Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 16, which is in this group. I am, as ever, grateful to my noble friend for sparing the time to talk about this. My amendment is designed to be helpful. It is designed from experience of previous railway legislation, in which we got bogged down in massive detail, with hundreds of amendments; we may get somewhere, but it takes longer.

Given the discussion that we had on a large number of subjects in Committee, and will probably have today on Report, I thought it would be useful to probe the Minister’s view of how long it will be before what I call the definitive Bill is published. If that is going to take until spring, as some of us have been told, it might be useful to publish a draft Bill or a draft Command Paper that we could read several months before and have the opportunity to debate. That might help us resolve what the real problems are and how to deal with them, rather than on the Floor of the House for many days in Committee and on Report.

That is the purpose of my amendment, and I look forward to my noble friend’s response. I am not going to press this amendment, but it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on some of the themes that my noble friend Lord Gascoigne has been pursuing around reporting on performance. The Government seem to be a little reticent about being willing to accept amendments which increase reporting requirements. However, there is an important issue here: will public ownership do what the Government have promised it will and improve performance on the railways? I have my doubts about that. I think the challenges of the railways are much more complex and not about ownership but the complexity of our system.

I have a very simple question for the Minister. When you arrive in this House as a new Member, one thing that is very noticeable is the extraordinary level of expertise that exists on Benches on all sides. He brings a very considerable degree of expertise in this House after a long and distinguished career in the rail and transport sector. Can he set aside for a moment his ministerial hat and give us a professional judgment about the likely performance? To take a comparison, can he reassure us that the London Overground, for example, would perform better if run directly as a public body by Transport for London rather than being contracted out to a private operator as it is at the moment? Can he reassure us on that, for the precedents that will exist elsewhere?

Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations relate to access to bus franchising powers for all types of local transport authorities in England outside London. The regulations bring into effect paragraphs (b) to (g) of Section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000, such that the types of authorities listed in those paragraphs come within the meaning of “franchising authority”.

These powers were previously limited to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities. However, these regulations give all types of local transport authorities access to powers to franchise their bus services. In doing so, they will ensure that decisions are made at the right level. These regulations aim to give the power to local leaders to determine the most appropriate action to deliver an improved bus network, based on the needs and circumstances of their areas. This step does not mandate local transport authorities to franchise; it is about providing them with a suite of tools to support their communities and deliver better bus services.

The department will build on the progress of these draft regulations through the introduction of the buses Bill later in this parliamentary Session. The Bill will deliver further changes to make bus franchising easier to deliver, alongside other measures on areas such as accessible travel. It will also improve bus services for local transport authorities that choose not to franchise, allowing greater flexibility over bus funding and letting local leaders deliver their own local transport priorities. Alongside this, the department is building its capacity to provide practical support to local transport authorities throughout the franchising process, should they wish to pursue it.

I will now provide some background information about these regulations. Bus franchising powers for local transport authorities in England, outside London, were created in the Bus Services Act 2017. Powers were automatically given to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities to allow them to prepare a franchising scheme assessment—essentially a business case—if they chose to do so, without requiring consent from the Secretary of State for Transport.

Currently, all other types of local transport authorities wishing to prepare a franchising scheme assessment face a two-stage pre-assessment process. First, regulations must be made which switch on access to the franchising powers. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Transport must give her consent to any individual authority to prepare an assessment of their proposed franchising scheme. This instrument implements the initial stage of this process for non-mayoral combined authorities, ensuring that they will need to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent only to prepare a franchising scheme assessment. This will reduce the barriers facing these types of local transport authorities in pursuing bus franchising.

I turn to the detail of the regulations. Bus franchising is a model for providing bus services where a local authority determines the details of the service and private operators are contracted to run the services. Alternatively, in a deregulated market, any company, subject to minimum safety and operating standards, can operate and have control over bus services. These regulations seek to empower local leaders to choose the model that works best in their area to manage their bus services. Bus franchising is one of those tools. Alternatively, local transport authorities can pursue high-quality enhanced partnerships with private operators or public ownership.

These regulations are part of the Government’s delivery of their manifesto commitment to give

“new powers for local leaders to franchise local bus services”.

