Railways Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who made some very apposite points about passenger rights. I declare an interest as a member of the UK and Ireland leadership team of AtkinsRéalis and as an adviser to Hutchison Ports.

For me, this is somewhat of an endpoint, since, as the Minister rightly said, I started the process back in 2018 through the Williams review, which was intended to address the issue we will all touch upon tonight. I never believed that separating track and train was the right thing to do. It was right, in my view, to move away from a state-run monolith, and it distresses me enormously that we have ended up going back to a state-run monolith, but it was absolutely not right in the end to fragment the railways as much as happened.

The reality is that, in the two decades post privatisation, the railway turned around. Under British Rail, it declined: lines were closed and passenger numbers fell. Under the privatised railway, passenger numbers grew, the number of trains expanded and we ended up carrying more passengers on the railway network today than travelled in Victorian times, when the railway was twice as big as it is now. Therein lies the problem. I do not believe that this Bill, and the route that the Government are taking, will get to the position that they want to get to. We all want to get to a position where the railway works well, delivers for passengers and delivers for freight. The problem is that this is not just about who owns it.

When the Williams review was set up, he and I sat and talked about different options. We agreed that there are basically four ways to run the railway. You continue with franchising, you go back to British Rail, you have the model that John Major advocated, which I believe was the right one—regional integrated companies that control both track and train—or you take the model that ought to be quite close to the Minister’s heart: the TfL model, whereby you have a guiding mind but it operates concessions for the different parts of its operation.

Funnily enough, that model is in use elsewhere in the country, in Manchester, by the immediate past mayor and his Bee Network. This was established by Conservatives; the powers were provided by Conservatives and he took rather a long time to take them up. He now talks lovingly about the state-owned, state-run bus network in Manchester. Actually, it is not: it is basically a TfL-style concession whereby the private sector operates the buses.

This is not what this Bill does. It will be quite interesting to see what happens, for the Minister—although perhaps less for him. With the changes that lie ahead of us in a few days’ time, I very much hope that the Minister will retain his position. He commands respect from all sides of this House, even if we may not totally agree on all matters in the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether this Bill survives in its current form the change of Prime Minister that lies ahead, because it is absolutely not consistent with the model that was followed in Manchester.

However, the real problem on our railway is not just who owns and runs it. It is about capacity. The reality is that today’s railway is not fit for the level of demand on it. As a country, we closed too many lines in the 1960s. Too many routes are congested. You cannot easily get 19 or 20 trains through Wimbledon at peak times. You could not easily get the number of services needed into Manchester Piccadilly, which is why, in the end, some degree of capacity enhancement is needed there. The Government should be focusing on how to break down the capacity constraints.

With all due respect to the Minister for his previous role as chair of Network Rail, I have to say that Network Rail has not done us well in that respect. We need to put extra capacity into the network. It needs to be done in the most cost-effective way. It needs to be done with a bit of vision: for example, with digital signalling, which increases capacity, not simply by replacing the stuff that is there already.

Network Rail costs are far higher than they should be. Let us take the case of East West Rail, which I tried to get out of the Network Rail system; I admit to having failed. It has cost much too much. That was because it was done to standards set by Network Rail beyond those that are realistically needed today. It is an existing railway line. You can even operate, albeit at slow speeds, what was there before. Was it really necessary to ship millions and millions of tonnes of earth to make the embankments broader?

There needs to be a challenge to the engineering standards, not to create an unsafe railway but to ask: is everything that Network Rail does, whether in process, planning or engineering terms, absolutely necessary and consistent with our need to generate additional capacity?

That is the state-run bit of the railway. There is no evidence as yet that a state-run railway delivers a quantum better performance. Indeed, as I am sure the Minister himself knows, when it comes to South Western Railway, 14 months into the public sector, its performance has gone down. Why is that the case? Surely the opposite should be the case. As we go through this Bill process, the Minister will have a job to explain to us why a return to British Rail—it has a “Great” on the front of it, but it is basically a return to British Rail—is going to deliver the passenger improvements that we need.

