Railways Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Grand Committee

Finally, whatever he says about the ownership piece, it would be helpful to know how he envisages GBR operating with the private sector on some of those non-core rail operation activities. I hope he can help the Committee with that when he responds.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I want briefly to reflect on the various amendments that noble Lords have put forward so far this afternoon. Basically, it makes me feel very concerned, because we are lacking information, as the noble Lord said on Amendment 8 but also on many of the other ones, and we do not know what is going to happen. We do not really know who will be running infrastructure or some of the train operators and, if we ever end up with any private sector involvement, I go back to what I experienced when I was on the kind of supervisory board of Railtrack a long time ago. We used to meet every three months with the board, and you could just see that the debt that Railtrack was incurring was getting bigger and bigger. In the end, I said to the chairman, “How long are the Government going to allow you to continue with this debt?” It seemed to increase by 10% or 15% every time we had a meeting. The chairman’s response was, “Well, don’t worry, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State”—none of the former Secretaries of State are here today, so I think I am safe to say this—“and he said it will be all right”. We had a nice meal and it was fine. But the sad thing was that, within a week, not only had he got the sack, but Network Rail was closed down, because the so-called shareholders did not know what they were doing. It was yet one of the many disasters that the infrastructure manager has probably suffered over the last 30 or 40 years.

It would help me and maybe other colleagues to think of some useful criteria as to whether we think all these different elements that we will be discussing in the next seven days will be beneficial or not. What I found rather interesting was a part of a speech by the Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, on what she saw coming from the nationalisation plan. She that it,

“requires a high performing railway to … support the creation of new jobs and new homes … improve reliability, generate better usage of our trains and reduce public subsidy”.

We can spend a lot of time talking about whether this has happened in the last year or two. If it has not, what has gone wrong? It is much too soon to see what is changing. We should in mind that, in the last three or four years, most of the passenger operators have been effectively controlled by the Department for Transport, even though they are in theory in the private sector. Network Rail, of course, is funded by the Department for Transport anyway. This is something that we need to look at, in going through all the amendments and seeing whether they will meet any of those criteria. Maybe my noble friend, when he responds, will be able to say, “I have got it completely wrong and it is all going to happen anyway”. I look forward to his comments.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for numerous meetings with me and many of my colleagues over the last few months; they have been very helpful for discussing how we can improve the Bill before us.

The dislike for this Bill was very apparent in the opening words from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The previous Government could have implemented the concession model that has been mentioned several times—it would be our preferred option—but they did not. The picture that we had painted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, of the privatised railway does not reflect many passengers’ experience in recent years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that I think the service started to decline before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the fact that this model was not working.

The Government have a mandate for public ownership. In fact, two years ago, we debated the Act on it. I hope that we can focus in these seven days on getting the structure right and delivering for passengers, rather than revisiting the ideology behind what the Government are doing.

The amendments in this group are quite technical in some ways, and they are about the structure rather than focused on passengers. But it is important that we hear from the Government exactly why they have chosen the model that they have. The noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, in their amendments are seeking some clarity on the exact set up of Great British Railways and why this model has been chosen. It is really important to get some clarity over the status of Great British Railways’ companies, set out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in some of those examples. How will these partnerships work in practice? There is also the point around civil servants and their role. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants clarity on the subsidiaries of Great British Railways and their potential future ownership. Whatever happens in this Bill, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement, because the rolling stock will still be owned by private companies and there is no plan to change that. Even if everything else is fully publicly owned, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement through the rolling stock.

There are many ways that you could look at structuring Great British Railways. One could have been a co-operative model. An understanding from the Minister on why this was felt to be the best way to deliver the quality of the railway service that we all want to see would be helpful. I look forward to the Minister’s response and clarification on these structural amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 305 in this group. Noble Lords may think that Amendment 305 is a long way away from where we started in this group, but it is here. My amendment refers to Clause 87, which provides for a charge for removing road vehicles from railway property—let us call it that before going into too much detail. It seemed to me that, if the Government thought this was a good idea, they should extend it to dealing financially with the very many lorries these days which hit bridges and cause endless delays not just to road traffic but to passengers and freight.

Network Rail’s website on what it calls “bridge bashing” says that, in the year from April 2024 to March 2025, there were 1,666 bridge strikes. Over five years, there were 8,300. Of course, some bridges get it all the time and others do not. Network Rail says that it costs it £23 million to repair every year. That seems quite cheap, but that is not really the point. Who pays? One other statistic is that it causes the equivalent of 120 days’ delay for rail passengers or freight.

