework I've described will provide greater transparency into retail costs than exists today. However, it won't facilitate like for like comparisons with independent retailers because of GBR broader role as a passenger services operator selling tickets across online station and on train retail channels, requiring the publication of the Sensitive information about GBS resources, priorities and strategy, and retailers are not required to disclose equivalent information, so a fair and open market should apply as much to GBS retail business as to its competitors.
Proper financial transparency will therefore be delivered through wider funding and business planning framework in a way that supports accountability, whilst protecting commercially sensitive information. On amendment 330 JD, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the government is committed to ensuring that all retailers can access the retail product systems, data and related services they need. They need to be able to compete effectively in the market and deliver a high quality service to passengers. That's why our draft retail code of practice includes fair access to products, systems and data as one of the fundamental principles that will underpin the retail market.
Under GDPR, the principle commits GB to ensuring access is provided on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms, ensuring that all retailers will be operating on an equivalent level of back office service to support their passenger facing retail platforms. This is a significant step forward compared with where no such commitment exists and has been positively, positively received by retail industry stakeholders in their public responses to the draft code. The commitment also provides certainty to potential new market entrants, guaranteeing that there will be no second class service for independent retailers, as has been seen in some comparator European markets.
The government, therefore, believes that the objectives of this amendment have already been delivered in the draft Retail Code of Practice, placing detailed technical solutions of the kind proposed in primary legislation is unnecessary and lacks the flexibility to adapt. With the pace of technological technological change in an innovative market. On amendment 330 GB, the government shares the Noble Lords ambition. In fact, the industry already publishes data on several of the categories listed, including timetables, train running, disruption, crowding and accessibility for free as it has done for over over a decade, and this will continue. The bill already enables GBR to disclose information wherever such disclosure supports the performance of its functions, and in practice, that will allow GBR to provide an open by default approach whilst allowing it to make responsible decisions about what should be shared in what form and on what terms.
Many of the categories of data of this amendment lists are of interest primarily to current or future ticket retailers. The draft Retail Code of Practice places additional obligations on GBR to ensure much of this data is made available to all retailers on the fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms, compliance of which is a condition of GBS licence. However, it will still be for GBR to decide how to make the data available and that flexibility matters. The amendment would impose a single approach across a wide range of data, including a universal requirement for publication without restriction. Fixed technical standards and for charging data.
A 62nd deadline. In practice, the right approach will. The right appropriate approach will vary between data sets. GBR will need to consider data quality, technical feasibility, security. Personal data, commercial, commercial confidentiality, intellectual property and whether whether it has the legal right to disclose the information. GBR may also need to legitimately charge for data in some circumstances. Core railway data has long been available without charge and we expect that to continue. However, when, when where data has been specially processed or compiled at taxpayer expense for a particular third party use, GBR should retain discretion to charge where appropriate.
The government's approach supports useful and responsible disclosure.
17:48
17:49
17:49
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Point on charging. Can I just challenge the minister a bit? So he's right to say that if the taxpayer is effectively paid to create data, then there should be a charge for it. But can I just test? So would GBR retail operation also have to pay for that data? Because we already established in a previous group that GBR passenger services operations don't have to pay for the use of GBR infrastructure in the way that a private operator does. If GBR creates some data and charges third parties for it, but its retail operation doesn't have to pay for it and include that in its pricing, that is by definition anti-competitive.
So can you reassure us that if a bit of GBR creates some data that it wishes to charge third parties for, its retail operation would also have to pay for that data on the same basis.
So can you reassure us that if a bit of GBR creates some data that it wishes to charge third parties for, its retail operation would also have to pay for that data on the same basis.
17:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That surely the cost is going to be marginal. I mean, the cost, the cost is going to be marginal for an internal transfer of data. So what cost is being charged compared to the price that may be charged to outside parties for this valuable data? I would just remind the noble Lord that this wasn't the approach taken by TfL when he was the commissioner and Boris Johnson was the enlightened mayor and that produced, as Baroness lady Pidgeon said, very positive results.
17:51
17:51
17:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. I I I'll reflect on the the proposition that that's that's been made. I, I think the principle that I was talking about was that generally data will be made freely available, but there are cases where, where data is especially processed or compiled at taxpayers expense, where, where there should be a discretion to charge. I was expecting that charge to at least be no more than it cost to create the data. And, and I would have I would have thought that actually the principle that GBR should adopt is that actually it shouldn't unnecessarily create data for its for its own use.
And where it does, it will have to account for the cost of creating it as part of the transparency that is needed in order to make sure that GBR isn't doing things for itself, that it wouldn't do in the same way for anybody else.
And where it does, it will have to account for the cost of creating it as part of the transparency that is needed in order to make sure that GBR isn't doing things for itself, that it wouldn't do in the same way for anybody else.
17:52
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
So I'm sorry to keep pressing at this point, but I think the minister has just answered my question, but not in a good way. I think what he said is GBR can come up with some some data sets at a cost, and it wouldn't have to charge itself as long as it was happy to disclose what it was spending in the business plan, well, that's not good enough. That means a competitor is going to have to pay for it.
GBR gets it free and that is not a level playing field.
GBR gets it free and that is not a level playing field.
17:52
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I think it's got to account for it. And that means that actually there is a cost in creating it for itself. And that will have to be shown so that there is a level playing field. I think our approach is supporting useful and responsible disclosure, backed by contractual provisions and existing legal protections. The amendment is could cut across those concerns. But I also believe that we're aligned in our intentions for the retail market and an open data, and I've appreciated the discussions we've just had. I will of course, I will, of course, reflect on what's been said noble Lords would expect in this debate before the before the report starts.
17:53
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank the noble Lord, the minister. I agree with him that it feels like we are very aligned on many important aspects of this. On funding transparency in particular, it feels like there is getting closer and closer , and it feels like there is something about the evaluation being published and predictable and regular that feels like it would satisfy most parties in the House, and I'd welcome the opportunity to work with him in more detail on that, because again, it feels like there is definitely substantial interest across parties on that issue on, on the on the point around which data you publish and how.
I absolutely accept it was an amendment that was trying to say, we need to think about the use of this data and how you actually make it usable, as well as what the data is published, because I'm just so conscious that we have published a load of data in unusable formats for so many years, and there's just no need to do that if you get the legislation right. And then the final bit that I appreciate, the minister has had to been briefed on a tremendous variety of things. I would really urge him to think carefully about whether we can bake in the incentives in terms of how an organisation like GBR uses its data in a way that means we don't have to have lawyers arguing about whether it is discriminatory or not.
You can design it in from the start in a way that makes it not discriminatory by design. And if we can do that in the way that many other organisations have done and other sectors have done and other bills have done, it would be strange to deliberately create something that makes more work for lawyers, because lawyers are very overburdened and they don't need more work. So I think we've got one, one chance to get this right, and I hope that we can have more discussions about that particular aspect. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
I absolutely accept it was an amendment that was trying to say, we need to think about the use of this data and how you actually make it usable, as well as what the data is published, because I'm just so conscious that we have published a load of data in unusable formats for so many years, and there's just no need to do that if you get the legislation right. And then the final bit that I appreciate, the minister has had to been briefed on a tremendous variety of things. I would really urge him to think carefully about whether we can bake in the incentives in terms of how an organisation like GBR uses its data in a way that means we don't have to have lawyers arguing about whether it is discriminatory or not.
You can design it in from the start in a way that makes it not discriminatory by design. And if we can do that in the way that many other organisations have done and other sectors have done and other bills have done, it would be strange to deliberately create something that makes more work for lawyers, because lawyers are very overburdened and they don't need more work. So I think we've got one, one chance to get this right, and I hope that we can have more discussions about that particular aspect. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
As many as I have that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it. The question is the clauses 76 and 77 stand part of the bill. Many are of that opinion, say content and not content for contents. Have it after clause 77. Amendment 293. Lord Henry of Richmond Hill moved formally formally. Question is an amendment 293 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary not content the contents have it question is that clauses 78, 79, 80 and 81 stand. Part of the bill is that opinion will say content and not content.
The contents have it in clause 82, amendment 294 and two and 295 . Not moved 296. Lord Berkeley not moved in clause 83. Lord Moylan 297 not moved 298 298. Lord Berkeley moved, not moved. And 299.
The contents have it in clause 82, amendment 294 and two and 295 . Not moved 296. Lord Berkeley not moved in clause 83. Lord Moylan 297 not moved 298 298. Lord Berkeley moved, not moved. And 299.
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:57
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lord, I should have. I should have invited the committee to agree to the . To clause 82 stand part standing part of the Bill. As many as our opinion will say content and not content. The contents have it. The question is. Clause 83 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Content not content for contents have it in clause 84. Amendment 301. Lord Moylan not moved 302. Baroness Pigeon not moved, not moved and 303. Baroness pigeon not moved, moved. The question is that clause 84 stand part of the bill as Minister of Opinion will say, content and not content.
The contents have it in clause 85. Amendment 304. Lord Lansley not moved. The question is that clauses 85 and 86 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content and not content. The contents have it in clause 87, amendment 305. Lord Berkeley not moved, moved in clause 88. Amendment 300 and 5ZA Lord Young of Cookham.
The contents have it in clause 85. Amendment 304. Lord Lansley not moved. The question is that clauses 85 and 86 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content and not content. The contents have it in clause 87, amendment 305. Lord Berkeley not moved, moved in clause 88. Amendment 300 and 5ZA Lord Young of Cookham.
17:58
17:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My lord. This amendment relates to the historical railways estate and in moving it, I'm conscious that I'm going to use what my noble friend Lord Harper has called the Parkinson crowbar, which is to inject something to do with the legacy of our railways into what is otherwise a rather up to date bill. My Lords, after the Beeching cuts and the rationalisation of the railway estate, a number of bridges and viaducts and tunnels were redundant, and they remained with British Rail until privatisation and on privatisation the operational parts into railway and sites that were ripe for development were passed to Railtrack and then to Network Rail , and the historic estate was transferred to the British Rail Residuary Board.
And then in 2013, that board was abolished and the historical railways estate and indeed all Faulkner. Now this approach has condemned many bridges, tunnels and viaducts with a potential for alternative use to a fate of perpetual decline, often resulting in demolition or infilling. And so the social and economic benefits that could otherwise have been enjoyed are lost. And I don't think this is good governance. In 2021, the Transport Select Committee in the other place criticised national Highways Stewardship and it urged them to stop viewing the disused bridges, tunnels and viaducts as financial risks and call for them instead to be used as valuable public assets to be preserved, maintained and enjoyed, rather than filling the bridges with aggregate and then sealing them.
And I come now to what is known as the Great Musgrave Bridge controversy. I see them, noble Lord, the minister, perking up at that. Mention the infilling of a masonry arch bridge in Great Musgrave, which is in Cumbria, became a major flashpoint. Eden District Council rejected National Highways Highways retrospective planning application and ordered the agency to remove 1600 tonnes of concrete and and then restore the original structure at a public cost of several hundred thousand pounds. I've been given other examples of bridges in Hertfordshire, tunnels in Wales, where this risk averse approach of a body not set up to manage heritage railway structure has meant lost opportunities for imaginative, imaginative re-use.
Some have even accused the Highways Agency National Highways, of cultural vandalism. That remit is to make structures safe and to minimise the liability of the Secretary of State, and I would argue this is a rather narrow approach and risks precluding other options and other options are possible. Even the Highways Agency have done some good examples. If you look at their website, I think if we transferred the estate back to GBR, there could be some economies of scale and improved decision making, which should result in better overall value for the taxpayer. So but in addition to a transfer of responsibility, it needs to be a change of culture from the top to avoid what I call this risk averse approach.
Amendment 312 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Leman is along the same lines, and it has my strong support, and I understand that none of her options would preclude the subsequent re-use of the track as a railway. Should it? Should that then become possible? I also note that Baroness Jones has. Amendment 330JE. This is a rerun of the debate we had some time ago on the roscos, and whether they would be classified as public bodies, so it may be subject to what the ONS decide that Baroness Jones is. Ambition of taking the Roscos into public ownership may be done, as it were, in a less public way, by simply ONS deciding that , because of the degree of control exercised by the by the Secretary of State over the Roscos, they are in effect a national body, rather like NatWest network, so reclassified.
So it may be that her ambitions, as I said, by ONS, without the need for legislation. My Lords, I'd like to move.
And then in 2013, that board was abolished and the historical railways estate and indeed all Faulkner. Now this approach has condemned many bridges, tunnels and viaducts with a potential for alternative use to a fate of perpetual decline, often resulting in demolition or infilling. And so the social and economic benefits that could otherwise have been enjoyed are lost. And I don't think this is good governance. In 2021, the Transport Select Committee in the other place criticised national Highways Stewardship and it urged them to stop viewing the disused bridges, tunnels and viaducts as financial risks and call for them instead to be used as valuable public assets to be preserved, maintained and enjoyed, rather than filling the bridges with aggregate and then sealing them.
And I come now to what is known as the Great Musgrave Bridge controversy. I see them, noble Lord, the minister, perking up at that. Mention the infilling of a masonry arch bridge in Great Musgrave, which is in Cumbria, became a major flashpoint. Eden District Council rejected National Highways Highways retrospective planning application and ordered the agency to remove 1600 tonnes of concrete and and then restore the original structure at a public cost of several hundred thousand pounds. I've been given other examples of bridges in Hertfordshire, tunnels in Wales, where this risk averse approach of a body not set up to manage heritage railway structure has meant lost opportunities for imaginative, imaginative re-use.
Some have even accused the Highways Agency National Highways, of cultural vandalism. That remit is to make structures safe and to minimise the liability of the Secretary of State, and I would argue this is a rather narrow approach and risks precluding other options and other options are possible. Even the Highways Agency have done some good examples. If you look at their website, I think if we transferred the estate back to GBR, there could be some economies of scale and improved decision making, which should result in better overall value for the taxpayer. So but in addition to a transfer of responsibility, it needs to be a change of culture from the top to avoid what I call this risk averse approach.
