Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech. It was great fun. I do not think that we have ever met, but there is plenty of time before September, so perhaps we can get that in our diaries.

I do not say this often, but I welcome the Bill. The Green Party has long argued that our railways should be run as a public service and not for private profit. After decades of failed fragmentation, spiralling costs and confusing accountability, bringing the railway back under public leadership is important and overdue. The Bill is, therefore, a step in the right direction.

If we are creating Great British Railways, we must create a railway that is genuinely great: one that is affordable, accessible, integrated and capable of helping us meet the defining challenge of our age, which is the climate and nature crisis. At present, the Bill does not achieve that. It lacks ambition. For example, Great British Railways will have numerous duties, so why does the Bill not contain a clear duty to increase passenger numbers?

I welcome the target for shifting freight from lorries on to trains, but why is there no equivalent ambition to encourage more people out of their cars and on to trains? To do that, we must make train travel cheap and easy. For millions of people, the biggest barrier to travelling by rail is not whether a train exists but whether they can afford the ticket. Affordable fares are perhaps the single most effective tool available to increase passenger numbers, tackle inequality and reduce car dependence. Yet the Bill contains no explicit duty to promote affordable fares, and changes to the licensing arrangements of Great British Railways could see fares rising as there is less focus on public duties.

There seems to be even less ambition to create one system that covers the whole journey someone might take. As the Minister knows well, this works in Greater London, where TfL runs the London Overground under the mayor’s control. Manchester is moving that way, but what about democratic control over integrated transport for the rest of the cities and regions? People do not think in terms of operators or transport modes; they simply want one journey. Whether someone is connecting from a local bus, a tram, a cycle route or a ferry, the system should feel seamless. Integration should be one of the central purposes of Great British Railways, creating a public transport network where different modes work together rather than competing with one another. I hope that the Government will clarify how the railway will become genuinely integrated with other forms of public transport.

Rail is already one of the lowest-carbon forms of transport. We should be supporting every passenger to choose rail over driving or domestic flying. If we are to meet our legally binding climate targets, modal shift cannot simply be left in policy papers; it should be a statutory objective of the organisation that is responsible for running the railway. Staggeringly, environmental responsibilities appear only fleetingly in the Bill. There is little recognition that our railway must become climate resilient as extreme weather becomes more frequent or that it should contribute to restoring nature alongside the lines it manages. Some 10% of all train services were cancelled or severely delayed in the most recent heatwave in Britain. Last week, I spent six hours getting home instead of three, and I felt lucky to get home at all.

Great British Railways should have a clear public mission that recognises its contribution not only to transport but to our economy, our environment and our wider society. Passengers deserve the reassurance that a publicly owned railway will be judged not simply on financial performance but on whether it provides affordable access to work, education, leisure and family life. Profitable routes should be able to support socially essential services in rural and underserved communities, where success is measured not only in ticket revenue but in reducing isolation, supporting local economies and giving people a genuine alternative to cars. High ticket prices mean empty seats.

Equally important is protecting the workforce that keeps our railways running. I welcome the reassurances that the Government have given regarding the future of the Railways Pension Scheme, providing valuable certainty for thousands of rail workers. The future of Great British Railways will depend as much on the people who run it as it will on the infrastructure they manage.

Of course, the Bill misses one of the biggest opportunities of all: setting Britain on the path towards a fully electrified railway. Britain has spent decades pursuing a stop-start approach to electrifying its rail network. Only 39% or thereabouts of our railway is electrified, which is is well behind many comparable countries. We know what needs to happen. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that substantially more of the network will need to be electrified if we are to decarbonise rail and meet our climate obligations. Yet the Bill is silent on this.

Finally, I hope that the Government will look carefully at how passengers themselves are represented. A publicly owned railway that fails to listen to the public will have missed the point entirely. Public ownership should not simply change who owns the railway; it should change for whom the railway works. Passengers, disabled people, local communities, rail workers, devolved Governments and regional authorities should all have meaningful opportunities to shape services, investment priorities and future strategies. Improving accessibility will be a huge benefit for our ageing population.

We also need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. The Green Party has long argued that rail should be viewed not simply as a transport system but as essential national infrastructure for delivering economic opportunity, social justice and climate action. Public ownership is not the destination; it is the foundation. The Bill moves us away from the disastrous experiment of fragmented privatisation—for that, it deserves support —but we should not settle for a railway that merely functions better than before. We should build one that actively reduces carbon emissions, restores nature, connects communities, integrates public transport, makes travel affordable and expands opportunity across every part of the country. Those ambitions really must be written into the Bill itself.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading and hope that, during its passage through this House, we can strengthen it so that Great British Railways truly lives up to its name as a railway that is run in the public interest, serving people, communities and the planet for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

My Lords, I must confess I had mixed feelings when I saw that I had been drawn 30th out of 31 contributors to the debate this afternoon, but, in fact, it has been a huge pleasure. It has been an excellent and very well-informed debate, and it is a privilege to take part. I was particularly taken with the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I thank the noble Lord for his service. I can tell, even as a relatively new Member, that he will be missed by the House.