I will also touch briefly on the issue of devolution. The model in the Bill is absolutely inconsistent. It is certainly inconsistent with the arrival of a new Prime Minister who believes in devolution. How can it, for example, be appropriate to have a system in London that is fine, the TfL-style concession system, but you cannot have it in Birmingham—even though it is perfectly possible, given the size of the West Midlands area, to have dedicated services such as the London Overground in Birmingham? I really do not understand the logic. If the Government believe in devolution, they should do it, and if they do not believe in devolution, they should not do it—but they should not create an odd hybrid.

I want to say something to the Minister about the system of consultation. Do not believe that always works, because in 2018, when we had all the issues with the timetable, the Northern franchise was equally the responsibility of Transport for the North and the Department for Transport. But, I have to say, Northern leaders hurled all the abuse at me and the Department for Transport and took no responsibility themselves for their own accountability and the performance of that franchise. Frankly, it was a disaster in every respect, but do not believe that consultation powers under the umbrella of devolution are actually going to be transformative in any way, because they are not. The Government are going to be blamed anyway if something goes wrong.

I also say to the Minister that I am looking for bold plans to expand the capacity of the network. I very much regret what has happened with HS2 sucking up all the budgets for control period 6 that I hoped could make a difference. I openly say that I personally believe that HS2 should have been scrapped in 2019 when it was clear that the costs were out of control, and that money should have been spent on capacity enhancement. I give the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, credit for that: he was right on that point. But we are where we are now. We have to focus on capacity enhancements. People and passengers have every right to expect better, but they should not believe that simply changing from private control to state control is what is going to make the difference. We have a rail network that is simply not big enough for the demand on it today, and until that is fixed—in a whole series of ways across the whole country, rather than simply with big projects—it will not make the difference that passengers deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this thorough and thoughtful debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. His distinguished record of service in this place and the Civil Service is a beacon of dedication and commitment to public good. He has brought to our proceedings a deep experience in the heart of government and his contributions are always thoughtful, measured and influential. As always, he is well informed about the railways. Gladstone made provision for the nationalisation of railways in the 1844 Railway Regulation Act. It was not pursued, but it was an early indication that running the railway as one system might be a good idea. I know that the House will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for everything he has done and wishing him all the best for the future after he retires in September.

Turning to the debate at hand, we have heard that everyone across the House can agree that the railways require reform. The current system is clearly no longer working for passengers, operators or taxpayers. Services have been unreliable, customers have been unhappy and the system has provided poor value for money. We have begun taking services into public ownership, but that was never a long-term solution. The Railways Bill is the answer to the issues that have plagued our railways for far too long, providing new leadership, accountability and long-term thinking to the sector and better meeting the needs and expectations of those who rely on it. The Bill continues the great work of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, enabling us to finally reform the wider railway and provide a better service to taxpayers.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed support, with one exception, in my doing this job in the future. I am sure everything they have said will have no effect whatever on the new Prime Minister. I also will not tell my wife. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough, referred to me as the “guiding mind”. I just say to him that the one thing that the Bill is designed to produce is to stop Ministers being the guiding mind of the railway. The purpose of the Bill is to have a body of people that can run the railway and who are professional and committed to it.

This has been a varied debate. I am going to do my best to cover as many as possible of the topics that were raised. As ever, it is subject to my handwriting and the vagaries of my notes, and I may write to noble Lords in some cases.

I want to start with access reform because the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said that the infrastructure was not used efficiently. He is right, actually. He talked about digital signalling, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and they are both right. One of the issues that we have had is that we have not had a long-term plan for the railway. We have not had a long-term strategy in which to decide where to put those investments and where the capacity that they would give would be best utilised. That is one of the reasons for the provisions in the Bill.

On open access, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and others, the truth is that open access has been severely constrained recently. Most of the applications that have been made to the ORR have been declined simply because the view of the ORR is that there is insufficient capacity on the main lines in Britain to accept more trains. I would contend that one of the reasons for that is that, without a whole system look at the use of the infrastructure, we will never create more paths.

Interestingly, that whole system view of the infrastructure on the east coast main line, which took place several years ago but was not implemented—it could not be implemented because there was nobody to authorise it until I did—did create more capacity. The chances are that, if GBR looks at the job that the Bill will give it, to correctly look at capacity across the railway, I think it is far more likely that there will be capacity on the main lines and that therefore open access will in fact have more chance in the future than it has had in the recent past.