Amendment 312 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Leman is along the same lines, and it has my strong support, and I understand that none of her options would preclude the subsequent re-use of the track as a railway. Should it? Should that then become possible? I also note that Baroness Jones has. Amendment 330JE. This is a rerun of the debate we had some time ago on the roscos, and whether they would be classified as public bodies, so it may be subject to what the ONS decide that Baroness Jones is. Ambition of taking the Roscos into public ownership may be done, as it were, in a less public way, by simply ONS deciding that , because of the degree of control exercised by the by the Secretary of State over the Roscos, they are in effect a national body, rather like NatWest network, so reclassified.
So it may be that her ambitions, as I said, by ONS, without the need for legislation. My Lords, I'd like to move.
18:04
18:05
18:05
18:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has made a good case, and I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up. Recognize that this is a bill about the railways, and when it comes to the stewardship of what is called the historical Railways estate, I am minded to believe that anybody. That's any new word body other than national highways might be especially connected to the railways, such as the new body. Being set up would be a better steward of this estate than others. And now.
18:05
18:05
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I forget these are on all the time they pick up even whispers. I do admire all noble lords who are fully engaged in this Bill. I am finding it extremely difficult to listen to every word. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has been listening to every word and has barely looked at his phone more than a few times. I, you know, I salute him and a few words have percolated through the noble Lord, Lord Harper. For example, he mentioned green infrastructure without sort of spitting, and I was delighted by that. Perhaps we could look at it another time.
I think it's at ports. And to paraphrase his long explanation about Henry the Eighth and Doctor Who, I think he meant get it right first time, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho was talking about as well, and which I heartily agree with. I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for replying, sending me a letter on designation. It did sort of throw up a few more questions. Perhaps I should send him that in writing, rather than putting it all into Hansard. Now. Now, on amendment three, 30 J. E as far as I'm concerned, the private leasing of our trains is one of the great scandals of rail privatisation.
It should not have been done. So one of the big questions for this bill and all the government's rail policy, is why they focused only on the nationalisation of rail services, not the trains themselves. And I note what the noble Lord, Lord young, mentioned just now. But, you know, let's put it in the bill. Let's get it right. Let's actually make it completely clear. The cost of leasing and maintaining these trains is about a third of the day to day running costs of the railway, over £4 billion in 2024. That does not sound like good business to me.
And the rate of profit extraction is notorious. The trade union Aslef estimates that the private rolling stock companies extracted £2.9 billion in profits and dividends over the last five years, and a recent report from the Office of Rail and Road states that the roscos profit margins fluctuate between 5% and 31%. Perhaps we could all have that , that profit margin and this profit, this level of profit extraction is happening because we're locked into what is essentially a dysfunctional market in which there's no real choice, and where interventions to fix the competitive market have repeatedly failed.
So this wasteful system now passes to GBR unless something is done to stop it. But there's at least some good news. At Labour's conference last month, the Transport Secretary announced that GBR would consider public ownership for all new rolling stock. Now, this commitment was made in the government's new Rolling Stock and Infrastructure infrastructure strategy, published on the same day. This was a welcome announcement, but it is not enough. Governments will come and go, whereas fixing this wasteful system will take decades. The commitment belongs in the Railways Bill, not merely a strategy document. It would be an unforgivable missed opportunity to announce this new policy direction while passing up the chance to secure it in law.
This is the intention behind my amendment on the ownership and financing of new rolling stock. This amendment reflects exactly what the Labour government has said in its new rolling stock and infrastructure infrastructure strategy. It would require GBR to assess public ownership whenever it orders new trains, looking at cost and value over their whole life and across the railway. It does not dictate the outcome, but would ensure that GBR asks this question and always chooses the best option for taxpayers. This is an absolute minimum that should be done as a direct challenge to the government. So will it put the money where its mouth is?
Moving on to? 330 JF now this goes further than the government's policy pledge. It establishes a clear goal progressively increasing the proportion of publicly owned rolling stock, and it would require GBR to publish and implement a strategy to achieve that. The amendment then distinguishes between new and existing trains. New trains procured for GBR passenger services must be publicly owned for existing trains. GBR must assess public ownership options before entering into renewing or extending a lease, or committing to a major refurbishment or life extension. That's a requirement to properly assess other options, not a requirement to buy the existing trains.
Major refurbishments and life extensions can involve substantial amounts of public money. Before committing that money, surely, we should ask, would continuing to lease and refurbish these trains offer the best long term value, or is there another approach that would make better use of taxpayers money? The point here is to establish a systemic approach to assessing whole life and whole system costs and value, to use the government's words in their recent document, not simply asking what costs least today, but what makes best use of taxpayers money over the decades ahead. And these assessments would not remain behind closed doors.
GBR would have to publish them, explain the resulting decisions and recommendations, and report annually on progress. We need to move beyond one lease renewal at a time with no clear destination. This amendment would give us both a long term plan and a transparent process for assessing the options. First and foremost, it would strengthen the quality and accountability of GBR decision making while bringing much needed direction to this wasteful and discredited market. Now, to conclude on both these amendments, it's truly a time of reckoning for the private leasing of rolling stock. And there's one further issue that requires a detailed explanation from the minister.
This concerns the office for National Statistics, which is preparing to review the status of rolling stock leases. This creates a very real possibility that the assets and loan liabilities could be brought onto the public balance sheet. As I understand it, it would mean that the debt and liabilities will appear on the public ledger, reducing the government's capacity for borrowing even while the legal ownership and profits from rolling stock remain private. Will the Minister explain what that would mean for reported public debt and the government's fiscal rules? Has the Treasury assessed the implications, and will it publish that assessment?
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord young, thinks he probably knows the answer to that, or perhaps not. If private leasing no longer keeps those liabilities off the public balance sheet, what remains of that argument against public ownership? This appears to me to be a potentially very serious issue, and I would appreciate a clear written response plus reassurance that these issues are being properly considered in time for making decisions on the bill. I look forward to the Minister's detailed response now, moving on to clause 95 on the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, which I oppose in full, this clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to implement the 2007 Luxembourg Protocol to the Cape Town Convention.
The stated intention of the protocol is to reduce private sector financing costs by strengthening roscos and lenders rights to cross border enforcement. All this really seems to be is an expansion of private law, jurisdiction and globalisation, entrenching the market power of roscos big banks behind them. Can I hear some criticism in the audience here?
I think it's at ports. And to paraphrase his long explanation about Henry the Eighth and Doctor Who, I think he meant get it right first time, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho was talking about as well, and which I heartily agree with. I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for replying, sending me a letter on designation. It did sort of throw up a few more questions. Perhaps I should send him that in writing, rather than putting it all into Hansard. Now. Now, on amendment three, 30 J. E as far as I'm concerned, the private leasing of our trains is one of the great scandals of rail privatisation.
It should not have been done. So one of the big questions for this bill and all the government's rail policy, is why they focused only on the nationalisation of rail services, not the trains themselves. And I note what the noble Lord, Lord young, mentioned just now. But, you know, let's put it in the bill. Let's get it right. Let's actually make it completely clear. The cost of leasing and maintaining these trains is about a third of the day to day running costs of the railway, over £4 billion in 2024. That does not sound like good business to me.
And the rate of profit extraction is notorious. The trade union Aslef estimates that the private rolling stock companies extracted £2.9 billion in profits and dividends over the last five years, and a recent report from the Office of Rail and Road states that the roscos profit margins fluctuate between 5% and 31%. Perhaps we could all have that , that profit margin and this profit, this level of profit extraction is happening because we're locked into what is essentially a dysfunctional market in which there's no real choice, and where interventions to fix the competitive market have repeatedly failed.
So this wasteful system now passes to GBR unless something is done to stop it. But there's at least some good news. At Labour's conference last month, the Transport Secretary announced that GBR would consider public ownership for all new rolling stock. Now, this commitment was made in the government's new Rolling Stock and Infrastructure infrastructure strategy, published on the same day. This was a welcome announcement, but it is not enough. Governments will come and go, whereas fixing this wasteful system will take decades. The commitment belongs in the Railways Bill, not merely a strategy document. It would be an unforgivable missed opportunity to announce this new policy direction while passing up the chance to secure it in law.
This is the intention behind my amendment on the ownership and financing of new rolling stock. This amendment reflects exactly what the Labour government has said in its new rolling stock and infrastructure infrastructure strategy. It would require GBR to assess public ownership whenever it orders new trains, looking at cost and value over their whole life and across the railway. It does not dictate the outcome, but would ensure that GBR asks this question and always chooses the best option for taxpayers. This is an absolute minimum that should be done as a direct challenge to the government. So will it put the money where its mouth is?
Moving on to? 330 JF now this goes further than the government's policy pledge. It establishes a clear goal progressively increasing the proportion of publicly owned rolling stock, and it would require GBR to publish and implement a strategy to achieve that. The amendment then distinguishes between new and existing trains. New trains procured for GBR passenger services must be publicly owned for existing trains. GBR must assess public ownership options before entering into renewing or extending a lease, or committing to a major refurbishment or life extension. That's a requirement to properly assess other options, not a requirement to buy the existing trains.
Major refurbishments and life extensions can involve substantial amounts of public money. Before committing that money, surely, we should ask, would continuing to lease and refurbish these trains offer the best long term value, or is there another approach that would make better use of taxpayers money? The point here is to establish a systemic approach to assessing whole life and whole system costs and value, to use the government's words in their recent document, not simply asking what costs least today, but what makes best use of taxpayers money over the decades ahead. And these assessments would not remain behind closed doors.
GBR would have to publish them, explain the resulting decisions and recommendations, and report annually on progress. We need to move beyond one lease renewal at a time with no clear destination. This amendment would give us both a long term plan and a transparent process for assessing the options. First and foremost, it would strengthen the quality and accountability of GBR decision making while bringing much needed direction to this wasteful and discredited market. Now, to conclude on both these amendments, it's truly a time of reckoning for the private leasing of rolling stock. And there's one further issue that requires a detailed explanation from the minister.
This concerns the office for National Statistics, which is preparing to review the status of rolling stock leases. This creates a very real possibility that the assets and loan liabilities could be brought onto the public balance sheet. As I understand it, it would mean that the debt and liabilities will appear on the public ledger, reducing the government's capacity for borrowing even while the legal ownership and profits from rolling stock remain private. Will the Minister explain what that would mean for reported public debt and the government's fiscal rules? Has the Treasury assessed the implications, and will it publish that assessment?
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord young, thinks he probably knows the answer to that, or perhaps not. If private leasing no longer keeps those liabilities off the public balance sheet, what remains of that argument against public ownership? This appears to me to be a potentially very serious issue, and I would appreciate a clear written response plus reassurance that these issues are being properly considered in time for making decisions on the bill. I look forward to the Minister's detailed response now, moving on to clause 95 on the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, which I oppose in full, this clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to implement the 2007 Luxembourg Protocol to the Cape Town Convention.
The stated intention of the protocol is to reduce private sector financing costs by strengthening roscos and lenders rights to cross border enforcement. All this really seems to be is an expansion of private law, jurisdiction and globalisation, entrenching the market power of roscos big banks behind them. Can I hear some criticism in the audience here?
18:13
18:14
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
All right, just on a different issue, I want to correct the record on Boris Johnson as mayor. He was not enlightened. He was chaotic and inconsistent. That really ought to go into Hansard, please. That's my only bite. Back at Lord Harper. I'm sure he was a great friend of Boris Johnson. Now, looking at the railway.
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Looking at the Railway Railways Bill's impact assessment, it seems that the government is uncertain that there will be any benefits from this implementation. In fact, Eversholt, one of the three big private roscos in the UK, objects to the protocol, saying that in a 2024 document, they don't believe it would attract private investment or reduce financing costs, and that they are concerned that ratification would lead to increased costs and an unnecessary layer of administration. And even if there were savings involved for Roscos, what reassurance would there be that they would pass these on to the public sector?
Absolutely none. In fact, this is the last thing they're likely to do in such a concentrated market, which you already know means unrestrained profit extraction. Next to address the protocol in terms of its international representation, which is frankly embarrassing. Despite being open for signature for 20 years, it has gained just seven parties, taking a shocking 17 years to come into force due to the lack of international interest. By contrast, its sister agreement, the Cape Town Aircraft Protocol, gained 87 parties in this time. Furthermore, the UK's signature dates back to 2016 before even the Brexit referendum.
And so really, would we make the same decision now, given the vastly different circumstances and without the involvement of the EU? And finally, to address the issue of public ownership, why would the government sign up to an instrument that entrenches the logic of private financing globalisation? Just at the time it said it wants to move towards privately owned rolling stock? Although the protocol would not directly prevent public ownership, it could raise the cost, litigation risk and practical barriers and increase the roscos market power. I realized I'd gone over time, but I have been answering a few.
Interventions. It could also worsen the chilling effect, where public authorities know that policy changes and market interventions in rolling stock could trigger stronger, stronger legal claims. So why has the Luxembourg rail protocol been included in this bill? What is the rational argument for it? It's hard to find anyone endorsing it except private law firms. Switzerland is lobbying group representing the main private law institution behind the protocol. So really, please just take it out. It is utterly illogical. Oh, no. I've still got another. Never mind. I'll sit down and just say that all my amendments are worth passing.
Absolutely none. In fact, this is the last thing they're likely to do in such a concentrated market, which you already know means unrestrained profit extraction. Next to address the protocol in terms of its international representation, which is frankly embarrassing. Despite being open for signature for 20 years, it has gained just seven parties, taking a shocking 17 years to come into force due to the lack of international interest. By contrast, its sister agreement, the Cape Town Aircraft Protocol, gained 87 parties in this time. Furthermore, the UK's signature dates back to 2016 before even the Brexit referendum.
