Railways Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have four amendments in this group: Amendments 26, 64, 304 and 333. They are all on the same point, which is that, in the Bill, the definition of a “relevant local government body” is expressed as mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives. Those first two—mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities—are, I think, based on the proposition from some months back that, over time, all the strategic authorities would move towards being mayoral strategic authorities.

Since the original drafting of this legislation, we have completed the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Those of us who worked on that legislation will recall that Section 1 defines strategic authorities, and it does not do so by reference to whether or not they have a mayor; they are, basically, single-foundation strategic authorities, combined-foundation strategic authorities or county combined strategic authorities. It seems to me that, for the purposes of this legislation, the relevant local government bodies with which Great British Railways, in particular, and the Secretary of State should work would be all the strategic authorities. Why would we exclude those that do not have mayors?

I say this because, whether it takes a year or two—or three or four—there will be some strategic authorities that may not have a mayor for a very long time. I do not say this because I want them not to have mayors; I am in favour of them having mayors. It is just that we are quite a long way from that happening. From my quick survey, looking across England, we probably have two long-term single-foundation strategic authorities: Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. By my reckoning, at the moment, we have at least four, perhaps five, combined county authorities—Lancashire, Cornwall, Surrey, Devon and Torbay, and Norfolk and Suffolk—with no intention of having mayors. Interestingly, that includes Cornwall. The Minister will remember that, last week, when the Prime Minister was answering questions in the other place for a very long time, he referenced devolution in Cornwall and said

“with or without a mayor”.

Therefore, we are in a very simple position: we want devolution. We want GBR to have regard to the transport plans of strategic authorities. We want GBR to consult with strategic authorities, with the responsibilities that they have. We want statutory information sharing between GBR and strategic authorities. If we put “mayoral” in this legislation, we will restrict the availability of all the statutory consultation, information-sharing and advisory relationships between GBR and non-mayoral strategic authorities. I am sure that that is not anybody’s intention. The simplest thing to do would be to reference the definition of strategic authorities in Section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act; that would be altogether simpler and better in the long run.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said on his Amendment 26. I had some dealings on this when the Prime Minister was the Mayor of the Greater Manchester and when Andy Street was Mayor of the West Midlands. Both of them engaged with the department on their desire to integrate the national rail network into their plans locally. They wanted to have those conversations, which worked well. In those cases, obviously, they were both mayors.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley. Given the announcement this week that local government reform and the bringing together of unitary authorities, which is, in many cases, a precursor to having mayors, have been held up and there have been legal challenges, it would be much more sensible, as my noble friend says, if we made sure that GBR could have those sensible conversations and had the powers to do that with all appropriate local authorities with a strategic transport function. We should not limit that to those authorities with a mayor.

As my noble friend said, although it was at least the preference of the Government led by Keir Starmer that there should be limits to what you could devolve if you did not have a mayor, it sounds like, from what the Prime Minister said in his answers to Cornish MPs, that he is open-minded about that. Therefore, we could have some significant local authorities with transport powers without a mayor. I know from my own experience that there are a number of proposals in the Cornish area, for example, for some rail infrastructure that would bring significant benefits to the Cornish economy. It would be perverse if the Cornish council could not have those conversations with GBR or if people had to work out weird ways of having to facilitate those conversations because we had not provided for that in this legislation.

I agree with my noble friend. The Minister would be wise either to accept his amendment or, if it needs to be worded differently or other changes need to be made, at least to take it away and come back on Report with a government amendment, or suite of amendments, to achieve the same function. That would improve the position and, in fact, get to a position that I think is the Government’s intention—certainly the current Government’s intention. It may not have been when the legislation was drafted but I think that it would more accurately reflect the position now.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to the amendments in my name, Amendments 298, 299 and 300, which follow on from the amendments about which noble Lords have spoken. I want to double-check that there will be consultation with the relevant authorities—whether it is Scotland, Wales or other authorities—before any change is made to access charges, timetables or anything else.

