Lords Grand Committee

Monday 19th October 2026

(began 16 hours, 38 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
15:45
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, my Lords. My two amendments one, four, eight and 152, are about making sure the bill doesn't leave the door open to a. For a return to private ownership or private operation of our railways. I want to raise a concern about the way this bill repeals much of the passenger railway services brackets, Public Ownership, Close Brackets Act 2024, and the consequences that it has for public ownership. The extent of that repeal is tucked away in schedule four, paragraph 11. It removes sections 23 to 31 of the Railways Act 1993, which were inserted by the 2024 act.





































































 In practice, that strips out almost all of the 2024 Act's substantive provisions. We've already discussed some of the consequences in committee. It means that GBR companies could become public private partnerships rather than remaining wholly publicly owned, as the 2024 act required. It also creates problems for the public sector equality duty, because the relevant entries in schedule 19 of the Equality Act 2010 refer to provisions that this bill removes. I want to focus on another consequence the arrangements for designating services, awarding public service contracts, repealing most of the 2024 act removes the requirement for designated passenger services to be secured through direct awards, regardless of which franchising authority is responsible.

















































 Instead, clauses 25 and 31 introduce a problem that the government needs to address. Both clauses say that the Secretary of State must designate railway passenger services or a description of services, but they say that the Secretary of State may secure their provision where the Secretary of State does secure those services. The Bill requires them to do so through a direct award to GBR or GBR company, but there is no corresponding requirement for them to secure the services they designate and no clear provision explaining what happens if they don't. So that leaves a significant gap in this bill.





































 If the Secretary of State designates services but does not secure them, who exactly is meant to do that? What powers would they use? What kinds of contracts could be awarded, and to whom? Could this wording allow a GBR company to award a contract to a private operator, under arrangements resembling the franchising model that the government says it wants to move away from? I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the government's intention, but I would like very much to hear what the noble Lord the minister has to say. But the bill needs to make clear that its provisions cannot be used to bring back private operation by the back door.



















 In the final Commons committee session, Richard Burgon MP stated on the record that the Rail Minister had committed to resolving this drafting issue specifically to ensure that the designation powers could not be used for back door privatisation. So will the Minister please commit? Confirm that commitment today. More importantly, will he explain how the government intends to close this gap in the bill so that the arrangements for securing passenger services are clear , and the move to public ownership cannot be undermined by the way that contracts are awarded.

 I beg to move.
15:48
15:48
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

My Lords, I have a series of amendments in this particular group. But let me start by just picking up on something that Baroness Jones just said, which is she and I won't agree on some aspects of that, but I do think that there's an important issue that comes out of her amendment. I don't actually agree with her, which is that I'm not convinced the Secretary of State should be designating services at all, because if this is to be a change to a point where we have track and train united, it is surely the job of GBR itself to work out what the network can and cannot deliver.

















































































































































 And it drives very much to the points in my various amendments, certainly my amendments, saying that the Secretary of State must take into account the rail freight target under section 17 and the infrastructure capacity plan, because we can't have a situation where the Secretary of State is simply able to shoot blind, to respond to political pressure and simply say, well, I want to have four services now from Scunthorpe to London, for political reasons or otherwise. There has got to be a degree of realism in what the network can and cannot absorb. And actually, one of the things that went wrong with franchising over the last 15, 20 years was asked.



































































































































 The network became more and more crowded. So a bid would come along to say, well, we're going to deliver all these extra services. The network couldn't actually cope. And so before the pandemic, one of the key reasons for the lack of reliability was the fact that we were just trying to run too much, too many trains on too little track. And you have to remember that the network, back in Victorian times, when it was twice as long, ran far fewer trains than was the case in that period. Now it's settled down somewhat since the pandemic, but the reality is there are still parts of the network that are immensely overcrowded and where the ability of politicians to simply say, we're going to do that is limited.















































































































 So I first elements of my first series of amendments 151115149, are simply designed to say to the government, this legislation must put a something of a brake upon what the Secretary of State can actually do, regardless of whether the service is designated from. It is simply not practical to have people sitting in the DFT deciding what train services should run. And I thought the whole point of this legislation was not to go back to a situation where politicians had control or carried the can for what went wrong on the network. It was designed to make this independent of politics.

































































































 So why is the Secretary of State actually able to designate services at all? It is surely the job of GBR to balance all the competing needs of passengers, of freight, of capacity, to work out what is the most realistic package of services. And I'm intrigued to hear the minister's defence of the fact that there's any ability by politicians and the Department for transport to designate services at all. I then move on to the other amendments in my name here. And here I want to drive to the complete inconsistency in this legislation in a couple of areas.















































































 Why is it that the Mayor of London can continue to commission services from a private company? Why is it that the Mayor of Merseyside, I believe, can continue to to commission services from a private company, but no one else can. But GBR, whether it's the devolved authorities in Wales and in Scotland, if it is actually the case that the Scottish Government decides in future that it wants to commission in exactly the same way that the Mayor of London does. Why should that not be possible? Why does this legislation rule that out? And I really do think the minister needs to explain in detail why this is the case.































































 Either we have a situation where every railway in the entire country is publicly owned and run, which we might disagree with, but let's at least have a degree of consistency in this. Or we have a situation where different bodies have the ability to commission from other providers, as long as they can demonstrate best value in doing so. So why is it that it's one rule for one and another rule for another in the way this legislation is set up? I look forward to hearing the minister's explanation, but to me, actually, the most important amendment here is 153 A, because when I commissioned the the review back in 2018 after the timetable fiasco, when it was quite clear to me what I'd already pretty much worked out, which was that franchising no longer worked and we needed a fresh approach.













































 And I invited Keith Williams to carry out the research. The reason I did so was because my own belief was that one part of the future of the railways needed to be through employee owned businesses, and I envisaged regional public interest companies with the employees having a substantial stake. So rather than feeling free to go on strike all the time, they actually had a stake in what they lost through revenues. If they did go on strike so that they could actually benefit from working together to improve capacity, to improve reliability and the rest. And it is a matter of great regret to me that in the end, we did not reach that point and the current government hasn't reached that point, but I am I think as long as I'm remember correctly addressing a minister from the Labour and Co-operative Party.



























 So why is it not possible for a co-operative to run part of the railway? Why is it not possible for an employee owned business to actually run services on the railway? That seems to me to be completely incongruous. It runs against 150 years of labour history, and it also is missing a great opportunity because employee participation, generally speaking, improves the performance of a business or an operation. And I can see absolutely no reason why, in future, the government should not have the freedom to or great British Railways should not have the freedom or. Indeed, the mayors of devolved administrations should not have the freedom to commission rail services from companies that are wholly or substantially owned by their employees cooperatives.







 So if the minister genuinely is a minister representing the Labour and Co-operative Party, perhaps he could tell me why he doesn't seem to believe, and this government doesn't seem to believe in cooperatives anymore. My Lords.
15:55
15:56
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

My Lords, the. The noble lady, Baroness Jones, was seeking my support for her amendment earlier and although we fundamentally disagree, and I suspect always will, on whether railway services should be provided by private companies or not, her amendments actually do a very useful service, though, I think, for the committee, and I very much wanted to just reinforce what my noble friend Lord Grayling said. I, I genuinely don't understand two two things from the bill very much supporting what he said in clause 25, which is referenced by amendments 148, amendment 148, which the noble ladies tabled.









































































 Talking about designation of services by the Secretary of State. I agree with my noble friend. I thought the whole point of setting up GBR was to get the Secretary of State out of the business of micromanaging services and deciding which services should be provided and which services should be not. Now, my reading of it, and what set out in the explanatory notes is this is about deciding what services GBR should do, but I'm not entirely. So once you start the Secretary of State doing that process politically, they will come under an enormous amount of pressure to start deciding which services are run or not, rather than GBR doing it at arm's length, and that that just, if anything, increases the political control of these matters rather than reducing it.





























































 So I'm not entirely certain. I think the whole point of this was to get the Secretary of State out of the detail of running the services, rather than inserting them back in the picture. So I would welcome the minister explaining the thinking behind that power in clause 25 for the Secretary of State. The linked clause, which is 31, which is about then securing those services. I agree with the amendments. The thrust of the amendments tabled by my noble friend. Whilst it may be the case, I happen to to be very comfortable with services being provided by private companies under all sorts of models.









































 But even if you think it's important that the services are specified and tightly managed by a public sector provider, there's no reason why a private company can't actually provide the services under a contract. As my noble friend said that, and we've talked about it on previous debates. The model in London, for example, where TfL sets out in detail what services should be carried but can award those contracts to provide those services to private companies. It doesn't have to own all the trains, employ all the staff and run all the services. Seems to me a perfectly sensible option that should be kept on the table rather than ruled out.



