It has also been a privilege to take part in a debate which has included contributions from a number of former Secretaries of State for Transport. They made the case for privatisation very well, using hard numbers: increased numbers of passengers, increased projects, improving reliability on the railways, and savings made, whereas, the proponents of this Bill, I fear, are relying largely on nostalgia. The reputation of British Rail, back as it was in the 1970s, appears to have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Blencathra managed to puncture that particular balloon and remind us all of exactly what it was like.

I had the privilege to work for the Royal Mail in the 1980s and the early 1990s. We had a lot of dealings with British Rail. I would come into the office—I was private secretary to the director of operations here in London—and I would be faced every morning with a tray full of telexes; noble Lords will recall telexes, I am sure. Every one of them was about some form of delay or disruption to the mail overnight, and a very large proportion of those was due to failings on the part of our partner, British Rail. I would have to assemble those into a file and present them to the rather sceptical director when he came in later during the day. I can remember well how incandescent he was when I had to tell him that British Rail had forgotten to put fuel in a train and it had ground to a halt just outside Birmingham with its load.

I remember a particular day with some pride when we launched the mail train which ran from Euston station to Carlisle. We had a train full of bigwigs—directors from British Rail, directors from the Post Office; we had my noble friend Lord Jopling, who was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, and Lord Clinton-Davis, who was his Labour opposite number. We set off from Euston with our hearts high, looking forward to reaching Carlisle. Unfortunately, something fell off the train at Nuneaton, and we ground to a halt and sat in a field for an hour, with nobody telling us what the reason for that was. Nobody on the train knew, least of all, of course, the senior British Rail operators who were panicking somewhat about the experience. It was a constant source of controversy and difficulty for us, because we knew, as a nationalised organisation, that if we wanted to please the Government, we would put all our letters on to the trains. If we wanted to help the environment, because we cared about that even in those days, we would put all our mail on to the trains. But if we wanted the letters to get there the next day, we would put them in a van and drive them ourselves, because that was the only way that we could guarantee the quality of service that people required from us.

I particularly enjoyed the early contribution from my noble friend Lady May. She raised the issue of devolution and the contradictions that that will raise. The Minister, having run Transport for London, will be only too aware, I am sure, of the contradictions and the challenges this puts in place for London and for other major cities around the country. When he was running Transport for London, he would have wanted the trains to stop at every single stop going into London, provide a metro service and pick up the maximum number of people possible, but when he becomes the one controlling mind that he presented to us, running the trains on behalf of the country, no doubt he will want them to run express services and stop in as few places as possible to keep to the timetable and connect the cities. That is before the contradictions and the challenges raised by increasing the amount of freight on the rails as well. Perhaps the Minister can explain to us how the concept of one controlling mind will meet what is known as the Makerfield test.

My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham raised the issue of investment. Again, this is a serious problem. Public money is paid by taxpayers by and large because they expect it to be spent on schools and hospitals, and those things will have the priority. This is why the old British Rail was always so badly underfunded. When we look forward to the situation facing us now in the UK, we are in a world where we need to boost our defence spending and there are all sorts of other demands on the budget. Great British Railways is going to be very fortunate if it gets much money out of a government settlement with all those other high priorities competing.

Furthermore, there is an issue of London versus the regions. I know that when I was deputy mayor for London, we could always make a good case for investing in London’s railways because, if nothing else, if you put the money into London, you know you are going to get it back eventually—there will be a return on that investment. That is how we got the Elizabeth line, although I am sure the Minister remembers that it was quite tough to get. It will be even harder to get investment in projects outside London, which will not cost in so easily because they will not meet Treasury rules.

From my point of view, I would perhaps give some advice to the Minister. Transport professionals should rely a bit less on putting in massive projects—big toys for boys, if you like—and look at breaking that money up and spending it on smaller projects, which may not get the headlines but which can be completed much more quickly. That will have a demonstrable effect in improving the reliability of the rail services.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

Thank you. He was heard in silence, almost.