Several noble Lords have spoken about Cornwall, where I live. It may be down as a mayoral authority but, knowing the politics of Cornwall, I think that it is highly unlikely that anything credible will come out of that. Whether that is good or bad, we can debate.

There is also the question of what improvement—or lack of improvement—is needed to the railway in Cornwall and, to some extent, in Devon. We have been debating for many years whether the line at Dawlish is at risk and by how much. I know that my noble friend the Minister has said that it is all going to be fine. Rock bolts are being put into the hillside to stop it falling down, which I am sure is a good solution, but we still only have one rail line going to most of south Devon and the whole of Cornwall. It would be nice to think that the local authorities—the south-west regional authority is already doing some work on this—are able to take some of that forward with a budget to look at the alternatives and make sure that the various authorities, whoever they may be at the time, are properly consulted, especially on access, charges and things like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer is that the infrastructure arrangements in Wales are significantly different and Wales does not have its own settlement in that respect. I reassure noble Lords that engagement between the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers on both strategies is productive and will continue until their publication. I am grateful to noble Lords who raised this issue, providing an opportunity to place my clarification on the record.

In respect of the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about an email from—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Before the Minister concludes, may I respond, since I was one of the Members who raised this issue? I thank him for what he has just said and for the very helpful letter that he sent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred. I took the time to study it this morning, since I was the one who raised the issue, and I am grateful to him for making it clear that “strategy” means something slightly different north of the border, in Scotland, because of the role of Scottish Ministers. Again, it is an asymmetrical position with Wales, as my noble friend Lord Lansley, has just highlighted, because in Wales Welsh Ministers do not have the responsibility. That is very helpful, and I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the Government do not have to come back with amendments to fix the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, there are two sets of issues in this group. Mine is terribly simple and it is by way of a question to the Minister, just to be clear.

I do not understand why, in Clause 7, at the point the Secretary of State may give directions to Great British Railways about the activities in Scotland and Wales, in each case the requirement to obtain consent from Scottish and Welsh Ministers is disapplied if those directions relate to what is in Chapter 1 of Part 3, which is access, charging and timetable capacity.

Timetabling and so on seem, on the face of it, to be tricky things where if these are directions to GBR which impact in Scotland and Wales, they should certainly require the consent of the Scottish Ministers—for reasons that we touched on earlier, a different requirement may rest in relation to Welsh Ministers. But I am surprised to see that the implication of Clause 7 is that the Secretary of State can issue directions to GBR impacting on, for example, the timetable in Scotland but does not require the consent of Scottish Ministers. Amendments 32 and 33 in my name are to probe why that seems to be the case. I beg to move Amendment 32.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 35 and 36, which are in the names of my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan. Respectively, they deal with amending Clause 7, on the power to give directions, and Clause 9, on the power to give guidance to GBR. They specifically refer to some extra duties that would fall on Ministers if they were giving specific directions around fares and the fare structure. They set out that if Ministers are giving directions or guidance

“about the level or structure of fares”

they would have to set out

“the assumptions, criteria and objectives used … so decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability”.

I support both these amendments, for the following reasons.

One of the important decisions that Ministers have to take about the railways is to balance the cost of running them and how that cost is split between the fare payer—and of course not just that person who actually uses the railways but, when it comes to track access charges, the other users of the railway network—and the taxpayer. It is a very important decision, given that most people in the country either never use the railways or do not use them very often. A relatively small number of people use railways frequently, and it is important to get the balance of costs split correctly.

Ministers also have to make an important decision in their negotiations with the Treasury around the cost that falls on the department—the taxpayer subsidy piece. I think Ministers signed up to some quite challenging targets in the last spending review to reduce the taxpayer subsidy. There are two ways you can do that: either you cut services significantly or you have to grow passenger numbers. If Ministers are making directions or guidance about fares, it is important to understand which model they are using. What are their assumptions and what is the evidence base for the fare structure? What will that do to passenger numbers and, ultimately, to revenue? Then there is any knock-on impact on costs, what it effectively does to the GBR profit and loss account, and therefore the balance of costs that lands on fare payers versus the taxpayer. Having that level of transparency is helpful for the fare-paying public and for taxpayers.

