Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Snape Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches were saddened that the Government cancelled the £2 bus fare cap. It was an incredibly successful scheme that saw an increase in passengers on buses and made bus travel more affordable. I have an amendment to bring back a £2 bus fare cap scheme, which we will debate next week. I believe it is far stronger than this amendment before us today.

However, I am glad to see that His Majesty’s Opposition are highlighting this issue through an assessment of the scheme. As I said earlier, the key issue here is always the level of funding for bus services and, indeed, the costs to the passenger. If we want more people out of their cars and using buses, we need to ensure that fares are more attractive and services are provided where passengers need to go. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that he deplored the fact that the £2 bus fare had been increased to £3. This is, even for him, an act of great cynicism. The £2 maximum bus fare was introduced by the last Conservative Government on 1 January 2023 —coincidentally, of course, in the run-up to the next election. It was initially introduced for three months. There is nothing that makes the bus industry despair more than this sort of short-termism. You cannot plan ahead for three months so far as bus services are concerned.

That £2 limit was increased on numerous occasions in the run-up to the election, and if the Opposition spokesperson is going to tell us that it would have remained at £2 in the foreseeable future, I would be more than impressed. I suspect that this is a plot that has succeeded in luring the Liberal Democrats into the same Lobby. The House would be better served if we waited for the actual debate on the Liberal Democrat amendment rather than suffered what is, I repeat, a cynical operation on the part of the party opposite.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make just a few points about the former £2 national bus fare cap. The first is quite obvious. The previous Government left no forward funding for that scheme at the time of the election and, indeed, left a rather large hole in the public finances, which, in effect, prevented its continuation.

The second point is that it is very easy to assume that somehow the maximum cap of £3 meant that all fares went up by 50%. The vast majority of travellers on bus services travel for a short distance and many of them paid less than £2 in any event. Fares between £2 and £3 went up only by inflation, and the cap still applies to longer-distance journeys that would cost more than £3.

In any event, in February, the Government published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. Evidence from that suggests that the scheme had a relatively greater impact on leisure trips compared with those for education and employment and was, in fact, rather poor value for money. So I believe that a legislative requirement for further evaluation is unnecessary and, on that basis, I would ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Snape Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, to which my name is attached, and remind your Lordships that I am president of the Local Government Association. From 2011 to 2023, England saw a 20% reduction in bus service provision, adjusted to a 28% per capita decrease amid population growth. The withdrawal of essential bus routes has isolated residents, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, from critical services and social opportunities. Despite overall national decline, particular regional disparities have hit areas such as North Yorkshire, Rutland, Shropshire and Slough. The government investment of £3.5 billion since the pandemic into initiatives such as the £2 fare cap and examples of community-led efforts to subsidise services demonstrate awareness of the problem, but this alone cannot create a more comprehensive bus network.

Transport for All believes that the Government’s proposed increase in funding is an opportunity to address the challenges faced by rural areas. However, in rural areas disabled people are more likely to rely on buses than non-disabled people. They are often impacted by inaccessible bus stops and poor connectivity, but buses are essential for accessing employment, healthcare and social inclusion. Rural bus services often exacerbate isolation and inequality, highlighting the urgent need for reforms that prioritise accessibility and inclusivity as an absolute must. In a survey carried out by Transport for All, 48% of respondents cited barriers to access on buses.

The English national concessionary travel scheme—ENCTS—is fantastic, but it cannot be used before 9.30 am, which creates barriers to employment for disabled people in these areas. New funding has been announced for rural and smaller authorities to provide for ENCTS enhancements. This would promote greater accessibility, similar to that in areas such as London and Merseyside, where disabled people can travel for free at any point of the day. It is really important that we look at this in rural areas—otherwise, it is going to exclude lots of people.

On the second day in Committee I covered issues on the accessibility of bus stops, ramps and shelters. This is even more important in rural communities, where there might be several hours between bus services, but we should also recognise that buses are critical to the local economy. Buses are socially necessary in rural areas, and it is vital that these services are maintained and expanded to meet community needs, especially for disabled people.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is impossible to disagree with the amendment that the Committee is discussing. We have heard the usual comprehensive proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I rise only to ask that if she is not happy—and none of us could be happy about the decline in rural bus services—how can that decline be reversed and who will be responsible for reversing it? Presumably, the Government will be expected to adequately fund the sorts of services that the Liberal Democrats and the right reverend Prelate envisage. We all know that is not going to happen in the short term. No doubt, it will enable the Liberal Democrats to blame somebody else—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We have not blamed anybody. That is not fair.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Well, life is not fair. These are the realities of running bus services. I just remind the noble Baroness who accuses me of not being fair that I used to chair a major bus operator. It was employee-owned for much of the time and faced the same financial constraints and problems under the coalition Government—of which, if I remember rightly, the Liberal Democrats were a part.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Stop being snide. I am sorry—I should not intervene, as I came late.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I wonder if I could interrupt the noble Baroness to say that I hope that she realises that this Bill does not give the Government powers to run bus services. The whole point of this Bill is to give powers to local government to run bus services. When she says, “We want the Government to address these issues”, it is unclear to me to what she is referring. If she says that she wants the Government to provide funding to address these issues, that is fine, but if the funding is to be specific and hypothecated to particular purposes—say, to the crossing of bodies of water or certain rural services—then what is the point of giving the powers to local government? They should be making those decisions, wherever the funding comes from. I find the Liberal Democrat position on these provisions very difficult to follow.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I am not sure who is giving way to whom at the present time. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in a moment or two, because I would be fascinated to hear his summing up of this matter—I wait with bated breath. Having gorged on those subsidies when he worked for TfL, while his party denuded the rest of the country of bus services, his response will be absolutely fascinating.

I ask the noble Baroness—I hope without causing too much offence—that if these proposals are to be properly implemented, who will provide the finance? It has to be either local or central government. The reality of these matters is that, in the short term, there will not be a massive improvement in rural bus services once this Bill becomes law. I only wish that the opposite were true. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that it will be true. However, until we know exactly how funds will be allocated and how great those funds are, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that, as ably as she moved this amendment, it is, as far as I can see, rather typical of the Liberal Democrats—all motherhood and apple pie.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I mentioned at Second Reading that I had been chairman of the North Wales Transport Commission in 2023-24. I spent a lot of time in north Wales looking at the performance of the bus services there. I am wholly persuaded of the merits of a franchising system in rural areas as well as in more urban areas, because we all know the problems that the existing system has created. However, I should point out—this follows the previous intervention—that doing this work and deciding which routes need to be run and where people wish to go is a time-consuming business. It will take a significant period to monitor where the car journeys are presently being taken and what kind of network is best going to meet the needs of people. I find the notion that there should be review of this within six months or even two years very ambitious, because in the work that I was engaged in it was time-consuming to get anywhere near a feel of how to create an integrated network rather than just a set of buses that were serving individual parts of the of the area.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to place a statutory requirement on reviewing the Bill’s impact on rural areas and villages. I also heard clearly the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and, incidentally, I agree with him about the need for cross-subsidy to help bus routes that are not in themselves profitable.

I note and understand the importance of serving villages and rural areas. Indeed, the Government intend the choices available to local transport authorities in the Bill to address just those points—including, for the avoidance of doubt, as we discussed this on a previous day, the appropriate use of demand-responsive transport.

The monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, which include the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. It will take several years—up to five years—for local authorities to transition to a franchised network or to form local authority bus companies, so any review prior to this would not be able to consider the full impact of any such transition. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I have very high regard for the work that he did in both south Wales and north Wales; he made elegantly that very point. In addition, the full impact of franchising is not expected to be seen until franchising schemes have been operating for some time. Therefore, the timing of a full assessment of impacts on local services needs to reflect that timeline.

I say to my noble friend Lord Snape that while a dose of realism is always a good thing in a discussion about the future, the evidence from the stages of franchising in Manchester is that a remarkable change in both the reliability of the bus service and the volumes of patronage and revenue has been seen as a consequence of the introduction of franchising in various phases.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I respectfully point out that Manchester is scarcely a rural area, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, specifies rural areas. It might be a bit more difficult to run cross-country services in rural areas than it is to run a franchising operation in cities such as Greater Manchester.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend for that observation. I should have also mentioned the situation in Cornwall, which is more or less franchising and in an area that can be called rural, where the consequence of a decent set of organised services in a rural area has been a considerable increase in patronage. My noble friend’s point about realism is right, and I think the real point of what he was saying is that these things take some time to mature and come into effect.