We often hear in such debates—we have not heard it too much today—about how much better the rail services are in other countries. I just want to let the House know that that is not just a debate or an opinion which is voiced by people in the UK. I remember that quite a few years ago, and the Minister will recall this as well, we brought in a man called Bob Kiley from New York to run Transport for London. I was in a hotel in the West End talking to some New Yorkers at the bar, and I said to them, “We’ve got Mr Kiley coming over to run our services”. They said to me, “Well, he’s made a much better job of your Tube than he ever did with our rail services in New York”. I said, “The only problem is that he’s actually not arrived yet”. So it is a truth that, when we travel, we see the best of people’s rail services; when we live there, we do not quite get the sort of service that we would expect. If the Bill is to be successful, I hope that that situation will be corrected.

Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to join this first group in Committee. I am sitting to the left of the Liberal Democrats because that is where I now find myself; I always want to be sitting behind my noble friend on the Front Bench in Committee to back him up, but I cannot do that because there is no back row in this Room, so I cannot be self-effacing in the back row. Anyway, I look forward to Committee. I do not have the experience of railways that the Minister and my noble friend speaking for the Official Opposition do—I do not pretend to that intimate knowledge of the railways—but I hope to bring something of my interest in how competition should be applied in the delivery of public services to some of the issues that we will be debating.

I turn to this group. There are a number of amendments in my name which are just about trying to find out, as I was going through the Bill, whether it works in the way described or precisely what it means. Rather in line with what my noble friend was just saying, we need to be sure that we understand that the Bill is functionally correct in the way that it works. I have just two amendments in this group.

Amendment 3 relates to the question of what must be wholly owned. As my noble friend said, Clause 1 is constructed around the proposition that Great British Railways not only must be wholly owned by the Crown but cannot be anything else. That relates to GBR itself. The purpose of Amendment 3 is to test whether that also applies to GBR companies. We do not encounter GBR companies in Clause 1, but we do subsequently as a means by which GBR will undertake its activities. This is not surprising. As my noble friend said, we do not know how GBR will be corporately structured but, by way of example, we know how Network Rail is structured. It has a significant number of wholly owned subsidiaries and quite a number of joint venture subsidiaries, including through Platform4.

For example—and here I declare my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and others—Platform4 is a Network Rail subsidiary company that has just recently, happily, entered into an agreement with partners to develop at Cambridge North station as part of the Government’s proposal to develop around stations, with 450 homes around the station. It is a joint venture company; it is not wholly owned by Network Rail. So my starting proposition is that this prohibition on companies not being wholly owned must apply to GBR itself but cannot apply to GBR companies. I want to be sure that that is the case. If it is not absolutely clear in the statute then it ought to be, which would be the purpose of my amendment.

That differentiates the amendment from those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to which we will no doubt turn in a minute, who wants precisely that to be the case. For the reasons I have just explained about the many joint ventures for things such as housing developments and commercial developments around stations through companies such as Platform4, if I may respectfully say so before she has put her case, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that all GBR companies should be—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Who does?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Recalling Questions earlier, just because we do not agree with the noble Baroness, that does not mean she cannot sometimes be right.

The other amendment in my name is Amendment 4, which relates to shadow directors. Clause 2 tells us that Ministers are not to be construed as shadow directors under the Companies Act when they make decisions. I think it is the case that, when officials act on behalf of Ministers, exactly the same provisions would apply to them. We need to be absolutely sure that this is the case, and that it applies to the officials of Scottish and Welsh Ministers as well as to those of the Secretary of State. I am looking for a bit of reassurance on that.

--- Later in debate ---

What my noble friend is pointing out—which will be relevant, for example, to our debate on ticketing later, hopefully later today—is that, unless you see the draft of the approved document, you do not know to what extent it properly reflects what is in the ticketing settlement agreement now and is carried forward, or to what extent it proposes to change these things. Simply the fact of having a promise in the legislation that there will be a document is not necessarily sufficient for us to feel confident that the changes that we are implementing in legislation will come through in the way that we intend them to. I support my noble friend in trying to start this off in our amendments, to explore whether the legislation is working as we are told it should.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, with the permission of the Chair, I will do something I have not done in the 13 years I have been here as a Peer. The place name in my title is “Mole Skoomb”, okay? There is a railway station at Moulsecoomb, near Brighton; in fact, it is not in Moulsecoomb but in Bevendean, which is a source of great irritation to people living in Moulsecoomb; Moulsecoomb is a mile up the road. Anyway, it is pronounced “Mole Skoom”. Thank you.

I said in my speech at Second Reading that I welcome the Bill; the Green Party has long argued that our railway should be run as a public service, not for private profit, and that is exactly where my five amendments here are going: they all make basically the same point. It was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to point out that he did not agree with me; in fact, it sort of made me feel slightly better because, worryingly, there are times when I do agree with him, so it is good to get back on our tracks.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Tracks?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry, I did not mean that.