And so really, would we make the same decision now, given the vastly different circumstances and without the involvement of the EU? And finally, to address the issue of public ownership, why would the government sign up to an instrument that entrenches the logic of private financing globalisation? Just at the time it said it wants to move towards privately owned rolling stock? Although the protocol would not directly prevent public ownership, it could raise the cost, litigation risk and practical barriers and increase the roscos market power. I realized I'd gone over time, but I have been answering a few.
Interventions. It could also worsen the chilling effect, where public authorities know that policy changes and market interventions in rolling stock could trigger stronger, stronger legal claims. So why has the Luxembourg rail protocol been included in this bill? What is the rational argument for it? It's hard to find anyone endorsing it except private law firms. Switzerland is lobbying group representing the main private law institution behind the protocol. So really, please just take it out. It is utterly illogical. Oh, no. I've still got another. Never mind. I'll sit down and just say that all my amendments are worth passing.
18:17
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Well, my Lords, that was very interesting speech by the noble Baroness Luxembourg protocol actually is something which I've been working with for years on rail freight, because maybe contrary to the lovely high speed trains we have here, there's been a history of rail freight wagons going to perhaps far off places like Italy and not coming back. And of course, the owners of these wagons stand to lose quite a lot of money. Now, Italy has more recently, I think, got better. And I think some of the Eastern European countries, whether it's the Ukraine war or other things, they do need some guarantee.
For those who financed it. Now they were Baroness can say, well, it's all going to be done by the government, so it doesn't really matter. But it's most rail freight wagons are financed in the private sector, and obviously the people who are doing that require some guidance as to as to what guarantees they're going to get if they if it gets stolen. And there is now , through this protocol, an international registry, which is called Ervice. Have I got it right, based in Luxembourg to identify all wagons with a unique number. And hopefully keep a track on them.
It's easy to say, well, they're only wagons and you can get lots of other wagons. But the modern freight wagon is a very sophisticated piece of kit, and it's developed all the time so that you can carry heavier loads faster and right across Europe, because what we're really talking about is the wagons, which operate sometimes into the UK and also on the continent. And so the what, what the, what it says it's going to do. And it, I think it's already started doing it. It allows default remedies such as expedited relief, asset transfer and export on, on debtor, debtor, default or insolvency.
It doesn't cost us anything. And there's a limit to. The it can't really fully operate until a large number of countries, not just in the European Union, but other places, have actually signed up to it. I don't see any downside at all. The government has lost its heart through the last five years, have been trying to find a way of putting this into some suitable legislation which which suits the Luxembourg people, and it suits the Treasury and suits the government, and it appears to have found it in this bill. And congratulations. So I strongly oppose Baroness Jones's view that this is a waste of time.
It's actually a very useful for the international rail freight sector. And it could also be useful if if there were more passenger trains and it's a guarantee. So I fully support the the measure in the bill clause 95.
For those who financed it. Now they were Baroness can say, well, it's all going to be done by the government, so it doesn't really matter. But it's most rail freight wagons are financed in the private sector, and obviously the people who are doing that require some guidance as to as to what guarantees they're going to get if they if it gets stolen. And there is now , through this protocol, an international registry, which is called Ervice. Have I got it right, based in Luxembourg to identify all wagons with a unique number. And hopefully keep a track on them.
It's easy to say, well, they're only wagons and you can get lots of other wagons. But the modern freight wagon is a very sophisticated piece of kit, and it's developed all the time so that you can carry heavier loads faster and right across Europe, because what we're really talking about is the wagons, which operate sometimes into the UK and also on the continent. And so the what, what the, what it says it's going to do. And it, I think it's already started doing it. It allows default remedies such as expedited relief, asset transfer and export on, on debtor, debtor, default or insolvency.
It doesn't cost us anything. And there's a limit to. The it can't really fully operate until a large number of countries, not just in the European Union, but other places, have actually signed up to it. I don't see any downside at all. The government has lost its heart through the last five years, have been trying to find a way of putting this into some suitable legislation which which suits the Luxembourg people, and it suits the Treasury and suits the government, and it appears to have found it in this bill. And congratulations. So I strongly oppose Baroness Jones's view that this is a waste of time.
It's actually a very useful for the international rail freight sector. And it could also be useful if if there were more passenger trains and it's a guarantee. So I fully support the the measure in the bill clause 95.
18:21
18:21
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Amendment 312. And my name would establish a Rails to Trails program framework to help councils and community groups acquire disused railway lines, a long term fund to convert them, and fair compensation for landowners. My aim today is to understand the government's plans for the old railway lines. Great British Railways is about to inherit. The amendment follows a new clause tabled in the Commons by my honourable friend Olly Glover, who argued that these routes could offer paths kept well away from traffic ministers. The economic case is strong. Active travel England's analysis finds that walking and cycling typically return between three and a half and £19 for every pound spent, but few transport investments can boast that.
I'd like to talk briefly on a benefit that's often missed time spent in the great outdoors in our beautiful British countryside does us all a lot of good, and arguably this matters most for young people at a time when we're seeing growing evidence of rising mental ill health among them. But yet too much of that countryside remains closed to anyone who can't climb a stile or scramble up a rocky slope, which is where old railway lines provide such a wonderful opportunity. They were, of course, engineered for steam engines that could not cope with hills, so they are flat, gently graded and generally straight.
For a wheelchair user, someone on a hand bike or a mobility scooter, or even a parent with a buggy. That's often going to be the difference between an afternoon spent in the countryside or a merely looking at it through a window. But it's a benefit that can be easily squandered. A path that is perfectly level for ten miles is of no use at all. If every access point has steps, a kissing gate or a barrier designed to stop motorbikes that also stops wheelchairs, accessible entrances would need to be built into any program from the start and not added as an afterthought.
In the Commons, the minister spoke warmly of the path from Selby to York and confirmed that the historical Railways estate will pass to GBR, which will be expected to look for ways to reuse redundant land. I welcome that and have three questions. I'd be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could address. First, will GBR be told to way active travel, including access for disabled people fairly against housing and commercial uses before it disposes of land? Second, will local communities be consulted before a line is sold? And third, where a line might one day reopen, could it serve as a trail in the meantime, protecting a corridor rather than losing it?
I look forward to the minister's reply.
I'd like to talk briefly on a benefit that's often missed time spent in the great outdoors in our beautiful British countryside does us all a lot of good, and arguably this matters most for young people at a time when we're seeing growing evidence of rising mental ill health among them. But yet too much of that countryside remains closed to anyone who can't climb a stile or scramble up a rocky slope, which is where old railway lines provide such a wonderful opportunity. They were, of course, engineered for steam engines that could not cope with hills, so they are flat, gently graded and generally straight.
For a wheelchair user, someone on a hand bike or a mobility scooter, or even a parent with a buggy. That's often going to be the difference between an afternoon spent in the countryside or a merely looking at it through a window. But it's a benefit that can be easily squandered. A path that is perfectly level for ten miles is of no use at all. If every access point has steps, a kissing gate or a barrier designed to stop motorbikes that also stops wheelchairs, accessible entrances would need to be built into any program from the start and not added as an afterthought.
In the Commons, the minister spoke warmly of the path from Selby to York and confirmed that the historical Railways estate will pass to GBR, which will be expected to look for ways to reuse redundant land. I welcome that and have three questions. I'd be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could address. First, will GBR be told to way active travel, including access for disabled people fairly against housing and commercial uses before it disposes of land? Second, will local communities be consulted before a line is sold? And third, where a line might one day reopen, could it serve as a trail in the meantime, protecting a corridor rather than losing it?
I look forward to the minister's reply.
18:24
18:24
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I support the views of my noble friend Viscount Stansgate in support of the amendment. In the name of Viscount Young of Cookham. I'm looking forward to the minister's reply, which I'm sure I will find totally convincing. But the issue is important and I hope that some sort of positive approach to what is being discussed here will be offered. I just wanted to say a word on amendment 312 that we just heard moved, but is a concern here that x railway lines. There should be a presumption in practice and indeed possibly in legislation, that they will be returned to railway use.
It's. I support the principle of amendment 312. We do wish to encourage the development of footpaths, and it's quite right. That footpath along an old railway track will provide an easy approach to walking. But sometimes organisations representing walkers. I'm probably going to get shot down. Very possessive. Just as an example, when the proposal was made to reinstate the the Welsh Highland Railway through the Aberglaslyn Pass, one of the countries currently one of the country's top tourist attractions, there was a strong lobby from the walking lobby that it should be retained as a footpath, rather than being restored as a railway.
I'm just asking my friend, my noble friend the Minister, that he can assure us that the general approach of policy is the X, the prime purpose, the ultimate objective of disused railways is to be reinstated. We've seen the success, the vast success of the Northumberland Line amongst others. And so the the presumption should be returned to railway use.
It's. I support the principle of amendment 312. We do wish to encourage the development of footpaths, and it's quite right. That footpath along an old railway track will provide an easy approach to walking. But sometimes organisations representing walkers. I'm probably going to get shot down. Very possessive. Just as an example, when the proposal was made to reinstate the the Welsh Highland Railway through the Aberglaslyn Pass, one of the countries currently one of the country's top tourist attractions, there was a strong lobby from the walking lobby that it should be retained as a footpath, rather than being restored as a railway.
I'm just asking my friend, my noble friend the Minister, that he can assure us that the general approach of policy is the X, the prime purpose, the ultimate objective of disused railways is to be reinstated. We've seen the success, the vast success of the Northumberland Line amongst others. And so the the presumption should be returned to railway use.
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Some Lords have you turn left out of the school where I teach. Go under the railway bridge and turn left again. You get to Andre Street, which is has railway arches down one side. It's a wonderful Hackney street. It's vibrant, it's full of. The railway arches are full of car repair shops, respray places. There's a prop maker. There are all sorts of people down there. It's safe for the students that walk down because that's the main way to get to Hackney Downs late at night or when it's dark, when they're perhaps coming out from sports events or they're they've been in detentions.
That was a that was a year ago, my Lords. Since then, several of the arches have been refurbished and the rest have gradually shut down because of the rent increases. Andre Street is now empty, graffiti covered, rubbish strewn and is a danger for a child to walk down. We've lost a vital community hub and I'm willing to bet that certainly in Hackney, for every yard of coffee shop or microbrewery, there are ten streets now like Andre Street that have just become deserts, and the 330 B is just to get. Because of the freeholder, GBR will be taking on this and we need to know what they are taking on.
And we need to know that they are going to do their job, which is make money, but also serve the community. Now on 330 A My Lords, I'm going to take you on another journey. This is a this is a journey by rail, this time to Hampton Court. And as you come towards Hampton Court Station, you will see in front of you this sort of crumbling ruin covered in scaffolding, and you'll ask yourself, is this something medieval? Is this a motte or a bailey? In fact, my Lords, it's Hampton Court Station that was built in 1837 and it's now ruins.
And this was part of a a scheme between rail track and a private development that was first submitted in 1985 to Elmbridge Council. The first outline permission was granted, but then, due to poor viability, it was actually scrapped. Schemes were also submitted to Elmbridge in 1987, 1990, 1990.
That was a that was a year ago, my Lords. Since then, several of the arches have been refurbished and the rest have gradually shut down because of the rent increases. Andre Street is now empty, graffiti covered, rubbish strewn and is a danger for a child to walk down. We've lost a vital community hub and I'm willing to bet that certainly in Hackney, for every yard of coffee shop or microbrewery, there are ten streets now like Andre Street that have just become deserts, and the 330 B is just to get. Because of the freeholder, GBR will be taking on this and we need to know what they are taking on.
And we need to know that they are going to do their job, which is make money, but also serve the community. Now on 330 A My Lords, I'm going to take you on another journey. This is a this is a journey by rail, this time to Hampton Court. And as you come towards Hampton Court Station, you will see in front of you this sort of crumbling ruin covered in scaffolding, and you'll ask yourself, is this something medieval? Is this a motte or a bailey? In fact, my Lords, it's Hampton Court Station that was built in 1837 and it's now ruins.
And this was part of a a scheme between rail track and a private development that was first submitted in 1985 to Elmbridge Council. The first outline permission was granted, but then, due to poor viability, it was actually scrapped. Schemes were also submitted to Elmbridge in 1987, 1990, 1990.
18:29
18:29
18:29
18:41
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My Lord, I left you on a cliffhanger and I just have slightly short memories. We were at Hampton Court Station. We were gazing at this crumbling edifice and wondering what it was and discovering that in fact, it is Hampton Court Station which has been now with rail track and private developers have been trying to develop the first. First plan was submitted by Network Rail and developer to Elmbridge Council in 1985. It didn't progress. Schemes were also submitted to Elmbridge in 1987, 1990, 1995, 2007 and 2008. Now, in October 2024, permission was finally granted, but then it failed.
The viability test. And as Andrew Roberts of Hampton Court Rescue Campaign said recently, and I quote, they have accepted that the current scheme is not viable and have submitted a variation to reduce the car park from 207 spaces to 93 spaces. Total disaster for residents and rail users in terms of railway mandate to provide capital to fund rail infrastructure and housing, it couldn't be a worse scheme. Very nominal capital and a small number of seven figure value houses for millionaires, unquote. My Lords, Hampton Court Station has been falling down for 40 years, and the first view of Hampton Court that visitors get is of a load of scaffolding, hoardings, litter and rats.
Neither the House of Lords Library nor I could find a list of the projects that are going on, the ongoing planning application, applications that rail Track or Platform four involved in. But as in the rent reviews, my Lord, I think we need to know before GBR take on this stuff. We need to know what they are taking on.