On rural areas, there is no doubt that considerable damage has been done to public transport by an approach necessitated by the previous Government’s funding mechanisms, which have reintroduced routes that were withdrawn, withdrawn again routes that were reintroduced and given a lack of continuity to services that need it in order for people to rely on them.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward Amendment 53 about statutory changes to local council powers. The Government believe that such changes will be wholly beneficial to communities in the United Kingdom. There may be legislation in this Session that alters the powers of local councils to provide them further powers on transport. Given the proximity in timing of any such legislation to this Bill, it would not be appropriate to provide such a review, as the powers would not have had sufficient time to be in force.

I appreciate that this Bill and the English devolution Bill, as well as the forthcoming railway reform Bill, will or may have related provisions to enhance the role of local councils, and we will work closely across and between departments to ensure that they most effectively give local councils control over their own transport networks. In respect of buses, the extensive guidance already available on enhanced partnerships in franchising from government, and the Bus Centre of Excellence, which has been referred to previously, will be available.

Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to review within six months the Bill’s impact on certain local transport services. I refer to the remarks I have already made about the length of time it would take to take a good view about changes. I know that my noble friend is a long-standing campaigner on ferry services and the important role they play in connecting communities. I also note his description of the ferry service to the Isles of Scilly as “bumpy”, which is undoubtedly true. I agree that these services provide a crucial lifeline for many communities and ensure that people can access essential services, as he says.

The noble Lord also asked at Second Reading about tram services. Again, they are an important part. However, the meaning of this Bill is clear: it is focused on the provision of local bus services and a tram is clearly not a bus—a ferry is even less so. On ferries, though, I understand that the Isles of Scilly Council has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding both this matter and broader support for the islands. I hope that the noble Lord will note that I have said that.

Turning to Amendment 73, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing it forward. The Committee will have heard the noble Lord’s remarks about the handling of passenger complaints. The Government remain committed to ensuring that services are continuously improved with passengers. This amendment is consistent with our approach to rail, for which guidance on how to resolve complaints already exists. I agree with the noble Lords that it is important to deal with complaints properly, but it is my view that, apart from the handling of the original complaint, the resolution role sits with passenger watchdogs. The department is in the process of undertaking work with existing passenger watchdogs—Transport Focus and London TravelWatch—and bus stakeholders to identify issues and make recommendations on embedding standardised complaint-handling processes, ensuring that passengers have clear escalation. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the way to deal with complaints is not to file them in the waste-paper basket, but I do not wish to cut across the engagement that is currently under way.

I shall now address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about help for local transport authorities in route planning and fare setting. Of course, he has missed the fact that virtually every local transport authority in Britain has existing experience in both since, for the past 40 years, they have had to tender services that have not been found by commercial bus services to be worth running. I cannot believe that there is a local transport authority in the country that does not have some experience of both route planning and fare setting.

Amendment 79B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose new requirements on the provision of real-time passenger information. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that ensuring that passengers can access high-quality, real-time information about their services is critical, but he will, I hope, be aware that there are existing obligations on bus operators. The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 provide the foundation for those obligations and, from these regulations, the Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 to facilitate the provision of high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information across England, outside London. The Government will continue to work with local authorities and the sector to help drive improvements in real-time information.

I know that the noble Lord will have noted the part of our earlier discussion about the requirement in this Bill to ensure that real-time information is available on an accurate basis; the worst thing you can have is inaccurate real-time information. However, this Bill is also about empowering local areas. Part of that is trusting them to take decisions on what is best for the communities that they serve and working with them constructively, particularly in areas where there are existing regulations to ensure that services are improved. This is why I believe that the noble Lord’s Amendment 79B is not necessary.

Turning to Amendment 79D, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing it forward. As he said, it is about working with local transport authorities and airport operators, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. My department is currently carrying out a call for ideas for the integrated national transport strategy, which will set out a single national vision. This will have people who use transport and their needs at its heart and will empower local leaders to develop integrated transport solutions. As part of the Bill, we want better links across modes—links that connect people and businesses and support the economy. We are working with operators, local authorities and passengers in that way to deliver more reliable public transport networks in general. The noble Lord will, I hope, understand that I do not wish to cut across the engagement on the integrated national transport strategy that is currently under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 standing in my name. We are fully aware that fares must contribute to funding our public transport system, particularly when it comes to meeting essential social needs. However, we must also acknowledge the significant impact that fare levels have on passenger demand. This is especially relevant given His Majesty’s Government’s recent decision to raise the bus fare cap by 50%.

We are proud of our own record, particularly in extending the £2 bus fare cap throughout 2024. That policy, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, provided crucial support to passengers across the country, especially in low-income areas where bus services are a lifeline for many. It is therefore imperative that we fully understand the impact of increasing fares on those who rely most on these services.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government carry out and publish a comprehensive impact assessment on the economic and social consequences of removing the £2 bus fare cap. This assessment must include, but not be limited to, the potential impact on passenger numbers; the financial implications for local transport authorities; the effect on accessibility for those who depend on bus fares for essential travel; and the impact on passengers’ ability to reach socially necessary services, as defined in Clause 12.

We do not believe that His Majesty’s Government conducted such a detailed assessment before announcing the increase to the fare cap. However, they still have the opportunity to do so now. By undertaking that assessment, the Government can ensure that future decisions are based on sound evidence and a clear understanding of the impact on those who depend on public transport the most. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider this amendment and commit to a full and transparent assessment of the impact of increasing the bus fare cap.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think I will offend too many people if I say that no one could object to this amendment. Fares play an important role, but I do not think we should overemphasise the role they play. Travel West Midlands, a company with which I was involved for some years, did regular passenger surveys—largely a tick-box exercise, for obvious reasons, handed out by the driver or staff at bus stops. Funnily enough, fares never topped the list of complaints; reliability, congestion and safety all came before fares for passengers in the West Midlands. That is not to play down the impact of fares on passenger carrying, but it should be kept in perspective.

As for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I kept count at Second Reading, and that is 11 different reviews, reports and committees that the Conservative Party has so far advanced in the debates on this legislation. I hope that management time—or ministerial time, for that matter—can perhaps concentrate more on running effective services and less on producing reports to the demand of the Conservative Party, largely about matters that its period in office considerably worsened for the bus industry.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am again very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. I am surprised that I have to help the noble Lord, Lord Snape, understand that very frequently in Committee, as a way in which to provoke some sort of debate or to probe the Government’s intentions, it might be appropriate to ask for a report without necessarily wanting to amend the Bill in that direction when we come to Report—ill named, perhaps. I am sure he realises that his jibe against the Conservative Party has fallen flat.

I was rather pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that she would welcome opening things up to the private sector to develop interesting, innovative and technological apps and ways of paying. I think that is the first thing we have heard said in favour of the private sector in Committee so far.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Snape—what he was saying was to some extent a response to what the noble Baroness had been saying—bring us to the heart of a debate that most politicians try to run away from: how bus services and other public transport are to be paid for. What is the role of fares in paying for them?

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Snape Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

If I may intervene on my noble friend on that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, painted a picture of small local authorities taking on routes that the major operators do not, to paraphrase her, and filling in gaps that they have left. If that were the case, why did they not do it after the 1986 Act? That Act said that anybody could run a bus service anywhere they liked, provided that it was registered with a traffic commissioner.

The reality was, of course, that these smaller operators used clapped-out vehicles and non-union staff, while providing none of the facilities that the major operators did. One well-known case in the West Midlands, which ended in front of a traffic commissioner, was about one of these smaller operators whose idea of a break for the driver was for him to get out of his cab at the end of the journey and urinate against the front wheel. We had to put up with that sort of smaller operator in the area where I was involved in a bus company, the West Midlands. Can my noble friend point out to the noble Baroness that, sincere though she might be, the reality of life was somewhat different? What would my noble friend put in the legislation to ensure that these smaller operators abide by the normal regulations, treat their staff properly and recognise trade unions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The real security in this—at least for passengers, and indeed for local transport authorities—is actually with the traffic commissioners. We will no doubt come to this later on in another of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. In fact, the process that my noble friend referred to is an elegant example of where the activities of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, if followed up with the traffic commissioners, place a burden on operators to behave properly—to treat their staff properly and offer an adequate and safe service to the public. That mechanism of inspection by the DVSA and subsequent action by the traffic commissioners, should it be necessary, is a very elegant method of regulation. It is, incidentally, also strongly supported by the industry at large.

Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require local transport authorities to publish a review when proposing to create new by-laws under the provisions in Clause 21. The purpose of this clause is to address a current inconsistency that means only some authorities have powers to make bus by-laws. The requirement for a review before exercising these powers would place additional burdens on local transport authorities, increasing costs and slowing down the implementation of by-laws, and that is not desirable. The inclusion of this clause comes from the Government’s engagement with local authorities and an understanding of the tools that they need to best operate safe and inclusive bus networks for their local communities. It is also not necessary because similar powers to those proposed by the Bill are available to some local transport authorities and railway operators in operating their rail and light rail networks, so there is some experience of this.

I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the engagement with local authorities and existing by-laws in answering her question about whether these by-laws would work. The procedure in Clause 21 draws on and is analogous to that found in existing legislation, including the Railways Act 2005 and the Local Government Act 1972. Neither Act imposes requirements on local transport authorities or operators to undertake a similar review. I undertake to go away and consider with colleagues whether there are, or should be, model by-laws available. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 34.

On Amendment 50, it is a real pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his place this afternoon. I understand the point that he is making about his proposal to place a statutory duty on local highway authorities or other authorities to take, create, implement and report on a traffic reduction strategy with the aim of improving bus journey times—I should have said that he is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. Improving the reliability and frequency of local bus services is a key part of the Government’s plans for buses, and the Bill helps give local transport authorities the right tools and levers to do that.

However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do that. For example, local transport authorities are already obliged under the network management duty, established by Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to consider the reduction of congestion and improving traffic flow in how they manage their roads, so this new duty would in effect replicate that. It would also go against the principles of devolution—giving more freedom and fewer obligations —that we have committed to with the Bill. Local transport authorities are already able to effect positive changes in bus reliability through enhanced partnerships with operators of bus services in their areas.

The recent experience in Manchester of franchising has served to illustrate, at least to me, that the power of franchising has very quickly drawn to the attention of the authority—in that case, Transport for Greater Manchester—those elements of the management of the local road network that need to be improved in order to drive a safe and reliable service.

The noble Lord’s amendment links the production of this traffic reduction strategy to any financial support issued by the Government,

“for the provision of bus services”.

This brings a range of funding streams into scope beyond just grants that are intended either to support bus services themselves, such as the bus service operators grant, or to improve infrastructure, such as bus priority schemes that could improve bus journey times through the bus service improvement plans. Some government funding—for example, grants to make buses more accessible—may be caught under the broad wording of this new measure. There is, of course, no obvious link between this kind of grant and traffic reduction, and it would be inappropriate in such cases to produce a corresponding traffic reduction plan. However, I understand the noble Lord’s point, and I will consider further how and in what way we might address the very valuable point that he is making. On that basis, I ask him not to press his amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has brought forward Amendment 52 to place a duty on authorities to promote bus services and publish regular reports detailing progress towards achieving that objective. I firmly believe that all authorities and operators are interested in promoting their bus services in their local areas and that it is not necessary to bring forward an amendment that places a direct requirement on authorities to do so and to report on how they have met their objectives.

The Transport Act 2000 already places a duty on the local transport authority to develop and implement policies which promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. Buses form part of that duty, and we know through bus service improvement plans that local transport authorities are already doing this. A local transport authority also needs to have wider monitoring and evaluation plans in place to assess the outcome of its policies. It also has to answer to its communities.

The Bill is all about providing choices to local transport authorities and ensuring that decisions are made at the right level ultimately to improve the bus network for their communities. It should therefore be for the local transport authority to decide how it will measure its successes. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

I turn lastly to Amendment 69, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing forward. The amendment would require local authorities to promote the adoption of customer-facing technology. The Government remain committed to ensuring services are continuously improved for passengers. I agree with noble Lords that it is important that passengers experience good access to technology, such as free wi-fi and charging facilities. As noble Lords have noted, many operators already seize these opportunities. We would be keen to encourage further adoption, albeit that we can have little control, given that operators would need to assess its cost impacts.

From a passenger-information perspective, the Government are committed to delivering better bus services, and part of this work is working closely with bus operators and local transport authorities to improve the information available to passengers about their bus services. The Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 and requires all bus operators of local services in England to provide passengers with high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information including timetables, fares, tickets and vehicle location information. As part of this work, the Government understand the importance of having real-time information widely accessible in a range of spaces that passengers use and are conscious of the need to continually consider new ways to improve access to real-time information, while staying in line with wider government digital and data strategies. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, says about the continuing progress of technology and the difficulty of specifying now what it might deliver in the future.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, will understand that I do not wish to cut across the work which is currently underway. On that basis, I would ask them not to press Amendment 69.

Railway Electrification

Lord Snape Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness refers to the Botley Road bridge in Oxford, which has taken far longer to replace than it should and is a complex story. I am going to Oxford on Friday. The logistics of meeting people in Oxford are such that it necessarily has to be limited by the time available to do it, but I am very mindful of the case that she has made both this afternoon and earlier about the disruption caused by this bridge, which is partially caused by the development of East West Rail in Oxford. Together with the chief executive of Network Rail, we have some things to say to the population which I hope will be useful for them to hear.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that more than 40 years ago, Sir Peter Parker, the then chairman of British Rail, recommended a rolling programme of railway electrification on the grounds that it would assist to keep together those responsible for doing the work and, perhaps more importantly, be far cheaper in the long run than the piecemeal approach that we have adopted over the years since? As we have a long-term plan for road building and repairs, why cannot we have the same for the railway?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very good point. The intention of both the Secretary of State and me in respect of the review of capital projects in the department is to produce a list of projects which are the best for economic growth, jobs and housing, and then that can go into the Government’s 10-year infrastructure plan. It is important that the supply industry that develops electrification has a strong domestic market, because there is also a strong export market which it can fully serve only if domestic demand is relatively constant.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Snape Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. We look forward to working constructively with him to improve this Bill, alongside my noble friend Lord Moylan, who will be leading for His Majesty’s Official Opposition.

I hope noble Lords will allow me to say this. Given that this is the second bus services Bill introduced in this Parliament so far, it seems right that you wait a while for one, and then two come along at the same time.

The Bill’s primary goal is to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give new powers for local leaders to franchise local bus services. It gives local authorities the ability to run and own their own bus companies. In the manifesto, these measures are presented as a reaction to higher fares, routes disappearing and unreliable services. It is therefore only right and proper that we hold the Government to account on exactly how these new powers will address those issues directly. We have concerns that the Government are taking an ideological approach to public transport reform without considering more pragmatic ways to deliver the improvements that are needed. We will also seek to explore whether local authorities have the skills and experience in place to franchise bus services effectively and the appropriate funding to do so.

There is also the question of oversight. In government, we retained the Department for Transport’s oversight of local bus franchising, and we will seek to understand why the Government feel it necessary to remove these existing oversight mechanisms.

The Bill includes a whole range of measures changing the way our bus services work nationally. Whether it be zero-emissions buses, safeguarding rules for school bus services or mandatory training for drivers, we will scrutinise the provisions of the Bill closely to ensure that it will really deliver the improvements we need to see for passengers who are reliant on their bus service.

The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record of backing our bus services and we have long recognised the importance of bus services for poorly connected rural communities, as well as the crucial role the services have to play in the growth and prosperity of cities such as Manchester.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he tell us all the great advantages to the bus industry brought about under the last Conservative Government? Can he give the House the figures of the decline in passenger carrying in the bus industry over the 14 years they were in power?

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will allow me to continue, I can tell him that under our watch we invested a record £3.5 billion into the bus network to support the post-Covid recovery with that critical lifeline. In answer to his question, we delivered the fantastic “Get Around for £2” scheme, nationally backed by hundreds of millions of pounds. That scheme is a testament to the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to support our bus network as it recovered from the dreadful effects of the pandemic.

Let me also tell the noble Lord that it is impossible for us to hide our disappointment that this Government announced last year that bus fares would increase by 50% as of 1 January this year. That was a choice by this Government that will hit millions of hard-working people across the country.

We also led the way on bus franchising, taking a pragmatic approach while retaining the appropriate government oversight. Our Bus Services Act 2017 gave many local authorities the power to adopt a franchising model, as well as establishing enhanced partnerships.

It was the Conservative Government who gave a mayoral authority area such as Greater Manchester the go-ahead to establish its own bus services, which are now part of the Bee Network. It was the Conservative Government who provided more than £1 billion of central government funding to support the establishment of the Bee Network.

In contrast to our approach, the current Administration have tied themselves to a position in the manifesto that we would summarise as, “There are problems with our bus network; franchising will fix it”. We disagree. While franchising may be appropriate in areas such as Greater Manchester or Greater London, it may not be appropriate elsewhere.

The Bill reads as though it has been written by individuals who are not entirely familiar with rural and non-metropolitan areas. Given that franchising is not appropriate in every case, we believe there must be oversight and will seek to explore this in Committee.