It occurs to me that either the driver or owner of the lorry or truck—it is usually a truck or bus—should be required to fund not just the cost of remedial work but some compensation for delay to the rail and road traffic. This has been going on for years, and I suppose I and many others have been saying to Network Rail that it has to do something about this. It is putting up all kinds of barriers, warning signs and everything, and it is doing a great job of it.

However, I think this amendment would be very helpful. The Government want to charge people for parking on railway property. I think it says in the Bill that a road vehicle includes a “bicycle or other conveyance”. If they are even going to charge me for parking my bicycle at the station, they can surely charge the lorries or the buses which do a great deal of damage. My noble friend will probably say that the wording in my amendment needs improvement, and I am very happy to look at improving it, but it seems to me that something needs to be done to make the status of the relationship between road vehicles and trains a bit more equitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am at least clear about this. The functions are more like powers; the duties are the things that GBR must do when doing the functions, but it is not limited to those general functions. Indeed, we have already discussed quite extensively what it might do, for example, in property development and with third parties, which, because it is a Companies Act company, it can do. I think that is reasonably clear. I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord in more detail, because I think we are getting tied up in nomenclature. I think it is reasonably clear what GBR’s functions are, which are described in Clause 3; it describes running the railways. It is also clear that, in the process of running the railway and because of its activity, it is able to do a number of other things.

Let me carry on to Amendment 12, if I may. Amendment 12 would require GBR’s functions to facilitate the provision and use of railway services to be carried out in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. I absolutely agree that GBR should act fairly; however, the duties in the Bill already require GBR to act in the interest of the public, taxpayers, passengers and freight customers. GBR will act fairly in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions. We will no doubt discuss this more when we discuss ticket retailing and access. For now, suffice it to say, there are already protections in the Bill—and indeed in wider statutes, such as public law principles and the Competition Act, which applies in full to Great British Railways—that will require GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. This additional requirement would duplicate only the Competition Act requirements, adding uncertainty and administrative burden without increasing protection for non-GBR operators.

Amendments 13 and 14 relate to the publishing of advice and standards for the railways. I thank the noble Lord for this probing amendment, and I reassure him that the ORR is the sole safety regulator for the railway. The Bill does not transfer the ORR’s safety regulatory functions to GBR, nor does it change the current railway safety regime at all. The ORR will continue to exercise its independent safety, regulatory and enforcement functions, including its ability to ensure that GBR and other operators comply fully with all safety legislation requirements.

Comparatively, GBR’s function to publish standards is a reference to technical standards, which GBR would publish and share with industry as a method of promoting best practice. This is similar to today; at present, Network Rail and the train operating companies develop and publish technical standards covering many aspects of their operation. These standards include operation and maintenance protocols, design specifications and engineering guidelines. This does not in any way prevent it adhering to the ORR’s safety regime, which it is required by law to comply with. This also does not give GBR any remit over safety regulation. The standards are non-binding and designed simply to support shared learning across the industry.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is talking about standards created by GBR. Can he explain the relationship between what GBR does and the Rail Safety and Standards Board?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I think I can. The RSSB, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, creates standards applicable across the railway generally on some subjects, whereas there are a number of more technical standards—for example, for pieces of machinery, trains and railway infrastructure—which GBR, as a successor to Network Rail, would publish. These are not subject to discussion at the RSSB. Train operating companies also do this with specific fleets of trains, so I think there is a difference. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the RSSB’s function to do that as well, but that does not exclude the current activities of Network Rail and train operating companies, which will translate into Great British Railways.

These standards include operation and maintenance protocols, design specifications and engineering guidelines. This does not in any way prevent it adhering to the ORR safety regime, which it is required by law to comply with. It also does not give GBR any remit over safety regulation. The standards are non-binding and designed simply to support shared learning across the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

That just begs the question of why in Clause 70—perhaps we can discuss it before we arrive at that point—Great British Railways has been taken out of the definition of being an infrastructure manager for the purposes of access rights under the 2000 regulations.

While I have the Committee’s attention for a moment, my noble friend was asking what functions Great British Railways can undertake. The clause makes it clear that the statutory functions are distinct from those things that Great British Railways can do as a company. Some of the things that we are discussing, such as property development, are things that it is doing as a company. However, we have to bear in mind, and the Minister will tell me if I am wrong about this, that we go on to hear about the Secretary of State giving directions and guidance to Great British Railways. That is in relation to its statutory functions, so, by definition, it will not extend to the actions that GBR undertakes as a company. We need to be aware that there is that territory called being a company, which is outside the scope of the Secretary of State’s directions and guidance.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

It is not very well drafted at all, is it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I refute that comment, for the avoidance of doubt and for the record.