The viability test. And as Andrew Roberts of Hampton Court Rescue Campaign said recently, and I quote, they have accepted that the current scheme is not viable and have submitted a variation to reduce the car park from 207 spaces to 93 spaces. Total disaster for residents and rail users in terms of railway mandate to provide capital to fund rail infrastructure and housing, it couldn't be a worse scheme. Very nominal capital and a small number of seven figure value houses for millionaires, unquote. My Lords, Hampton Court Station has been falling down for 40 years, and the first view of Hampton Court that visitors get is of a load of scaffolding, hoardings, litter and rats.
Neither the House of Lords Library nor I could find a list of the projects that are going on, the ongoing planning application, applications that rail Track or Platform four involved in. But as in the rent reviews, my Lord, I think we need to know before GBR take on this stuff. We need to know what they are taking on.
18:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Oh my Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my. Of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. And to say I think this would be a transition that is long, long, long overdue. I understand why the historic rail estate is in the hands of national highways, but it should not have been for this long, and it is absolutely time for it to return to the railway world, and it needs to do so for three reasons, in my view. The first is that I absolutely buy the argument that it should be protected for the future development.
Firstly, of the historical estate of the historical railway, there are many historic railway lines that are looking to extend the routes. That's how started work, have saved money, but have long term ambitions that may take another decade or more to come to fruition, and it would be an absolute travesty if the opportunity to achieve that growth were lost because of ill advised planning decisions or land sales now. So the first key reason is to protect the ability of the historic railways to continue to grow and develop and to lead the success story it's been for the last two generations.
This is all the second. On a practical note, there will be areas of the historic estate which have a potential role in the future. Whilst most of the. The country branch lines that were closed by Beeching will not have a role for the railways in future, there are some lines which clearly do. And both I. As Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Harper, as Secretary of State, started the ball rolling on reopening some routes, I mentioned the. The Okehampton line. Of course, the initial ones are on track. Beds that have survived are use and will be.
Others that ask. The need for rail rose as I believe it will in the future. Other opportunities to extend, reopen and develop those disused line in Birmingham that I assigned to the mayor of the West Midlands to extend expand the the tram system there and that will be another area where the historic railway may have a future role in the current public transport system. So that is the second important area. And the third is goes back to the debate that we had a little while back on amendments proposed by Baroness Jones Network Rail. And going forward, Great British Railways responsibility on biodiversity.
These routes are hotbeds in many areas of biodiversity. They do need to be protected. I absolutely agree with the noble lady. In some places it's right and proper. They use walking routes and cycling routes, but equally they need to be protected because they are one of the havens in the countryside
Firstly, of the historical estate of the historical railway, there are many historic railway lines that are looking to extend the routes. That's how started work, have saved money, but have long term ambitions that may take another decade or more to come to fruition, and it would be an absolute travesty if the opportunity to achieve that growth were lost because of ill advised planning decisions or land sales now. So the first key reason is to protect the ability of the historic railways to continue to grow and develop and to lead the success story it's been for the last two generations.
This is all the second. On a practical note, there will be areas of the historic estate which have a potential role in the future. Whilst most of the. The country branch lines that were closed by Beeching will not have a role for the railways in future, there are some lines which clearly do. And both I. As Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Harper, as Secretary of State, started the ball rolling on reopening some routes, I mentioned the. The Okehampton line. Of course, the initial ones are on track. Beds that have survived are use and will be.
Others that ask. The need for rail rose as I believe it will in the future. Other opportunities to extend, reopen and develop those disused line in Birmingham that I assigned to the mayor of the West Midlands to extend expand the the tram system there and that will be another area where the historic railway may have a future role in the current public transport system. So that is the second important area. And the third is goes back to the debate that we had a little while back on amendments proposed by Baroness Jones Network Rail. And going forward, Great British Railways responsibility on biodiversity.
These routes are hotbeds in many areas of biodiversity. They do need to be protected. I absolutely agree with the noble lady. In some places it's right and proper. They use walking routes and cycling routes, but equally they need to be protected because they are one of the havens in the countryside
18:47
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Routes and cycling routes, but equally they need to be protected because they are one of the havens in the countryside or species of a whole variety of kinds. And I want to see the role that the Great British Railway will play in maintaining biodiversity. The Minister assured us about in those extended to the historic estate and fulfill that part of its potential as well. In a country that needs to do more, to enhance biodiversity, to restore biodiversity, that estate can play an important part. The minister has assured us that Great British Railways will play that part, its part in that this estate should be part of that.
So in every respect, this is a transition that should happen. I hope the minister, if he's not going to accept Lord Young's amendment in today's debate, will give a clear, categoric assurance that this transition will happen.
So in every respect, this is a transition that should happen. I hope the minister, if he's not going to accept Lord Young's amendment in today's debate, will give a clear, categoric assurance that this transition will happen.
18:47
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
My Lords, I just want to speak relatively briefly on five of the amendments in this group and the clause stand part debate. So first of all, I support my noble friend young of Kirkham's amendment. I think he's right on the risk averse piece, and I think he's also right on wanting to ensure that as those assets are managed, there are the same economies of scale and the expertise available to those assets as there are to the operational state. And I think bringing as many of those assets into useful operation as possible, I think is a is a good ambition to have and support his amendment.
I also support amendment 323 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, which is about ensuring that there is a published rolling stock investment framework. And I'm hoping that this is something on which there'll be a lot of shared agreement. We started the process, albeit in early stage of publishing some of the rolling stock programme, and the minister has taken it a bit further, and I think the government has plans to do that. And so, again, even if this amendment isn't quite his liking, actually having some commitment in statute to publish the long term rolling stock plan, I think would actually be a very good one.
And I think it would provide a lot of confidence to the industry. So I welcome my noble friend's amendment. There'll be a useful debate off the back of it, and we can listen to them what the minister's plans are as we think about what we formulate for report. So those are all the bits, I think where I can be can be do some positive stuff , then I'm afraid there are three amendments where I'm a bit less positive. On amendment three. Three zero H I'm positive about quite a lot of it, but not all of it.
So the one, the one thing that I would just counsel a bit of caution on this is on the electrification programme generally a very good thing. The problem with the specificity here is it says that there has to be full electrification of the network. And I think we debated at a prior stage. There are. It depends what you mean by of the network, and there are bits of the network where actually trying to electrify the route itself and have overhead cables would make absolutely no sense whatsoever from a cost and engineering perspective. But there are other ways of electrifying the the network in terms of its operation.
Some of that, for example, about having batteries on trains, for example, where there's no there are no overhead cables, but the train is powered by batteries, which may well have been if the electricity to charge them has come from sustainable sources, that may well be excellent. So I think the the thrust of Baroness Jones's amendment is fine about improving the. Or decarbonising.
I also support amendment 323 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, which is about ensuring that there is a published rolling stock investment framework. And I'm hoping that this is something on which there'll be a lot of shared agreement. We started the process, albeit in early stage of publishing some of the rolling stock programme, and the minister has taken it a bit further, and I think the government has plans to do that. And so, again, even if this amendment isn't quite his liking, actually having some commitment in statute to publish the long term rolling stock plan, I think would actually be a very good one.
And I think it would provide a lot of confidence to the industry. So I welcome my noble friend's amendment. There'll be a useful debate off the back of it, and we can listen to them what the minister's plans are as we think about what we formulate for report. So those are all the bits, I think where I can be can be do some positive stuff , then I'm afraid there are three amendments where I'm a bit less positive. On amendment three. Three zero H I'm positive about quite a lot of it, but not all of it.
So the one, the one thing that I would just counsel a bit of caution on this is on the electrification programme generally a very good thing. The problem with the specificity here is it says that there has to be full electrification of the network. And I think we debated at a prior stage. There are. It depends what you mean by of the network, and there are bits of the network where actually trying to electrify the route itself and have overhead cables would make absolutely no sense whatsoever from a cost and engineering perspective. But there are other ways of electrifying the the network in terms of its operation.
Some of that, for example, about having batteries on trains, for example, where there's no there are no overhead cables, but the train is powered by batteries, which may well have been if the electricity to charge them has come from sustainable sources, that may well be excellent. So I think the the thrust of Baroness Jones's amendment is fine about improving the. Or decarbonising.
18:51
18:51
18:51
18:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Him I totally agree about the batteries. The only thing is you have to look at the lifetime cost of all these things. It might actually be cheaper in the long run to put in the infrastructure for electricity rather than try to use batteries. There could be all sorts of other problems associated with them. So it's best to keep an open mind if one is thinking about long term.
18:51
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Well, I completely I'll overlook a Freudian slip, although that was more offensive, I think, to minister rather than myself. I think the thing about. He's noted it. That'll that'll count against you at some point. I think the point about keeping an open mind. No, I'm completely agreeing with her. I think the problem with the amendment as drafted is by saying you have full electrification of the network. I think it's not keeping an open mind, or at least it's arguably tying the minister's hands about how you deliver electrification. That's all. But the thrust of it is absolutely fine.
The two where I have a bit more of a of an issue are 330 G and 330JF, which are her her what I might call anti rolling stock amendments because you seem to be they are a bit contradictory. So 330JE is attempting to pretend to be neutral by saying that ministers have got to consider the whole life and whole system costs and and manage all that and basically choose direct public ownership where that assessment says that it's better, but then three, three, 0JF basically just says that the Secretary of State and GBR have to use their functions to progressively increase the proportion of the railway rolling stock that's publicly owned, which doesn't have anything in it, about whether that is actually good value or not good value.
So that doesn't seem to make any sense to me because that basically says they just have to have it all owned by the public, even if that was a terrible deal. And that that actually makes no sense at all. And I think that's partly I suspect that she's reached that slightly contradictory conclusion because it sounded like from her analysis that she's used as her single source of truth, the well known, reasonably neutral arbiters of these things, the Aslef rail union, which in my experience isn't awfully neutral about anything and I wouldn't necessarily take them as the only source of whether or not you should or shouldn't have private capital involved in the rail industry.
They have a view, which is they want everything nationalised, which is, of course, I'm afraid, because that's the model in which they have the most power to jack up their wages at the expense of the passenger and extract that power over ministers. Now, I don't think that's a very good idea for passengers myself, I don't. Let me just finish the thought, then. Of course I'll give way to her. But I wouldn't use them as the best sort of source of information about financing railway assets.
Of course I'll.
The two where I have a bit more of a of an issue are 330 G and 330JF, which are her her what I might call anti rolling stock amendments because you seem to be they are a bit contradictory. So 330JE is attempting to pretend to be neutral by saying that ministers have got to consider the whole life and whole system costs and and manage all that and basically choose direct public ownership where that assessment says that it's better, but then three, three, 0JF basically just says that the Secretary of State and GBR have to use their functions to progressively increase the proportion of the railway rolling stock that's publicly owned, which doesn't have anything in it, about whether that is actually good value or not good value.
So that doesn't seem to make any sense to me because that basically says they just have to have it all owned by the public, even if that was a terrible deal. And that that actually makes no sense at all. And I think that's partly I suspect that she's reached that slightly contradictory conclusion because it sounded like from her analysis that she's used as her single source of truth, the well known, reasonably neutral arbiters of these things, the Aslef rail union, which in my experience isn't awfully neutral about anything and I wouldn't necessarily take them as the only source of whether or not you should or shouldn't have private capital involved in the rail industry.
They have a view, which is they want everything nationalised, which is, of course, I'm afraid, because that's the model in which they have the most power to jack up their wages at the expense of the passenger and extract that power over ministers. Now, I don't think that's a very good idea for passengers myself, I don't. Let me just finish the thought, then. Of course I'll give way to her. But I wouldn't use them as the best sort of source of information about financing railway assets.
Of course I'll.
18:54
18:54
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Very good. Well, that's that's slightly better than perhaps. But it doesn't make the argument any more compelling. The bit that's missing the central bit, which I'm sure the minister will say, but it completely misses out, is the fact that the government and the public sector does not have an infinite supply of capital. And in the real world, the one we live in, government has choices about borrowing money and what it spends on it. And I'm afraid if you adopted the model she sets out, then railway. The railway rolling stock will be competing for capital, government capital, taxpayer funded capital against capital available to build schools and hospitals and other public assets.
And the evidence from the past is that when you have those competitive processes, trains are not the winners in those processes, which is exactly why we had privately financed rolling stock in the first place, and what that did when we had privatisation. And I see my noble friend Lord young nodding, was we had a massive investment in new rolling stock and and better trains and more modern trains that never would have happened if it had all been funded by taxpayer funded capital. And when the noble lady talks about returns and she, I think, quoted Aslef as saying, money extracted, well, that's because there's a cost of capital to access capital, you have to pay for the capital.
There's a risk attached to it. And and that has to be paid for by somebody. And it's either paid for by the private sector taking these risks or it's paid for by the taxpayer. You can't just wish it away. And although she's right in saying that the Secretary of State had in her party , conference party political speech a throwaway line about looking at this, I may be wrong. I suspect there's a very small number of people in the department doing a little bit of work. And then I suspect in due course, the conclusion of that work will be that the current model is the one that they're going to stick with, and that'll be slipped out quietly as opposed to the party political announcements.
Cheer up the the Labour troops at the party conference. Now, I don't expect the minister to comment on that either way, but I suspect that's what happened, and I wouldn't put too much weight on there being a a solution which requires the taxpayer to fund it all. The final thing I would say is I hadn't really spent a lot of time on this bit of the bill. I have to confess clause 95, where, where there's a stand part debate. But when I had a look at the two things she referred to, they sounded like a fantastic idea.
The Cape Town Convention improves, gets rid of legal inconsistency, lowers costs and has good insolvency protections for mobile assets, which seems to me a very good thing to do. The Luxembourg Rail Protocol. I'm amazed that she's against it, because what it does is it establishes a global legal framework to make it easier and cheaper to finance trains, trams and other railway equipment, thus thus actually making it more likely.