Under the Bill, the key players in the Government’s bus policy will now be local authority executives. We pay tribute to every single one of the excellent councillors who work tirelessly for their communities across the country. But many of those councillors will tell you that their authority does not have the skills or necessary funding to run its own bus company. Speaking in the Local Government Chronicle last year, Andrew Carter, the chief executive of Centre for Cities, welcomed franchising powers for cities but flagged that having money to run the bus services is “crucial”.

As we have already highlighted, Greater Manchester received more than £1 billion of central government funding to set up the Bee Network. The bus funding announcement at the end of last year delivered just £1 billion for the whole country.

During the passage of the Bill, we will scrutinise the resources and skills that local authorities have at their disposal to establish whether the Government have put the right measures in place to help those authorities deliver the promised improvements in services. We are also keen to hear the government plans for bus services in areas that decide against taking advantage of franchising powers. Local people deserve better-value services, regardless of the model of provision their local leaders have chosen. The issue of local government funding links into the cost of franchising. We know from areas that already operate franchising models that this is a costly business, with London subsidising its bus network heavily. My noble friend Lord Moylan will speak about that in more detail than I can here, but it is critical that the Government accept this and put the right level of financial support in place if their “franchising first” approach is to be successful.

The Bill includes measures on transparency and accessibility of data on services and performance, enforcement powers on fare evasion and anti-social behaviour. It also seeks to improve bus stops and bus stations for disabled people. By what date will the Minister commit to improving bus stops? Surveys suggest that almost a quarter of people are put off taking the bus because shelters are inadequate.

The Bill mandates enhanced criminal record checks for drivers on school services, as well as regular training for bus drivers and other staff on disability, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Bill includes provisions to restrict the use of new non-zero emission buses on registered local bus services at some point after 1 January 2030. How can the Minister ensure that we will not see a recurrence of the recent report of electric buses in Glasgow grinding to a halt as the cold weather drains their batteries, or the almost 1,800 electric buses recalled from fleets in major cities last year because of fears they could catch fire if unattended?

The above items are not manifesto commitments for the Government, and the scope of the Bill is wide in these areas. We intend to probe the Government’s plans surgically because we want to ensure that local authorities, bus operators and the public at large can hear more on exactly how the Government intend to proceed. Where issues arise, we will seek to improve those elements of the Bill as part of a collaborative and constructive approach to its scrutiny.

As I said at the start, His Majesty’s Official Opposition have long recognised the critical nature of our bus services. We will do everything we can to deliver improved services. We will approach the Bill with a one team ethos, challenging the Government where it is logical and sensible and, crucially, where the passenger benefits. We will probe the plans as fully as possible so that together we can send an improved Bill on to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the tributes paid earlier to Baroness Randerson, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on transport. As someone who has taken an interest in transport matters for many years, in my career in this House and the other place, I know that she was always knowledgeable and helpful. We agreed on so many aspects of transport policy.

I have spent much of my life involved in the transport world. More than 50 years ago, as a local councillor I was appointed to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. I was a Front-Bench spokesperson on transport in the other place for a decade or so under John Prescott, to whom my noble friend Lord Whitty referred earlier. It was a fascinating experience, I might say, for anyone who knew John Prescott as well as I did. He is much missed, and I will be attending his memorial later this month.

Let us take a short canter through the history of bus services. The 1985 Act was brought into being by Nicholas Ridley, a man who had a high opinion of his own ability—I do not wish this to sound like any sort of attack—and not without justification. But he was a somewhat controversial figure, and when he introduced the 1985 legislation, he made it plain that he felt that the private sector could play a much greater role in running buses than the municipal one. He portrayed an image of lots of entrepreneurs with half a dozen buses or so introducing new routes throughout the country, particularly in the rural areas. The reality, of course, was somewhat different. The new routes that were introduced were invariably on the busier routes of the major bus operators. I became a non-executive director of a then employee-owned company in the West Midlands, called West Midlands Travel, and I was fascinated to see some of our former employees, one or two of whom had been dismissed on disciplinary grounds, acquiring elderly vehicles, which they then ran on the busiest routes in the Birmingham and West Midlands conurbation.

The 2017 Act referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and others was an admission of the failure of that 1985 Act, for much of the country. It was not a failure, in that it was a success in this city. London was singled out as the place for bus franchising, whereas the rest of us were left pretty much to our own devices. Bus franchising is still an expensive business in London; the latest financial figures that I have seen indicated that, up until April last year, TfL was paying around £840 million for bus service provision in this city. I do not complain about that, but it indicates that franchising, whether in London or elsewhere, is not a cheap operation. While I welcome the Bill, my concern is that local authorities, particularly the ones outside the big cities, will struggle adequately to fund any franchising operation, should they wish to do so in their area.

Mention has been made, including in the Bill, of zero-emission vehicles. I have to say that they do not come cheaply either. I realise that the Green Party wants them to be introduced sooner rather than later, although the Bill makes provision for them to be introduced after 1 January 2030. The fact is that a new electrically powered double-decker bus costs in the region of £500,000—imagine buying a fleet of those in the short term. Cash-strapped local authorities—in and out of the major cities—will have great difficulty in paying the franchising bill, essential though it may be. If we are to have a fleet of zero-emission buses, we have to recognise that the Treasury will need to look a bit more kindly on some of the applications for funding so far as the financing of those vehicles is concerned.

My noble friend Lord Whitty referred to the provision of cycle lanes in some of our major towns and cities. Like him, I share an admiration for cyclists, though I cannot say that I have ever had a great desire to join them—indeed, watching the way that some of them behave as they go round Parliament Square, I can honestly say that my views have been somewhat coloured by their attitude to pedestrians and other traffic. But it is nonsense that we provide cycle facilities in many of our towns and cities at the expense of bus lanes. You have only to see the congestion on the Embankment since cycle lanes were provided there. They are, by and large, not particularly well used at this time of the year, for understandable reasons, yet buses carrying over 100 people on many occasions are trapped in traffic because of the lack of proper provision for them.

I have to say to my noble friend that it is about time that we had the courage to look again at the money we allow the car lobby to avoid so far as the fuel tax escalator is concerned. As a Labour Government, so far we have not managed even to restore the 5% reduction, let alone see that the fuel tax escalator is increased on a regular basis, in the way that it was designed to be. Of course, if we demand such provision and for that money to be spent on public transport, we will be accused of being anti-car. We hear a lot from the party opposite about the war on the motorist—“Hear, hear”, says the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Let me just remind him that this war on the motorist, if that is what it is, was started in 1993 by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He introduced the fuel tax escalator in the first place, and it is only in recent years—I say “recent”, but it has been some 14 years—that is has been frozen, and indeed reduced by Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor. That is not a war on motorists. Like most noble Lords, I drive a car but, if we are going to properly finance public transport, we must have the courage to say that freezing fuel duty for a decade and a half is not the way to do it.

We will discuss the ins and outs and intricacies of the Bill in Committee but, while I welcome its provisions and intend to participate—my noble friend may groan at the prospect—in Grand Committee when the Bill comes before us, I must say that the good intentions as far as future franchising is concerned are all very well, but unless it is properly financed, it will be no more a success outside London in future than it was in the past.

Old Oak Common: Train Disruption

Lord Snape Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I was at Old Oak Common with the new chief executive of HS2 on the day of his appointment and I raised the question about platform heights, particularly on the Elizabeth line platforms at Old Oak Common, because I know this is a matter of great interest to everybody who needs level boarding and, indeed, for the safety of the railway. The discussion has not concluded, but her point is very clear and I intend to pursue it.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, given the Government’s sensible decision to restore Euston as the terminus of HS2, is Old Oak Common really necessary given the fact that a lot less passenger interchange will arise following that decision? Will it really take seven years, as has been reported, for this work to take place—if it actually does—bearing in mind that the Chinese could probably build 10,000 miles of electrified railway line in that time?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will answer the second part of the question first. Our construction methods are a good deal safer than Chinese construction methods. Saving lives and preventing accidents on construction sites has been one of the principal activities on the railway and in wider construction for a very long time. Both stations are necessary because HS2 will not be a complete service to anywhere without a central London station, but Old Oak Common will be equally necessary because it will have interchange to, for example, Heathrow Airport. The wider development of the Old Oak Common area will be dependent on a station at Old Oak Common, just as it was in Stratford with the Olympic park.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Snape Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I congratulate him on another polished speech. It ought to be well polished—he has made it at least four times during the passage of this particular legislation. He has not said anything new; we have cantered around the same course about Avanti trains and the future of the railway system.