Bus franchising will give communities a greater say in the services they can use, connect people to opportunities and benefit those on lower incomes, who disproportionately use buses.

This instrument implements the first stage of this process for all types of local transport authorities so that they require the Secretary of State’s consent only to proceed with the assessment. The department is also revising the bus franchising guidance to streamline the franchising process. The Government consider that this onerous process has acted as a barrier to local authorities. Removing the first stage of this process will make it easier for local transport authorities to pursue franchising if they wish to do so. The regulations improve the suite of tools on offer for local transport authorities to deliver better buses.

I am pleased to say that the statutory instrument was cleared without comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. To address the only request made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, for more information on franchising, the department is also revising its bus franchising guidance, which sets out the franchising process accessibly and in detail.

These regulations represent an important first step towards delivering on the Government’s aim of ensuring that local authorities have the tools they need to plan and deliver services in a way that suits their communities. The forthcoming buses Bill, which will be introduced later in this parliamentary Session, will build on this progress. Through this instrument and the forthcoming Bill, the Government will deliver on their plan for improving the bus network and ending the postcode lottery of bus services. The plan is centred on putting control of local bus services back into the hands of the communities that use them and will give local leaders the freedom to take decisions to deliver their local transport priorities. I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I stand to speak briefly about these regulations, as I was the Secretary of State when the original legislation was passed. While I understand what the Minister is trying to do—he comes at this, of course, from the perspective of somebody who has led the franchising operation in London—I have two big misgivings about this change.

We very consciously extended the franchising powers to the other metropolitan areas and mayoral combined authorities, believing that what was being done in London and the volume of passengers there made that a sensible and realistic option. Despite that, areas such as Manchester took several years before deciding to go down this road. Promises were made about franchising happening quickly, but it never actually did at that time. Of course, the mayoral combined authority areas have the critical mass to do this, whereas the reality is that, on the ground in other parts of the country, the idea that an alternative to what happens now is available through franchising is something of an illusion.

The reality is that local authorities in counties such as Surrey, where I was a Member of Parliament for 23 years, already plan their services because they pay for them where a gap cannot be filled commercially. It is not as if they can somehow suddenly dictate that this route happens and that route happens. Given the low level of ridership, getting any buses at all to run is a challenge and something they have to fund and develop themselves. So I do not really see how expanding franchising to counties such as Surrey will make any difference whatever. That in itself seems to make this change anything but what the Minister has just described it as. Of course, franchising is a realistic option in metropolitan areas and mayoral combined authority areas. That is why we gave that power in the first place, but I just do not see it going to other parts of the country.

I have a reservation that goes beyond simply not understanding why this is necessary. There is a danger that this will hold back the development of bus services for the future. The reason I say that is that it was clear to me during my time as Secretary of State that the future of bus travel in rural areas, in particular, is about demand-responsive buses. It is not about traditional routes going all day long from A to B and B to A. It is about buses that do different things at different times of the day, follow different routes and respond to passenger demand. Effectively, it is about Uber-type operations on a large scale, with routes changing all the time based on who wants to use them.

I do not see how demand-responsive buses fit within a franchise system. I would very much like to hear the Minister explain that to me. By definition, if you are dealing with a private operator that adapts the routes it follows all the time to reflect individual demand on individual days, which has to be the future of buses in some parts of the country, how on earth does franchising fit with that? Yet a local authority may decide on this for political reasons, for example—on the Labour side, there were great debates at the time about wanting to see local authorities have greater control over bus systems—and I fear a conflict between its desire to structure things in some areas, trying hard to do so even when it has to pay for a lot of the routes itself, and not unleashing the potential of demand-responsive buses. They will be the future of public transport in areas of the country that remain ill-served by buses, and where it is difficult to make them operate simply because the sheer demand that exists in our cities is not there.