And the evidence from the past is that when you have those competitive processes, trains are not the winners in those processes, which is exactly why we had privately financed rolling stock in the first place, and what that did when we had privatisation. And I see my noble friend Lord young nodding, was we had a massive investment in new rolling stock and and better trains and more modern trains that never would have happened if it had all been funded by taxpayer funded capital. And when the noble lady talks about returns and she, I think, quoted Aslef as saying, money extracted, well, that's because there's a cost of capital to access capital, you have to pay for the capital.
There's a risk attached to it. And and that has to be paid for by somebody. And it's either paid for by the private sector taking these risks or it's paid for by the taxpayer. You can't just wish it away. And although she's right in saying that the Secretary of State had in her party , conference party political speech a throwaway line about looking at this, I may be wrong. I suspect there's a very small number of people in the department doing a little bit of work. And then I suspect in due course, the conclusion of that work will be that the current model is the one that they're going to stick with, and that'll be slipped out quietly as opposed to the party political announcements.
Cheer up the the Labour troops at the party conference. Now, I don't expect the minister to comment on that either way, but I suspect that's what happened, and I wouldn't put too much weight on there being a a solution which requires the taxpayer to fund it all. The final thing I would say is I hadn't really spent a lot of time on this bit of the bill. I have to confess clause 95, where, where there's a stand part debate. But when I had a look at the two things she referred to, they sounded like a fantastic idea.
The Cape Town Convention improves, gets rid of legal inconsistency, lowers costs and has good insolvency protections for mobile assets, which seems to me a very good thing to do. The Luxembourg Rail Protocol. I'm amazed that she's against it, because what it does is it establishes a global legal framework to make it easier and cheaper to finance trains, trams and other railway equipment, thus thus actually making it more likely.
18:57
18:57
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Sector that people that makes it more likely that we can invest and shift people from roads to rails, supporting the green transition and net zero goals. Those are all things I would have thought the noble lady would be in favour of. So I think clause 95 should absolutely stay in the bill, and I hope that's what the minister says when he responds.
18:58
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, first of all, let me talk to amendment 309 in my name, which would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid for central government funding for feasibility studies on or construction of new stations, railways or other enhancements. And it's really important that we continue to have a pipeline of projects and that local authorities can secure funding for feasibility studies to help make improvements to the railway in their. It's a simple ask to ensure a regular fund to keep improving and investing in the railway. Amendment 310 sits alongside this and requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous government in February 2020.
I understand this was a £500 million programme and it delivered 11 miles of reopened line and two new stations. We believe it would be beneficial for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the now cancelled Restoring Your Railway Fund to understand what worked and indeed what did not work for future projects and funds. And my noble friend Baroness amendment 312 would require the government to turn disused railways into active travel paths where appropriate. And this is so important if we're to encourage people to use greener forms of transport, and if they're often protected and they feel safer for newer cyclists and pedestrians, and they are accessible.
And certainly I've I've cycled myself on one down in Whitstable, the Crab and Winkle Way, which follows the path of the historic Canterbury and Whitstable Railway. And it does feel very safe for that part that was on the old railway line, and I think this Rails to Trails programme would create the potential for communities to more easily acquire disused railway lines and turn them into walking and cycling routes. Now, some disused railways are no longer owned by railway organisations, but some are, so this new clause would facilitate acquisitions so that we can create more segregated travel facilities where they are appropriate.
Now the other amendments in this debate, I think Lord Young of Cookham, has made some really strong points about the historic railways estate, and I welcome that amendment, but also reminder of that point about the ONS when we start talking about rolling stock, because that came up so many weeks ago, I'd forgotten about it. It's a really important point that we may see effectively our rolling stock on the public books. But Baroness Jones made a point here about really wanting complete public ownership is how I interpret some of it of the rolling stock. But I think we have to understand that in terms of rolling stock, a train could operate for 35 years or more.
Some of the London Underground trains have been operating for over 50 years. It's going to need major refurbishments, reliability improvements, accessibility enhancements and so on. And it's really important that whoever owns that rolling stock is able to provide continuous investment throughout the train's lifetime. And we've seen this actually from some of the roscos in recent years. One of them , Porterbrook, funded £100 million plus investment to upgrade some of the trains on GTR, including southern trains. And that's just one example. This is serious money. Now, I did hear the announcement from the Secretary of State at the recent Labour conference, and I'm wondering whether actually she might have been referring to Eurofima, which is is a European body that provides alternative funding, financial solutions for public passenger railways.
And I've asked questions about this to the noble Lord, the minister previously, and I wonder whether he might be able to update us on that. So I think there's a real challenge, and I think at an earlier committee, Lord Young of Cookham talked about the challenges of securing rolling stock when you're the transport secretary, as he was many decades ago, when you're up against every other part, really important that we look at when you look at other projects, the ports of the Midlands, mainline electrification and the last spending review, we know the government is strapped for cash.
So I think we've got to look very carefully to make sure that we can keep upgrading and investing in our rolling stock, whether that's through private companies, the Roscos or other organisations such as Eurofima. I look forward to the noble Lord. The minister's response.
I understand this was a £500 million programme and it delivered 11 miles of reopened line and two new stations. We believe it would be beneficial for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the now cancelled Restoring Your Railway Fund to understand what worked and indeed what did not work for future projects and funds. And my noble friend Baroness amendment 312 would require the government to turn disused railways into active travel paths where appropriate. And this is so important if we're to encourage people to use greener forms of transport, and if they're often protected and they feel safer for newer cyclists and pedestrians, and they are accessible.
And certainly I've I've cycled myself on one down in Whitstable, the Crab and Winkle Way, which follows the path of the historic Canterbury and Whitstable Railway. And it does feel very safe for that part that was on the old railway line, and I think this Rails to Trails programme would create the potential for communities to more easily acquire disused railway lines and turn them into walking and cycling routes. Now, some disused railways are no longer owned by railway organisations, but some are, so this new clause would facilitate acquisitions so that we can create more segregated travel facilities where they are appropriate.
Now the other amendments in this debate, I think Lord Young of Cookham, has made some really strong points about the historic railways estate, and I welcome that amendment, but also reminder of that point about the ONS when we start talking about rolling stock, because that came up so many weeks ago, I'd forgotten about it. It's a really important point that we may see effectively our rolling stock on the public books. But Baroness Jones made a point here about really wanting complete public ownership is how I interpret some of it of the rolling stock. But I think we have to understand that in terms of rolling stock, a train could operate for 35 years or more.
Some of the London Underground trains have been operating for over 50 years. It's going to need major refurbishments, reliability improvements, accessibility enhancements and so on. And it's really important that whoever owns that rolling stock is able to provide continuous investment throughout the train's lifetime. And we've seen this actually from some of the roscos in recent years. One of them , Porterbrook, funded £100 million plus investment to upgrade some of the trains on GTR, including southern trains. And that's just one example. This is serious money. Now, I did hear the announcement from the Secretary of State at the recent Labour conference, and I'm wondering whether actually she might have been referring to Eurofima, which is is a European body that provides alternative funding, financial solutions for public passenger railways.
And I've asked questions about this to the noble Lord, the minister previously, and I wonder whether he might be able to update us on that. So I think there's a real challenge, and I think at an earlier committee, Lord Young of Cookham talked about the challenges of securing rolling stock when you're the transport secretary, as he was many decades ago, when you're up against every other part, really important that we look at when you look at other projects, the ports of the Midlands, mainline electrification and the last spending review, we know the government is strapped for cash.
So I think we've got to look very carefully to make sure that we can keep upgrading and investing in our rolling stock, whether that's through private companies, the Roscos or other organisations such as Eurofima. I look forward to the noble Lord. The minister's response.
19:02
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, I I've no intention of going over the broad range of topics that have been raised in the course of this debate. I will just make a couple of remarks. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, there must be something wrong with your. Just because it has euro in. It doesn't make it inherently attractive because even when it's not an EU body, as it happens. But even when we were in the European Union, we never actually used used finance from Eurofima. I don't know why that was, but assuming that the Department for Transport and Train operating companies are reasonably rational, as I say, there must be something wrong about it.
That means we've got more attractive sources of finance.
That means we've got more attractive sources of finance.
19:03
19:03
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
In any event, it has been in existence for very much longer than privatisation of the railways here, and we have never made use of it , as far as I'm aware. So I think my point stands concerning the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I have to say, I mean, her point about financing rolling stock was dealt with, I thought comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Harper, so I won't go back on that. But I will just tell her because I think it's relevant that I have a friend retired now who used to run a foreign bank branch in London and wondering what they could do that would make them some money and was quite difficult.
In London there are a lot of banks. They went into the business of aircraft lease financing, so they would find they would finance aircraft. And their great problem was that if there was, if the owner of the aircraft decided they didn't want to pay. And you'd be surprised how many, especially for private planes, how many people decide they don't want to pay. They simply had to fly it away to somewhere in a different jurisdiction. He had a he had a hit squad of people who would go in and try and immobilise planes on the ground while they were still in a jurisdiction where action could be taken, because there are jurisdictions where one couldn't take action.
Now, admittedly, the movement of rolling stock and railway carriages is rather less dramatic than taking off and flying the plane off into the blue yonder. There is there is a need for connected tracks that will take you somewhere else, and I have to admit, I imagine the Cape Town Protocol and and so forth are rather more valuable in continents like Africa, where . Sort of freight wagons that start out in Bloemfontein might sort of end up in Ouagadougou. And you'd never know quite how you were going to get them, get them back, or they might wander into a war zone in northern Nigeria.
And heaven knows, you know what you're going to do. But I think it and it is less likely that our rolling stock is going to wander all over the continent, given we only have one fixed link. Nonetheless, I think there can be no harm in bringing. I hope the noble Baroness agrees. Unless she herself were thinking of hijacking a train and heading off to the continent and beyond, in which case I can see why she might be opposed to this.
In London there are a lot of banks. They went into the business of aircraft lease financing, so they would find they would finance aircraft. And their great problem was that if there was, if the owner of the aircraft decided they didn't want to pay. And you'd be surprised how many, especially for private planes, how many people decide they don't want to pay. They simply had to fly it away to somewhere in a different jurisdiction. He had a he had a hit squad of people who would go in and try and immobilise planes on the ground while they were still in a jurisdiction where action could be taken, because there are jurisdictions where one couldn't take action.
Now, admittedly, the movement of rolling stock and railway carriages is rather less dramatic than taking off and flying the plane off into the blue yonder. There is there is a need for connected tracks that will take you somewhere else, and I have to admit, I imagine the Cape Town Protocol and and so forth are rather more valuable in continents like Africa, where . Sort of freight wagons that start out in Bloemfontein might sort of end up in Ouagadougou. And you'd never know quite how you were going to get them, get them back, or they might wander into a war zone in northern Nigeria.
And heaven knows, you know what you're going to do. But I think it and it is less likely that our rolling stock is going to wander all over the continent, given we only have one fixed link. Nonetheless, I think there can be no harm in bringing. I hope the noble Baroness agrees. Unless she herself were thinking of hijacking a train and heading off to the continent and beyond, in which case I can see why she might be opposed to this.
19:06
19:06
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Amendments three two, one three, two two and three, two, three, however, will occupy the rest of my remarks. Amendment 321 would establish a long term rolling stock leasing framework with a presumption in favour of longer lease terms and greater consideration of whole life costs. Amendment three, two two would require GBR to publish a 15 year pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock works, a rolling pipeline including renewals, enhancements, enhancements, signalling major station works and rolling stock procurement and refurbishment. An amendment three, two three would require a 15 year rolling stock investment framework, setting out future requirements for new trains, refurbishments, decarbonisation and accessibility, and importantly, the opportunities for continued private investment in rolling stock.
If those amendments are to exist, that's a matter for the government to decide. But where they exist, they should be part of a an understandable long term framework. These amendments have become even more relevant following publication of the government's rolling stock and infrastructure strategy on the 28th of September. We have had only a few weeks to consider that document, and certainly have not had the opportunity for the detailed parliamentary scrutiny scrutiny that a strategy of this importance deserves. There are, however, already some important questions, and the first relates to this question of where is the pipeline?
The strategy talks about giving the supply chain greater certainty, but it does not itself provide the detailed forward pipeline of procurements that industry needs. Instead, there will be a fleet and infrastructure plan, which will remain an internal planning tool , and that appropriate information, I quote, will subsequently be shared with the market. That is considerably less certainty than my amendment 322 would provide the House of Commons Transport Committee in its report rail Investment Pipelines Ending Boom and Bust found that fluctuating investment increases costs and undermines efficiency, whereas a steady pipeline enables suppliers to plan ahead, retain skills and innovate.
It warned of future cliff edges for the rail supply chain, and concluded that future investment needs to be steady, carefully sequenced and clearly communicated. Secondly, the strategy raises. This was mentioned earlier important questions about who will own the trains. I'm not myself objecting in principle to the idea that the government should procure trains. When I was deputy chairman of transport for London, I rather arranged that the thousand London buses, the new Routemasters, the so-called Boris buses, should be acquired directly by TfL because we couldn't get an appropriate lease deal. There are times when direct acquisition is appropriate, but it does have certain adverse consequences and we need to know, and the supply chain needs to know , and the finance sector needs to know.
And it really isn't, frankly, responsible for the Secretary of State for transport to throw out ideas on a political party platform if she's going to make a change. I don't dispute her right to make a change to government procurement policy in this regard, although it has consequences. But this is a ridiculous way of behaving and one that undermines the very sense of certainty and commitment that we all think is so important. So, my Lords, I very much hope that my amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke in favour, of which I'm very grateful, commend themselves to the minister because it's constantly with the government's attitude in relation to this Bill is essentially.