On freight, I thank all those who have said that the freight target is welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, it will drive the Government’s net-zero policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was looking for clarity that there was no intention to interfere in private sector infrastructure. I am happy to give her that clarity: there is no intention to interfere in that. The private sector has invested in rail connections to warehouses and so forth, so I am happy to give that assurance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, referred to fares and in particular to Delay Repay. There is great inconsistency in the way that that is done currently. I welcome her support for some consistency, as we will talk about elsewhere in the Bill, because that is one of the things that is simply lacking in all the retail arrangements of the railway. It is one of the reasons to move forward with the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, talked about ticket retailing, as did the noble Lords, Lord Dixon of Jericho, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan. We have asked the Office of Rail and Road to provide an industry code of practice, which will also have a clear enforcement regime. We remain in discussion with independent ticket retailers, including the one dominant player, and there will be separation of decision-making between GBR’s retail and other functions.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right: I am keen on open data. It is important that GBR will share open data. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, said, open data is vital. I am very sympathetic to the development of alternative websites, but it is equally important that we rationalise the 14 that we already have, which either are in or will come into public ownership. If noble Lords listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, they will have heard about the inconsistency in approaches to ticketing, particularly for people who need help and are disabled. That is one of the things that we propose to remedy.

That subject of accessibility, as I said when I introduced the Bill, is a major issue. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Brinton and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes of Richmond, all remarked on the need to make this better and to do more. I completely agree. It is really important. Again, the fragmentation of the railway has led to great inconsistency. It is one of the things that badly needs to be sorted out. We had several debates during the passage of the public ownership Act and I am sure we will have some more this time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, that getting the passenger experience right will also get accessibility right. I know that we will come back to that subject; it is one on which the Government place great importance.

As for a passenger target, the implication that there is somehow no incentive to do that if it is not written in the Bill is wrong. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, all raised this. There will be a great incentive to grow passengers for GBR, as well as to reduce costs, because GBR will need growth and will need to treat passengers properly in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of running the railway. I think there are sufficient incentives in here, but I am sure that we will discuss them further.

Several noble Lords referred to the possibility of the Secretary of State micromanaging the railways. The first thing to say is that that is already the case. The present circumstances leave civil servants, reporting to me and the Secretary of State, deciding how long trains are, where they stop and what the timetable looks like at every station in Britain. You cannot get more micromanagement than that. The intention of the Bill is to turn that round; we do not want the Secretary of State to be deciding those sorts of things, we do not want the Rail Minister to decide them, and we do not want civil servants to decide them. We need a body that will take an overall view of the value of the provision of passenger services and freight on the railway and derive the best timetables with the best train service to achieve it. I am very clear that one of the intentions of this Bill is to stop that.

The Secretary of State will, of course, have significant powers, as one would expect, bearing in mind the amount of public money that goes into the railways, but these powers exist in other places in government. They are not commonly used. The Oil and Gas Authority has received only one ministerial direction in its 10-year history. That contrasts with the situation for several years now where the Secretary of State or the Rail Minister has been invited to approve detailed business plans every year, which more or less go down to the trains stopping at every station. That is something that we need to stop.

There are clearly different views about the powers of the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. The noble Baroness, Lady May, deprecated the apparent reduction in its powers, as did other noble Lords. I always listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has long experience in this. He has said to me, both outwith the discussions today and in the course of this debate, that the regulator should not be in charge; of course there is a role for regulation, but the regulator should not be in charge of the railway. The sad history of the fragmentation of decision-making on the timetable is good evidence that having the regulator deciding how the system is used is not the best way of doing it.