So I would particularly probe the Minister about how he sees demand-responsive buses working within the system that these regulations create. I still think that they are not necessary. Franchising in big cities and major conurbations is fine. This feels like a set of regulations that will not achieve very much. As the notes say, there is no actual demand from non-metropolitan combined authority areas and this instrument may hold back the private sector from the kind of innovation that will be needed for the future.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress on franchising represented by this SI. I always felt it was a great pity that the 2017 Act made franchising so complex, so I am pleased about the removal of the first stage of the franchising process. However, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. That report criticised the Explanatory Memorandum because it had little information on what franchising is and how it differs from the current situation. Also—I think this is crucial—how many local authorities are expected to adopt franchising?

I do not agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, in full, but he raises an issue which relates basically to capacity. I will come back to that in a moment, but if franchising is not suitable for Surrey, why was it regarded in that 2017 legislation as acceptable for Cornwall? It is my recollection that Cornwall was allowed to franchise buses. An element of doubt is sewn in this SI in the Explanatory Note, which says that no impact assessment has been produced because the SI is not expected to have any, or any

“significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector”.

I find that judgment worrying, because bus franchising is a very big undertaking, a multimillion pound undertaking, and it takes a long time. I have watched Manchester, for example, struggle with franchising in producing the Bee Network over many years.

Nevertheless, despite the deficiencies in the way the SI is cast, it is welcome because it removes the first stage, as I pointed out earlier, and also because it extends bus franchising powers beyond mayoral authorities. At the time that this legislation went through this House, I questioned why, having voted, as a local authority, for an elected mayor, that made you intrinsically more capable of running the buses. It struck me as totally illogical. Not all bigger local authorities have elected mayors: I think of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, which is a fairly densely urban area that does not have an elected mayor.

So I am pleased that the complexity of the process is being reduced and I am pleased that it is being extended, but, in reality, the key barrier remains the capacity and expertise in our local authorities. I was pleased to read that the department is looking to build up its capacity to offer advice and assistance to local authorities, because on the ground that is what they desperately need.

When the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Department for Transport why there was no proper explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum, the department provided a very clear paragraph, which was included in our report. I recommend that noble Lords read it if they are in any doubt about the importance of this legislation.

Finally, the same legislation in the 1990s that allowed London to franchise and fatally divided the country between the bus haves and the bus have-nots also encouraged local authorities to sell their bus services and their buses and forced them to run them on a strictly commercial basis. It has interested me ever since that the few local authorities that still have bus companies and run their own buses at arm’s length are largely successful and some of the best examples of bus services in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord wanted to know whether there was any money to do this. The answer is that there is some money. The investment of more than £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable is being spent not only on the national bus fare cap of £3 from 1 January 2025 but includes £640 million for local transport authorities to support and improve bus services in bus service improvement fund planning and £285 million for the bus service operators grant to continue running and protect existing services.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Will the Minister allow me to probe that? The Red Book shows that the Department for Transport has probably had the worst settlement in the Budget, with barely an increase in either capital or revenue budgets taking place, so is this new money?

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am citing sums which are available in 2025-26. I disagree with the noble Lord in conceptual terms that it is the worst settlement for years, to paraphrase him. It is a very good settlement, bearing in mind the state of the national finances. Indeed, in real terms, local government support has gone up by 3.2%. My point is that there is enough money here to support local bus services in local transport authorities in whatever way they want to provide them, and this statutory instrument allows them to provide them in more ways than they currently can. Also, as I just said about Manchester, and as I would say about a consistent network anywhere in towns and cities in Britain, if it is provided consistently and planned rationally, revenue will go up and that virtuous circle will enable more provision.

I hope that I have answered all the points that noble Lords made, but if not, I will be delighted to write.

In conclusion, the regulations we are considering give all types of local transport authorities in England, outside London, access to powers to franchise their bus services. This Government’s plan to improve buses starts here. Our next stage of reform will be the introduction of the buses Bill. This legislation will seek to make bus franchising even easier to deliver, devolve funding and improve accessible travel. It will also improve bus services for councils that choose not to franchise. The transformative work the Government are doing will turn the tide by giving communities the opportunity to better control local bus services and have a real say in building local transport networks that work for them.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

That is why we are having this debate. Who takes precedence, and which model is right? If it is good for London, surely it is good for the rest of the country. Why can other parts of the country not be granted these freedoms? My noble friend Lord Houchen of High Leven—the Mayor of Tees Valley—and others should surely be granted that freedom to decide how their trains are run, just like in London. Do the Government think it right that London gets such empowerment and financial support that other mayors do not deserve? I know the Labour Party has scrapped levelling up and that the Minister, who I respect deeply, does not believe this, but do his colleagues in wider government believe it right that vast swathes of England outside London should, in effect, be second-class citizens?