What I am trying to do with these five amendments is to make sure that public ownership of our railways really means public ownership. The Bill, as it currently stands, could allow companies within Great British Railways to have private shareholders. The Bill is, or should be, about bringing our railways back into public ownership, and we therefore should not be creating a back door that allows private ownership to creep in.

This is the worry that the Association of British Commuters, We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have brought to us. They and the others are asking a very simple question: what exactly do we mean when we say that Great British Railways will be publicly owned? At the moment, the answer is not clear in the Bill. The Government made a welcome commitment that all the shares in the parent company of Great British Railways would be publicly owned, but does that extend to the companies sitting beneath it?

The Bill defines a GBR company as a subsidiary within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. A subsidiary does not have to be wholly publicly owned; it can be partly owned by private investors, provided that the parent company retains control. We could have a railway where the parent company is entirely publicly owned but where companies carrying out important railway functions have private shareholders. Does that not fundamentally change what public ownership means? The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 used a much clearer definition: a public sector company had to be wholly publicly owned. The Companies Act itself provides the Government with the wording they could have used if they intended to require wholly owned subsidiaries. I think we have to ask this: why was that stronger definition not used here?

This is not helped by the Government not being clear about exactly which functions GBR companies will carry out, as the Bill gives these companies the ability to carry out potentially any GBR function. That could include train operations and infrastructure management, which leaves the door open to a very different railway in the future. In a worst-case scenario, the new definition of GBR companies as subsidiaries could even lead to the part-privatisation of rail infrastructure management—a direction of travel thought impossible in the UK since the days of Railtrack.

Railway privatisation has been a disaster: it fragmented the railways, drove up costs and put private profit ahead of passengers. We should not be creating a structure today that would enable a future Government to say, “Well, the legislation already allows private investment and we’re simply making use of the powers that Parliament has already given us”. These amendments would stop that happening. I should also say that I have not yet had the delight of meeting with the Minister, but I am sure that that is in progress.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments in this group. First, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Moylan said at the beginning about ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said that this Bill is about public ownership, but actually it is not. That was the other Bill to which she referred; this Bill is about setting up GBR as the guiding mind, bringing track and train together—however one wants to characterise it. It is not essential to the core purpose of the Bill; the ownership structure is not core to delivering the services. My noble friend Lord Moylan was right to make those points in his opening remarks.

Of the specific amendments, Amendment 2 is very pertinent. My noble friend Lord Moylan focused on the “owned by the Crown” piece, but Clause 1(3) talks about Great British Railways being

“wholly owned by the Crown”.

Even if we accept that GBR should largely be owned by the Minister—in effect, on behalf of the public—who is able to direct things, I am not sure that we should be in favour of it being “wholly owned”. There is a very good argument for having some private capital. It might be that you want to get that capital involved in the company. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to infrastructure, and we may wish to use it for that and people could have a shareholding. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, that we would wish to have some joint ventures. I will give two examples.

One of the countries whose railways people generally admire is Japan. Interestingly, people involved in the railways in Japan largely admire how we do them, as well. There is an enormous amount of cross-fertilisation between experts from both countries. They have very successfully defrayed some of the costs of running their railway by using the value of the property in which the railway system operates—on top of, below or alongside —to generate some effective retail operations and other things that generate a significant amount of money. This keeps down the cost to the taxpayer from running the railway.

Network Rail does some of those sorts of joint ventures already in developing property and that seems perfectly reasonable. Even if we accepted that running the railway piece should be publicly owned—and I do not—it would seem perfectly reasonable if Network Rail, which will now become part of GBR, wished to have some joint ventures with people who develop property and people who help to maximise the returns for the taxpayer on the assets owned by GBR. The state is frankly not very good at doing those things, which are important not just to raise revenue to defray costs but to develop and energise the economy in some of our towns and cities up and down the country. Core railway assets are often where you could develop housing and other things to redevelop areas.

To give a specific example, there was a Written Answer from the Minister recently—forgive me, but I cannot remember whether it was answered yesterday or in the previous few days—about how the Government will develop Euston station. Originally, that was going to be done by HS2, but, when I was Secretary of State, we came to the conclusion that HS2 was probably not going to make a good fist of that. At that time, the Minister was the chairman of the Euston Partnership, which brought together representatives of the Mayor of London, local authorities and private sector companies involved in developing the station. We came to the conclusion that a development-led approach would be better, in order to develop a significant amount of housing for that part of London as well as private sector office and business space, as we had done around King’s Cross and St Pancras, which has had a huge impact on the economy. But that involves working in partnership with the private sector.

I do not know how in the end the Government will structure that approach, but it seems to me that it would be sensible at least to keep open the option that, at the very least, a subsidiary of GBR could potentially own a joint venture or part of the entity involved in delivering the development, either to help to run it or to share in some of the capital gain. You may or may not wish to do that, but ruling out the ability to do that does not seem to me sensible. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which probes that issue, is sensible and has a lot of merit.