It is also helpful for Ministers, because it would force a level of rigour in the modelling that is undertaken and, importantly, the assumptions that are made about how passenger numbers respond to fares. It will also enable us to have a grown-up conversation about how we grow passenger numbers, given some of the innovations and service changes that I suspect will be required, particularly in offering better services for leisure travellers, because that is where there is the potential for significant growth in passenger numbers and revenue and therefore for reducing the overall cost of the railway.

These two amendments have a very sensible underpinning. They are not just helpful for taxpayers and fare payers; in the end, they will be helpful for the department, because they would force, as I said, a level of rigour and transparency in its financial modelling. They should therefore also commend themselves to our friends in the Treasury, who I think like rigour and robustness in financial modelling, because this just gets it all above board. Everyone has to be clear about their assumptions.

The amendments would also allow us to challenge the assumptions and enable us to have a much better conversation publicly about how we can drive up the usage of our railways and the flexibilities that we will require to do so. That will then, perhaps, provoke some helpful conversations with the trade unions and about the flexibilities that will be necessary to making sure that we have a financially sustainable railway for the long term, which is, in effect, what we need to guarantee secure jobs on the railway. That is the only way in which we are going to do this in the long term, because I do not think that taxpayers are going to continue wanting to subsidise the railway to the level they do now for the foreseeable future, given that many of them do not use railways frequently. I commend these two amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments cover directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. They push for greater transparency around those, which is something that we really support. Information that has supported key decisions and directions should be placed in the public domain. It is really important that Great British Railways develops an open culture right from the start and that it is clear where and how decisions have been made and on the basis of what evidence. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, focus in particular on any Secretary of State directions relating to the level and structure of fares, which are, I think, of great interest to everyone. Clarity on these points from the Minister would be helpful as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 46 in the names of my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan, which I think is a probing amendment. It would remove proposed new Section 8(6) in Schedule 1, which says:

“The Office of Rail and Road may not grant a licence … unless the Secretary of State consents to the grant, or … the licence is granted in accordance with a general authority”.


I want to probe the circumstances in which the Minister envisages the Secretary of State to have, in effect, a block. My preference would be that the Office of Rail and Road can issue those licences. The new section envisages a general authority having been given by the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail and Road to issue those licences. The only circumstance in which the Secretary of State is required to grant something is if the ORR is trying to do something outside that general authority. Given that it is a general authority, that rather suggests it will give the Office of Rail and Road some broad powers to issue licences, but what are the circumstances in which the Minister envisages that the general authority that the Office of Rail and Road has would not empower it to issue a licence, and therefore when is the Secretary of State’s veto going to be effective?

The whole point, I think, is that we are trying to have GBR operating, as I think the Minister said in his answer to the previous group, without excessive micromanagement by Ministers. Again, if the Office of Rail and Road has been given a general authority to grant operating licences, it would seem to me not helpful if it had to be second-guessed a lot by the Secretary of State. What are the circumstances when the general authority would not run and when the Secretary of State would have to, in effect, give permission? If it turns out that the general authority is very broad and there are not really any circumstances, that power may be otiose and therefore really should not be in the Bill.