 Now, it may be that GBR finds that there aren't any attractive companies that offer such services at a competitive price, and it ends up awarding those contracts to operate those services to GBR own businesses, but to rule out giving it the option of doing so just seems to me rather perverse. As my noble friend said, it seems to me also having the option of having a business which is at least partly owned by the employees or fully cooperative. Again, ruling that out seems to me overly prescriptive. And you can you can take the view the government has about not wanting to have the franchising model, and you can stick to that, but not allowing yourself, for example, to use the model that's used very successfully in London.









 And as my noble friend said, we'll still be able to be used in in places like Liverpool. Seems to me rather unwise. And I don't know why ministers are not giving GBR at least the freedom to do that, where that is cost effective for taxpayers. The final point is, of course.
16:00
16:01
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

I think my noble friend makes a very good point, and it seems to me if we're going to if you're going to set up GBR and give it the job of doing the detailed day to day management, you want to give it the maximum amount of freedom to do so. You can. You can, of course, rule out certain models if you. If you don't want to have the franchising model, for example, you can say that's not appropriate, but to say you can't use the private sector at all seems to me not sensible. It's also not very consistent with other decisions that ministers have taken.







































 For example, they have no plans, as far as I understand it, to get rid of the the roscos, the companies that own the rolling stock, those are private businesses that make profits that are going to be paid for from from funds, both from passengers and taxpayers for for the rolling stock. Ministers are not getting rid of those because they can't, because they have no ability to put all of that debt onto the public balance sheet. Otherwise, I suspect they might be tempted, but they can't. But ruling out people running services when, as my noble friend said, they might have the rolling stock, they might have the ability to do so.



























 It misses the point about what the point of GBR is. The point of GBR is to run passenger services at A to deliver good services at the lowest possible cost, both to passengers directly through ticket prices, but also the taxpayer, and to invest in infrastructure so that other operators, open access operators and rail freight can also operate on the network. And again, government says it supports open access. Those are private companies. Government says it supports rail freight. Those are private companies. So it seems having this blanket ruling out of private companies, even under a concession model operating services doesn't seem to me enormously sensible.









 And I'd welcome the minister, just taking us through the thinking about how the government's arrived at that conclusion, even ruling out concessions, for example, where it's comfortable with them happening in other parts of the country, like London.
16:03
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:09
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

My Lords, if I could begin by just responding briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, if we go back to the debates we had on Passenger Rail Services Bill two years ago, she might remember, because I think I think she was already dealing with transport from the frontbench at that stage. No. Well, maybe, maybe, maybe she is every excuse for her not to know, but she will find quite a detailed analysis there from me as to why the franchising system had ceased to be effective. So I think it has been fully acknowledged throughout that the franchising system for a number of systemic reasons, to which Covid was added as a practical sort of final nail in the coffin meant that that didn't work.



























































































































































 That didn't mean there was no role for the private sector. The concession model was available as an alternative. There is no rationale. We believed we were quite right in saying this, for going for a fully, fully state owned, which I prefer to in committee. Previously, as a fully Soviet style railway run by the government and provided by the government, and wholly excluding private sector competition, except at the moment, certain residual open access routes. I wanted to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsham, who, with her customary textual acuity, has put her finger on something which I think the government does need to explain, which is that, on the one hand, the Secretary of State must designate.







































































































































 Routes, must no choice, but then may procure them, and only may procure them. Now there are a number of objections raised to this former Secretary of State for transport. Two of them have said they think it is undesirable for the holder of that office actually to have this power. I'm not going to dissent from that argument, but I have my own question, which is I'm not entirely sure what it means to designate a service. And this was a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I believe that the nub of what he was asking was, what does it mean to designate a service, especially if you don't have to provide it.



















































































































 It is only May provided if you choose. Does it mean that Great British Railways can only provide services that have been designated if it. If it doesn't mean that. And they can provide other services over and above those that have been designated. Well, what is the point of designating. Or does it mean that the. The designation of a service which may not then be procured, but the designation of a service relates only to services that Great British Railways doesn't want to run, or doesn't have a financial incentive to run, so that it is a sort of obligation on Great British Railways, which then may be procured from Great British Railways, thus forcing them to provide them.

































































































 Now, these might be loss making, commuter type services that need heavy subsidies that Great British Railways would close down if they were only interested in in covering their own costs. I mean, nobody, I think, quite grasps the point of of the designation in the first place, whoever makes it and, and what the consequence of it actually is. So we'd like to hear more about that, but we'd also like to hear more at the simple textual level of what may and must and must and may actually mean, and how they interact between clauses 25 and clause 31, which was Lady Jones Point.





















































































 And although I don't agree with her as to what the effect should be, I think we would all agree that the text should make some coherent sense. So the government has, I think, quite a big job to do in explaining all this to us. At this stage. I want to express, before I move on to my own amendments, I want to express support for Lord Faulkner, the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the power of. And it doesn't apply only to heritage railways. We will come to it again, I think, later on this power on the part of Great British Railways to go around seizing private assets.





































































I mean, of course it'll only be possible, I imagine, after the government has come round to supporting the conservative policy of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, because I believe that would preclude going round seizing private assets. So what is it the government intends here, and why should it be trusted with such broad and unlimited powers, if it has only a very limited and specialist focus in view? I think that is to some extent the question being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. My own amendment 157 is slightly. Is a detailed sort of amendment.

























































 There is in in in clause 32, subsection three exempts Great British Railways award of contracts from publishing the awards in advance or publishing the the contracts in advance. Now, I can certainly see the main point of publishing contracts that are going to be awarded in advance in a competitive tendering situation is to allow people access, people who wish to bid for them to have a fair and equal knowledge of what is coming up, so that they can make a decision whether to bid and put the resources into doing so. And if you're only allowed for some reason, ideological reason, we don't understand to award the contract to one party, then obviously there isn't going to be any competition, but there is actually considerable public interest and I would say parliamentary interest in the contracts that are going to be awarded, and they should be exposed to the light of day before they're awarded.







































 And we shouldn't simply find out after they've been awarded what they contain, because it might be the case that public scrutiny could have improved the terms of the contract considerably. So this blanket exemption should be removed and the status quo maintained. And that's the effect of amendment 157, my amendment 160 to delete the the existing Passenger Railway Services Bill to cause some excitement on the part of noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon. But it's there simply because it is a. It is a necessary consequence of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Grayling. Allowing for private sector or corporate sector operation on the railway.

