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment but perhaps from a slightly different perspective to his, given his—and indeed the Minister’s—track record, which had a strong focus on London. I believe it is very important to ensure that there is a clear explanation and, frankly, that there are detailed rules about how the interaction takes place around the London boundary, simply because there is a democratic issue here as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made reference to the attempt by the mayor to take control of the Southeastern franchise some years ago. I blocked that, for two reasons. First, there was a significant level of opposition outside London to that transition taking place—the sense that the mayor should not be running services that cross into Kent, Surrey and so forth—including strong opposition from local MPs. Secondly, there is the issue of fragmentation: who operates which depot, how do you divide the franchise in half and so forth? It is important to maintain a system that is simple and as easy to run as possible.

None the less, there is and will always be an issue around how the mayoral responsibility for services that cross the boundary interacts with services operating under the control of shadow Great British Railways and subsequently Great British Railways, how they interact and work together, and how the whole system is managed. While I do not support my noble friend’s level of enthusiasm for devolution because I worry about fragmentation, it is none the less important in this new world to have very clear guidance, rules and methodology about how the system in London will operate with the system that crosses paths with it around the London boundary and, indeed, into the termini in London.

I think my noble friend has put forward an important point here. Although we have a slightly different perspective on this, I very much hope that the Government will adopt this proposal, because I think it is the right one.

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

My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that this is a short Bill, simply to bring back the national railway operations into public ownership. This is a popular policy with the public, absolutely necessary to making the railway run properly, and a necessary precursor to a more major Bill next year.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for this amendment, which would require not a report this time—although he has sought to require many—but Statements to Parliament about the relationship between services in Greater London provided under contract to TfL and those for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

There is no reason to expect the Bill, which allows train operations to transfer from private operators into public ownership, to have any adverse effect whatever on the existing collaboration between operators and TfL. The Bill makes no change to the existing duties on the Secretary of State for Transport and on Transport for London under Section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to co-operate and co-ordinate passenger rail services in London. Like many noble Lords in the Committee, I know from my own experience how that works. I think we can all conclude that it has worked very satisfactorily so far and there is no reason why it should not continue.

The Bill will not have any adverse effect on those services: substantially the same staff will be running those trains under public ownership on the national railway network, as they do now, so there should be no concern about a sudden deterioration of service. In fact, I expect it to improve: publicly owned operators will prioritise the interests of passengers, rather than exploiting contractual conditions in pursuit of short-term profit.

The Bill says nothing about the devolution of further passenger rail service to the Mayor of London. It would not prevent further devolution, and nothing I have said would prevent that. If they were devolved, they could be operated in the same way as the current London Overground services are operated, under a concession from Transport for London.

When I said, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted, that there is no current plan for further devolution, that was an accurate statement. Of course, it may not be an accurate statement in the future, but when I wrote the letter to him and other noble Lords and Baronesses, it was true. We will see what happens. It is only a few weeks since what the mayor said in July and, if he does have aspirations to operate further services, I am sure there will be a cordial discussion under the auspices of Section 175 to discuss whether and how that is carried out and the costs of doing it.

The noble Lord is also mistaken on Manchester. Certainly, the evolving situation I described with the Mayor of Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester is that services would be operated not by Network Rail, because that is currently an infrastructure provider, but by a train company. In fact, it is most likely to be Northern Trains, which is already owned by the public sector and has been for four years.

As I have already said, I give a commitment that the future, wider Bill will give a statutory role for combined authority mayors that is better than any they have now. I have just repeated it for the avoidance of doubt. In that case, it is under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. If they were to want to operate train services, this Bill does not alter Section 24 and that would be a discussion that could be had. I described the situation as I understand it currently unfolding; in fact, they do not wish to do that, but the Secretary of State could devolve more under Section 24 if she chose to.