This is a small Bill designed to create an overall body to be responsible for running the railway system. It was an idea conceived by the party opposite.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With respect, this Bill does not do that. If this Bill created Great British Railways, that would be another story altogether. This Bill does not create a body; it simply is the Government seizing control of existing railway companies.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

That is absolute nonsense. This Bill is designed to implement a body, as a result of an inquiry into the railway system set up by the party opposite. Indeed, that party was so impressed when in government by the Williams report that the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, added his name to it. He did not actually do anything about implementing it because the backwoodsmen opposite felt it was a bit too much like nationalisation to have an overarching body responsible for the railway system.

We could have disposed of this particular amendment late at night during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, but the noble Lord who leads for the Opposition refused to sit after 10 pm. There might have been a good reason for it—perhaps it was past the bedtime of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, or the equivalent, but he and his party were not prepared for a proper debate on this issue, and they still are not.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment which we did not debate late at night was about the management of the railways in London; it had nothing whatever to do with what the noble Lord says. I see him giggle in the corner now; he knows he is having fun at the House’s expense.

The fact is that this Bill does not do what the noble Lord says it does. The other fact is that the Williams review did not envisage the nationalisation of train operating services in this country but rather the use of the private sector on what is referred to as a concession basis, rather than a franchise basis, the technical differences between which I shall not bore the House with now.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I am neither giggling, nor am I in a corner. I find the noble Lord’s contribution to be as specious and inaccurate as most of the contributions he has made during the course of this debate. He keeps repeating the same tedious stuff.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I have clashed with a couple of times in this Chamber, wishes to intervene, he should indicate and of course I will give way to him. It seems he does not wish to indicate. In that case, I would be obliged if he sat down and listened just for once.

[A noble Lord]

And learned.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

And perhaps learned; that is another point.

The fact is that these are delaying tactics by the party opposite. I am amazed that the Liberal Party should want to be associated with this amendment. It is contrary to custom and practice in this place—not that I am a great one for adhering to the rules, necessarily.

This is a meaningless amendment, putting a duty on the Secretary of State which he already has. What Secretary of State wants to do anything other than improve the railway system? I mean, he did not always succeed, though it might have been well-meant during the time of the party opposite, but certainly the Secretary of State’s intention at that time—at any time—would be to improve the railway system. It really is not necessary to add such a clause to this Bill. I would be grateful if my noble friend treated it with the contempt it deserved.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will address just a few points.

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his description of the previous Government as being dilatory. It is six and half years since the timetable went wrong in the north-west of England and on Thameslink, in May 2018, and nothing really has been done. The railway is suffering and its passengers are suffering, and something needs to be done about it. I have referred to this before but, at some speed, we will be consulting shortly about the content of the wider Bill to reform the railway. I think that differentiates this Government and the speed at which they choose to operate.

On Motion A, I want there to be no doubt that this Government will undertake reform with a clear purpose and direction. As published in Getting Britain Moving, our objectives are set and are more ambitious and wide-ranging than the proposed purpose clause. We want to see reliability, affordability, efficiency, quality, accessibility and safe travel as the DNA of our railways—the foundational values that drive reform and deliver on what passengers expect. Public ownership will be the first step in ensuring better services, by placing the passenger front and centre as we rebuild public confidence, trust and pride in our railway.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the commitment that passengers should be at the core of the future of the railway. In that respect, the wider railways Bill is a different matter. It will establish Great British Railways as a new body at arm’s length from government, which will not be directly accountable to the electorate in the same way as the Government are. In that context, it is essential that the railways Bill should clearly set out two things.

The first of those is the functions of Great British Railways—what it is actually going to do. The second is what Great British Railways is supposed to achieve by exercising those functions—in other words, its purpose. I can absolutely confirm to your Lordships’ House today that the forthcoming railways Bill will set out both of those things, and that delivering improvements for passengers and maintaining high standards of performance will be a crucial part of its purpose. I will be more than happy to engage with the noble Baroness on how we express that in the Bill.

I urge your Lordships’ House to support the Government’s Motion A and to reject the amendment in Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, because the Government have already set out our objectives for the railway, we are already acting to achieve those objectives, and we are ready to be held to account on whether we deliver against them as we transfer the services to public ownership under this Bill. Secondly, as I have just assured the House, we will ensure that the railways Bill sets out a clear purpose for Great British Railways.

With regard to Motion B, the Government simply cannot accept an amendment that would delay reform, therefore going against the wishes of the electorate, and which would place additional cost on the taxpayer. We will use every tool at our disposal to resolve poor performance, including contractual termination rights, where they are triggered.

On the Bill itself, public ownership is not only the will of the voters but the right step towards bringing an end to years of fragmentation. Tens of millions of pounds in fees will be saved each year due to public ownership and, with the new direction and focus that this Government are now providing, current in-house operations are already seeing a reduction in cancellations. The evidence that public ownership is the way forward is clear.

On top of this, poorly performing train operators are being held to account, as I described earlier, and with Great British Railways coming further down the line, this Government have shown that we are serious about reform. None the less, improvements are needed now, and the Bill starts that process.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this brief debate, particularly the two Opposition Front-Benchers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for Lib Dem support up to now; I hope that will continue. I am especially grateful to my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Snape. It is always a pleasure to hear from him. Before I came into this House, I was told repeatedly that everyone is very friendly, very compassionate, very polite and respectful. Yet, there we are.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

No, I am okay, thank you.

This debate is about the Bill; it is not about an individual on the Front Bench, in the form of the Minister, whom I still consider to be a very good friend and who, I can confess, drove his own bus at my wedding—our history goes back a long way and I hope our friendship will continue after today. This is not about an individual and it is not even about trust. I do not think we should be trusting people to do something when we now have an opportunity to put it in the Bill. The Minister just repeated the line, “We are already doing this”, so I ask the question: why not put it in?

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I cede the ground to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is not about my party in government either. Trust me, I could wax lyrical—I say this to my boss on the Front Bench, the Opposition Chief Whip—about all the things I wish that my party had done in government, but it is not about that either. It is not about what we did; it is about what this Bill is going to do. It is Labour’s own language, and in the absence of anything more, I do not believe, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, thinks, that we should be in a situation just of trust: there needs to be accountability. For that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Snape Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad I let the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, speak before me, because I listened very carefully to what he said at Second Reading, when he made a powerful speech in favour of pragmatism. I think that was an expression that he used; I see him nodding in assent. Pragmatism is the reason behind Amendment 10. It is a question of whether we let ideology trump pragmatism. The amendment is very similar to one I proposed in Committee. It is less ambitious—the one I proposed in Committee would have allowed the franchise to be renewed for a longer period than 12 months—and therefore one that is it easier for the Minister to accept.

There is an additional reason that has not been mentioned so far, which is that there will be pressure within the Minister’s own department to absorb the franchises as they fall due. I think his department would welcome the flexibility under Amendment 10 to enable an existing franchise to be extended for a further 12 months, but no longer. The Minister will get his way: all the train operating companies will be nationalised and all the franchises will come to an end. What we are arguing about is some flexibility. If a franchise is being run perfectly competently, if the existing company would be happy to run on for another 12 months, and if the department is having to recruit more civil servants to absorb the existing ones, I honestly cannot see why the Minister has set his face against Amendment 10. If there is the word “resist” in his brief, perhaps he will reflect on whether a little bit of flexibility would be in order.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I expressed some sympathy with this amendment, or an amendment similar to it, in Committee. Without repeating anything I said in Committee, I put it to my noble friend the Minister again—having said one thing, I now contradict myself—that it does not really make any sense to terminate instantly or as soon as it runs out, which is pretty close to instantly, a franchise such as Greater Anglia, which has generated enormous public support for the efficient way that it has run its train services, or c2c, the line from Liverpool Street to Southend, which recently scored a 94% approval rate as far as its passengers were concerned, although I imagine they, like most other sensible people in this country, think the franchising system has been pretty disastrous for the railway as a whole. Coincidentally, those two franchises run out fairly quickly. Although the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition would not mention specific franchises for some reason, I will. I have been tormented by Avanti since the last Government were unwise to give it the franchise around 2017 and take it off Virgin, for no apparent reason. The last Government then gave Avanti a nine-year extension, despite all the complaints from both sides of your Lordships’ House. Does it really make any sense to terminate franchises that have enormous support from the travelling public, two of which I have just mentioned, and not take any action for another few years—about seven years or so—for companies such as Avanti? Surely there is some flexibility here that my noble friend could press.