I turn to a long-term railway strategy, which we have not had for 30 years. My noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden is right that a long-term railway strategy makes it possible for GBR to drive economic growth in regional and local communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised the question of enhancements. I agree with him about the challenges to standards. I do not think the fragmentation of the railway between operations and infrastructure led to any significant challenge on standards—it was certainly difficult to achieve it in a railway infrastructure organisation. There is more likelihood of this challenge in the future where operators will be challenging the cost of running and enhancing the railway, and there is also far more chance of the right schemes being authorised because a long-term plan will set out the best things to do with the best returns on the railway, the best capacity increases, in a way that we have not seen for a very long time. We can discuss the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

I hate to disagree with the Minister, but he will know that the programme of enhancement set aside for CP6 was carefully discussed with him and the executive of Network Rail and represented a significant plan to do precisely the things that the industry said would make the most difference. The tragedy is that it did not happen, and even now under this Government, it is still not happening.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Recollections are a great thing. I recollect that not one of the of schemes that I was invited to by the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, had a business case attached to it. It was a list of schemes that was just a list of schemes. I think that we can do a lot better than that. A long-term railway strategy that invites the railway to list and make business cases for the right schemes is entirely right.

My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made the most important point, which is that if you do not have a list of schemes prioritised by business case, you have no chance of getting private sector contributions to railway enhancements which create growth and wealth. That is an important point and something that a long-term railway strategy and the resulting GBR business plan will deal with.

On private sector involvement, the first thing to say is that this Government are not fundamentally opposed to it at all. At the end of this process, when this Bill becomes an Act, 60% of the expenditure by GBR, once established, will be spent in the private sector.

On the balance sheet implications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I say that the Railways Bill will not impact the way that the rolling stock leases will be classified by the ONS. I have previously discussed with him the confidence of the rolling stock leasing companies that this will not be the case. The story that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, told about how Network Rail crept back into the public sector in 2014 is absolutely right. It did go back on the balance sheet. No fuss was made about it at all. It turned out to be—all the time—a nationalised industry.

The experience of the franchises in recent times is interesting. A number of noble Lords said that concessions could have been adopted. Of course, the last Government had the chance to do that. They already had four private sector operations in their control, but they did not choose to do anything with any of them; that is an interesting feature. One noble Lord—I am afraid I omitted to note the name—said that, in fact, the private sector operators before the last election were not enamoured at all of that model and, therefore, they were not very keen on it. The truth of it is that the railway had stagnated, and this Bill is the way of retrieving the situation.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, Platform4, which is a successful amalgamation of the Network Rail property function and London and Continental Railways, will undoubtedly continue. The railway has an important role in developing land on and around stations, and the rest of the railway land. It is very important that the railway plays its part in the economic development of the places that it serves.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the question of funding certainty. Of course, the Bill continues the infrastructure funding in five-year periods, and it is shown through the provisions of the Bill to continue. The Bill also gives the opportunity to Ministers in due course to give longer funding periods for the operations, but I think that most Ministers would want to see GBR making a success of its job to do so.

As to passenger safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, rightly draws the attention of noble Lords to the importance of passenger safety. GBR will have to face this subject directly; I think it will be more equipped to do so than the current railways. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the safety of women and girls is crucial. This is true in relation to personal safety but also, frankly, for encouraging more travel by half the population.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to staff safety. I am happy to confirm to her that the Office of Rail and Road will continue its function of managing safety on the railway and, indeed, prosecuting where that is the appropriate thing to do.

A number of noble Lords raised questions about the passenger watchdog and I know we will have a lot of discussion about this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised the question of a passenger charter and the importance of passengers, which is of course right. I am sure that we will have some discussion about how much power the passenger watchdog should have. I disagree, as I generally do, sadly, with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think that enforcement of what the passenger watchdog wants to do in relation to the Office of Rail and Road is quite sufficient, and I do not see any problem in doing it.

On devolution issues, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised first, the limitations of some of this are the limitations of railway geography as opposed to political boundaries. As the still current Mayor of Greater Manchester has discovered, very few train services within mayoral boundaries are wholly within the boundary. The other point is that they run on lines which are part of a national network. That does not at all mean that devolution cannot be done with success, and it does not at all mean that mayors cannot have the passenger services they want. Look at the growth of the Overground network in London. In some cases, those services go outside the London boundary, as several noble Lords will recall from their history in London government.