 Since the sole effect of that rail of that Bill is to prevent the Secretary of State from awarding new or renewed franchises to anybody other than a state railway company. Clearly it has to be. It has to be annulled before the noble, better than my noble friend's amendments could be brought into effect. So it was simply there as a necessary consequence, rather than the attempted revolution that she that she spies. But nonetheless, it would be a very good thing indeed to do.
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:21
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Finish a sentence.
16:21
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

I .
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Let me answer that in correspondence, because I think I think that deserves careful, careful response. It is worth clarifying what this designation issue is all about and what the designation of passenger Service Secretary of State is for. It's designed to set the limits of the services that may be delivered by GBR. In other words, the services that the Secretary of State has not devolved to mayors. The designation of passenger services will not be a detailed document like a timetable. Instead, it will broadly set out the responsibilities for the running of services between relevant authorities. For example, exemption from the Secretary of State's designation is the method by which passenger service was.























































































 Services were devolved to transport for London. A draft Secretary of State designation was published on gov.uk on the 20th of January, which helps demonstrate what it would look like and if noble Lords would like to see a copy, I will send it to them after this debate. It's the Public Service Act that the Secretary of State will issue to GBR under clause 31, that will require passenger services to be provided and through which those services will be funded. The contract will define the services in more detail for the purposes of describing what is being funded.











































































 That's a separate process to designation, which is really all about devolution. This is relevant to the noble Lord Landers's point the other day about how passenger services are funded. And I thank the noble Lord Lansley for a productive conversation on that during the recess. There is nothing in these clauses that can be used as a back door for the privatisation of passenger services, and nor does designation affect open access or freight services. I hope this reassures noble Lords that that this is what it is and no more. And I hope the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendments on amendments 149 to 151 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling.

























































 I agree with him in the first part of his speech, and I hope that he's already reassured from that explanation I've just been through. But let me be clear designation is not a detailed service specification, nor does it determine network access nor capacity allocation. It doesn't interact at all with the question about whether freight or open access services can run on the network, and it doesn't prevent any of those services from securing access, which is a separate process. Ministers designation powers do not override or conflict with GWR's role in making access decisions, and they do not interact, conflict with or undermine the safeguards of freight or other operators.











































 Designation powers are simply a method to demonstrate where devolution to local authorities, such as TfL has occurred, and that is all moving to the topic of public service contracts as an amendment in. In amendments 157 158, the government is required to transparently publish relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation. Within two months of entering into the contract. Publishing pre award information for a public service contract a year in advance would be unnecessary and impractical, and in fact, the this requirement was already disapplied in the Public Ownership Act 2024, as this is no longer appropriate to the new model in the old system, publishing such information in advance provided transparency and allowed prospective operators to challenge a proposed direct award and argue a competition should be held instead in the new system.





















 Such challenges would serve no purpose, as the Secretary of State is required to only award the service contract directly to a public operator, the focus for public service operators should be delivering for passengers with efficient and clear reporting, and not building in unnecessary delays. GWR's business plan will ensure transparency as it will describe GWR's passenger service intentions, and this will be consulted on before it's funded and implemented. Public and industry will have ample time to review it, and the author will be able to provide comments on it before being signed off by the Secretary of State.









 As I explained during the funding groups, the business plan is the method through which GBR activities are made transparent and it's held accountable for them. This ensures appropriate scrutiny can take place ahead of the contractual process. If I may turn to 150.
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

What is the answer?
16:31
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Oh.
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:35
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Oh, no.
16:35
16:35
16:37
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

What moved not moved.
16:37
16:38
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

My Lords, I shall be fairly brief in opening this debate, although it contains a large number of amendments in my name, because the real purpose is to give the government an opportunity to set out its policy and its plans on two crucial areas. The first, which is connected to amendment 161, relates to fare evasion, which has become, as I think everyone is aware, very much more a social issue, a problem, the widespread crime than it ever has been in the past and needs tackling. It needs attention given to it. Government information estimates that between 350 million and 400 million a year is lost through fare evasion and ticketless travelling, and fare evasion is associated with another great social evil, which concerns me and I know concerns the noble Lord.





















































 The minister, which is assaults on railway staff. They remain a significant concern , and fare enforcement can itself be a trigger for threatening or violent behaviour. No longer the solitary ticket collector wearing his uniform, wandering up and down the corridor of the railway, collecting fares. Now it is of necessity a group of 3 or 4 revenue protection officers working closely together as they go through the railway car, seeking to collect fares. And that is because of the potential for violence, which now has to be reckoned and taken very seriously in a way that was never the case in the past.



































 Last month, the government confirmed that it's developing a new cross-industry framework, supported by improved data sharing, to identify persistent fare evaders, deter repeat offending and recover unpaid fares. And the can the minister shed some light on what that framework is going to involve? Will it form part of a long the long term rail strategy? My amendment 161 requires the long term rail strategy to include credible plans for dealing with fare evasion and for the protection of staff, particularly in that connection. When does the government expect the framework to be published and implemented? Turning to 161 a, I want to explore a question of some political interest.















 Both the noble Lord and I were closely involved for a number of years in transport for London in different capacities. One of the features was that the fares were set by the mayor. Not many people always realised this. TfL made many operational decisions, but they did not, in fact, have the power to set the fares for their own services. You might find that you might say, that's a little bit odd, but the advantage of giving that power directly and personally to the mayor was, of
16:41
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

To the mayor was, of course, political accountability that the mayor could be held responsible for the fair setting by transport for London for its passenger services. Now, I know there are pros and cons to that in my amendment here opens the discussion as to the role of the of state in setting fares. As far as I can see under the bill as drafted, the Secretary of State has no role in the setting of fares and therefore there is no accountability for fares to the public or to Parliament. Of course, it could be said in a normal business that if you set your fares or your prices too high, your customers will go elsewhere.















































 But in this sort of Soviet model, there is nowhere else to go except for the odd residual. Open access service that might be allowed to continue in operation for a short time. So how do we square this circle? How do we have fares set in a way which isn't directly and obviously open to political manipulation, but has a degree of accountability so that the customer cannot simply be ripped off? The customer who has nowhere else to go, no choice to make, cannot simply be ripped off. I don't think that the bill, because it's followed this ideological route, that the bill has given a satisfactory answer to that question.





























 I'd like to hear what the noble Lord the minister has to say about it. I'm sure he's given very considerable thought to it, but it's not not, in my view, satisfactorily resolved. I then have a number of other amendments in the group 160, 260, 360, 460, 660, 760, 860, 970, 171, 170, 270, 370, 475, which I will speak to in one go very briefly. These concern discounts on fares. Now, the government has given verbal assurances that, for example, veterans, former members of the armed forces are going to have their discounted travel on the railways maintained.











 But there is nothing in the bill that protects the categories that exist at the moment. And indeed, should they be protected, is it the government's intention that they should be protected? We don't know. If you want to book a ticket using a rail card and you click the drop down box, I mean, I should say at this point, I, I am, I know no surprise, noble lords, the possessor of a senior rail card.
16:44
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

No, no.
16:44
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Surely not.
16:44
16:45
16:45
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Line 37.
16:45
16:45
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

I think I'm going to speak at this point, because I've got quite a lot to say and want to set out my amendment in this group, but one of the most important areas for passengers is fares, and the cost of catching a train is often key to the decision to choose the train, rather than a different mode of transport, or indeed not to travel at all. And the fares system, as it currently stands, is incomprehensible to most people, probably even the noble Lord, the minister. And it's not trusted, and people always feel they could have got a better deal somewhere else, perhaps on a different app, or if they'd gone and bought their ticket in person, they often feel they're being ripped off.















































































































 So we strongly believe that for the railway to be truly passenger centred, it needs to offer incentives for passengers to try the railway and a loyalty scheme for regular passengers. And we believe Great British Railways needs to look at how to get more people using the railway, rather than cutting trains to reduce costs. And there are good initiatives in other European countries, such as the Netherlands, including. They have tap in and tap out for their whole network. And I'm aware there are some innovations in the UK which I'll come on to, but we've seen in London.



































































































 Transport for London is a trusted brand and its fare caps are trusted and there's great transparency, and I think there's a lot we can learn from that. So my amendment 165 today, which has also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is about amending the bill to establish a rail miles scheme, which would allow for discounted fares for frequent travellers. So our rail miles scheme would extend the concept of air miles and promote greater use of the railway and domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are seen today.























































































 So many people I know talk about air miles in conversation and their accumulation of them, so why not have rail miles as well? It would promote the railway network, reward loyal passengers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism where passengers are able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. And it would be a really good way to promote lower carbon transport. So our new clause would be a step change to the railways, rewarding frequent passengers, and surely would be part of the added value of this new publicly owned railway. Now, a similar scheme is currently in operation on Eurostar for international travel.







































































 Passengers can join Club Eurostar and earn points that can be used to pay for journeys, discounts on bookings and upgrades to seats, amongst other benefits. But there are also excellent schemes run internationally and I thank the library for some information on this. SNCF have a scheme in France which allows you to earn points with every booking, which can be used to for complimentary tickets, discounts on services or donated to environmental organisations. DB Barn Bonus operates on Deutsche Bahn services throughout Germany and for business into the Netherlands, Sweden and Croatia. Loyalty points can be used for free tickets, partner vouchers and first class upgrades.























































 In Italy, they have a scheme that's available on high speed rail, and points can be used for free travel and other rewards. In the US, Amtrak customers can access Amtrak Guest Rewards program, which lets customers earn points for train travel and other purchases and services. And even in China, the China Railway Loyalty program enables passengers to earn points by buying tickets for railway journeys. And under their program, young members and senior passengers can also earn additional points, which customers can redeem for free tickets. And we have seen innovation in this country. Avanti West Coast has its Club Avanti scheme, which has a tiered program for loyal travellers.





