On the issue of private shareholders, I will make the argument just briefly, since this Bill is not about nationalisation, about where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, misunderstands the point about private companies. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, from the point of view of the consumer and the delivery of services, privatisation was for most of its life a massive success. It brought into the railways an enormous amount of private capital, new rolling stock, new services and a hugely greater number of people using the railways than had been the case under British Rail, under which passenger numbers had, frankly, been declining since the Second World War. It was a huge success.

Now, it is absolutely true that the passenger franchise model had some issues and, in fact, was effectively destroyed by the pandemic. I am not suggesting that we necessarily would have wanted to carry on with that model, but there are other models involving the private sector. For example, the way that TfL operates in London is that TfL specifies the services but, in a number of cases, it contracts with companies to run those. also, as the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister set up the bus services that he wished to procure, but it was the private sector that delivered those. Those models seem to me perfectly sensible. If you set them up properly, the company makes money only if it delivers services that passengers require. That seems to me a very sensible model. I know that the noble Baroness does not agree with it, but I just wanted to set out how it actually works, as opposed to her characterisation of it.

The last point that I want to make is on Amendment 8, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which talks about the organisational structure of GBR. The reason why that is important—I think we will come on to this in some of our later debates—is that it is, in effect, how you set up the organisation and, therefore, how it takes decisions and who takes the decisions within the structure.

Railways Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend has done nothing wrong, as per the Companion, but usually in Committee Back-Benchers speak before the Front-Bench winders. It helps if noble Lords understand when people speak. Before we get into a long debate, it is not in the Companion, and we have freedom to speak and to intervene—it just helps the flow of debate, when we have a long Committee debate ahead of us.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

So, technically, because I am the only Green, I am a Front-Bench winder as well. I just want to establish the rules.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Green Members often speak as part of the Back Benches, but the noble Baroness is of course welcome to speak whenever.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

78A: Schedule 2, page 79, line 2, at end insert—
“(b) protect or improve the environment or mitigating or adapting to climate change, or(c) secure, maintain or improve the accessibility of railway passenger services, station services, railway infrastructure or rolling stock for disabled persons.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the exclusion from subsidy control rules to include financial assistance with the primary purpose of environmental protection or accessibility.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am not going to speak briefly. I am probably going to compete with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Harper, in the length of my comments and the thoroughness with which I cover the amendments. I have put my name on all amendments in this group, and I care very much that they are properly debated and understood.

The aim of Amendment 78A is to broaden the exclusions from the subsidy control rules. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 has created a fundamental split in the Bill which translates directly into how policy will be made and what can be done with public money. As I understand it, only funding for the primary purpose of infrastructure under Clause 3(1)(a) is excluded from the subsidy control rules. The implication is that everything else will be subject to them. I think that helps to explain the split between the different budgets, with infrastructure funded through the funding period review while operations and other areas, including capital projects and enhancements, come through the spending review, with a close eye being kept on cross-subsidy. That seems to run against the long-standing aim of GBR, going back to 2021, of bringing infrastructure and operations together. The Rail Industry Association warned last year that if track and train integration is to be achieved both need to be covered by the same funding process.

However, my specific concern with this amendment is public interest policy-making, particularly accessibility and climate. For accessibility, will these rules make it harder to reform and integrate funding programmes and plan investment in a rational way so that we can make progress as quickly as possible? On climate, the issue is even more complicated. Many of the things we have been talking about, and will talk about later today, are vital to increasing passenger numbers and shifting people from cars to rail. These could potentially be subject to subsidy control rules, which include things such as electrification and other capital investment. Environmental measures are also subject to additional requirements under the Subsidy Control Act—so this is a complicated and underdiscussed area, and I would like the Minister to explain the practical impact of these rules on accessibility, climate funding and policymaking.

This amendment would create exclusions for both, when the primary purpose of the financial assistance is to protect or improve the environment, mitigate or adapt to climate change, or secure and improve accessibility for disabled people. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about how these subsidy control rules will work in practice and whether the Government would be prepared to look at exclusions of this kind.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the Government remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges that we face and the provisions in this Bill will ensure that the railways continue to support the Government’s targets on climate change, air quality and decarbonisation. I, of course, concur with my noble friend Lord Liddle that we should not load the Bill, or indeed GBR as an organisation, with a huge amount of statutory duties when there is sufficient in the Bill to ensure that the organisation does the right thing in any event. I encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister and his team for their response. I will just make a comment or two. I am in such awe of the Minister’s extensive knowledge of railways that I always find his replies in these meetings very comforting. It is only when I walk away and start rereading them that I think, “Hold on”. I will be coming back to these issues on Report. That is a warning, not a threat.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, used a word that I had not used but will incorporate into my thinking: “vulnerability”. I think that that is what we are talking about with all these things. He is so environmentally aware that it is fantastic. It was good to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said about corridors in other countries. It comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, that none of this is new. We can do this. We have examples that we can take from other countries and even other railways.