If there are good reasons to terminate franchises then surely those reasons, good or bad, have been realised as far as Avanti’s performance is concerned. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us exactly how much it would cost in public funds to dispose of Avanti’s services and how the contracts were drawn up and interpreted in the first place, when a company like that can get away with the shoddy service that it provides daily.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, we suffer from the point I made in the debate on the previous group in relation to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. We are being pushed around between what this Bill says and being told that we cannot ask questions—it is all going to be dealt with in a Bill we cannot see. It is not good enough; we need the assurances now. It will very much be my intention to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 13 if the assurances I receive are not satisfactory.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to say a few words on Amendment 13 and the future of rail freight once this legislation becomes law.

Traditionally, on nationalised rail in the past, freight was often seen as the poor relation. Trying to attract people to the freight side of the former British Rail, particularly getting management involved, was much more difficult than the passenger side. There was a bit of glamour about fast passenger trains that the freight network never shared. My noble friend the Minister spoke in Committee about the Government’s intention to increase rail freight by 75% by 2050. I would be grateful if he could provide some clarification as to how that will be done.

I look at railway operations from time to time on the website OpenTrainTimes—I am a devotee, and this is a terrible confession to make. I note how close to the timetable rail freight adheres these days, which was not necessarily true in the past. There was a welcome introduction of relief from access charges for new business, as far as rail freight was concerned. Can my noble friend tell us whether there is any intention to extend that? Indeed, we should go further. In Committee I pointed out the imbalance in taxation in this country that makes it cheaper and more attractive to buy a fleet of lorries and put them on our road network—where, of course, the infrastructure is paid for out of general taxation—than it is to run rail freight, as Royal Mail has, deplorably, just demonstrated.

While I would not seek to pin down my noble friend the Minister as far as future taxation policy is concerned, I certainly hope he can press Treasury Ministers to see whether something can be done in future to rectify that imbalance between rail and road. In speaking to Amendment 13, I hope that my noble friend can give me some reassurance as to how this envisaged increase in rail freight—welcome though it is—will be implemented.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, these three amendments deal with crucial aspects of the running of the railways and they are issues that we on these Benches probed in Committee. I certainly anticipate that, when we get the full Bill next year, there will be long and vigorous debate and discussion about them and I have serious reservations about the possible plans. However, we on these Benches accept that, however concerned we are about freight or open access or competition, the Government have chosen to write a very tightly drafted Bill and to separate ownership from operational organisation in that Bill and it is not appropriate to try to write, in a rather haphazard way, the big, final Bill on Report in this House at this time.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Snape Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

The Mayor of Greater Manchester, who would like to have similar services running at his disposal as the Mayor of London does, is now to be turned away, irrespective of argument. The Government will not countenance his views. Similarly, the Mayor of the West Midlands and others who are in such a position are to be closed down. What, then, is the future of services in London? What is the coherence in the Government’s position? How can they have a single controlling brain and devolution—devolved operation of services—at the same time? Is not the whole principle of the Bill fundamentally a mess?

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself in a somewhat embarrassing position, so far as this amendment is concerned, in that I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord opposite has said. In fact, had he put his name to Amendment 43—which I will speak to—my embarrassment would have been doubled, because he raises a very relevant point, as far as devolution is concerned, about railway services.

I anticipate—my noble friend will tell me if I am wrong —that Great British Railways will assume responsibility for most of the railway stations in England and Wales in future. Actually, I suspect it is only in England because of devolution in Wales. However, when we look at the present situation, most of them—as I have indicated—are owned by Network Rail, but many are run and owned by train operating companies.

Avanti has come under some criticism in your Lordships’ House over the years, not least from me. Avanti runs and is responsible for stations—not small country stations, but fairly large ones such as Birmingham International, a station that I have used frequently over the years. It is a major station with about a dozen different destinations, as far as trains through that station are concerned, yet it is virtually unstaffed after 10 pm. There is a train dispatcher on the platform, as I understand it, but there are no staff at all either in the booking office or on the concourse. I put it to my noble friend: if the major legislation he refers to goes through next year, what will be the position for stations such as Birmingham International? Will Great British Railways assume responsibility for staffing? If so, we can only hope for an improvement in railway staffing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan on Amendments 12 and 13 and I echo some of the great speeches in this group. As my noble friend said, it is right to ensure that, through some mechanism, the nations and regions are consulted, and, crucially, engaged, to ensure that they are brought into the decision-making process so that the service which eventually emerges is as effective as possible.

I am sure some will hark, yet again, that we are calling for more consultation and bureaucracy, but let us be clear: we on this side have always believed in devolution and power to the people. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, the Government themselves have committed to the concept of devolution when it comes to transport. Therefore, is it not right that we utilise the opportunity to bring the Council of the Nations and Regions into discussions to ensure that we have the best services possible where there is overlap between the nations? Everyone is citing different quotes, but the PM said when the council was created that “we work as one team” and a “partnership”. If it is the view that that is too onerous, as I am sure the Minister will say, then we could at least try to engage the much- trailed but lesser-spotted envoy to the regions.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as I always do, in his Amendment 43. It calls for the Secretary of State to produce a report on whether a service could be devolved when it awards it to a public operator or renews a private franchise. That is wise and right, and I assume the case for doing so would be to assess the pros and cons for commuters, which we on this side of the Committee believe should be the focus of the reforms.

Supporting this amendment takes me back to what was said on day one of Committee on my amendments, when it was deemed that:

“Amendment A1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke earlier, would create another bureaucracy”.


Later, this noble Lord hoped that the Minister would

“not get too bogged down in the bureaucratic desires of the party opposite”.—[Official Report, 21/10/24; cols. 433, 435.]

Who was so opposed to putting in a mere purpose clause, lest it be too bureaucratic? Lo and behold it was the one and only noble Lord, Lord Snape, who is now calling for an amendment to include a report when a rail service is awarded to a new operator. I welcome this Damascene conversion from the Labour Benches; I say yes to the noble Lord’s amendment but yes to Amendments A1 and 48A.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord ruins entirely my career, such as it is, with his praise, I must tell him that he is comparing lemons with oranges. More accurately, what I said last time had nothing to with the devolution of railway passenger services to our great conurbations. I am rather against bureaucracy; it is the party opposite, as far as this legislation is concerned, that seems to be obsessed with it.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I do not know what the protocol is but I find it novel, if I may say so, that the noble Lord opposes bureaucracy when this side proposes it and yet supports it when it is convenient to himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a brief apology to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for not having signed his amendment and assure him that if he wishes to approach me in the corridors between now and Report, some sort of grubby deal can probably be done between us in that regard. My signature is readily available for the many wise things that he has said in this debate.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

If we are going to meet to discuss these future amendments, grubby deals or otherwise, better in one of the bars where the noble Lord can put his hand in his pocket.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

There is the basis of a grubby deal, I suppose, but I am sure it will be done on an equal, Dutch, shared basis.

The Minister has heard what the Committee has had to say from every corner, and he will know that his response will have left noble Lords on all sides bitterly disappointed. He has promised to combined mayoral authorities, to local authorities and to regional authorities every conceivable aspect of devolution except the right and the possibility to run their own trains, which has been done so successfully in London and, I understand although I have no personal experience of it, on Merseyside. That is now suspended; it is off the table, for a number of years at the very least, on no rational grounds at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, so rightly said, we need to know the final outcome now.

For all the Minister’s talk of this being a narrow and technical Bill, its effect, in combination with his letter, is to put an end to the further devolution of rail services to local and regional authorities for the foreseeable future, and that is something the Committee is clearly not willing to accept. There is a fundamental difficulty at the heart of this Bill, and that is the commitment made so fulsomely to devolution, endorsed or otherwise by Mr Williams, whose views seem to be plastic and developing and to respond differently to every telephone call he gets from the noble Lord—it is possibly getting to the point of rent-a-quote from Mr Williams. Despite all the commitments made by Mr Williams and by the Labour Party in its pre-manifesto document on rail services, there is not going to be any meaningful devolution. Those commitments are not consistent with the Government’s other commitment to the single controlling brain. It is a contradiction at the heart of the legislation.

As for the ability of local authorities to commission services, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, so rightly said, it is all a question of money. We promise it for buses, but as we said when we discussed the Statement made on buses—on that occasion too the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was very helpful in supporting what I said —it is all very well telling local authorities they can commission new bus services, but they do not have a bean to do so. It is all very well telling regional authorities they can commission more rail services, but unless we understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, who is going to pay for it and who is going to get the fares revenue, it is all pretty meaningless.

It seems to me that the great single brain is already suffering a serious headache and that the paracetamol of devolution may be what it needs to dilute the effects and to take the pressure off that brain. I think this is a point on which the Government are going to have to give some ground, and I certainly think it is one we will debate again when we return to the Bill on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and I agree with every word she said. I will be very brief.