 And with that scheme, I think now when I looked on their website over the weekend, I think they've now got a million members and it's hugely successful and members can make nine journeys within 12 months. They get elevated to a different sort of level of standard, and they receive certain free travel tickets, a welcome hot drink and so on. So really making it a joy to use the railway and to encourage people to frequently use the railway. And the benefits of such a rail scheme would be to encourage people to return to the railway time and time again, and reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount.





















 I commend this idea to the Minister and hope that he will give this serious consideration. The retail sector uses loyalty schemes to keep customers and to understand their interests, their spend and their patterns. This is something the railway should be embracing as countries are across the world. The other amendments in this group support the continuation of discounted fares for various groups. I should declare now I don't yet have a senior railcard as other noble friends may have here. I do have a family and friends railcard, and whilst you know all of these are really important, obviously they haven't stopped as we've seen some of the trains moving over into public ownership.







 So perhaps the noble Lord, the minister, can confirm the situation here, because these also are really important schemes that encourage people to use the railways. I look forward to the minister's response and to our important rail miles amendment, which we think would be a game changer for passengers and for the railway.
16:51
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

I hear.
16:51
16:53
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

I'm standing up partly to add my name to Baroness Pigeon's very fine amendment, and partly because I hope by hopefully standing up, I get a bit warmer in this remarkably cold room. My Lords, I was going to describe it as Baroness Pigeon's excellent idea, but from her her introduction. It's obviously been used a lot in Europe anyway, so it's it's a really it's good news. Quite a lot of what we've talked about in the last few days has been quite gloomy and I. It's just it's a way to cheer people up with, with such a good idea.























I mean, we know from the lessons from Beeching that if you take people off the railway, they stay off the railway. And if you get people on the railway at the source, they stay on and make longer journeys. And we are constantly being told that information is the new gold. This would be a brilliant way to get passenger information so we can start selling them other journeys, perhaps, you know, predicting loads of stuff, which I think is such a good way of doing. We could even link delay repay to it, perhaps, which anybody who's been struggling like me with avantis delay repay and his Byzantine system.













 Well it can only be a good thing you also we talked about Railcards and I'd like to associate myself with Lord Moylan's remarks about retaining the armed forces, really important sectors of the community that need free travel. But if we could and I again, I was shocked to hear Lord Moylan is has a senior rail card and I have just I have just taken advantage of that myself. The one question.
16:55
16:55
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

I was hoping I'd.
16:55
16:55
16:56
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Yeah, yeah.
16:56
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

And my Lords, a couple of areas I wanted to focus on. First of all, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Moylan , amendment 161, insisting that in the rail strategy, ministers must include proposals for reducing, preventing and reducing the evasion of fares. I think for two reasons. One, there's a there's clearly a revenue purpose for doing this, but there's also a basic fairness purpose is there's nothing more irritating for passengers that pay their fares than seeing people that don't. And then nothing happens as a result. The one point I would add is just to look at ways you can build into the system, making it more difficult for evasion to happen.





























































































































There was nothing more irritating. Well, there were many more more irritating. But on this particular aspect, one of the most irritating things, particularly when I was Secretary of state, was turning up at a station and finding all the ticket barriers were open and people could just wander in and out without having to demonstrate they had a ticket. And I'm afraid when I saw that, I take a photograph of the said ticket barriers that were open, send it to my special adviser, and he used to then make the appropriate comments to the appropriate rail company about why they were giving away free money, and it is just irritating.



















































































































 So I would I would strongly support my noble friend's amendment and particularly design in or design out the ability for people to evade tickets. The last thing you want to do is spend a huge amount of money on staff and British Transport Police having to do the enforcement. The best thing is to work out a system where you make it as difficult as possible for people to evade paying in the first place. So that, I think, is a very good amendment. The second area of amendments, which my noble friend has tabled, are the ones about discounts and his specific focus on veterans.



































































































 And the plea I would make to the minister is this in clause 34, the government clearly feels that discounted schemes are a good idea, but it's done that thing, which often happens in legislation. Whereas as soon as you have a list of something, the undue specificity problem, because it refers to young, elderly and disabled people, although it does have a section which then says there's no prevention of other people being included, the fact that it's only specified those three groups of people inevitably will, I think, focus discounts in those areas. And so I think my plea to the minister would be to reflect on whether without without making the list excessively long, whether that specific proposal from my noble friend to include veterans who are not necessarily otherwise included in one of those other sections, would be a welcome addition to the bill, and it would be helpful if the minister, if not today, could indicate whether he would do so and would bring forward an amendment at report stage, and then that would save my noble friend having to re table his amendment.













































































I suspect his amendment on veterans would get a lot of of support. I was taken with the amendment moved by Lady Pigeon. My only my only reason for not immediately supporting it. It's got nothing to do with the quality of the amendment. It's just that I am a bit loathe to just have lots of specific things set out in the in the legislation, I would prefer, frankly, that the discount fair scheme clause was much less specific, or was written in a way that would encompass the sort of scheme that she has set out. And so it may be worth the Minister considering whether that that clause could be better drafted to encompass what the noble lady wants to do with a scheme that's that reflects somebody's usage as opposed to their characteristics, but also whether it should encompass, if it's going to cover characteristics as well, whether it should encompass the one set out by my noble friend Lord Moylan.





























































 The the final point I wanted to make was just to come back to his point. And my noble friend Lord Moylan's point about who is accountable for setting fares, because at clause 33 allows ministers to use their power of direction to. To give direction to GBR about the level of fares and the structure of fares, but it doesn't require ministers to do so, my Noble friends amendment makes that more explicit. So there is a genuine question here about accountability. And you can make an argument that that runs counter to the point I made about GBR owning these responsibility, ministers getting out of the business.











































But equally, ministers are in the business of setting fares. The government's made a great deal about its policy of freezing rail fares. We made a great deal of limiting rail fares at particular levels and keeping the rate of inflation when we were in government, and it seems unlikely to me that ministers are going to not want to get involved in setting fares. So actually the Bill should just be amended, reflecting my noble Lords point, just to make it explicit that it is ministers who set fares and will do so, and will give that direction to GBR at the top level, and then GBR will do a lot of the detailed work.



























And the reason why I think it is inevitable that ministers will end up setting fares is particularly in a nationalised rail industry, the rail industry requires a great deal of subsidy. That subsidy has to come from taxpayers. The Treasury will set the department a budget and inevitably, rail fares will have to be set to balance the contribution made to running those services from passengers through the Farebox and the contribution made by taxpayers coming from the money from the Treasury that goes to the Department for transport, which then goes to GBR. So inevitably ministers have to make decisions about fares, and so the Bill might as well just reflect the fact that that is going to happen and and and have a more explicit either A must give this direction to GBR or a clause along the lines of an amendment along the lines of the one set out by my noble friend Lord Moylan, making it explicit that it's not GBR that sets the level and structure of fares.