The noble Lord is correct. It is an important distinction. As I said, let me meet him on that. He referred to Clause 70. I am not equipped to go into that just now, as he will appreciate, so I will talk to him further about it.

Amendment 18 removes the delegated power to add to the list of functions for GBR. While the functions listed in Clause 3 cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake as the directing mind for the railways, it is sensible to provide the flexibility to add functions should the railways change significantly enough to warrant a new function being added—for example, due to technological development, such as in the artificial intelligence space.

This power is not expected to be used frequently, if at all, but it future-proofs the Bill in the event that new activities need to be brought within the scope of the functions. Bringing an activity within the functions in the Bill has several benefits, including that the function then becomes subject to GBR’s duties and ORR’s monitoring. This legislation is expected to govern the railways for a long time, as the 1993 Act did, so this is a responsible and sensible power. This power was also reviewed by the Delegated Powers Committee, which deemed it acceptable and did not draw it to the attention of the House in its report on the Bill—I welcome the report and look forward to responding to it formally in due course. The power cannot be used to change or remove functions and is subject to the affirmative resolution. It is also not unprecedented: the National Health Service Act 2006 allows functions to be added to special health authorities via regulations. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press this amendment.

Amendments 20 and 110 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, relate to passenger growth. I very much agree with her that growing passenger numbers on the railways is vital. It supports economic growth, jobs and homes, encourages modal shift and can reduce the level of taxpayer subsidy required for the railways. However, GBR’s general duties in Clause 18 already include a duty to promote not only the interests of passengers but potential passengers. This already requires GBR to consider how best to encourage new users on to the railways. GBR’s business plan will also reflect the Government’s ambitions for passenger growth, including measurable outcomes against which GBR can be held to account.

GBR’s other duties, including promoting high performance, such as reliability and punctuality, will also contribute to making the railways more appealing to passengers. Transport Focus recently found reliability to be the single most important issue for passengers. GBR will be able to improve reliability by making better, whole-system decisions on issues such as the choreography of maintenance works.

As a commercially minded organisation, GBR will also be naturally incentivised to attract more people to travel by rail, because increasing passenger numbers will increase its own revenue. By contrast, there is no intrinsic motivation for GBR to increase rail freight when there is limited network capacity and freight services are in the clear minority of services. That is why the Bill already includes a freight duty and a freight target, to ensure that freight is given equal weight to passengers in a system where passengers may have naturally taken priority otherwise. A stronger or additional passenger equivalent duty or target could actually undermine our ambitions on freight. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that would not be the right outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day one of Committee. I declare my technology interests, as set out in the register, as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons and Simmons LLP and as non-executive director of Avalanche Foundation and Avalanche BVI Inc.

What a group to be part of. For anybody who thought that competition is not a good idea, the arrival of a second ex-Secretary of State for Transport has demonstrated clearly that competition is the way forward, as I am sure we will see in a moment when I sit down. Fundamentally, what is there left for me to say after my noble friend Lady Harding’s forensic introduction, which took apart all of the reasons for the current construction of these sections in the Bill, followed by my noble friend Lord Young’s intervention?

In many ways, my noble friend Lord Young inadvertently, but highly accurately, summed this up when he said “harm” rather than “arm”, because that is where we are at. He looked forward into the future and into, as he said, how this may develop, but I would go further. There is no crystal ball gazing going on here. This is not a potential, as he set out. This is an inevitability; this will happen.

How can we know this will happen? Because it has already happened in other departments in very recent history. We do not need to go into the details but, last year, there was a case in point where, when the growth pressure came along, a particular government department saw a piece of work it was involved in where, for years, it had worked collaboratively with the private sector to build particular solutions, but then it saw that there was a potential wedge that it could throw into the pot to put into its departmental contribution. Suddenly, a screeching change of direction was taken and a monopoly play was deployed. This is inevitable if we progress with the Bill as currently constructed.

What is the Minister’s response? The CMA knows competition—it does it every day—and its submission was conclusive. Why would the Government want to construct something so clearly and monstrously problematic at this stage, which will only cause them pain within such a short space of time, when it is so avoidable, either through functional separation, as I suggested, or through the eminently sensible alternatives offered by my noble friends? Why would the Government choose such a problematic path forward at this stage, when it is more than reasonably foreseeable that the problems will come? In fact, as I said, it is inevitable.