The way that we achieve that is through intelligent discussion about the balance between the network and its local influence and the network and its national influence. The provisions in the Bill are currently quite sufficient and will allow for a discussion between mayors who have an aspiration for economic development in their part of the country and on the connections that their cities and towns need to have with other parts of the country. The Bill is drafted in precisely the way it is for that reason. My current belief is that the Bill allows that to happen and gives sufficient powers for them to influence how the railway is structured.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised several points about Wales. He will know, of course, that the Barnett formula and how it is applied are matters for His Majesty’s Treasury and the Chancellor. I am sure that the new First Minister of Wales will be asking any new Prime Minister shortly about not only that but fiscal devolution in general. All I can say is that the £445 million that this Government have provided for rail enhancements in Wales is far in excess of that of any previous Government. It includes the north Wales coast and Wrexham, and it is a very good start to the Transport for Wales investment plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to. I am sure it will continue like that. I have already met the new Transport Minister for Wales and I am sure we will have some powerful discussions.

As to the design of GBR, I hope noble Lords will know that the Government’s firm intention is to devolve GBR to a route and regional basis. It is quite clear that it should not be some grand, centralised and distant organisation. There will have to be functions that are centralised—the access and use policies are one such example—but, in general, this Government want the railway run by people who are identifiable to elected politicians and the local communities they serve. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is right that it is about leadership—not mine, but the leadership of people who can be appointed to run both operations and infrastructure and produce a better service.

One thing that was lost in the previous 30 years is that franchisees changed quite regularly and so did their managements. Local communities and elected Members could never quite get used to who was in charge because it changed quite regularly. That is not right. I have told the people we are appointing now to integrated business units that they should behave as though they are there for the rest of their careers and that they should get on with it.

I am told my time is up, so there is a limit to what I can answer, other than—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will not take any more interventions.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

It is a procedural point. There has been a discussion about whether the Bill is going to be committed to the Moses Room or to the Chamber, and there is no Motion before us tonight. Could the Minister reassure us that the discussion now is with a view to having Committee stage in the Chamber?

Railways Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

I am sure that the noble Baroness will have a go at me after this, but there needs to be a balance. I am not sure what that is, but on reading this amendment, it is out of balance.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I have to say that I take great issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. It is perfectly possible to have sensible housing development that is wildlife friendly; indeed, we have to have that. I remember in my days of political campaigning walking around a new estate in my old constituency and meeting three deer running through. It is correct that we have to develop housing around stations, and in a sensible way that does not damage biodiversity but encourages it. That is just plain common sense.

While I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Harper said about writing too many duties into law, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Willis, have rightly raised some extremely important issues that need to be a part of what Great British Railways does. We cannot have the country’s major landowners not focusing on protecting biodiversity in the land they control. The research the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has done highlights that it is indeed important to do just that.

While I am sure he will not accept the detail of the amendments, I hope the Minister can set out for us how, in the duties the Secretary of State provides in the various strategies for Great British Railways, they will make sure that the issues highlighted in this debate are reflected. It matters particularly to ensure that Great British Railways develops the network for the future. Where I probably do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is that, for me, capacity development is the number one priority, as it always was when I was Secretary of State, because the more people you get off the roads and on to the railways the better. There are hard choices to be made about which projects you spend the money on. My personal view is that expanding the capacity of the network, reopening disused routes and so on should be the priorities. As my noble friend Lord Harper rightly said, sometimes there are trade-offs around the cost of electrification. Battery trains and hydrogen trains provide a much better route for parts of our network for the future.

I hope the Minister will take on board much of what has been said. I hope the guidance he gives to the future organisation will be clear on this issue. Sometimes there have to be compromises on what is perfect for the railways. I profoundly disagreed with the engineering standards of Network Rail, which scalped huge amounts of earth out of the route along East West Rail. It used a railway track bed that had been in existence for a century and needed restoration. It clearly needed better drainage, but was it really necessary to scalp all the biodiversity from a largely redundant corridor and leave it as brand-new open grassland?