 But there is properly a decision for ministers who are democratically accountable. That is what is going to happen, and I think the legislation should therefore reflect reality, rather than pretending in some way that ministers are not actually accountable for the fares that are charged to passengers.
17:03
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

This government wants to make train travel more effective, more affordable for everyone, which is why we've announced the first freezing rail fares for over 30 years. Affordability will also be a key consideration for the Secretary of State in setting the strategic parameters for fares. That's why on the 15th of September, we published a fares fact sheet setting out the objectives the Secretary of State will pursue and how this will enable wider fares, ticketing and retail reform. Looking at amendments 161 160 one a. I completely agree with the figures that the noble Lord Moylan raised on the.



























































































































 On the. The rough levels of fare evasion. But whilst the long term rail strategy will reflect the need for GBR to protect its revenue contrary to amendment 161, I don't believe the strategy is the appropriate place to propose exactly how it will do this, the Secretary of State and I announced in July an additional £33.4 million to crack down on fare dodgers with new ticket gates at stations across England. But we must allow these decisions to be made at the right level in an agile manner. And, for example, having provided that money, I think it's the job of railway operators to decide which gates go in which stations and will have the most impact.











































































































 But the noble Lord Moylan is right to raise fare evasion. And and I agree with him, absolutely. We don't tolerate any assault on any member of staff for any reason, including fares evasion. But decisions on how to tackle fare evasion must be a matter for Great British Railways and in collaboration with the. With the British Transport Police and other stakeholders, including mayoral strategic authorities, noble Lord Moylan referred to the framework and in that respect it will be in place by the end of 2026. I think it's preferable for the operators of the railway to formulate their their detailed approaches to fare evasion, because we know that that this is evolving and it's fast moving, and it's certainly not something I think you'd want to see in a 30 year strategy.



























































































 The answer to my noble friend, Lord Berkeley. Open access operators collect their own fares. They make. They make sure, as should all operators, that the people they they they , the people who travel with them have have paid on on amendment 161 a about the fare structure, I think it is clear from the bill that the accountability and transparency sought by this amendment are already there. Secretary of state will set fares, objectives and controls within which GBR must operate. Guidance on how GBR should set fares will be periodically reviewed alongside funding decisions. Quite clearly, because, as noble Lords have remarked, the railway consumes a great deal of public subsidy and it will be reflected in GBR five year business plans.





































































 GBR will then manage fares within that framework. The fares policy will also be aligned with the long term rail strategy, meaning GBR will be expected to run the railway on a financially sustainable, efficient and value for money basis, balancing fare income with public funding whilst supporting an affordable and accessible railway. I believe this gives the Secretary of State appropriate oversight of fares policy, reflecting her accountability to Parliament for the overall objectives and public funding of the railway, whilst allowing GBR to take day to day fares decisions. Any significant changes would need to be consistent with the business plan, which the Secretary of State will have already signed off.





















































 This is clearly a superior model and requiring the Secretary of State to approve changes to the structure and level of fares which would duplicate the existing provisions and potentially reintroduce the very ministerial involvement, detailed involvement in the railway that this bill is seeking to prevent. Turning to amendments 162 to 179 inclusive, save for amendment 165, which I'll come on to. Discounted fares are vital in keeping rail travel affordable for many passengers under clause 34. As has been remarked, discounts for young, senior and disabled passengers will continue to be protected in statute. We know that the cost of rail travel can be a significant barrier for these groups, given they are likely to be on lower incomes than other other adults, and maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation ensures that we continue to have an inclusive railway.































 It also supports access to employment, education, training and vital services. And that's not to say that the other concessionary schemes are not important, nor that they won't be continued. But the noble Lord Harper had it, which is that actually there is a question about specificity in here, and I agree. And let me explain why, particularly in relation to veterans, the government fully recognises the enormous contributions that have been made by members of the UK Armed Forces, veterans and their families. The UK Armed Forces Railcards are one way in which we honor the sacrifices made by this community.















 Meanwhile, the 26 to 30 railcard, for example, was introduced in 2018 in recognition of the comparatively high living costs and low earnings of this age group challenges , which remain nearly a decade later. There are no plans to withdraw any of these concession schemes nor reduce the level of discount. But let me explain why, why we don't see the desirability of putting this in the statute. Clause 34 has been drafted to provide flexibility in the design and operation of discount fare schemes by minimising the number of schemes listed on the face of the bill, we enable GBR to update and evolve concessionary offers as the needs.
17:09
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Of.
17:09
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Change, and amendment 166 would undermine the ability to develop these offices. These offers, even when changes were plainly benefit passengers. Take, for example, recent changes to the non-statutory 16 to 17 saver railcard, which gives young people half price travel saver Railcards bought on and after 17th of August 2026 and now valid for a full 12 months from the date of purchase, they will no longer automatically expire when the holder turns 18. Similarly, we expanded eligibility for the Statutory Disabled Persons Railcard in September. Passengers with a long term impairment health condition or Neurodivergence that has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months and significantly affects their ability to use rail services, will now be able to apply these kinds of beneficial and common sense adjustments are more difficult.















































































 If amendment 166 were voted into the bill. Coming back to the UK Armed Forces Railcards, I should point out that there are currently two railcards in this space. His Majesty's Forces Railcard cost £21 a year and offers one third discounts for serving personnel, their spouses and dependent children. The veteran Veterans Railcard is £35 and gives one third of adults fares and 60% off for accompanying children, something, I hasten to add that would not be possible under amendment 179, which rigidly sets discounts at one third off no more and no less. In future, it might be desirable to combine these railcards to ensure consistent terms and conditions between veterans and serving personnel and their families, or else update or else update the terms to the terms to make the railcards more relevant to the people who use them.



























































 GBR should be able to consider options like this. If we enshrine more schemes in primary legislation, as the noble Lord proposes, it becomes rather difficult to amend an improvement. But for the avoidance of doubt and from this dispatch box, the government is is is committed to continuing these entitlements and indeed, as I've just described, will endeavour to improve them on amendment 165 on. From the noble Baroness Pidgeon, I expect GBR to continue providing current railcard schemes whilst, as I've said, innovating to develop new options and that's why I welcome the intent of the noble Baroness in tabling amendment 165 and also the remarks of the noble Lord Hampton.











































 Once established, GBR will be able to continue. Consider, I'm sorry, various means of encouraging more people to travel by rail. Customer loyalty schemes are one of many possible tools, but the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the potential benefits of such schemes and where they've succeeded, it's generally been to the careful commercial design and by responding to customer behaviour, as demonstrated by Eleanor's domestic model and various international programmes, as she described, I should say that , unless I'm mistaken, those certainly those international examples don't rely on specific legislative provision. Loyalty schemes are simply one form of discounting and do not need to.



























 In. In. In our current view, to be expressly provided for in this bill. But I want GBR to have the opportunity to assess the evidence and determine what works best for passengers before we prescribe it. Any loyalty scheme would, for example, would, for instance, need to reflect the diversity of rail users. The needs of regular commuters may differ significantly from those occasional leisure travellers, and different market conditions might apply in each case. But I agree with the noble Baroness on the potential benefits loyalty schemes can bring, and I am grateful to her for raising this issue.