Competition is absolutely critical, and the other element within competition is innovation. This will not lead to optimal innovation. Let us imagine not just the potential plurality of ticket retail sellers but the kind of products that they could bring on stream. We could see tokenised tickets that could transform the passenger experience; they could contain so many details that there would not be a need for passengers to explain, for example, their needs, whatever they may be. They would all be contained in a tokenised ticket. That would be truly transformational, but it would require a level playing field, a crowding in of competition and, through that, a crowding in of innovation.

I move on to my second amendment, going broader and looking at the huge array of data already available to GBR. We have always had a huge volume of data across transport, not least in the railways, and it has never had the opportunity to truly drive the transformation that it could. We have talked tickets, but take the example of the rolling stock itself: imagine what innovation third-party, crowded-in businesses could bring if they had those data at their fingertips. The great news is that neither GBR nor this Committee has to imagine what that innovation could be; all that has to be done is to put those data out there on a level playing field, equally available through the technologies that exist. The innovation, transformation and improvement would simply flow.

For reasons of competition, innovation and taking all the advantage of these new technologies, I constantly mention the problematic nature of the Government flatly refusing to pass a cross-sector and cross-economy AI regulation Bill. We see it here and in the cyber Bill, for those who have been in Committee on that Bill. That could lay out a framework that could work in this rail context as it would in all other sections of our economy and society. If that will not be in place, how will the advantages of these technologies be felt by passengers, rail workers and everybody involved in the GBR entity coming into being? We need to see these changes if we are to feel, and be availed of, that transformational potential and the economic benefits that will flow. The Government would benefit from adopting changes set out in this suite of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and I fully support comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, from her experience in telecom. I have suffered a bit myself from them, and what she told the Committee is no surprise.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is also absolutely right that we need a level playing field. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that the sooner we do this, the better, so I definitely support his Amendment 48.

It is worth reminding ourselves that there is not just one big private sector retailer and all the ones that retail for the TOCs at the moment, but there are lots of smaller ones as well. The ORR will have to look at making sure that the fair competition between the big ones and the little ones is kept in line with competition policy and that we do not have one of them running away with everything else. It would be no good having one private sector company becoming a private sector monopoly—you might as well have a GBR monopoly—but we do not want monopolies. That is my message.

One noble Lord who spoke was concerned about the workload that may be coming to the ORR. I have had many experiences with the ORR over the years and it tries very hard, but it needs to be prepared for an extension to its scope. However, one thing I know is that it is capable of doing it and will be interested in doing it. I am sure many noble Lords have talked to it in the last few months. I think the ORR is also quite relaxed about the involvement of the CMA, because the CMA needs to be there as well, possibly as a second line of defence. It will just not work unless the level playing fields are separated from the great work that GBR will do in running trains and making sure the infrastructure works and things like that. Having a separation, including the accounts, as some noble Lords have said, is really important. I hope my noble friend will come back with some positive views on competition, and we maybe will even have to have a meeting or two before Report.

[Baroness Leaman (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 208 and 339 in my name in this group. I set out the case for automatic Delay Repay at Second Reading, so I will not repeat that ground today save to say that I doubt I am alone in having abandoned a claim because the process took longer than the journey was delayed. Instead, I will use this stage to explain what these two amendments would do.

Amendment 208 would place a duty on GBR and open access operators to pay Delay Repay compensation automatically, wherever they hold enough information to identify that a passenger’s journey was delayed by 15 minutes or more and have the means to pay them. Where an operator does not hold that information, it would still have to take reasonable steps to let the passenger know they are entitled to claim, so the burden of finding out does not fall on the passenger alone. No one would receive less under the automatic route than under operators’ existing schemes, and payment would default to digital means to reflect the way that most fares are already bought and refunded today. None of this asks GBR to invent a new right. It asks operators to use data that they already have to give effect to a right that passengers already have. I am open to a different mechanism if the Minister has one in mind but the underlying case is straightforward. Whether a passenger gets money back that they are owed should not depend on which operator runs their line or on their persistence with a claim form. A right that exists on paper but which is rarely exercised in practice is not really much of a right at all.