There are compromises to be made when that capacity is put in place, but that what the two noble Baronesses have said, supported by others, about the need for biodiversity to be protected by Great British Railways is extremely important. I hope the Minister will make sure that, in whatever way it is best achieved, that happens.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I first turn to government Amendments 79 and 293, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan, who have just spoken about them. These amendments are just giving the ORR the same powers as the CMA now has in consumer law to enforce directly—for example, on drip-pricing and other issues which negatively affect consumers. It does not change the law. It just enables the ORR to directly enforce the law, as the CMA can.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

The Minister will remember the debates we had on civil aviation legislation and the powers provided to enter homes and office buildings and to read documents, and so forth. I do not understand why in the rail industry—which will be dominated by a single national body, answerable to the Secretary of State—we need exactly the same powers. I do not feel that this can be pushed through in Committee. I suggest that the Minister might keep this in abeyance until Report and provide a much more detailed letter to us all to explain this.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, unfortunately is unable to be in her place today, but both of us are very happy to continue the conversation to see which areas of this amendment may be more palatable than others.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 99 in my name. The reason for this amendment is that I am genuinely concerned that we are going to end up with a state monopoly which squeezes out the small amounts of competition that remain through open access, that perhaps even becomes more unfriendly in time to freight, and that takes a difficult approach to heritage usage of the network, because it is all a bit of a nuisance.

The Secretary of State needs to be talking to people who are offering alternatives and raising concerns about the way things were in the past and the way things could be in the future. We have to remember that a number of the issues with and constraints on the network today date back to the days of British Rail. Budgets are, I am afraid, going to be tight in the coming years. We know that subsidy levels have rocketed, revenues are falling and the Treasury has no money, so the railways are going to get squeezed in the way they were in the days of British Rail. And what happened then? We all know the British Rail approach was that if the budgets were tight, it cut services, closed routes or took out capacity. The single-track line from Soham to Ely is a case in point, where the implications for today’s railway are significant—but it was a useful closure at the time to save a bit of money.

So, what happens now? If the Bill goes through as it is, then as far as I can see in the legislation, there is no duty for the Secretary of State to consult those who could be doing things differently, like offering alternative services; those who are using the network for open access; those who are using it for heritage railways; and those who may want to, such as those who may be looking for capacity and looking to offer alternative services, as part of the formation of the long-term rail strategy. That feels to me like a major omission.

I will come back later in this Committee to the question of what happens if GBR objects to an open-access application and then does not launches the service itself; or if GBR just wants to stop somebody getting in the way and objects to an open-access operator; or if GBR pulls out of a service and somebody else wants and is willing to run that service; or if somebody comes along and tries to run a service GBR does not want ever to operate, but wants to be difficult. Ultimately, the duty of the Government in the Bill is surely to deliver the best possible, most comprehensive public transport system available. There will be times when the state cannot and will not do that, and there will be times when there is a demand that the state operator will not, cannot and does not want to meet.

Therefore, what is the mechanism, in producing the long-term rail strategy, for the Minister to say that they think they are going to leave that space for open access, that they are going to need that capacity for extra freight, or that they are going to need to make provision for tourism access to the network? If there is no duty to have those conversations—which there does not seem to be in the legislation—where is the requirement for those conversations to take place? How will they take place? Or, in the rush to get a document out, will they actually not take place at all? This is a simple amendment with the effect of ensuring that everybody should, would and does have a say in what the Secretary of State does, on a reasonable basis, within a reasonable scope—but the requirement is there, and that is why this amendment is necessary.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, first to Amendment 101A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She is absolutely right about quite a long list of things that need doing. The timescale she sets out in the amendment is probably quite challenging, because trains probably last for 30 or 40 years, and the track for quite a long time as well. The platform heights are of course the biggest problem. There was a very interesting article in the latest Rail magazine about platform heights. I have studied this over the years because of the issue of getting container trains through; it is very difficult, and there is no easy solution. She is absolutely right to table the amendment, and I certainly support it.

The other issue I will briefly speak on is that of heritage, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spoke on initially. I like his amendments; on the other hand, the text of the Bill in Clause 15, line 8, is slightly odd:

“the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided in Great Britain.”

What happens if the Secretary of State does not wish it? It is a pretty stupid question to ask, but the word “wish” to me seems possibly to be the wrong one. Heritage, I assume, covers any type of non-timetabled service. I do not know if that is true or not—there might be occasional commercial services or local train movements. Does heritage include the smart restaurant cars on the main lines, or the branch lines which occasionally have it?