The dystopian world that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, outlined is not one that I would have thought would appeal to most people. He mentioned driverless motor cars, but so far San Francisco is the only city, I think, where driverless taxis—confined to a fairly small part of the city—actually work. As we all know, San Francisco is the sort of place that experiments with all sorts of things. Those driverless cars have not really appealed to most other countries, and whether they will do in the future remains to be seen.

The noble Lord says that with driverless cars, the road network will be much less congested. If they are going to be the only way to get around, it is hard to imagine that the road network will be less congested. The roads will be even more crowded than they are at the present.

Returning to the railway network, we have about 12,000 miles of railway, much of which was built by the Victorians. Will we tear up all those tracks to install the necessary equipment to enable trains to be driven without a driver? That is undesirable, as the noble Baroness correctly pointed out. Even trains on a modern stretch of railway line—for example, HS1 has a continental signalling system, which has been introduced on the East Coast Main Line—need a driver, for the very reasons outlined by the noble Baroness.

As for aircraft, I am not sure about the thought of taking off and landing in a pilotless aircraft. If it is ever introduced, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, might find himself sitting in splendid isolation. After all, the crash of two 737 MAX airliners due to computer failure—and one near accident, which was prevented by the pilot in charge—ought to be lessons to us all.

I am afraid of the dystopian world that the noble Lord envisages. A train driver with responsibility for 500 lives behind him—and, in some cases, travelling at over 150 mph, as on HS1—deserves every penny of the £60,000 or thereabouts that the noble Lord and the Daily Mail complain about non-stop.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly offer my support for my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendment 14A and echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about what services we are looking to deliver when we talk about driverless vehicles, trains, et cetera.

In referring to my register of interests, I recognise that I have spent my entire career with one foot in technology and the other in transport. The two have overlapped, and we have seen great innovation in technology in transport. This takes me back to what we achieved in London Underground and Transport for London: we looked at how bringing in gate-line technology and new systems such as the Oyster card would enable us to rely less heavily on ticket offices. Eventually we removed a lot of them. That was not just because we wanted to get the people out from behind those ticket office windows; we wanted those people, freed from sitting behind that thick piece of glass, to support passengers on the Underground system by providing assistance, information and other services. This is about innovation evolving the service and removing the need for one sedentary type of activity, enabling something else to happen.

When we think about our trains—again, I note the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the kind of support that can be required on a train, especially for long-distance journeys—safety and security are primary. It would also be good if we could have more services, if the food and beverage shop stayed open a bit longer because people are there, and even if somebody is there to help you connect to the wifi, which is always eternally promised but sometimes hard to achieve. Having a greater sense of the passenger experience, focusing on developing the passenger experience by freeing people from the role of sitting in the ticket office and allowing them to do other things, will be of great value.

The main point is that we need to leave space for the design of innovation. It is always hard to tell at the early stages what we will be able to do later with that innovation, but as long as we leave space in the Bill to consider it, we can, I hope, achieve our aim of really improving the passenger experience.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Snape Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly ask the Minister a question for when he comes to respond.

I am very supportive of what my noble friend says in his Amendment A1—that we be clear about the purpose of this legislation—but the Minister will be aware that the Bill will substantially achieve that by amending the Railways Act 1993. Section 4 of that Act, as amended, sets out the general duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road. While they are listed in relation to the Office of Rail and Road, they are added as duties of the Secretary of State under Section 4(3)(a).

Section 4(1)(zb) says that it shall be the duty of the Office of Rail and Road—and, by extension, the Secretary of State—

“to promote improvements in railway service performance”.

Will the Minister confirm that nothing in this Bill would change the continuing duty of the Secretary of State to promote improvements in railway service performance?

Can the Minister also say that it will not change the duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road otherwise listed in that subsection, including

“to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services”.

I am interested know precisely how the Minister and the Government propose to meet that general duty, which is not changed by this Bill.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I am always fascinated when Members of the party opposite attack proposals from this side of the House on the grounds that they are ideological. What could be more ideological than the privatisation of the railway system back in 1994? In my view, Amendment A1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke earlier, would create another bureaucracy—something the Conservative Party are normally against. No one would say, and I certainly would not, that a nationalised railway will be the answer to all our problems. Having worked in it, I know only too well it will not be. On the other hand, I think if you asked the average rail passenger for his or her view of the current system, they would say that anything would be better than what we have at the present time.

When it comes to ideology, I followed with interest the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who talked about failings in the increased cost of electrification leading to the delay, and in some cases the cancellation, of various electrification projects. My noble friend the Minister, who will respond, has great experience of Network Rail, and he might comment on some of the costings—many of us would take an interest in those matters. I was surprised, to say the least, at some of the expensive projects that Network Rail has embarked upon and the failure of that organisation to work within the original estimates, as far as costs are concerned. I hope it will not upset the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, too much, but his sojourn as Secretary of State for Transport is not looked upon by the railway community with any great favour. His view that in some cases electrification was unnecessary and that what was needed was bi-mode trains did not particularly please passengers. I recently moved home, from the Birmingham area to Gloucestershire, where I now have the pleasure—doubtful pleasure that it is—of travelling on Great Western’s bi-mode trains. They are often subject to cancellation and, again, the usual view from my fellow passengers is that the sooner the railway is renationalised, the better.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley is regarded as an expert on railway costings—he shakes his head, but he should not be so modest; he certainly played a major role with his views on HS2 and its finances. He mentioned the Office of Rail and Road. In the context of this amendment, can my noble friend the Minister tell me what role is envisaged for the ORR in future? I hope he will not be too offended if I say it is a misnomer: it is certainly an office for railways, given that it intervenes on various grounds—in my view, improperly, because there are proper roles for those responsible for railway safety in the industry—but appears to play no role at all as far as the road network is concerned. The fact that something approaching 2,000 people are killed on our roads on an annual basis is not something that detains the ORR. I hope my noble friend can tell me what role he envisages for the ORR in the newly nationalised railway system.

Finally, just to hark back to 1994 and the privatisation Act, fundamentally it adversely affected the railway industry. In 1994—again, I apologise for the history lesson—the railway system in Britain was regarded as the most efficient and effective in western Europe; certainly the subsidies paid to the rail industry in those days were less than those paid in countries such as France and Germany. The sectionalisation of the railway industry in the 1990s, largely at the behest of a Conservative Government—I do not make any complaints about that, as Governments have opinions—led to a much more readily identifiable system of costings for the industry overall. For the first time, we saw exactly which parts of the railway were profitable, which were not and which needed perhaps more money spent on them in the future than had previously been envisaged.

The relationship between Sir Bob Reid mark 1, the then chairman of the railways board, and Mr Nicholas Ridely, the Secretary of State at the time, was an extremely fruitful one. I am not here to announce any great fondness for Lord Ridley but I think that he appreciated what the railway industry was doing, largely at his behest at that time. I understand—although I do not wish to attribute words to him long after his death—that he was more than a little concerned about the mode of privatisation envisaged by the Government at the time, largely because of the success that he felt he had had in improving and defining the railway industry’s relationship with the Government of the day.

I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister responds to this amendment, he will appreciate at least that, whether the railways are privatised or public, all too often railway passengers—or customers, as they are somewhat laughably known these days—do not feel that their views on the provision of the service are listened to or that there is a proper voice for them. It is some years since the transport users’ consultative committees were abolished. Can my noble friend say what plans he has for better passenger consultation in the future?

In conclusion, I hope that my noble friend will not get too bogged down in the bureaucratic desires of the party opposite. Future amendments that we will come to, from the Conservative Party or its Front Bench, appear to believe that railway management has nothing better to do than put together various plans, which no doubt will be torn apart by those who feel that the railways are not delivering the service that they should. I await with interest my noble friend’s response to the amendment. I know that he will bear in mind that we ought to be concerned about the passengers of the future—the passengers of the past having been sadly neglected.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, trade moves by trains. Why do I bring that up? Some of your Lordships may remember that when Freightliner was put up for sale, P&O—the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to give its full name—bid for it, and we were told by the competition authorities that, at that time, we already controlled 25% of transport movements for the whole of the UK and therefore we could not take it over.

I went to see the Secretary of State for Transport and everybody involved with this—our own people—to say that it was ridiculous. In practice, what we really wanted was to have a fast line for container trains, at night as well as in the day, from Glasgow right the way through to Istanbul, non-stop, for 2,500 miles, moving trade backwards and forwards in a major way. We had only about 3% of the trade in Europe, and I thought that, at that stage, it would have made a huge amount of sense. With those double trains going right the way through and the movement of trade, we would now be in a much finer position for doing trade in a much more major way, 2,500 miles away and further. I thank your Lordships for listening to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, if I caused any confusion; I will try to do better. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, back to his place from his excursion, no doubt by rail, in foreign parts. We missed him at Second Reading, but we had an excellent substitute in the shape of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds.