 I'm very happy to discuss it with her further outside this committee. I hope that what I've said enables the noble Lord, noble Baroness, to withdraw their amendments.
17:13
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what I think has been a useful debate, and also to the noble Lord. The Minister for his response. I understand the framework is to be published in the not too distant. On fare evasion is to be published in the not too distant future. I'm happy to wait to see that. It is a great pity. We say this all the time, that we're asked to pass this legislation irrevocably, without being able to see the documents that accompany it and give effect to it. So I'm grateful for his answer on that.





























































































































 But on the question of what is the right level at which to have a fare evasion strategy, my amendment is clearly a strategic amendment. It asks for a strategic response and that it should be in the long term rail strategy seems appropriate. The minister's view is that these matters should be dealt with by individual train operators at more or less the station level. Now, there are very important things to do at the station level, of course, but there is something missing and that is the strategic layer that the thing that brings it together, the single directing mind, the source of best practice, the the pattern which gives commonality to the to the way in which enforcement is carried out.













































































































 That doesn't happen if everything is left to individual rail subsidiaries working at the station level. So when the minister said, when the noble Lord said that the right level at which this should be carried out was not in the strategic rail plan, I expected him to go on and tell me what the right level was at which you could have a strategic plan articulated, because that might be a positive response. We generally agree, we did agree that things something must be done, but where is it to be done? Where are those strategic elements of it to be done?































































































 And there came no answer. So I suspect this is something we will have to refer to return to when we reach report stage. I still think there are serious issues about accountability for fares on a no choice railway, which is what the government is imposing on the country. A no choice railway, one provider, one decision maker, one single directing mind. While the Secretary of State can give guidance on fares, I would expect that to be at the level of telling Great British Railways how much it has to generate in fares, given the level of subsidy that is available, which will be a decision made on a, we hope, on a five year basis, and giving indications of that sort.











































































 If it is left to Great British Railways to decide what to do with those instructions, then it will be for Great British Railways to decide without accountability, whether the pain of such direction is. There's always pain with fares. There's always pain. How that pain is allocated. Should it be. The commuter fares should be higher and that long distance fares should be eased to encourage more long distance travel and compete with the domestic rail services, should it be that there should be more discount schemes and more encouragement for the young? But but at the expense of passengers who don't benefit from discount schemes, should it be a greater burden of fares on first class travellers and less so on those travelling in standard class?





















































 Now? I don't I'm not suggesting there are right or wrong answers to questions like that. That's my point at the moment. My point is decisions like that have to be made, and they are the decisions which allocate the pain. And there is no accountability about all of this and there is no choice. There is no other railway to use apart from a few residual open access services which will eventually wind down. I don't think this can be left. I think the bill has to have some notion of how this is addressed so that we have proper accountability, and again, we're going to come back to it on discounts.































I understand what the noble Lord says. I must say, I think there is some confusion on his part. On the one hand, we should trust GBR to do this, to make these decisions because they are part of a broader picture of stimulating demand and indeed rewarding usage. As the noble Baroness Lady Pidgeon suggests, through loyalty schemes and so forth, which she gave many examples. But on the other, he is tying himself now at the beginning and possibly for years to come to the existing discount schemes and not being willing to be open about them, whether they really are.















 I mean, if you've tied yourself to those, there is not going to be a lot of scope unless the Treasury is very generous for additional discount schemes over and above that. So I think there is a bit of a problem, but there's a particular problem, I think, in relation to former members of the armed forces. And I think that is something that we are likely to return to. On report. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
17:19
17:21
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

My Lords, I.
17:21
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Rise to .
17:21
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Move amendment 183.
17:21
17:21
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

Ten other amendments.
17:21
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

That I have in this group. I hope to be relatively brief for for you, first of all, these these amendments all concern the the powers and duties of the passenger watchdog, the Passenger Council, which is referred to here. And I have a fairly lengthy interest in passenger representation, which goes back to 2004, when the noble Baroness Featherstone became chair of the London Assembly's transport Committee, and I was appointed her deputy. It was a very wide ranging role that the committee had. So what? She asked me to take on the role of reviewing the performance of what was at the time, the London Transport Users Committee, and when I went to see them, they were an unusual organisation.































































































































They covered a much larger area than than Greater London, because they went out to cover the the airports as well. They were unusual in my experience because their their management board, their supervising board had more members than they had members of staff, which is quite, quite unusual for an organisation. And although they were very committed to improving transport services in London and very interested and very well informed, a lot of those people had backgrounds in the transport industry and particularly in the rail industry, and they often seem to feel that the interests of the rail provider were exactly the same thing as the interests of the passengers.



















































































































 They couldn't really discriminate between the two. They were products of of what my noble friend Lord Moylan, who sadly is not in his place at the moment because I'm sure he would agree with me. They were products of of what he calls the no choice railway or the , the Soviet type railway. They've been in public service for so long that they thought they knew exactly what the passengers wanted, without actually asking the passengers themselves. So the amendments here are designed to bring a little more focus to the passengers council, and also designed to give it more powers as well, so that it becomes a body which has some real, real teeth on behalf of passengers, and to differentiate between what might be in the interests of the railway providers and in the interests of of their passengers.

































































































 So the amendment I'm moving 183 introduces a new clause, which will define the purpose of the passengers Council with six different, different Subclauses first of all, to champion the interests of all users and potential users of the railway. Of course, in particular needs of of disabled passengers. Then to advocate for reliability and we list the various measures of reliability of passenger services to advocate for safety and security of passengers on the railways. A broad heading to advocate for passengers comfort and on board experience. And I briefly touched on this at the last meeting when we debated this, including things such as the availability of power sockets and the provision of Wi-Fi for passengers, which is not something which is was was important in the past, but certainly is going forward into the future.











































































There's a clause about advocating for affordability and value for money, and there's a clause looking forward to advocate for passenger growth and coverage. So I'm pleased to to move this amendment, which spells out the function of the council and aligns it better to what we know are passengers priorities. Now, I also have, as I stated, ten amendments, and very briefly, I will I will visit those 186 amends, paragraph B of clause 36 to. To change, making efficient use of funds to make it. Ensuring value for money through a cost benefit analysis, which I think is a stronger and more focused definition.

























































 Amendment 187 adds a requirement for ministers and GBR to respond to passenger council representations within one month. And I think that's important because because otherwise these things can drag on. It actually requires a timed response. Amendment 188 adds a requirement for the passengers council to assess user satisfaction every 12 months, and this is particularly intended to deal with the the tendency of organisations like this to conflate the needs of the provider with the need of the of the users, and a survey will actually give them a clear steer about what they should be looking for.











































 Amendment 189 effectively gives the passenger's Council the role and power of dealing with unsatisfied requests, rather than referring them to the ORR. It's a faster process, it's less bureaucratic, and it makes the passengers council stronger. Amendment 190 means that contraventions of the licence or condition of any passenger licence. Will have to be referred to the author and to the Secretary of State. It removes a potential loophole which which would have the potential to be commonly used to to avoid doing that. Amendments 191, 192 and 193 are all designed to ensure that where a contravention of a licence is referred to, action is actually taken by the author.





















 So we leave out particularly option two, which is to take no action if a controversial contravention has been referred to them. And amendment 194 replaces May with Must in line 12 to again ensure. If the passenger Council prepares a report of an investigation, then it must publish it. This will ensure more openness and accountability for the passenger watchdog. And finally, amendment 195 adds a requirement to publish such report within six months of the investigation, again providing a deadline. So that is a brief run through the various amendments that I've moved here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and indeed, comments of other members of the committee.
17:29
17:29
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

My Lords, I have seven amendments in this group. I'm not sure I'm going to be brief, but I'll. I'll try. So I heard a groan there. Is that right? My amendments one eight well, my amendment 204 A is rather daring because it's trying to improve on the amendment by the noble lady, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who could be said to have more experience of the. What they're trying to do. My amendments 181 A and 204 B seek to put strong rights based duties for passengers and disabled people, as well as the general duties of both watchdogs, the Passengers Council as well as the London Transport Users Committee.





















































































































 These are to protect and promote the rights of interests of users and potential users of brackets railway services, and to protect and promote the rights and interests of disabled persons. These general duties are very important . As discussed on day four regarding my amendments 330 and 334 A the Bill will deregulate the condition in current legislation that railway licences all types, including GBS licence, must have regard to the general duties. The Rail Minister has suggested that this won't matter because the O. R and the Secretary of State would still be bound by licence conditions when setting the licence conditions.







































































