We will tell you in good time what's good for you. And actually we think the Transport Select Committee thinks that we have some ideas on what's good for the railways. This is one of those ideas. Long term planning, long term infrastructure pipeline, long term procurement pipeline for rolling stock in particular. These should be there right at the heart of the bill, and the government should be willing to commit to it, or they leave themselves in a position where, as I say, we we find that we're being asked constantly to trust them. That isn't really how a parliamentary democracy works.
If those amendments are to exist, that's a matter for the government to decide. But where they exist, they should be part of a an understandable long term framework. These amendments have become even more relevant following publication of the government's rolling stock and infrastructure strategy on the 28th of September. We have had only a few weeks to consider that document, and certainly have not had the opportunity for the detailed parliamentary scrutiny scrutiny that a strategy of this importance deserves. There are, however, already some important questions, and the first relates to this question of where is the pipeline?
The strategy talks about giving the supply chain greater certainty, but it does not itself provide the detailed forward pipeline of procurements that industry needs. Instead, there will be a fleet and infrastructure plan, which will remain an internal planning tool , and that appropriate information, I quote, will subsequently be shared with the market. That is considerably less certainty than my amendment 322 would provide the House of Commons Transport Committee in its report rail Investment Pipelines Ending Boom and Bust found that fluctuating investment increases costs and undermines efficiency, whereas a steady pipeline enables suppliers to plan ahead, retain skills and innovate.
It warned of future cliff edges for the rail supply chain, and concluded that future investment needs to be steady, carefully sequenced and clearly communicated. Secondly, the strategy raises. This was mentioned earlier important questions about who will own the trains. I'm not myself objecting in principle to the idea that the government should procure trains. When I was deputy chairman of transport for London, I rather arranged that the thousand London buses, the new Routemasters, the so-called Boris buses, should be acquired directly by TfL because we couldn't get an appropriate lease deal. There are times when direct acquisition is appropriate, but it does have certain adverse consequences and we need to know, and the supply chain needs to know , and the finance sector needs to know.
And it really isn't, frankly, responsible for the Secretary of State for transport to throw out ideas on a political party platform if she's going to make a change. I don't dispute her right to make a change to government procurement policy in this regard, although it has consequences. But this is a ridiculous way of behaving and one that undermines the very sense of certainty and commitment that we all think is so important. So, my Lords, I very much hope that my amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke in favour, of which I'm very grateful, commend themselves to the minister because it's constantly with the government's attitude in relation to this Bill is essentially.
We will tell you in good time what's good for you. And actually we think the Transport Select Committee thinks that we have some ideas on what's good for the railways. This is one of those ideas. Long term planning, long term infrastructure pipeline, long term procurement pipeline for rolling stock in particular. These should be there right at the heart of the bill, and the government should be willing to commit to it, or they leave themselves in a position where, as I say, we we find that we're being asked constantly to trust them. That isn't really how a parliamentary democracy works.
19:11
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Well, my Lords, this is the Minister replying, and in case there is any doubt about it, I just wanted, if I may, to indulge the Committee by correcting myself about what I said in the previous group. On amendment 330 JB in response to an intervention by the noble Lord Harper that GBR will pay if it requires data that specifically, specifically formatted in a way that other than which is generally available, I thought that would be a helpful correction to make. And also in response to, I think, the next intervention by the noble Lord Harper, that on access charges for infrastructure, which is different from retail data, but it did get raised in.
In that context, GBR will factor the costs it would have paid into its pricing for other operators. I hope those are both useful corrections, and I'm sorry that I wasn't quick enough to do it in the previous group. May I start with, if I may, clause 95 and the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. This is an international agreement designed to provide more security to those financing rolling stock overseas. It establishes a new legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock, effectively meaning creditors can ensure their assets will be recognized by legal processes in participating countries.
This makes financing of rolling stock overseas more attractive by ensuring that in the event of insolvency or default, a creditor can pursue their interests without fear of being at the mercy of an overseas legal system. If the UK didn't buy the protocol, the UK would be a less attractive place for overseas creditors to invest in rolling stock, meaning that we could miss out on investment and UK creditors would not also benefit from the protections afforded by it, meaning investment costs will would be higher. As more countries ratify the protocol, the UK will become less investment, less competitive for investment.
In addition, the industry generally supportive of the ratification of the protocol. Although I know what the noble Baroness intends.
In that context, GBR will factor the costs it would have paid into its pricing for other operators. I hope those are both useful corrections, and I'm sorry that I wasn't quick enough to do it in the previous group. May I start with, if I may, clause 95 and the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. This is an international agreement designed to provide more security to those financing rolling stock overseas. It establishes a new legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock, effectively meaning creditors can ensure their assets will be recognized by legal processes in participating countries.
This makes financing of rolling stock overseas more attractive by ensuring that in the event of insolvency or default, a creditor can pursue their interests without fear of being at the mercy of an overseas legal system. If the UK didn't buy the protocol, the UK would be a less attractive place for overseas creditors to invest in rolling stock, meaning that we could miss out on investment and UK creditors would not also benefit from the protections afforded by it, meaning investment costs will would be higher. As more countries ratify the protocol, the UK will become less investment, less competitive for investment.
In addition, the industry generally supportive of the ratification of the protocol. Although I know what the noble Baroness intends.
19:13
19:13
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Take place, most companies without the use of one of the rolling stock. More importantly, the protocol isn't a barrier to potential future rolling stock ownership models for GBR. It costs the government nothing to ratify it, and the protocol doesn't prevent public ownership of of of of of rolling stock. I'm delighted for once to agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley, that clause 95 is a good thing. I will write to the noble Baroness Pidgeon on Eurofima because I cannot remember currently what the position is. Whilst on that topic, I turned to amendments three two, one, three, two, three, 330 G and 330JF.
I agree with the principles of amendments three, two, one and three two, three, because rolling stock decisions should take account of whole life and whole system costs and greater long term certainty can support better value for taxpayers and give the wider supply chain the confidence to invest. Which is exactly why we published the long term rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy, which provides a clearer view of future requirements and supports a more strategic approach to fleet and infrastructure planning. The strategy puts passengers at its heart considering future requirements such as decarbonisation, accessibility, passenger comfort and the infrastructure changes needed to support the fleet and the publication of the strategy already effectively delivers the substance of amendment three, two, three and it will be a document for GBR to inherit and implement once it's established.
But I don't believe that legislation is the right place to set out the detailed content and timetable of such a strategy. I also don't believe it's right to prescribe how GBR manages its commercial relationships with the rolling stock leasing markets. As amendment 321 would do. Imposing a minimum lease term of 15 years would restrict GBR s ability to respond to operational needs, changing passenger demands and market conditions, and would constrain GBR freedom to negotiate a range of options to to secure best value for taxpayers. As I'm sure noble Lords will be aware, the appropriate contract and commercial arrangements will depend on the circumstances at the time and should be determined on the basis of value for money rather than the legislation, as this amendment suggests on amendments 330 J and JF.
I am pleased to confirm to the noble Baroness that the strategy to which I have just referred also sets out that leasing will no longer be treated as a default for rolling stock, and direct public ownership will be considered where it provides greater control, flexibility or value. Just as amendment 330 J suggests, the government acknowledges that public ownership of rolling stock could offer greater flexibility and substantial savings in some circumstances. However, it's important that GBR is able to take a case by case approach to new rolling stock and consider whether public or private ownership gives taxpayers the best overall value, which, of course, amendment 330 JF would prohibit.
I will. The noble. The noble Baroness raised the. The ONS allocation of rolling stock. The ONS have said that they expect to review the classification of rolling stock leases in the national accounts. Their recent forward look suggests this is likely to happen during quarter three of 2027. But of course, this is a decision for the ONS to take independently, and we continue to work with His Majesty's Treasury to understand the full implications of forthcoming policy decisions and their impact on classification risk. As we prepare to establish g GBR on amendments 309 and 322, I share the the ambitions in the amendments to enhance the railway network so it can better serve people and places in the future.
It's clearly an important part of any discussion about railway funding. However, as I've said a number of times throughout the committee debate, we must preserve GBR s role as the directing mind for the railways and resist the temptation to be overly prescriptive in legislation. If I were to accept amendment 309, it would take away from GBR the ability to consider, design and decide on matters relating to investment and enhancement. This is one of the benefits of the GBR model, allowing GBR to plan and coordinate the network and bid for enhancements, which will make the greatest difference to the most people.
GBR will be the body with the expertise to ensure the right outcomes are delivered locally and nationally. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the fundamental principle of GBR investing locally remains a key priority, which is why GBR will be organised on a local basis with empowered regional and route business units working collaboratively with local leaders, ensuring local needs are considered decision making. That's also why my oral strategic authorities will have a statutory role via GBR partnerships, and GBR will be able to agree funding arrangements with the partnerships. I do understand the noble Baroness point, and I think that what's regrettable in the railway up to now has been the inability for the railway to respond in a, in a, in a, in a proactive manner to suggestions for local investment in in in stations and other railway facilities.
And I hope that she can agree that it will be GBR who, with its autonomy but its integrated judgment, can work with local funders and transport bodies to determine how best to translate funding into an operational railway that works for everyone. I think that's the best way to achieve the outcomes. Amendment 309 The Outcomes Amendment 309 seeks noble Lord Moreland's amendment 322 would require a long term pipeline of works. I have to say to the noble Lord, this is very different from the last 30 years, where there's been no long term pipeline of works, and indeed, successive governments have, have, have, have been reluctant and have not published any forthcoming pipelines.
I'm pleased to confirm to the noble Lord that the bill already proposes that GBR will include funded enhancement activity in its five year business plans in response to funding settlements, that those will be updated annually, and they will be guided by the long term rail strategy and its duties, providing transparency and far more certainty to the supply chain. So I don't agree that 15 years is is, is is is the right is the right figure, because actually the railway is a dynamic place. And these these ideas will necessarily change over the long term, but not necessarily the short term.
The vast array of information required by the amendment would be an unnecessary administrative burden on GBR and could adversely affect its commercial position with major suppliers by making commercially sensitive information freely available only to the noble Lord Young's amendment 305 day. I agree with the noble Lord and with other noble Lords who've spoken about transferring the ownership and management of the historic railway estate to GBR. GBR will be the organisation with the capability, knowledge and experience to maintain the estate and put it back into use where it's appropriate. And that's why the government has already been clear that the historical railway estate will transfer to GBR as the amendment seeks, and the bill already contains the appropriate mechanisms to enable this in its transfer schemes in clause 88, and it is firmly a government intention to do that.
I absolutely agree that it's critical that GBR can begin to reconnect communities or support underserved parts of the country. However, under the Restoring Your Railways programme, decisions were made centrally by the government and the vast majority of the projects were unfunded and never implemented. That can't be the right approach. It was part of the fragmented view of the railway, which the Bill is intended to resolve, with decisions being made centrally without any plan to operationally deliver them. GBR will be best placed to consider future investments in the railway, ensuring that new investments and infrastructure support its general plan to fulfil its duties and make a better railway for everyone.
And I'm afraid I cannot accept amendment 312. Whilst I agree with the noble Baroness about the benefits of reusing redundant railway line for active travel, and indeed the government has already established Active Travel England to support the introduction of new walking and cycling routes. It can't. It can't be this purpose alone as the default operation default option for railway land. There are other equally valid uses of railway land, sometimes to reuse the railway land as a railway route, as noble Lords have said, but also as regeneration initiatives for housing, for example, via platform four, which has been discussed much during the committee or for use heritage railways, which many have spoken about so passionately during these proceedings proceedings.
Another potential use is for freight to support the government's freight growth ambition. All the options for railway land need to be assessed against clear criteria, and I confirm that GBR will do just that when making decisions, and it will be guided by its duties when doing so, which include promoting the interests of potential passengers, promoting freight and acting in the public interest, all of which clearly relate to selecting the right use of disused railway land, and it will consult where it's appropriate, but not in every case. I encourage both noble Baroness to work with me and, in time, GBR outside this Bill process to improve on the current use of disused railway land , and I hope that the assurances I've given about the historic railway estate will help in.
In that respect. Turning to amendments 330 A and B from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I appreciate the interest and enthusiasm noble Lords have shown in the important work. that poor is doing throughout our Committee debates. Whilst I appreciate the intent of amendment 330 a, I can assure the noble Lord that platform four already operates within a robust framework of business planning, financial oversight and corporate governance, and this will continue under GBR. The viability of development and regeneration schemes is continuously assessed through established approval processes, board scrutiny and shareholder oversight from the Secretary of State.
And platform four also publishes its annual accounts and reporting online regeneration schemes, such as those pursued by platform four, often involve complex negotiations with local authorities, developers, investors, landowners and prospective occupiers over many years. And I hope that the noble Lord can see that requiring a statutory publication of project viability assessment, as the amendment would do, could undermine Platform Four's commercial position in those negotiations by making public the viability details of every project, potentially reducing value to the taxpayer and deterring private sector investment in future regeneration activity. It isn't how any other private company would do business, and it isn't how platform short should work either.
Viability is, of course, an evolving status in regeneration projects and not a fixed assessment. Projects can take many years to progress, from land, land, assembly and planning through to delivery and market conditions. Construction costs and funding arrangements can all change in that time. The statutory review would only provide a snapshot of what is, in reality, a moving picture, potentially giving a misleading picture of their long term viability and public value. The noble Lord raised in this respect and support and in support of his amendment. Hampton Court Station. And I don't think we can really decide on future legislation on the basis of one case which has, as he so, so clearly laid out, a very long history.
I am happy to look at that particular issue, but not at the cost of the general obligation in the Bill, which would adversely, in my view, affect the future development of railway land. Amendment 330 B would require a rent review of Network Rail properties ahead of its transfer to GBR. I can confirm that the leases that Network Rail and subsidiaries have retained, and it's already provide for rent reviews. Some of the leases include turnover rent arrangements under which tenants provide regular updates. Network rail also has existing property management systems in place, monitoring and management of rent reviews to ensure value for the taxpayers.