I am just trying to understand the limits on that general authority that is given to the Office of Rail and Road, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out when he responds to this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure it could, but it is desirable to mention the Passengers’ Council, since we are setting it up and it is an important body. The distinction I am seeking to draw is leaving the Passengers’ Council as a consultee, rather than requiring its permission.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I press the Minister on the question I asked? As he said, the Secretary of State is the holder of the licensing power, but the Office of Rail and Road is given a general authority to issue licences for non-GBR operators, but I still do not understand what the purpose is, in new Section 8(6)(a) inserted by Schedule 1, of the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to the grant. In what circumstances would the Office of Rail and Road be operating outside its general authority? It would be helpful if the Minister could give an example of where that Secretary of State veto would kick in, because I do not quite understand the point of it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think we are leaving things as they are, but if the noble Lord would like a specific example, I will have to write to him because I do not have such an example immediately in my mind.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That would be very helpful.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The broad principle is that we are leaving licensing in the position it is in at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think that was an intervention. I can only speak for myself, but I do not think I am confused now. The Bill does not inhibit this from happening in future and that is a satisfactory position for us to have reached. That is relevant to this debate in that my Amendment 65 is about the relationship between GBR and its companies, and financial transactions—the resources provided to or the resources received from GBR companies—ought to be explicit in the business plan.

I turn to Amendment 73. Now we really are in a happy position. It is many years since I was responsible for the public expenditure of a government department. I do not mean as Secretary of State; I mean as the official responsible. Knowing what powers one is using in relation to spending money is important. Amendment 73 is a probing amendment but I have used the structure of saying that the same activity should not be funded out of both the powers in the Bill, where financial assistance can be provided by the Secretary of State to GBR, and Section 6 of the Railways Act 2005, which noble Lords who know these things better than I do will remember is a broad-ranging power to provide financial assistance to GBR. I want to establish at this point—we might return to it at a later stage to see whether it is a satisfactory position—which GBR activities will be in receipt of financial assistance from the Government under the Section 6 power that exists now under the 2005 Act, or the financial assistance to be provided under this legislation. We need to avoid the confusion of two different powers providing financial assistance to the same activity.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. Obviously, I have not heard my noble friend’s exposition of the purpose of his amendment, which I look forward to listening to shortly, but I understand why these amendments have been tabled. I think that they are both intended to make it more difficult to change funding for railways, as opposed to other areas of public expenditure, but I am not sure that that is entirely a good thing. I completely understand why that would be a good thing if you were looking at it through the railway end of the telescope, but if you look at it from the point of view of a taxpayer or a citizen, I am not sure that tying the hands of Ministers in that way is entirely helpful.

I will take the two amendments in turn. In terms of background, it is worth saying that, if I have understood the Bill correctly, in part 1 of Schedule 2,

“Funding by the Secretary of State”,

the structure for setting the budgets in the first place is broadly the position now. The Government set out a plan for funding over a multiyear period, they notify various people of that funding and the funding is set out, as are the things that are expected to be delivered by the funding, so that it is all transparent for us to see what is going on. As far as I understand it, the Bill as drafted requires the Secretary of State purely to notify the ORR if they propose to vary the financial assistance—the Secretary of State has to tell the ORR in various circumstances. It is very clear that only notification is required; there is no requirement for the Minister to await the ORR doing anything before the Minister is able to proceed with the funding change. I am content with that set of circumstances, if I have understood them correctly.

My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which I understand is a probing amendment to test this, would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to change that funding settlement, except in two cases: if the things they required GBR to do had changed and therefore the funding was different; or there was an emergency in the country at the level of what is set out in the Civil Contingencies Act. We do not have those very often, but there are lots of circumstances in which the Government have to make changes to public expenditure, for all sorts of reasons, without the country being in an emergency situation at the level defined in the Civil Contingencies Act. It is the proper role of Ministers to have that flexibility and the ability to set budgets, make funding decisions and even to choose within the departmental allocation that they have. Even if the Treasury is not changing anything in terms of the money that the department has, it is the job of Ministers to decide how that money is allocated between the different parts of the department’s expenditure, whether it is a—

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

May I just say that three months’ notice is not a long time and any arbitrary cut cannot possibly take place in three months because timetables, trains and rosters have to be altered? Three months is a very short amount of time to give the rail regulator to make decisions.

I am not talking about giving the rail regulator lots of extra powers to alter the timetable. I am quite satisfied with where we have got to on that. I am saying that, if any future Government wish to reduce the money, they should have the grace to have the matter properly considered by people who are professionally competent. That does not always include Ministers.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. I had not yet started dealing with his amendment in detail—I was dealing with my noble friend Lord Moylan’s—but I listened carefully to what he said and will deal with it when I get to his amendment.