 However, passenger related and accessibility accessibility related conditions will not be set by these bodies as they're moving to the passengers council, which will not itself be subject to the general duties. It is in this sense, a two step deregulation of standard setting, which will sever all links between the general duties and the setting of passenger related licence conditions. And this is not to mention the fact that all monitoring and enforcement is also moving from ORR, the much stronger regulator, to the passengers council, a much weaker body without any enforcement powers of its own. So the general duties of the council have become of pivotal importance.

























































































 Yet it has just two duties a duty to be cost efficient in all its functions, and a duty for disabled people, which is nowhere near strong enough and might merely be seen as a way of shifting statutory responsibility for accessibility to the council. Away from the ORR. It's extremely odd to see that there's no duty to promote the interests of passengers. If you compare these to the clause 18 passenger and disability duty of 182 A, it is very clear that these duties are the most minimal possible version. Returning to my amendments 183 A and 204 B, it's vital that these lay down the need to protect and promote the rights and interests of passengers and disabled people, and ideally, this model would also be used in clause 18, which would be a much needed strengthening of the language.







































































 There to protect and promote is a rights based formulation that ensures not just improvement, but also protection and non-regression of existing standards and rights and interests is much more powerful than simply needs and interests. In particular, why should disabled people have anything less than a rights based standard? And it's also important that passengers and disabled people have separate subsections. This would be a crucial part of legal clarity, ensuring that each group has equal standing and preventing the possibility of any trade offs overall between different groups of passengers on 184 A and 204 C. As part of this stronger rights based approach, these amendments would omit the cost efficiency duty from both watchdogs general duties, which is essentially an overarching duty to all their functions.























































 Again, it shouldn't be possible to compromise rights , standards or enforcement based on cost. The concept of rights creates its own minimum baseline and 188 B and 204 A to move to the passengers council itself. Let's be clear that this is little more than the existing watchdog Transport Focus, with largely the same provisions as in current legislation, a model that hasn't been updated since 2005. The government's Cost impact Assessment for the Railways Bill is illuminating as to the thought processes behind this, pages 65 to 66 explained that it chose to use transport Focus because this required the least change.







































 It acknowledges that the simplest governance and oversight arrangements would have been for the O. RR to retain and expand its passenger regulatory duties powers, and that a new body would have been best placed to develop an independent culture. The only new power is to set deadlines when conducting investigations. That's in clause 40. However, this is extremely limited, requiring consultation with the person on what deadline should be specified and limited to investigations only, not the collection of information for other functions. Review yet this is the body intended to take on all passenger related standard setting, monitoring and enforcement from the much stronger regulator, the ORR.



















 So I would say that it needs to be done to make this situation anywhere near adequate. And my amendment 188 B expands the power to request information for any of its functions, not only when an active investigation is underway. And my amendment 202 A requires the Council to publish any substantial written advice it gives under clause 40 that would regard the most important kind of advice given to ministers the O, R, R, G, b, r or operators often regarding high level issues of policy and for which there's currently no duty of clarity, no duty of transparency towards the public.







 I'm also in favour of amendment 194 from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough, roughly which would require the Council.
17:35
17:35
17:35
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Yeah, yeah.
17:35
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Oh.
17:36
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

My Lords, relatively a couple of brief interventions. So I think my noble friends amendment Lord Evans's Amendment 183 to set up clear purposes for the passengers Council. Now I'm sure the minister will argue that because the passengers Council Transport Focus operating name has been set up under statue and then amended by a number of other statutes, it does have clear purposes to advocate for passengers, but. But there may be an argument about bringing it up to date and setting it all out and balancing those needs, because actually, transport focus is the passenger council's, depending on how we want to refer to it.

















































































































 Remit is now actually quite broad and doesn't just cover rail, but also encompasses multi-modal travel and also roads as well. So there is an argument about just being clear about what we want it to do. That's the first point. The second point is , I'm afraid I really can't support amendment 184 A, which removes the passenger Council's responsibilities to take into account costs and the need to make efficient use of them. And the reason why I can't support that is if you actually look at some of the statutory roles that it's given in this legislation, there are two very important ones.

































































































 One is on setting standards that have to be complied with, and also improvement plans. Now, I don't think you can have a body that setting standards that have to be complied with by passenger railway passenger services and station services providers, which which of course, because of other legislation, basically means a body that's entirely funded by the taxpayer and also improvement plans that effectively have to be delivered by a body funded by the taxpayer. I don't think the passengers council should be able to set such standards and improvement plans with no regard at all for how much those things are going to cost, because if you don't have have to have any regard for cost, you will specify massively expensive gold plated service which which might be lovely, which we might all want to see, but will be at a sufficient cost that it would drive people off of the railways.















































































 These things are always a balance. You have to look at the services that you want, the services that may be required by passengers, but you do have to look at the cost of providing them, and there is a balance there to be struck. And also, once you specify the cost, whether it's the fare pay of us paying for them, the taxpayer that's paying for them, or a balance of the two. So I think it's really important that the passenger council Passengers Council, when it's exercising its statutory responsibilities, has to look at the cost of these things.

































































 Now, that doesn't mean it can't say, here are the standards or the improvement plans, all the things we want to see. We recognise they're going to have a significant cost to them. There are some provisions in the legislation which require that the Secretary of State has to sign these things off. So it may be that there is a choice to be made, and it may be that there is a choice to improve the services at a significant cost. But the passengers council can't just make these decisions with no, no insight or thinking into how much the costs are going to be.



















































That doesn't make any sense at all, and in fact will likely be self-defeating because it will drive up the cost of delivering rail services, which will actually price people off of them. The final the final point I would make is on amendment three, three, three A, which is the requirement to have which doesn't allow the Secretary of State to appoint a. In the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, it says that the Secretary of State cannot appoint a person as chairman of the. The Passengers Council. So not not all the members, but the chairman will.





































 Chair without the approval, without a pre-appointment scrutiny, having taken place by the Transport Committee of the House of Commons and. And that having been put forward to the Secretary of State. As with all of these things, that doesn't mean the Secretary of State can't go ahead and make an appointment, even if the House of Commons Transport Committee says it's not a very good idea, that's always open to the government to to not take any notice of the committee and bear the political consequences. But this amendment says that it can't make the appointment without that process having taken place.























And it seems to me, given the importance of the role, given the fact that under this legislation, it's having some extra powers to make some significant recommendations, having Pre-appointment scrutiny take place of the person that's going to lead the council seems to me a very sensible point. I think it doesn't doesn't tie the Secretary of State's hands excessively. It doesn't say they can't appoint their preferred candidate, even if the House of Commons disagrees. But it just says there has to be a process. I think one of the things we've found the final point from the pre-appointment scrutiny processes that have already taken place, sometimes with ministers following the recommendations, sometimes them not, is the transparency and scrutiny that takes place and the ability for questioning to take place about the priorities of the candidate.











 What is is they want to do with the job that is an annual or unalloyed good thing. That transparency, and I don't see why ministers wouldn't be able to either support this amendment, or if they think there's something defective in . My noble friend Lord Morland's, the drafting of his amendment bring back one of their own. I think this would actually be an important improvement to scrutiny and the operation of the Passengers Council, and I certainly would give it my support.
17:42
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

My Lords, this group of amendments starts to look at the Passengers Council, which we think is actually one of the stronger parts of the bill. At the other end, we were keen to try and understand best practice in terms of complaints, and we did table a probing amendment to ensure that a complaint would first go to the operators, the mostly Great British Railways, before the passenger council could intervene, which was generally seen as best practice. But the government did respond, explaining that there may well be circumstances where the watchdog would need to investigate before or instead of operators such as if the issue is systemic or cross-industry.





















 So we have accepted that point and therefore we haven't tabled any amendments in this particular area. Clearly, these amendments before us are trying to really tease out the powers of the passenger Council. But for me, from the earlier group that I spoke to some weeks ago, now I really want to understand how London Travelwatch fits within the passenger's council in all aspects of this work, because issues relating to the London Travelwatch area, which as, as we've heard, goes far beyond London. Those passengers should have the same level of service and engagement and representation as those outside would with the Passengers Council.