At the moment, if I have counted correctly, the operation of rail services in London is currently the responsibility of eight different franchised operators, plus two more under contract to Transport for London. That is without the long-distance operators whose services start and finish in London but do not otherwise serve the London market directly and, indeed, Network Rail, which is responsible for the physical railway infra- structure. Public ownership and subsequent integration into Great British Railways will simplify all this by bringing the currently franchised services together in ownership in one place. If TfL wishes to discuss or influence the provision of other rail services across Greater London in the future, it will have an easier job of engaging with Great British Railways. It will be assured that the train operators that are performing will be interested in acting in the interests of passengers.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked where I think it is all going. I will come back and answer that on Report.

It was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, talking about the particular circumstances of Bexley, and it is nice to see her in her place. I do not envisage any immediate change to the railway geography of south-east London. I cannot answer for much of the rest of what she said in the way that I once could, as the commissioner of Transport for London, but I am sure that she knows where to go to make the points about the Superloop, ULEZ and the other things she referred to for the benefit of her borough of Bexley.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, referred to Crossrail 2. It should be evident—I hope it is from what I have now said about Section 175—that, were Crossrail 2 to be promoted and come into effect, it would, like Crossrail 1, be complex, but the outcome would be a significant transfer of services to the mayor, because it would, and hopefully will, eventually take over some national railway services. The ease with which Crossrail has taken over former national railway services in London and transformed them into a coherent service for the benefit not only of London but the national economy would be replicated in Crossrail 2. Nothing in the Bill would change that; nor would it change the way that Crossrail was funded had it been proposed now, or the way Crossrail 2 would be funded if it were proposed in the future.

The answer to a lot of what has been said about the Overground is that the Bill primarily seeks to remedy those parts of the railway network that patently do not work well. I would contend—I have always contended in all my roles and in this one too—that the railway service in London works. It works because it is coherent, and there is no reason for the Bill to interfere with it.

I was very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I remember well his position on the devolution of Southeastern services, and he is right that many of them go well beyond the London boundary. There is a democratic issue about how well they serve the areas outside the boundary, and his recollection is correct that at the stage at which it was proposed— I recall it well because I proposed it, even if it was politically advocated by the mayor—it cost more to operate those services separately than it did together. That would be quite a good reason to think carefully about whether a proposition could now be made to do it differently. In a sense, he is making my case because one of the things that we need to have some regard to in a post-Covid railway, with less revenue but similar costs, is the cost of the whole thing. One of the reasons for the proposition in the Bill is to start to sort out the costs of the railway, increase its revenue and improve its performance.

I listened carefully to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on devolution and I intend to come back to them on Report.

The Government’s plans will improve co-operation, not hinder it, so I see no need for the statement envisaged in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I am sure that all involved will work together to ensure that publicly owned and TfL services can co-exist effectively side by side. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. As the focus of this is on passenger travel and the noble Lord’s desire to put that at the centre of the objective of the Bill—which is a laudable objective shared, I am sure, by the Government—I cannot help pointing out that one of the major decisions by the last Government, which will of course affect the capacity of the railway network to deliver first-class passenger transport, was their in my view crazy decision to truncate the HS2 programme.

That programme was introduced by a Labour Government, supported by the coalition Government and by Conservative Governments over a period of about 15 years in total and at two strokes—first, getting rid of the Leeds link and, secondly, getting rid of the Manchester link—so much planning, expenditure and work was wasted. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree with a lot of this. It means that, among other things, the service to passengers, which is at the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is bound to be diminished from what it could have been. The network was there to provide passenger transport, freeing up space on the west coast mainline, which is close to, if not beyond, capacity, and helping freight as well, of course, which is a very important part of what the rail network delivers. It would have enabled that by freeing up the west coast mainline, the old mainline, if you like, built by the Victorians and still doing remarkable work, and improving the network overall.

