Railways Bill

Lord Reay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks to consider the environmental impact of the railway and to ensure that Great British Railways take steps to meet climate change legislation, reducing the carbon footprint of the railway and using every opportunity to support the environment and indeed electrify the railway, whether that is through rail, battery or other means. There are amendments are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Russell also has several in this group and has spoken clearly about the importance of these matters and the increasingly extreme weather we are all experiencing. This brings home how important this topic is to us all; we are seeing this increasingly every year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, also has her really good Amendment 129, in which she talks about the deployment of solar panels and transport infrastructure —as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—and the solar reporting duty. We can go much further in this space. In the planning legislation last year, I spoke to some amendments I tabled on using our transport infrastructure for solar panels. In places such as Switzerland, they have installed solar panels between the tracks, while France, as is well known, is using coverings in car parks. There is so much innovation that we can learn from globally, and we must do better to capture solar panel on our transport infrastructure. I really welcome these amendments.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is really valid, but these are probing amendments, trying to make sure that this is absolutely on the Government’s agenda. The long-term rail strategy, which was mentioned earlier, may well cover some of this, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on this really important area.

[Lord Reay (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Railways Bill

Lord Reay Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are about strengthening the requirements for Great British Railways before it is able to grant a licence and to strengthen the Passengers’ Council in areas such as safety and standards. They would also strengthen the role of the Office of Rail and Road, which is something I believe is on this Government’s agenda.

The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, about consultation-only powers, rather than real teeth, for the Passengers’ Council, and the query from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about ensuring that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are consulted on a licence, are both very relevant, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on these issues.

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Evans of Guisborough, Lord Lansley and Lord Grayling for their amendments in this group. I will address Amendments 41, 42 and 44 first.

The Government have repeatedly emphasised the importance of independent regulation under the new system. They tell us that the ORR will remain an independent and expert regulator, while describing the new Passengers’ Council as a powerful new voice for passengers. These amendments ask how much power these bodies will actually have. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State may modify GBR’s licence after consulting the ORR and, where the changes concern its functions, the Passengers’ Council.

However, consultation is not agreement. The licence is fundamental to how GBR operates and to the conditions against which the ORR will ultimately regulate and enforce its performance. If the ORR is to be the robust and independent regulator that the Government say it will be, why can the Secretary of State alter that licence without its agreement?

The same question applies to the Passengers’ Council. The Government describe it as a powerful new voice, but the Bill requires only consultation. There is no express requirement in this provision for the Secretary of State to have regard to the council’s consultation response. The Secretary of State must subsequently consider representations or objections made during the formal notice period, but that is not the same as giving the passenger watchdog a meaningful role in agreeing changes that may directly affect passenger interests.

I turn to Amendment 46, tabled by my noble friend Lord Grayling. Under the Bill, the ORR may grant a licence to a non-GBR operator only if the Secretary of State consents or if the licence falls within a general authority previously given by the Secretary of State. As my noble friend Lord Harper asks, why is that ministerial veto necessary? If the ORR—the independent regulator that the Government repeatedly tell us will remain robust and expert—has considered an application and concluded that a non-GBR operator satisfies the relevant requirements, why should the Secretary of State have the final trump card?

If the Government genuinely want an independent regulator and less day-to-day political interference in the operation of the railway, surely licensing decisions of this kind should rest with the regulator. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the Government envisage the Secretary of State refusing consent to a licence that the ORR considers should be granted and why that power remains necessary.

Amendment 45, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seems entirely reasonable. Where a GBR licence concerns railway assets located in Scotland or Wales, I see no good reason why the relevant Scottish or Welsh Ministers should not be consulted.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to hear from noble Lords on this group, and it is a special pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay.

Amendments 38 and 39 would undermine one of the fundamental principles that the Bill seeks to establish. The Secretary of State will set the overall strategic direction for GBR, and the Bill provides her with the sole ability to issue GBR’s licence. This reflects that it is the Secretary of State, not the ORR or the passenger watchdog, who is ultimately accountable for GBR both to Parliament and to the wider public. This aligns with the wider programme of regulatory reform that this Government are undertaking, where Ministers set the strategic direction and regulators are empowered to enforce against that. Regulators should not be making key strategic or political decisions for fundamentally important sectors.

However, regardless of who issues the licence, the ORR will enforce GBR’s compliance with it exactly as it does today. It has strong enforcement powers to ensure that GBR does not contravene the terms of its licence, including mandatory, legally binding directions requiring GBR to change its behaviour. It would not be appropriate to provide the ORR or the passenger watchdog with the power to veto the licence. The Secretary of State will, however, consult both those bodies and consider their views before issuing the licence.

On Amendment 38 specifically, I reassure noble Lords that safety remains fundamental to the operation of our railways and that the Bill does not weaken or alter the existing railway safety regime, nor the ORR’s role within it. No licence will be issued that is not fully compliant with safety regulations and safety law. Furthermore, we expect that GBR will have a licence condition to support the continuity of the current industry safety and standards framework to preserve our world-leading culture of rail safety. The Secretary of State will consult the ORR on the licence precisely to ensure that these kinds of conditions are fit for purpose.

I turn to Amendments 41 to 46. Currently, the Secretary of State is the ultimate licensing authority for the railways under the Railways Act 1993, and the current Bill does not change that. As it does now, the ORR will continue to issue all non-GBR licences under the general authority given to it by the Secretary of State. Not only would removing the Secretary of State from the process or requiring the ORR to consent undermine continuity and stability for the industry but it would be superfluous in practice, as the ORR already issues these licences on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Let me also clarify that railway licensing is, and will remain, a reserved matter. Scottish and Welsh Ministers are not licensing authorities under the current system, and the Bill will not change this. However, that does not mean that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are prevented from making their views known. The ORR is required under the Bill to provide notice prior to any licence being issued and to consider any representations, including any by Scottish and Welsh Ministers. We therefore do not consider it necessary to create an additional consultation requirement specifically for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

I also note that the Government have spent long and productive hours discussing the provisions of the Bill with Scottish and Welsh Ministers and, in both cases, they are content with the licensing provisions as drafted. In fact, Scotland has already published its legislative consent Motion. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.