Prince Philip once said to me—quite unkindly, I thought—that the problem with us Greens was that we never gave anyone else any credit for what they did. I took that to heart, because we do not. We think that other people never go far enough. It is never enough. We always want more. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, was absolutely right to say that Network Rail has been doing stuff—I really should accept that. The fire risks and the flooding are things that we really need to keep down.

To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, of course this all should have started 10 years ago—or 20, or 30, or 40. We have known about the climate crisis and its approach for well over 50 years. We should have been thinking ahead then, but we were not. This goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was saying. Yes, the Tories were better in some ways, but they are regressing now. Had they listened to the Green Party, HS2 would not have started where it started and we would not have had the bat tunnel fiasco. Please remember that the Greens were right back then and we are right now.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Briefly, although I was not here for most of—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No, you did not hear—oh, you did.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did hear the noble Baroness’s opening speech, actually, and I just heard her remarks. Briefly, one of the reasons why we were not concerned about the climate crisis 50 years ago was that we were being told by scientists then—and it was on the front page of the Economist, which I used to read assiduously every week—that we were about to enter a new ice age. That was the consensus then and that was the Green Party’s view of what we should be worrying about. The noble Baroness should not rewrite history to claim omniscience and always being right. What happened to the ice age, by the way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I disagree very strongly with the noble Lord. If he had been listening to me back then, he would have heard me, and I did not talk about an incipient ice age.

Let me get back to my comments. To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course the welded rails are part of the problem and I am absolutely delighted that she does not have a lot of noise from the railway going past her house. The fact is that we need to reduce diesel. I was disappointed that she could not fully support what I was saying, but I thank her anyway.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, this is not about putting everything in the Bill; this is about thinking about a future for humankind. This is directed to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as well, with whom I will have a word later. I am not trying to save nature for nature’s sake; it is because we rely on nature for our human existence. I do not understand why people just do not get that connection: no bees, no food, no humans. I am not saying that nature is more important than humans; I am saying that it is important for humans. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, supported anything I said. That is rather nice.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Why?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I do not know. Perhaps I have not listened hard enough to what he is saying generally, but I thank him anyway. I assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was going to completely rubbish everything that I said, so I did not start to take notes. I look forward to all the other groups and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 78A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boateng for that introduction. I declare an interest in that, apart from having been involved years ago in the Channel Tunnel and Ashford station—getting that built in the right place was not very easy —I am now involved in one of the cross-channel services that he mentioned, Gemini, whose ambition is to stop trains regularly at Ebbsfleet and Ashford. It is all quite complicated because you have an independent infrastructure manager which obviously wants the maximum return. It operates local services to Folkstone, Dover and Ramsgate, I think, and they all have to be fitted in together. That is before you get involved in the frontier control issues, which I had probably better avoid for the moment.

On international services, which is what these are called, it is for the operator to decide its timetable of services and which stations it wishes to stop at, which is the same, really, as open-access operators in this country, with a few minor differences. It has to look at the costs of infrastructure, of police and of everybody else who has to be there; it has to find somewhere to park the trains at night, and all the other things that go with it. My noble friend’s point is that this needs some kind of economic encouragement—I hope from the Government. It is very similar to what should be being provided up in the north now, or in Wales, or even where I live in Cornwall—wherever it is needed—to try to balance the economies of these various areas.

It is then a question of who makes what decision as to where to run the trains. If it is an open-access operator—we have talked about that elsewhere in the Committee—we have the ability in the Bill to encourage or allow open-access operators if they do not get in the way of the other trains and the freight trains. It is more difficult when you get smaller operators that want to go on a short journey. Will they be allowed to operate? We really do not know that yet. The link between economic demands and what the railway can provide is fundamental. As my noble friend said, the needs of Ashford, and to some extent the rest of east Kent, are horrendous compared with other parts of the south-east. Therefore, stopping trains at Ebbsfleet and Ashford has many benefits; it also links to other routes down to Brighton and Hastings. It is all a question of the decisions the Government make on these various priorities, bearing in mind that they probably do not have too much money to spend.

I believe that the idea in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to abolish the ORR and create a new one would be a complete disaster for the railways, because I worked on rail freight as well. You need an organisation that can be seen to act independently on all the issues when you are trying to fit more trains than you can possibly need or want on to a track and decide who gets priority. There is the argument about fares, speeds and, basically, competition issues.