I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan, although I understand that his amendment is probing. I would not want to tie the hands of Ministers in the way that he set out. I understand that it is of course desirable not to change funding for any public service once it has been set—one does not do that if one can avoid it—but there are occasions when that is necessary. If we are looking for the appropriate people to make those decisions, they should be Ministers.

The problem with ring-fencing certain parts of expenditure to make it more difficult to make changes is that, in effect, you are deciding that any changes to public expenditure have to fall in other areas. Those decisions should properly be taken by Ministers at the time that those changes are made, because they have to balance the consequences of making those expenditure changes and the changes that they will necessitate to public services, and they have to make the case about why they are doing that. Those decisions are properly for Ministers, rather than expenditure being arbitrarily ring-fenced in legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tabled Amendment 54. I am concerned about this amendment, but I would be very happy if, when I finish my remarks, he comes back to say that I have misunderstood it. He referred to arbitrary changes. “Arbitrary” is a word that people usually use when they do not agree with the changes proposed by somebody else. Ministers may well bring forward changes, and they may be because the overall amount of money available to the Government has had to be changed for some reason or because of some event. It may be that Ministers have decided that expenditure needs to be spent in another area or that the Transport Secretary has decided that there is a higher priority elsewhere. Those are perfectly reasonable decisions that will have to be explained to Parliament, and Ministers will be subject to questioning by Members of both Houses in making those decisions, which are properly for Ministers.

I have a slight problem with this because it involves the Office of Rail and Road. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, when he was setting it out and he, I think, suggested that that the Office of Rail and Road could come back with alternative propositions. It could come back by suggesting funding decisions balanced between rail and road, starting from his proposition that rail funding is better than road funding. I think the noble Lord was also talking about decisions on taxation or heavy goods vehicles. I humbly suggest that all those decisions are properly for Ministers.

I accept that the noble Lord was not suggesting that those decisions should be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, but he was suggesting that that office should take some time, produce a report and then make suggestions to Ministers. However, it is not the role of a regulator to get involved in making qualitative opinions about where public money should be spent. Those are not decisions for regulators; they are properly decisions for Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. Unless I have misunderstood the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not think that getting regulators to come back, second-guess the decisions of Ministers and make alternative public spending propositions is good for the conduct of public policy.

The Bill is currently structured such that Ministers have to notify the ORR if they are going to make funding decisions, so that there are right and proper levels of transparency and people know what is going on. There is quite an important principle to maintain, which is that there are certain things that regulators should do and certain decisions that are properly for Ministers. I do not like to criticise the noble Lord, who I know takes a great interest in this area of policy, but I cannot support his amendment because it has those effects, which I think would be deleterious to public policy-making.

In the spirit of balance, the noble Lord will have noticed that I was also not entirely enthusiastic about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which I know is a probing amendment. So I think that I have been quite even-handed in my non-approval of both amendments, which have a similar fault: tying the hands of Ministers in making public spending prioritisation decisions.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what an absolute pleasure it is to hear from my railway expert noble friend Lord Bradshaw. It is such a delight that he has been able to join us in Committee in person today and to contribute to our debate, particularly after he had a significant birthday yesterday.

Funding certainty is absolutely crucial for the railway going forward. Being able to plan investment and work properly, and deliver it in a timely manner, is essential. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s amendments try to show the seriousness of changing mid-programme railway investment and putting in additional steps for any material change to an agreed funding settlement by involving the ORR for an independent assessment, which should be published. This would ensure transparency and expert assessment if funding for the railway is changed, particularly mid-year.

Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require more transparency. That is welcome, as was the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. In fact, it is notable that he has spoken on every group apart from the one with solely my amendments on London TravelWatch. I will not take that personally, but I say, “Once a Secretary of State, always a Secretary of State”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.