Open Access Rail Services Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport
Wednesday 22nd October 2025

(1 day, 18 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.

Lord Tunnicliffe Portrait Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I spent 32 years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand that the objective was the needs of the customer, value for the taxpayer, protection of the environment and having regard for society in general. Open access, on the other hand, tends to create conflict, encourages gaming the regulator and inhibits evolutionary change. Will the Minister exercise extreme caution when considering open access bids?

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I listened to my noble friend with care and respect because he has significant prior experience in running railways. He is right that we should be careful, because we are dealing with only 1% of the passengers and the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing and where there is space for it. We should not allow innovation where it is not a good thing, costs taxpayers money and cannot be accommodated on a very constrained network.