Over the years, the ORR’s terms of reference have been changed once or twice but it has mostly operated fairly and in a timely manner. We can compare its terms of reference and what it does with the Civil Aviation Authority or the similar one for maritime, whose name I cannot remember. All they do—I say “all”, but it is a very important thing—is to act as an independent appeal body, if you like, so that you do not have to go to court and you do not need the Competition and Markets Authority every time you want to blow your nose. The ORR, with whatever amendments are decided in this Committee and later, is a fundamental part of keeping the network fair and as full as it can be, and encouraging new operators. New operators, if my noble friend really wanted, could mean extra, more reliable traffic that is provided fairly and at the best possible price.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my stand part notice opposing Clause 20. A duty is being placed on the Office of Rail and Road that I do not understand, which is about promoting competition. I am trying to probe exactly what the Government mean by the ORR’s duty to “promote competition”. I am concerned that there is a lack of clarity here between promoting competition and regulating competition. The ORR already has a role in regulating competition under the Railways Act 1993, but Clause 20 appears to give it a separate duty to promote competition. I would like to understand what exactly that means in practice and why it is necessary.

This is not an issue that I will bring back on Report, because I cannot quite put enough passion into it, but we see that there is potential tension here because the ORR has a number of other responsibilities, including safety, access and economic regulation. The areas in which it is required to promote competition include important parts of the railway’s network services. I would like the Minister to explain how this new duty will interact with those other responsibilities. In particular, if there is a conflict between promoting competition and another statutory duty or the Government’s rail strategy, which takes precedence? I am not convinced that we need a general duty on the regulator to promote competition in the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If I may help the noble Baroness—of course, I might be as lost as she is—the effect of Clause 20 is in fact to remove the competition duty of the ORR from everything in subsection 1, paragraphs (a) to (g), which is basically everything, more or less.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for explaining that to me. I would like to hear that corroborated by the Minister, if he would. This one obviously needs safeguards and so on.

My Amendment 331 is quite specific, but it raises two important questions about what we consider to be competitive parts of the railway. The first is rolling stock. We discussed on the first day the question of bringing rolling stock into public ownership. The Office for National Statistics is also considering the accounting treatment of rolling stock companies, including whether their leases should ultimately appear on the public sector balance sheet. I do not want to rehearse that whole debate here, but it is worth asking whether treating rolling stock as a competitive market should simply be taken for granted.

If the Government’s ambition is to create a genuinely integrated railway, which I hope it is, there may be circumstances where intervention in the rolling stock market is necessary. Removing rolling stock from this particular competition provision would at least allow that policy question to be considered without assuming that competition must always be the organising principle.

The second issue is passenger information systems. I would like the Minister to explain exactly what is meant by these systems in this legislation—if not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, could help me out. This provision dates back to the Railways Act 1993, when the technology and structure of the railway were very different. If we are talking about the digital systems that allow information to be shared across the rail network, there is a strong argument for treating them as essential railway infrastructure. That would not necessarily prevent competition in ticket retailing or other services, but the underlying information infrastructure needs to work across the network. Can the Minister therefore clarify what systems are covered by this provision and why they need to be treated as a competitive market?

My Amendment 332 raises a broader question about the position of competition regulation within the new railway. As I understand it, the effect of this provision is that the ORR’s competition functions under Section 67 of the Railways Act 1993 will continue to apply to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of this Bill. However, the Bill also establishes a rail strategy and a set of general duties for Great British Railways, so I want to understand how these things fit together. If the ORR is applying competition regulation to the new strategy framework, could that regulation prevent GBR implementing something that is otherwise consistent with the rail strategy and its general duties, and, if so, which takes priority?

We have heard arguments that the ORR’s role is being reduced under this Bill, but this provision seems to leave it with significant powers in relation to competition. I would like us to be clear about where the balance lies. Are we creating a new railway strategy, which GBR is expected to deliver, while simultaneously giving the regulator the ability to intervene where it considers competition requirements have not been met? If that is the intention, the Government should explain how conflicts between those objectives will be resolved. I am not arguing against regulation where it is needed, but I question the idea that competition should be an end in itself. The purpose of the railway should be to serve the public, and competition should support that purpose rather than take priority over it.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the government amendment that leads this group, which takes us back somewhat to the debates we had previously about the Civil Aviation Authority and the additional responsibilities that it was given.

I have significant misgivings about exactly where the Government are placing the ORR in this legislation and in the structure for the future. It has always seemed to me there are two prime functions, if there is to be a regulator at all. In a state-run railway, where the Government are, in effect, recreating British Rail—of course, in the past, there would not have been such a thing—the Government are creating multiple bodies around what was once a single national railway. The key issue is that the ORR’s job should be about ensuring that, where there is external access to the network for freight, for open access and for heritage railways—I see my noble friend over there—that access is provided on a fair basis and charged for on a fair basis.