An additional rent review would not alter those existing legal obligations would be duplicative of those existing processes. The noble Lord also raised railway arches in a particular case, the arches in Hackney, and I think I don't know whether he knows, but the majority of commercial space in railway arches has been let on a long lease to the private arch company, which is responsible for the collection and review and review of rents. When I was the chair of Network Rail, I supported this process because Network Rail simply didn't have the money, and if it did, it shouldn't have used it for the purpose of investing in arches rather than investing in the railway itself.
The money that that sale raised from the long leases was reinvested back into railway infrastructure, helping to increase commercial income and reduce subsidy. Finally, on amendment three, 30 H, which seeks a statutory electrification programme, decarbonisation is a key objective of this government. Electrification is essential to achieving that, which is why the recently published Rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy is an infrastructure strategy because it clearly indicating a move away from diesel traction towards electric traction, including electrification, but also through the use of battery electric trains. Government is clearly acting on this, even without a statutory requirement to do so, as proposed by this amendment.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of keeping the costs of electrification low whilst maintaining domestic capability, and we're most likely to get the best value for money if the skills required exist here. But I don't agree that a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is the right approach. Funding for electrification needs to be balanced across a number of competing priorities. It should be GBR together with the government of the day, which makes those trade offs without being restricted by duties on specific projects. In addition, it's impossible to say with certainty that electrification will be the most important thing to receive government funding in 15 years time.
Advances in battery technology, for example, could mean that, and probably will mean that the same decarbonisation can be achieved by different means. But I reassure the noble Baroness that with GBR will have, we will have a directing mind able to advise future governments on where funding for electrification is best spent. Taking into account the long term rail strategy, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy and the business plan.
I agree with the principles of amendments three, two, one and three two, three, because rolling stock decisions should take account of whole life and whole system costs and greater long term certainty can support better value for taxpayers and give the wider supply chain the confidence to invest. Which is exactly why we published the long term rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy, which provides a clearer view of future requirements and supports a more strategic approach to fleet and infrastructure planning. The strategy puts passengers at its heart considering future requirements such as decarbonisation, accessibility, passenger comfort and the infrastructure changes needed to support the fleet and the publication of the strategy already effectively delivers the substance of amendment three, two, three and it will be a document for GBR to inherit and implement once it's established.
But I don't believe that legislation is the right place to set out the detailed content and timetable of such a strategy. I also don't believe it's right to prescribe how GBR manages its commercial relationships with the rolling stock leasing markets. As amendment 321 would do. Imposing a minimum lease term of 15 years would restrict GBR s ability to respond to operational needs, changing passenger demands and market conditions, and would constrain GBR freedom to negotiate a range of options to to secure best value for taxpayers. As I'm sure noble Lords will be aware, the appropriate contract and commercial arrangements will depend on the circumstances at the time and should be determined on the basis of value for money rather than the legislation, as this amendment suggests on amendments 330 J and JF.
I am pleased to confirm to the noble Baroness that the strategy to which I have just referred also sets out that leasing will no longer be treated as a default for rolling stock, and direct public ownership will be considered where it provides greater control, flexibility or value. Just as amendment 330 J suggests, the government acknowledges that public ownership of rolling stock could offer greater flexibility and substantial savings in some circumstances. However, it's important that GBR is able to take a case by case approach to new rolling stock and consider whether public or private ownership gives taxpayers the best overall value, which, of course, amendment 330 JF would prohibit.
I will. The noble. The noble Baroness raised the. The ONS allocation of rolling stock. The ONS have said that they expect to review the classification of rolling stock leases in the national accounts. Their recent forward look suggests this is likely to happen during quarter three of 2027. But of course, this is a decision for the ONS to take independently, and we continue to work with His Majesty's Treasury to understand the full implications of forthcoming policy decisions and their impact on classification risk. As we prepare to establish g GBR on amendments 309 and 322, I share the the ambitions in the amendments to enhance the railway network so it can better serve people and places in the future.
It's clearly an important part of any discussion about railway funding. However, as I've said a number of times throughout the committee debate, we must preserve GBR s role as the directing mind for the railways and resist the temptation to be overly prescriptive in legislation. If I were to accept amendment 309, it would take away from GBR the ability to consider, design and decide on matters relating to investment and enhancement. This is one of the benefits of the GBR model, allowing GBR to plan and coordinate the network and bid for enhancements, which will make the greatest difference to the most people.
GBR will be the body with the expertise to ensure the right outcomes are delivered locally and nationally. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the fundamental principle of GBR investing locally remains a key priority, which is why GBR will be organised on a local basis with empowered regional and route business units working collaboratively with local leaders, ensuring local needs are considered decision making. That's also why my oral strategic authorities will have a statutory role via GBR partnerships, and GBR will be able to agree funding arrangements with the partnerships. I do understand the noble Baroness point, and I think that what's regrettable in the railway up to now has been the inability for the railway to respond in a, in a, in a, in a proactive manner to suggestions for local investment in in in stations and other railway facilities.
And I hope that she can agree that it will be GBR who, with its autonomy but its integrated judgment, can work with local funders and transport bodies to determine how best to translate funding into an operational railway that works for everyone. I think that's the best way to achieve the outcomes. Amendment 309 The Outcomes Amendment 309 seeks noble Lord Moreland's amendment 322 would require a long term pipeline of works. I have to say to the noble Lord, this is very different from the last 30 years, where there's been no long term pipeline of works, and indeed, successive governments have, have, have, have been reluctant and have not published any forthcoming pipelines.
I'm pleased to confirm to the noble Lord that the bill already proposes that GBR will include funded enhancement activity in its five year business plans in response to funding settlements, that those will be updated annually, and they will be guided by the long term rail strategy and its duties, providing transparency and far more certainty to the supply chain. So I don't agree that 15 years is is, is is is the right is the right figure, because actually the railway is a dynamic place. And these these ideas will necessarily change over the long term, but not necessarily the short term.
The vast array of information required by the amendment would be an unnecessary administrative burden on GBR and could adversely affect its commercial position with major suppliers by making commercially sensitive information freely available only to the noble Lord Young's amendment 305 day. I agree with the noble Lord and with other noble Lords who've spoken about transferring the ownership and management of the historic railway estate to GBR. GBR will be the organisation with the capability, knowledge and experience to maintain the estate and put it back into use where it's appropriate. And that's why the government has already been clear that the historical railway estate will transfer to GBR as the amendment seeks, and the bill already contains the appropriate mechanisms to enable this in its transfer schemes in clause 88, and it is firmly a government intention to do that.
I absolutely agree that it's critical that GBR can begin to reconnect communities or support underserved parts of the country. However, under the Restoring Your Railways programme, decisions were made centrally by the government and the vast majority of the projects were unfunded and never implemented. That can't be the right approach. It was part of the fragmented view of the railway, which the Bill is intended to resolve, with decisions being made centrally without any plan to operationally deliver them. GBR will be best placed to consider future investments in the railway, ensuring that new investments and infrastructure support its general plan to fulfil its duties and make a better railway for everyone.
And I'm afraid I cannot accept amendment 312. Whilst I agree with the noble Baroness about the benefits of reusing redundant railway line for active travel, and indeed the government has already established Active Travel England to support the introduction of new walking and cycling routes. It can't. It can't be this purpose alone as the default operation default option for railway land. There are other equally valid uses of railway land, sometimes to reuse the railway land as a railway route, as noble Lords have said, but also as regeneration initiatives for housing, for example, via platform four, which has been discussed much during the committee or for use heritage railways, which many have spoken about so passionately during these proceedings proceedings.
Another potential use is for freight to support the government's freight growth ambition. All the options for railway land need to be assessed against clear criteria, and I confirm that GBR will do just that when making decisions, and it will be guided by its duties when doing so, which include promoting the interests of potential passengers, promoting freight and acting in the public interest, all of which clearly relate to selecting the right use of disused railway land, and it will consult where it's appropriate, but not in every case. I encourage both noble Baroness to work with me and, in time, GBR outside this Bill process to improve on the current use of disused railway land , and I hope that the assurances I've given about the historic railway estate will help in.
In that respect. Turning to amendments 330 A and B from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I appreciate the interest and enthusiasm noble Lords have shown in the important work. that poor is doing throughout our Committee debates. Whilst I appreciate the intent of amendment 330 a, I can assure the noble Lord that platform four already operates within a robust framework of business planning, financial oversight and corporate governance, and this will continue under GBR. The viability of development and regeneration schemes is continuously assessed through established approval processes, board scrutiny and shareholder oversight from the Secretary of State.
And platform four also publishes its annual accounts and reporting online regeneration schemes, such as those pursued by platform four, often involve complex negotiations with local authorities, developers, investors, landowners and prospective occupiers over many years. And I hope that the noble Lord can see that requiring a statutory publication of project viability assessment, as the amendment would do, could undermine Platform Four's commercial position in those negotiations by making public the viability details of every project, potentially reducing value to the taxpayer and deterring private sector investment in future regeneration activity. It isn't how any other private company would do business, and it isn't how platform short should work either.
Viability is, of course, an evolving status in regeneration projects and not a fixed assessment. Projects can take many years to progress, from land, land, assembly and planning through to delivery and market conditions. Construction costs and funding arrangements can all change in that time. The statutory review would only provide a snapshot of what is, in reality, a moving picture, potentially giving a misleading picture of their long term viability and public value. The noble Lord raised in this respect and support and in support of his amendment. Hampton Court Station. And I don't think we can really decide on future legislation on the basis of one case which has, as he so, so clearly laid out, a very long history.
I am happy to look at that particular issue, but not at the cost of the general obligation in the Bill, which would adversely, in my view, affect the future development of railway land. Amendment 330 B would require a rent review of Network Rail properties ahead of its transfer to GBR. I can confirm that the leases that Network Rail and subsidiaries have retained, and it's already provide for rent reviews. Some of the leases include turnover rent arrangements under which tenants provide regular updates. Network rail also has existing property management systems in place, monitoring and management of rent reviews to ensure value for the taxpayers.
An additional rent review would not alter those existing legal obligations would be duplicative of those existing processes. The noble Lord also raised railway arches in a particular case, the arches in Hackney, and I think I don't know whether he knows, but the majority of commercial space in railway arches has been let on a long lease to the private arch company, which is responsible for the collection and review and review of rents. When I was the chair of Network Rail, I supported this process because Network Rail simply didn't have the money, and if it did, it shouldn't have used it for the purpose of investing in arches rather than investing in the railway itself.
The money that that sale raised from the long leases was reinvested back into railway infrastructure, helping to increase commercial income and reduce subsidy. Finally, on amendment three, 30 H, which seeks a statutory electrification programme, decarbonisation is a key objective of this government. Electrification is essential to achieving that, which is why the recently published Rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy is an infrastructure strategy because it clearly indicating a move away from diesel traction towards electric traction, including electrification, but also through the use of battery electric trains. Government is clearly acting on this, even without a statutory requirement to do so, as proposed by this amendment.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of keeping the costs of electrification low whilst maintaining domestic capability, and we're most likely to get the best value for money if the skills required exist here. But I don't agree that a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is the right approach. Funding for electrification needs to be balanced across a number of competing priorities. It should be GBR together with the government of the day, which makes those trade offs without being restricted by duties on specific projects. In addition, it's impossible to say with certainty that electrification will be the most important thing to receive government funding in 15 years time.
Advances in battery technology, for example, could mean that, and probably will mean that the same decarbonisation can be achieved by different means. But I reassure the noble Baroness that with GBR will have, we will have a directing mind able to advise future governments on where funding for electrification is best spent. Taking into account the long term rail strategy, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy and the business plan.
19:29
19:29
19:29
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
So I, I think at an earlier stage in the committee, we did talk about the commitment that GBR has to have to biodiversity, and I would expect that to apply when it takes the historic railway state over to the historic railway estate, just as it applies to the rest of the property that that it owns and manages.
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:52
19:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My lords, I was concluding the debate on the group, beginning with my amendment 305ZA, and I was complimenting Baroness Leman on her supportive speech, which I identified alternative uses of surplus assets, and in that connection, Sustrans has done some really heroic work in reusing disused rail track Lord Hampton not in his place because he didn't declare an interest. We assumed that Hampton Court was not at one point the ancestral home of the of the Hampton, I thought, raised a valuable point about making the maximum use of assets at.
19:52
19:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Points in relation to Baroness Jones. My noble friend Lord Harper explained just what the difficulties were of the government owning the Roscos. And just to underline the point he made, I was Secretary of State to begin with when British Rail was British Rail, and I was also Secretary of State when it was Railtrack, and in both cases I came along with a a substantive business case for investment in rolling stock. And when I went to the star Chamber of fellow colleagues and the government explained that there would be less cost of maintenance, better passenger safety, less use of of fuel, they would say, this is a fantastic story, but sadly, we have a limit on government expenditure.
And we've just heard from the Home Secretary who wants more policemen. The Health Secretary wants more nurses and the Education Secretary wants more teachers. And so I was told, I'm sorry, George, you can't have your new train set for Christmas. Whereas afterwards the business case spoke for itself. It got the investment without any Treasury veto. And the scenario that Baroness Jones was urging us to accept would mean that the Secretary of State was in exactly the same position as I was in 1995. The other point that she made that she raised was about the implications of the roscos being scored as public expenditure, she said.
It would be a very serious issue, and indeed it was. And we had an earlier debate. And the government's position is that we we await the conclusions of ONS. But the more the Minister developed his case about. There would be a a proactive pipeline strategy, the more I thought he was digging a hole for himself. And that is more likely to to lead the ONS, to take the view that actually this is a government controlled body. They are calling the shots. So the minister might just like to to to reflect on his ambitions for the rolling stock strategy, with the ONS hanging on his every word.