So, when he winds up, I really would like the noble Lord to take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Government he served for making those nihilistic decisions to scrap that section of the railway. Ironically, in an attempt to justify the action they took, they claimed that somehow several billion pounds would be saved and one of the ways the “saved” money would be spent—I think the figure was £9 billion—would be on filling potholes. Now I am strongly in favour of filling potholes, but it will not help passenger services on the railway—which the building of the two northern legs of HS2 would have done. So, as welcome, in many ways, as his emphasis is—I do not know whether it is on behalf of the Opposition or not—on supporting and improving passenger services, that has a long way to go to make up for the damage it did by the cancellation of HS2 north.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I rise along with the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as someone who has worked closely with the new Minister. I congratulate him on his appointment. He knows more than almost anyone about our railway network—the problems, issues and challenges—and, while he may find himself on the other side of the political fence to me, he will be a great asset in trying to sort the challenges of our rail network.

He will know, very much more than anybody else, what the challenges are. He will also know, therefore, that sorting out our railways is not simply about changing the ownership structure. He knows full well, for example, that many of the issues that passengers have experienced in recent years have been laid at the foot of Network Rail—the company he chaired, although it was not his fault, of course—and rightly so. However, all of us involved bear the scars from the difficult times in 2018 with the timetable change. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, knew well the challenges then, particularly in her role in the north. In the north, they were caused most immediately by Network Rail’s failure to deliver an electrification programme in the timetable that had been committed to, which had a dramatic knock-on effect on the rest of the railway.

Therefore, I am not clear, and it is why I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, why a move of ownership is going to deliver a transformation for the passenger. I hope that the Minister, with his experience, will be able to talk a bit about that as he responds to the debate. Fundamentally, on both sides of the House, we are all about improvement for the passenger, and simply transferring ownership from public to private and private to public does not solve the challenges. Ironically, I was reading at the weekend—and I am sure it is true—that the Government are looking at bringing the private sector in to run Euston station, at the same time it is planning to take the private sector out of the railway to run the trains that go into it.

So I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why he thinks this change will deliver improvement for passengers and why, therefore, the amendment being proposed by my noble friend is wrong.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am in the slightly unusual position of speaking to Conservative amendments that have not been spoken to already. However, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will correct me if I interpret them wrongly.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, set out the failures of the current system. Prior to the laying of the noble Lord’s amendment, I had taken the theme of this group of Conservative amendments as displaying a welcome, if overdue, conversion on the road to Damascus. After more than a decade of increasing confusion on railway services, declining levels of passenger satisfaction and rocketing fare prices, the Conservatives are actually looking at improving public train services.

Amendment 2 touches upon something with which I definitely agree: the inevitable winding-down effect of a four to five-year transition period. As I said at Second Reading, there is bound to be an impact on staff morale and the inevitable likelihood is that the best staff will move to other industries when faced with an uncertain future. There will also, of course, be cost pressures. For example, there is bound to be a tendency to level up across very different terms and conditions from one employer to another within the train operating companies. Last week, I was speaking to some train operating companies, all of which recognised the problems that will be faced as the Government try to bring together and harmonise terms and conditions without exposing the taxpayer and the passenger to higher costs. Of course, the most obvious problem is how to deal with rest day working. I know the Minister is fully aware of the problems to which I am referring, so I will be interested in his response.

Amendment 26 refers to costs. At Second Reading, I asked questions about several issues, such as station ownership and operation, which were not really answered. I also asked about British Transport Police, which is encompassed in Amendment 40, put down by the Liberal Democrats. The Labour manifesto contained a supposedly cunning plan for low-cost nationalisation, but there are still bound to be significant costs for such obvious things as new livery and uniforms. We all look forward to an integrated fare structure; that, of course, will come with upfront costs.

Amendment 22 refers to the establishment of an independent public body to assess performance, while Amendment 21 refers to an annual report from the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will explain exactly what he is aiming at in these amendments. One of them asks for the sort of close supervision by the Department for Transport that we have had since Covid, which clearly has not worked terribly well; the other refers to a more arms-length approach. Which of those approaches does the Conservative Party in this House believe will be better?