My proposed new clause would also leave the Secretary of State flexibility to set timescales, notification methods and exceptions by regulation. Amendment 339 follows from that. As drafted, those regulations would be subject only to the negative procedure, taking effect unless the House objected. Amendment 339 would instead require debate and approval by both Houses under the affirmative procedure. Given how much of this scheme’s substance would sit in regulations rather than in the Bill, Parliament should scrutinise and approve them properly, not simply have the chance to object afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for putting down these two amendments. I too have had many representations from all kinds of people and companies who already operate trains or would like to. We are not talking about the branch lines, which are on the whole private and are not covered here anyway; there are an awful lot of what some people might call excursion trains, dining trains or whatever—there is the Jacobite train going to Mallaig which, I am told, is highly successful—as well as freight, which all need access to the network. Even at the moment, there are stories of people applying to get on the network, for a pass somewhere, to be told that it is already full; then they go back to what is Network Rail at the moment and say, “Well, if you did this and that, you could get an extra train or two on”. It also covers the issue of the risks and the penalties if something goes wrong, because Network Rail at the moment will think, “We do not want this because it could muck up the service and cause delays elsewhere”.

On having the independent ORR being what you might call an appeal body, I do not look upon it as a secondary directing mind, because the first directing mind is quite often a monopoly. We spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about monopolies and how we do not want them, and the Minister said he does not like monopolies either. This kind of catch-all amendment covering all the different types of train that might want to use the network, and with an appeal body in the ORR, would be a very sensible solution. I fully support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to talk to my Amendment 22 in this group. Before I do that, I might just say so to my noble friend that I see the point he is driving at with Amendment 21, but I think it is a little more complicated. It seems to me that this is about the circumstances that apply where the Scottish or Welsh Ministers wish to use Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by themselves and Great British Railways. In effect, they are not subsidiaries of Great British Railways: we can already see in the Bill this distinction between GBR companies and a company that is jointly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers and GBR.

They can use that to provide services but, as far as I can see, they are not prevented from doing the following. If you look at subsequent clauses, we have seen the whole process of designation of passenger services, which those of us who did the public ownership Bill will remember. They have to designate passenger services with a public sector company, but the definition of a public sector company in a later clause is not the same. It could be a company wholly owned by Scottish Ministers or by Welsh Ministers; they are not required to use Great British Railways. They could even do the same thing that the Secretary of State can, which is exempt services from designation, and then do the same as the Secretary of State does with TfL but in Glasgow, Cardiff and so on. So I think it is a little more complicated.

In particular, I think putting “other body corporate” in here is not necessary. More to the point, if I may say so to my noble friend, is to re-enter the question of the scope of who might provide designated services, which I know he will do with further amendments at a later stage.

Amendment 22, on my part, is just to see whether there is really a problem. At the point at which Scottish and Welsh Ministers look to change arrangements that they have made with Great British Railways to provide some services, they are required to consult with the Secretary of State and Great British Railways. However, those arrangements will necessarily lead to issues that need to be governed by the regulatory functions of the Office of Rail and Road and relate to the licensing of those operators through the ORR. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to require that Scottish and Welsh Ministers, at the point of making or changing those arrangements, should also consult the Office of Rail and Road in order to ensure that there is not a difficulty associated with what they are asking GBR to do on their behalf. The purpose of Amendment 22 is to put in that consultation with the ORR.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, these are interesting amendments. I have had several representations from the rail sector in Wales and Scotland, and they are clearly quite concerned.

The first question I probably need answering is on who will be owning and operating the infrastructure in Wales and Scotland. At the moment, in Scotland, it is done by Transport Scotland, and in Wales, I cannot remember but think it is different. Of course, both those organisations may, and do, operate passenger train services. Given the scope of the Bill, which we have been discussing at length today, will Transport Scotland and the Welsh Assembly be able to let their own contracts with GBR or an independent operator to run trains? Who will be responsible for managing the infrastructure if it goes wrong or needs maintenance, and for the issue in the amendment, which is about co-ordinating with the rest of the UK? To me, it is not clear at the moment, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could clarify. I am probably being stupid, but there we are.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to speak briefly about three groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan has quite a lot to recommend it. The Bill, as set out, sensibly says that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should have a memorandum of understanding about how cross-border rail services should work. That is very sensible, but it seems to me that you would want to have the documents published at the same time; you want them on the same timeline because you want a GB rail strategy to be produced, given the way the rail network works. The whole point about GBR bringing together track and train and having some consistency means it seems very sensible that, if you are to have this memorandum of understanding between UK Ministers and Scottish and Welsh Ministers, you want them on the same timeline. Then what you publish is, in effect, a GB rail strategy with a level of consistency.