I am not really sure I understand why this amendment is necessary. It takes the ORR into the field of consumer regulation, into the work of the CMA and into the world of competition legislation. When we debated the similar measure on civil aviation and the Civil Aviation Authority, we were dealing with a range of powers that the Government were seeking to give the Civil Aviation Authority, some of which the Minister himself rightly recognised—I am grateful to him—were too draconian. He stepped back from some of the original pieces in that legislation. Before we give him carte blanche to do this, in a Grand Committee where there is not the opportunity to divide as there is on the Floor of the House, he needs to explain in a bit more detail precisely what this entails. What is the ORR trying to sort out? What are the justice implications of this? What are the kinds of areas of criminal civil activity that this is designed to tackle?

Unless the Minister can set that out in a lot more detail, I will object to this going through this Committee today and say that he needs to come back on Report with much more information. He will recall our debate on civil aviation. I asked him a number of questions on which, through no fault of his own, because it was not his specialist area, he did not have the full information to hand. This, of course, is his specialist area, and I am sure that he has the information to hand. If he does not, this is not a matter that should be dealt with today.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important that there be some mention of the timings of these, including when they will fit in with the rest of the timetable, and on which days. I know from talking to heritage providers that they are scared they may be told that they cannot run trains for two weeks, even after they have taken reservations. We may wish to come back on Report with more detail or for more discussion—it is an important issue that could easily be brushed aside.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 128. I really want to go, but—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Feel free.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is speaking to her amendment—and committing herself to hearing my speech and that of the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will relax and take my time, then.

Passengers’ journeys are very rarely just a train journey—there might be a bus to a station, a train and then another bus, or tram, or whatever—and if those parts of the journey do not connect properly, the whole journey becomes more difficult. I know this from personal experience. A missed connection, a long wait, separate tickets or poor passenger information can all make public transport less attractive. The National Transport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. That is why integration is one of the strongest levers we have for getting more people to choose public transport.

The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped. Amendment 128 would put some of that principle back into the Bill, by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR

“to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—(a) bus and coach services, (b) tram and light rail, and (c) micromobility.”

I also support Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the railway strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and co-ordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information, and includes ferry services. The two amendments complement each other rather well. One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things integration should mean for passengers. This is not just about making journeys more convenient; if we want people to make more journeys by public transport, the whole journey needs to work.

I ask the Minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill, and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes? Will the Government consider putting some of the practical elements in Amendment 10 —timetables, ticketing and passenger information—into the statutory framework? We have an opportunity here to create a railway that works as part of a wider public transport network, rather than as a system operating on its own. That should be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I am going to be brief. Noble Lords will have observed that my name appears on two of these amendments, the lead amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

First, on the heritage amendment, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for many of the nice things he said about me and heritage railways. As far as they are concerned, I agree completely. I also alert the Committee to the extraordinarily beneficial effect of the amendment that was passed to the Employment Rights Bill making it legal for young people under 16 to volunteer on heritage railways and tramways, which has led to a substantial increase in the number of young people coming forward. The Heritage Railway Association is devoting its annual conference to the subject of volunteering. That was made possible as a result of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and I managed to persuade the House and the Government, with, I think, some help from this Minister, to see included in the Bill.

The other aspect of heritage railways that I want to mention is the fact that there are already a number of operations where heritage railways and the national railway are working closely together and providing timetabled services. I hope very much that it will be possible for those to continue under the new arrangements. North Yorkshire Moors Railway is running into Whitby, as it has done for a number of years, and Severn Valley Railway has just announced a new service in the timetable that is giving people in Bewdley the opportunity to commute to Birmingham with just one change at Kidderminster. This is a step forward, as it means that for the first time for many years Bewdley is going to have a decent train service at times when people want to use it, rather than one that is available just for heritage purposes.

On the excellent amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I remind the Minister of a letter that I forwarded to him from Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council last week. I spent considerable time in Moreton a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Stratford-on-Avon to Moreton tramway, which they claim to be one of the earliest railways in Britain. It opened in 1826. Great events went on at both ends of the line, including a visit by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to the town where many of the public buildings bear the name of his family. Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council is asking for the Minister’s support for its application for funding from the Cotswold District Council’s community infrastructure levy to provide a community rail hub in Moreton-in-Marsh to bring railways and buses together and provide an integrated service. The council has already gone a long way to doing that and has expanded bus services, but if the Minister is prepared to give a nudge in that direction, that will go down extremely well. I thank the Committee for its indulgence in allowing me to, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, Box and Cox in the chair.