Liberal Democrats would establish a railway agency —a nationwide public body to act as a guiding mind for the railways, putting commuters first, implementing wholesale reform of the fares system and holding train companies to account. We do not believe that the renationalisation of passenger rail will automatically deliver cheaper fares or better services. From speaking to members of the public, we have concluded that they really do not care who runs the railways; they just want cheap, efficient and reliable services.

I do not doubt the Government’s good will or their wish to make this huge change, which we all want to happen. However, as a signal of their intent and an upfront signal to the public, I hope the Minister will speak with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that in next week’s Budget, we have a fare freeze and the public see from the start that there will be a difference under this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

These are questions. I think that we were told about legal advice and various other things, but the truth is that legal advice is always cautious on any of those questions. What politicians have to do is to decide whether they are prepared to take a risk, and what might be the consequences of that risk. Therefore, I urge the Minister to explain to us how we can speed up this process and get it done in the interests of the public.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I shall raise a question with the Minister, as we are on the subject of the termination of franchises. I should say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that I have been there and wanted to terminate franchises. I have never had a problem with a mixed economy, but I have an issue with a uniform economy, because I cannot understand the logic of terminating a very good private sector provider, any more than the Mayor of London believes in terminating his private provider of the London overground—and I suspect, if we see more devolution in future, other parts of the country may want to see a mixed economy as well. Clearly, the Government are very happy to see that in stations, as we learned at the weekend.

However, it is more difficult than one might wish, and as a Minister you have to take a judgment about how much legal and therefore financial risk you are willing to take, and also about the disruption that the termination brings. Nobody should be under any illusion that making a transition between two operators has to be managed extremely carefully and, done at gunpoint, can actually lead to a deterioration of services.

I come to my question to the Minister. This set of amendments discusses the process of termination of franchises and when and how they happen—the order in which they happen. My memory is that, in a private system, at the end of a franchise, there is a payment to be made by the successor franchise operator to the franchise operator handing over control of that franchise. There are various capital costs and other costs incurred. If the public sector is coming in and saying, “Right, we’re taking over the franchise”, what can the Minister tell us about that equivalent process? Will payments be made to the companies that are being phased out, as there were between private operators? What will those payments be and what will be the total cost incurred by the Government in making those payments? After all, the private operators will have invested in capital aspects, on the stations or elsewhere. Therefore, logically, the Government will also have a legal obligation to go through the kind of process that happened in the past when a franchise simply moved between two private operators. Can the Minister address that specific point in his closing remarks?

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I honestly believe that the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness opposite is extremely sensible. Like her, I can see no reason why we have a chronological system for dispatching the current franchisees based on the run-out date of their particular franchise.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I am in favour of a mixed economy. There are certain aspects of privatisation, heresy though it might sound to some of my colleagues, that were successful. The fact that some of the railway system—rail freight, for example, which rarely gets a mention in these debates—remains in the private sector is indicative of the success of those who took what was, under British Rail, a very much declining sector of the railway industry. I do not wish to do an “all our yesterdays” speech, but my recollection of the freight sector in those days is ancient wagons clanking around the system, being shunted from one marshalling yard to the next, and with an average journey speed between loading and destination of around 12 miles an hour. Since privatisation, the rail freight side has improved greatly.

To return to the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Greater Anglia is not just a success so far as its operations are concerned; it is a financial success as well. Because of this unfortunate coincidence of the run-out date of franchises, Greater Anglia is forecast to repay to His Majesty’s Treasury around £100 million in the current financial year. As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, presumably—unless my noble friend the Minister can reassure us otherwise— we are going to dispatch Greater Anglia to the railway knacker’s yard while pursuing with Avanti Trains, as he and the noble Baroness said, a franchise operator that, quite frankly, should not be there.

The previous Government, in the run-up to the election, were stupid enough—or ideological enough, perhaps—to give Avanti an extra nine-year franchise, on the grounds that it was showing some improvement. Those of us who travelled on Avanti regularly—thankfully, it is an experience that is now behind me since I moved home—could not find any improvement whatever. Indeed, it seemed to me that the service was deteriorating on an annual basis.