I will make a preliminary remark at this stage, which I intend to save me making it on future groups of amendments. It is that we are, essentially, at least as far as the amendments tabled by Members from the Conservative Party are concerned, seeking information from the Government in relation to this Bill. If the Government are candid with us and give us the information that we are looking for, we will have achieved our objective on behalf of the public, and that will be the end of the matter.

I turn to the debate that has taken place so far. The part that has sparked me most, which I felt I had to answer, were the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Snape. First, I agree with him about what a degradation it is that passengers have become customers when, of course, they really ought to be passengers. But there is also the question of ideology, which I hope to take out of the debate that we will have in Committee today and on Wednesday.

Of course there is always an element of ideology when one talks about privatisation and nationalisation. The railways, which, I think, are 200 years old next year, have been nationalised for only about a quarter of their entire existence. We must not think that nationalisation is the natural condition of railways in this country. They flourished and grew and were developed in private hands; we should always remember that. The truth is that in 1945-46, the railways were nationalised largely because, after six years of war, they were bankrupt. There had been no investment in them during the whole of that period, and they had deteriorated. Nor was there any prospect of their making sufficient profit that private capital could have been recruited to make up that deficiency.

Whether the then Government believed in nationalisation as an ideological matter or not, if the railways were to continue running at all it was going to have to be in government hands. Parts of the system were privatised in the mid-1990s for equally practical reasons—we discussed some of them at Second Reading. One reason was to attempt to improve customer service through competition; one was to recruit private capital into the railways on a consistent basis, which the Government had never been able to provide during the whole of the time they owned the railways—not enough capital and never enough consistency because no budget went beyond 12 months—and another was to try, frankly, to break the grip of the rail unions on pay, so that the astonishing disparities that exist between, let us say, a train driver and bus driver, which are entirely due to the monopoly supply of labour by ASLEF, might be evened out.

What we discussed at Second Reading, I am perfectly happy to admit, is that on some of these fronts privatisation has been successful, and on others less so. If the Government, who have won a majority on the basis of promising to nationalise the train operating companies, wish to give the other side of it a kick and see if they can make it work on that basis, I do not personally object—at least not on ideological grounds. But the House is perfectly entitled to have its practical questions about how this will work addressed. That is what the amendments in this group and many that will come before the Committee later intend to address.

The Government claim that this is a very small Bill. On the other hand, when they talk to the public it is a huge Bill, “because we are nationalising the railways”. They are not really nationalising the railways, because to nationalise something you normally have to pay for it and this Bill is not something where they are paying out to shareholders. All they are doing is letting the franchises that exist expire and then tying their hands and preventing themselves from renewing them except in emergency circumstances. It is, as I would have said at Second Reading if I had had more time, less nationalisation and more like dismissing your chauffeur at the end of his contract and deciding to drive the car yourself. At least you knew the chauffeur had a driving licence and some experience and qualification in driving the car, but now we will have the Secretary of State—we were told at Second Reading that she prefers to be known as the passenger-in-chief—as, in effect, driver-in-chief as well. We will see how that works out.

It is a big thing when the Government talk to the public—it is nationalisation of the railways—but when they talk to noble Lords it is a very little thing. All the big things, we are told, will happen in the next Bill— the train further down the line, expected in roughly a year or 18 months. That is the Bill in which many of our questions should be addressed, we are told—we should not ask those questions now. I think we should ask many of those questions now, for two very good reasons. The first is that the Bill presents us with a measure regarded by the Government as preliminary to that very large Bill, so it has long-term consequences. The second—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—is that the Bill sets up a shadow structure that could persist in operation for four or five years or even longer because, first, it will take us a year or 18 months before we see the Bill that will make these great reforms; and, secondly, as anyone who has been involved in the railways or any other large organisation will know, implementing significant change as a result of that legislation is likely to take several further years. We will have to live with the shadow structures set up as a result of the Bill for many years, and their practical consequences deserve the most careful scrutiny.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Can I ask the Minister, sorry the shadow Minister—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am not quite yet the Minister, but the way the Labour Party is going, who knows?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I asked for that one, I have to say. It is mistakes being made at both ends of the Corridor recently.

Arising from what the noble Lord has just said, can I ask him to clarify two points? First, on the delay in moving on to the more detailed Bill, bearing in mind that it was 2016 when the Government he favours brought forward the proposals for Great British Railways, what were the Government doing in the eight years since then? Secondly, I have a simple question about the ideology of privatisation: if nationalisation is so bad, why was almost the first act of Governments in two world wars to nationalise the railway industry? What makes it so essential in wartime and yet it can be handed out piecemeal in peacetime?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am asking the questions in this scenario, and I do not feel I necessarily have an answer to his question about wartime. I might pass it on to the Minister, who once arranged for me to go and see deep in the bowels of Mayfair, under the former Down Street Underground station—I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has not been, it can be arranged for him to see it too—the wartime headquarters of the railway operations executive, including what is claimed to be, although I think with no historical foundation, a tin bath in which Churchill once took a bath. I will say no more about the war than that.

On the former question, I do not know the answer, but I would like to know. Why was it that the then Government, having published what they called the Williams-Shapps review written by Keith Williams—I think he is correct in saying that it was in 2016—and having promised a transport Bill in the King’s Speech one but last, did not come forward with the measures they thought they could offer in that regard? I do not know the answer to that, but I am willing to have a guess and it is relevant to what the Government are embarking on now and to whether they are going to meet their 12 to 18-month deadline of delivering us with this massive Bill that is going to transform the railways. My guess is that the then Government found that grappling with the intense difficulties of reforming the railway on such a large scale meant that, try as they might, they found considerable difficulty in putting together that Bill. It may be that is exactly what the Minister finds as he comes to address these difficulties. This only adds further to my point that the shadow arrangements we are setting up today could be with us for a very long time.

I come to the first amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. The Government say they have a purpose—they are not doing this for ideological reasons or at the behest of the trade unions—which is to improve passenger services. At Second Reading, I pointed out that in the final stage impact assessment produced by the Department for Transport, given the opportunity it had to say exactly that, it said something completely different. It said that the Bill had been

“prepared to enable swift delivery of a Government manifesto commitment”—

not to improve matters for passengers—and that was why it had not looked, as it normally would, at the alternative options that might be put forward to achieve a similar purpose. That is another reason why it is incumbent on us in this House to look in great detail at what the Government are putting before us. They are in effect asking us to buy into an article of faith. They are simply saying, “Well, it couldn’t be worse than it is at the moment”—that is simply untrue; there are problems with the railways, but they could be a great deal worse than they are at the moment—“so it is bound to be better if we take it over and run it ourselves as part of a national enterprise”. But they have not provided any evidence for that; they have simply stated, “This must be the case and you’ve got to believe us”. As I say, that is one of the reasons why our job is not to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some very good points. The Greater Anglia service is awfully good: my two noble friends who have spoken about it have confirmed that, and I have been on it recently myself. However, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, could somebody from the Conservative Party—maybe the noble Lord, or one of his predecessors or successors—explain the basis on which it chose Avanti and CrossCountry, which are two of the worst performing operators, to be given such very long contracts? I remember at the time there was a big debate between Virgin and Avanti as to which should get the contract. Whatever one thinks about Virgin, it has had some good services in the past, but Avanti is absolutely awful—as is CrossCountry, though for different reasons. Why did the then Government do it?

It is fine to say that we have given it to a private sector operator, but if we end up in a situation where the Government are effectively going to make similar awards to people—not companies, but people—we should know on what basis it is done. I hope my noble friend the Minister can explain what the criteria will be to make sure that we get some decent new franchises and how he is going to get rid of the two existing pretty bad ones as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, I will ask him about the question of performance that has been raised on both sides of the House. The public performance measure national average is 88.7%, but the Avanti West Coast performance measure is only 62.2%—some 25% less. What has to be done to remove a franchisee which has performed so badly, as in the case of Avanti, other than knocking down the buffers at Euston and heading a Pendolino down Eversholt Street?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In answer to my noble friend, and in recognition of some of what I have done in the past, it is sometimes a surprise when you read the performance requirements for contracts that you inherit. This is clearly one of those cases. I cannot defend the statistics that my noble friend cited, and I cannot defend a contract that allows that to happen without remedy.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we will come to devolution later in Committee.