The final point , I'm most grateful to the Minister for basically agreeing with amendment 305ZA what what he didn't say was why he could not accept the amendment. The amendment actually delivers government policy. Yes, he's got the powers under clause 88 to do it, but actually this obliges him to do it. It removes any doubt at all. And although I will withdraw the amendment , and the minister did explain why it was not acceptable, no drafting a defect was identified, which is the normal alibi. As Secretary of State adopts a minister adopts if he can't accept one anyway, because it was a helpful reply.
I don't want to be curmudgeonly. I beg leave to withdraw my comment.
And we've just heard from the Home Secretary who wants more policemen. The Health Secretary wants more nurses and the Education Secretary wants more teachers. And so I was told, I'm sorry, George, you can't have your new train set for Christmas. Whereas afterwards the business case spoke for itself. It got the investment without any Treasury veto. And the scenario that Baroness Jones was urging us to accept would mean that the Secretary of State was in exactly the same position as I was in 1995. The other point that she made that she raised was about the implications of the roscos being scored as public expenditure, she said.
It would be a very serious issue, and indeed it was. And we had an earlier debate. And the government's position is that we we await the conclusions of ONS. But the more the Minister developed his case about. There would be a a proactive pipeline strategy, the more I thought he was digging a hole for himself. And that is more likely to to lead the ONS, to take the view that actually this is a government controlled body. They are calling the shots. So the minister might just like to to to reflect on his ambitions for the rolling stock strategy, with the ONS hanging on his every word.
The final point , I'm most grateful to the Minister for basically agreeing with amendment 305ZA what what he didn't say was why he could not accept the amendment. The amendment actually delivers government policy. Yes, he's got the powers under clause 88 to do it, but actually this obliges him to do it. It removes any doubt at all. And although I will withdraw the amendment , and the minister did explain why it was not acceptable, no drafting a defect was identified, which is the normal alibi. As Secretary of State adopts a minister adopts if he can't accept one anyway, because it was a helpful reply.
I don't want to be curmudgeonly. I beg leave to withdraw my comment.
19:56
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that amendment 305 Z be withdrawn? Yes. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Question is clause 87 stem part of the bill? It should have been put a little earlier. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 305 A has already been debated. Lord Moylan moved. The question is that clause 88 stem part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. and not content. The contents have it after clause 88, amendment 305 be already debated, not moved. The question is what clauses 89 to 93.
19:56
19:56
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
88, 89 to 91 stand. Part of the bill is amendments agreed to on block questions are agreed to on block. The question is that schedule three be the third schedule of the bill. As many as are of their opinion will say content. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Question is, are clauses 92 and 93 stem part of the bill are of that opinion will say content and contrary not content. The contents have it. Member 300 in clause 94. Amendment 306 not moved 306. A Lord speaker not moved 307. Not not moved 308 Baroness Pidgeon not moved moved.
The question is that clause 94 stem parts of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content, content. The contents have it. Question is that clause 95 stem part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content for contents have it after clause 95. Amendment 309. Baroness Pidgeon as 310 not moved 311. Baroness Pidgeon not moved 312. Baroness Liman not moved amendment 313. Baroness Jones Not moved. Amendment 314. Lord Young of Cookham moved moved . Amendment 315 and 316. Lord Moylan not moved, not moved 317.
Lord Grayling and 318. Lord Grayling not moved 319. Not moved. Not moved 320. Not . Not moved 321. Not moved and 322 not moved and 323 not moved. 324 not moved 325. Baroness Pidgeon not moved. 326. Lord Moylan not moved. 326 and six.
The question is that clause 94 stem parts of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content, content. The contents have it. Question is that clause 95 stem part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content for contents have it after clause 95. Amendment 309. Baroness Pidgeon as 310 not moved 311. Baroness Pidgeon not moved 312. Baroness Liman not moved amendment 313. Baroness Jones Not moved. Amendment 314. Lord Young of Cookham moved moved . Amendment 315 and 316. Lord Moylan not moved, not moved 317.
Lord Grayling and 318. Lord Grayling not moved 319. Not moved. Not moved 320. Not . Not moved 321. Not moved and 322 not moved and 323 not moved. 324 not moved 325. Baroness Pidgeon not moved. 326. Lord Moylan not moved. 326 and six.
19:59
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
To move it. Are. My Lords. I have three amendments in this group. Two of them are effectively consequential on amendment 326. My Lords, it's frankly a disgrace that we are being asked to pass this bill while so many of the documents that will determine how the new railway actually operates have either not been finalised or have not even been published, we saw the problem during committee on the 16th of September. The government published their update on the long term rail strategy on the very day, the very morning that we were due to debate that strategy in the afternoon, of course, we had no time to take account of it.
Before we entered on that debate, noble Lords arrived in committee without even having many of. Without having even seen the document, we were effectively being asked to scrutinise provisions concerning the strategy while blind. As to the government's thinking on it, the position with the other key documents is little better. The access and use policy is now being consulted on, but the government's own timetable says that the final policy will not be published until spring next year. The Retail code of practice is also currently out for consultation, but the final code, again not expected until spring 2027.
The consultation on the new Access Appeals procedure is not due until spring 2027, something that has been absolutely crucial to debate in this committee and the Charging and Performance Framework consultation is also scheduled only for spring next year. Most remarkably, the final long term rail strategy, the document that is supposed to provide the overarching strategic direction for this entire new railway, is not expected until autumn of 2027. Yet the bill, as drafted, will allow the Secretary of State to commence the principal operational provisions without Parliament first having seen and scrutinised. the documents. These various documents will determine who gets access to the railway, how operators are charged, how performance is regulated, how independent retailers compete with GBR, how appeals operate and ultimately how this enormous new public body exercises its powers.
We should not be asked to sign a blank check and discover the terms only later. Amendment three, two, six and three, four, six and three, four, seven as consequential require these central elements of the new regime to be published before the principal provisions are commenced. It is an amendment that I think the government cannot gain, say, if it has any respect for Parliament, and if they are confident in the framework they create, they should have no objection to Parliament seeing that framework before it is brought into force.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Before we entered on that debate, noble Lords arrived in committee without even having many of. Without having even seen the document, we were effectively being asked to scrutinise provisions concerning the strategy while blind. As to the government's thinking on it, the position with the other key documents is little better. The access and use policy is now being consulted on, but the government's own timetable says that the final policy will not be published until spring next year. The Retail code of practice is also currently out for consultation, but the final code, again not expected until spring 2027.
The consultation on the new Access Appeals procedure is not due until spring 2027, something that has been absolutely crucial to debate in this committee and the Charging and Performance Framework consultation is also scheduled only for spring next year. Most remarkably, the final long term rail strategy, the document that is supposed to provide the overarching strategic direction for this entire new railway, is not expected until autumn of 2027. Yet the bill, as drafted, will allow the Secretary of State to commence the principal operational provisions without Parliament first having seen and scrutinised. the documents. These various documents will determine who gets access to the railway, how operators are charged, how performance is regulated, how independent retailers compete with GBR, how appeals operate and ultimately how this enormous new public body exercises its powers.
We should not be asked to sign a blank check and discover the terms only later. Amendment three, two, six and three, four, six and three, four, seven as consequential require these central elements of the new regime to be published before the principal provisions are commenced. It is an amendment that I think the government cannot gain, say, if it has any respect for Parliament, and if they are confident in the framework they create, they should have no objection to Parliament seeing that framework before it is brought into force.
My Lords, I beg to move.
20:02
20:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord Boylan's desire to see many of these documents, but I can assure the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. It's already the case that all the necessary supporting documentation will be published before GBR day one, and the government has set out the schedule for the publications already in its policy publication timetable on gov.uk, making clear what Parliament and the public can expect to see and when, and ensuring the government can be held to account. But in hitting its key key milestones, recognising the desire for more information about planned publications, in May we published our policy publication timetable.
Government. I'm sorry, the government is clearly demonstrating its adherence to timetable. Having met every single stated publication date it includes so far. Excuse me. They started with GBR licence policy document in May and a summary memorandum of understanding between the passenger watchdog, excuse me, and the IRR in June. And that's continued throughout the committee stage, during which we have seen published our interim freight targets, the rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy consultation about the consultation on GBR, draft access and use policy, and a consultation on the retail Code of Practice. There are documents that are due in 2027, and it's because they either require the establishment of GBR in order to be published, or they're being consulted on ahead of this, and the timing allows for a prior consultation response.
For example, the bill explicitly, explicitly requires GBR to respond to respond to the appeals consultation, which I'm sure the noble Lord would understand, means that GBR will therefore need to be established before it can take place, and he knows that the access and use policy and the retail Code of Practice are being consulted on as we speak, and it is vital that the response is received to. These are given proper consideration to inform proposals ahead of the final documents being being being published. So I would contend that the government is clearly committed to and delivering a steady drumbeat of information for both this House and our wider stakeholders to keep everyone informed about progress towards reforming the railways and establishing GBR.
And this progress, this progress will absolutely continue over the coming months. The requirement in the Bill to publish the documents before the commencement of the majority of the clauses has the risk of complicating and delaying the already complex process of reforming the railways, whilst changing absolutely nothing about what documents will be published or when. For these reasons, I encourage the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.
Government. I'm sorry, the government is clearly demonstrating its adherence to timetable. Having met every single stated publication date it includes so far. Excuse me. They started with GBR licence policy document in May and a summary memorandum of understanding between the passenger watchdog, excuse me, and the IRR in June. And that's continued throughout the committee stage, during which we have seen published our interim freight targets, the rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy consultation about the consultation on GBR, draft access and use policy, and a consultation on the retail Code of Practice. There are documents that are due in 2027, and it's because they either require the establishment of GBR in order to be published, or they're being consulted on ahead of this, and the timing allows for a prior consultation response.
For example, the bill explicitly, explicitly requires GBR to respond to respond to the appeals consultation, which I'm sure the noble Lord would understand, means that GBR will therefore need to be established before it can take place, and he knows that the access and use policy and the retail Code of Practice are being consulted on as we speak, and it is vital that the response is received to. These are given proper consideration to inform proposals ahead of the final documents being being being published. So I would contend that the government is clearly committed to and delivering a steady drumbeat of information for both this House and our wider stakeholders to keep everyone informed about progress towards reforming the railways and establishing GBR.
And this progress, this progress will absolutely continue over the coming months. The requirement in the Bill to publish the documents before the commencement of the majority of the clauses has the risk of complicating and delaying the already complex process of reforming the railways, whilst changing absolutely nothing about what documents will be published or when. For these reasons, I encourage the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.
20:05
20:06
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Is it your lordships pleasure with amendment 326 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 327. Lord Harper already debated, not moved. 328 and 329. Lord Holmes of Richmond, not moved. 330 Lord Davis of Brixton not moved 330. A 330 B 330 C Lord Hampton not moved. 330 D not moved. 330 E. not moved. 330 F Ernest Grey-thompson not moved. 330 G Baroness coffee not moved. 330 H. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved and 330 J and 300 and 30JA amendment 300 and 30JB Lord Moylan not moved. 330 g moved 300 and 30JD not moved from the supplementary list.
We have amendments 330 G and 300 and 30JF not moved. The question is clause 96 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say, content. and not content. The contents have it in scheduled for amendment 330 K Baroness Jones and not moved 331 and 332 not moved. Amendment 333. I should advise the Committee that there is an error in the first line of the amendment. It should say schedule four, page 93. Line nine nine. Leave out paragraphs one and two, and Lord Lansley. This has already been debated, as has amendment 330. 33 333 not moved 333 a not moved, not moved 334 340 434.
A 335 336, 337 338. Not moved. The question is that schedule four, be it a fourth schedule of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content and not content for content. Seven question is clause 97 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content contents have it in clause 98. Amendments three. Amendment 339 not moved 340 and 341 342 not moved 342. A Brinton not moved and 43. Baroness Pidgeon not moved. 344. Lord Grayling not moved. The question is that clause 98 stand part of the bill.
As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content for contents have it in clause 99. Baroness Jones, Amendment 345 not moved. The question is clause 99 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content and not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 100 stand part of the bill. As many have that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it in clause 101. Lord Moylan. not moved and amendment three, four, six and amendment 347 not moved moved. Question is that 101 some part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content.
Content returned not content the contents have it question is clause 102 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content, but contents have it. Question is, would this be the title of the bill? As many as are that opinion will say content, content and not content contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings on the Bill.
We have amendments 330 G and 300 and 30JF not moved. The question is clause 96 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say, content. and not content. The contents have it in scheduled for amendment 330 K Baroness Jones and not moved 331 and 332 not moved. Amendment 333. I should advise the Committee that there is an error in the first line of the amendment. It should say schedule four, page 93. Line nine nine. Leave out paragraphs one and two, and Lord Lansley. This has already been debated, as has amendment 330. 33 333 not moved 333 a not moved, not moved 334 340 434.
A 335 336, 337 338. Not moved. The question is that schedule four, be it a fourth schedule of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content and not content for content. Seven question is clause 97 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content contents have it in clause 98. Amendments three. Amendment 339 not moved 340 and 341 342 not moved 342. A Brinton not moved and 43. Baroness Pidgeon not moved. 344. Lord Grayling not moved. The question is that clause 98 stand part of the bill.
As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content for contents have it in clause 99. Baroness Jones, Amendment 345 not moved. The question is clause 99 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content and not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 100 stand part of the bill. As many have that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents have it in clause 101. Lord Moylan. not moved and amendment three, four, six and amendment 347 not moved moved. Question is that 101 some part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content.
Content returned not content the contents have it question is clause 102 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content, but contents have it. Question is, would this be the title of the bill? As many as are that opinion will say content, content and not content contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings on the Bill.