Again, it might be heretical for some of my colleagues to hear this, but aspects of the passenger railway that were privatised were successful. At Second Reading, I mentioned Chiltern Railways. Thanks to the financial constraints that British Rail had to operate under as a nationalised industry, Marylebone station was proposed to be a coach station by Sir Alfred Sherman, if I remember rightly, Mrs Thatcher’s transport guru at the time. The existing railway management, again through no fault of their own but because of financial constraints, had to run the service from Marylebone down, single much of the line and reduce the overall train service. Under the able leadership of the late Adrian Shooter, and with a long-term franchise of 20 years, with various break-off points, my noble friend Lord Prescott and the then chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority came up with this 20-year franchise, but insisted that not only had the service to be improved but some of the infrastructure had to be restored. Under Chiltern Railways, lines that had become single were redoubled, and a pretty poor commuter rail service now has two trains an hour as far as Birmingham—with a price, incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Liddle might be interested to know, which considerably undercuts the fare of Avanti trains.

There are aspects of the future of the railway industry where a mixed economy would make some sense. I hope that, in those circumstances, my noble friend the Minister will look with some degree of favour on the noble Baroness’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for explaining their amendments in this group, which consider some of the practical aspects of the Government’s plans to transfer services to public ownership. Amendments 1 and 48 focus on the contractual arrangements that allow the Secretary of State to terminate a franchise early, following a breach of contract or other sustained poor performance. I make it absolutely clear that this Government will not hesitate to act decisively where an operator’s unacceptable performance means that the contractual conditions for early termination are met. The Secretary of State has made this plain on a number of occasions and I am happy to reiterate it to your Lordships today.

However, I am very much afraid that the terms of the contracts we have inherited from the previous Government do not make this easy. It is far easier for an operator to return the contract to the Government than it is for the Government to take back a contract for poor performance. It is deeply regrettable that in the past couple of years, some of the poorest performing operators have been awarded the longest contracts.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we have looked very hard at the form of the contract. We are closely monitoring train operators’ compliance with their contract, but at present we are not in a position—with any operator—where the Secretary of State has a contractual right to terminate for poor performance. Noble Lords might be amazed to know that Avanti has not yet triggered the need for a remedial plan, although it may well do so. While CrossCountry has triggered the need for a remedial plan, we need to let that work through, together with the timetable reduction that the Secretary of State was deeply reluctant to agree to, before we discover whether its performance then merits some further contractual remedy.

Unless and until that contractual right arises, the only sensible approach is to transfer services to public ownership when the existing contracts expire. Any other approach would require taxpayers to foot the bill for compensation to operators in return for ending their contracts early, which the Government made clear in our manifesto that we would avoid, if only because of the state of the public finances we inherited.

I have also heard representations on behalf of operators—or, rather, their owners—that, rather than transferring services as contracts expire, we should leave their services in private hands for as long as possible. All the owning groups knew of these dates and would have planned financially for them in any event. The concern seems to be that service quality will suddenly collapse, or that current plans for service improvements, or for the rollout of new train fleets, will suddenly grind to a halt.

There is no basis for these claims. DOHL is experienced in transferring services into the public sector smoothly and without disruption, as it has proved in the difficult aftermath of past franchise failures. As services transfer, the same trains will be operated by the same staff as before, and no doubt often by the same management, as happened with LNER six years ago. The improvements that are already in train will continue. I have no reason to think that performance will deteriorate. Extending specific operators’ tenure will simply delay the process of bringing services back to public ownership, where they belong, and the financial savings that will result.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, while there have been transfer costs from franchise to franchise, he will of course recognise that the incoming franchisee would not pay that cost gratuitously; they would simply add it to the subsidy bill for the franchise they were inheriting. In the end, the public sector pays, as it has always done. In fact, since Covid, the operators have not funded anything at all, so the quantum in the future is likely to be extremely limited.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

I would like some clarification from the Minister on that point. Has the department added up that liability? Does he have a total number for the transfer into the public sector of all the franchises?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord is: not yet. He will recognise that those costs materialise only when the franchise transfers, so the department will never have had that total number in the past, and I do not expect it to have it now. As the franchises transfer, the number will become obvious.