So I think really getting some understanding of that, and that might be something that we have in discussion after committee stage to make sure that London travel watchers role is equal, where it should be with the passengers council to make sure all passengers are strongly represented.
17:44
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you.
17:44
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Yeah.
17:44
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. If the government are going to create a new passengers council funded with public money, then value for money must be built into its operation from the outset. That is why we strongly support amendment 186, tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. For the same reason, we cannot support amendments one eight for A and 204 C from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. These amendments would remove the cost efficiency duties from the Passengers Council and London Travelwatch respectively.









































 If these bodies are spending taxpayers money, we see no justification for removing an express requirement to consider the efficient use of those funds. There are other amendments in this group which discuss the relationship between the passengers council and the. Or the government repeatedly tell us that the author will remain a strong and robust independent regulator. Yet under clause 42, when the Passengers Council refers a contravention to the ORR, the regulator can simply report back on what action, if any, it proposes to take, including its reasons for taking no action. Amendments 191192 and 193, tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans.





















 Give that relationship some actual bite by requiring the author to take action where a contract has been referred to it by the statutory passenger watchdog. If the passengers council has identified a genuine contravention serious enough to refer to the regulator, why does the bill expressly contemplate the supposedly robust regulator doing nothing? Amendment 187 from my noble friend Lord Evans, requires the Secretary of State and GBR to respond within one month to representations from the Council. Amendment 188 requires an annual assessment of Passenger Satisfaction amendments 194 and 195 require investigation reports to be published and impose a six month deadline for publication.





 The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also
17:47
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

To be published and impose a six month deadline for publication. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also makes a reasonable transparency point in amendment 202, a requiring substantive written advice from the council to be published, subject to a sensible public interest exception. One would hope that much of this is what the government intend to do anyway. Finally, amendment 333 A in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, concerns the appointment of the chair of the Passengers Council. The Transport Committee recommended in February that the preferred candidate should face a pre-appointment hearing specifically to reinforce the watchdog's independence from both the Secretary of State and GBR.





















 It pointed to comparable arrangements for bodies including the Patient Safety Commissioner, the Housing Ombudsman and the Children's Commissioner. The Transport Committee already conducts Pre-appointment scrutiny of the chairs of the order and the Civil Aviation Authority. I therefore very much welcome the Minister's decision confirmed this week to accept the committee's recommendation and pursue adding the chair of the passenger's Council to the list of posts subject to Pre-appointment scrutiny. Amendment 333 A simply puts that safeguard into legislation. Given that the government now accepts the principle, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether he is prepared to accept the amendment or how, and on what timetable the government intends to give effect to its new commitment.
17:49
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Right, my Lords. Before turning to the amendments, I will say a few words regarding the terminology. Transport focus is operating under the name of Passengers Council. Under this bill will become the passenger watchdog with strengthened powers to make it more effective as a champion for passengers. Although the amendments use the legal name of the passengers Council, I will be referring to it as the passenger watchdog. More or less throughout. Likewise, I will refer to the London Transport Users Committee as London Travelwatch and I would like to just add that the passenger watchdog has an accessibility duty, which applies when setting standards.















































 As this was brought up by the noble Baroness Buscombe, the watchdog has a duty to make efficient use of public funds. The RR and the Secretary of State also have to agree to the standards set by the watchdog and are bound by the clause 18 duties, so this provides protection. The reason the watchdog is being given the standard setting role is because the RR is a regulator and as such must be fair, impartial and objective. We want the watchdog to be a genuine passenger champion to advocate for its passengers in all things. And this is different from the roles that she was requesting.





























 But the roles are complementary. Now on to amendment 183 A and 204 B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. These concerns are right based duty for passenger watchdogs and London Travelwatch. And as the noble Baroness Pidgeon had mentioned, London Travel Watch. I would just like to confirm that London Travelwatch are given largely the same powers under the bill as the passenger watchdog, except for standards setting, and they will be consulted on the setting of standards, and . This is solely because the. Because the travel watch. Because the travel watch. But because the passenger watchdog applies its standards across the network, whereas London Travelwatch is.





 London or, as some have pointed out, slightly bigger than London Remit. So we want to make sure we have an agreeable standard across all networks.
17:51
17:52
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Thank you for your comments. I think, you know, you make a valid point, which is why I brought up the the point about the points regarding what the terminology is, because people have been calling things different things. You know, at the moment we're using passenger councils watch. The intention is that it becomes the passenger watchdog because that is all encompassing. So I'd like to move on. The drafting of the accessibility duty in the bill ensures that disabled passengers are actively considered, even when no specific legal rights is engaged. Interests are broader than rights. We are creating a body that can monitor the outcome seen by disabled passengers, set accessibility standards and advocate for improvements whether they are strictly related to disability rights or not.







































































 We are doing this because we want the watchdog to ensure a high standard and a high quality experience for disabled people throughout their journey. By contrast, these amendments risk narrowing the watchdog's scope for advocacy. The watchdog Disabilities Accessibility Duty sits alongside wider protections. I will remind noble Lords that GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, as provided for in schedule four of the Bill. This will require GBR to proactively consider the rights of disabled people across everything it does the watchdog's duty to consider the interests and needs of disabled people is complementary and additional to GBR obligations, meaning that disabled people's rights, interests and all needs are enshrined in the bill.





















































 I think we can agree that this is how it should be. And just to go back on the point that Lord Harper made is as we move forward with the bill, we'll be able to settle on exactly what that name is. I think it's more important to know what the objective of the body will be going forward. Now on to amendments 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough. Agrees that the watchdog should be a strong and independent champion for passengers across the rail network. The principle is already at the heart of this bill.



































 The Bill establishes the watchdog with a broad statutory remit to represent passengers, review and investigate issues that affect them and advocate for improvements across the railway. The watchdog's function already encompasses all areas of passenger experience, including service quality and accessibility of passenger services. For example, the watchdog is required to keep a watching brief on passenger matters and collect information relating to passenger experience at clause 37 for the benefit of the passenger, its, its investigations and standard setting powers are similarly broad. The government has deliberately avoided prescribing a detailed hierarchy of passenger priorities in primary legislation.



















 Passengers need and need and expectations evolve over time. The watchdog must have the flexibility to focus its resources on the issues that matter most to the passengers at any given moment. The amendment also risks narrowing the watchdogs focus to a specified list of issues, potentially limiting its ability to respond effectively to new and emerging concerns, and that are not expressly identified in the legislation. The watchdog's main purpose is to engage with passenger passengers, monitor their issues and understand their experiences.
17:56
17:58
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Thank you for clarifying what exactly you would like to know, because initially you was talking about names and and conventions rather than the actual duties. So I think it may be best if we write to you in respect of that. Now that you've made that much more clearer. The watchdog's main purpose is to engage with passengers, monitor their issues and understand their experience so it will be best placed to determine where and how to advocate for them. That is that is clear in every clause of this, these chapters of the bill. For that reason, I do not believe that it is necessary to place a statutory purpose of this kind.



































































































































































































































 On the face of the Bill. I move on now to amendment 186. The watchdog's cost efficiency duty in the bill is consistent with the duties of the Secretary of State. The Office of Rail and Road, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and GBR. The revised duty proposed by Noble Lords would achieve the same outcome as existing duty. The watchdog is already will already need to undertake analysis to ensure it is making efficient use of funds when deciding which issues to investigate. This would naturally involve examination of the cost of the investigation, comparative to the likely gains for the passengers and the public.



















































































































































































































 Amendment 186 is therefore duplicative and unnecessary. Amendments 184 A and 204 C , tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would remove the duty to consider cost efficiency from both the passenger watchdog and London Travel Watch. I do not consider this to be appropriate. These bodies need to be focused on resources, their resources on passenger priorities and act in a way that makes effective use of public volume. To be clear, we are suggesting that the watchdog should act efficiently, not that they should prioritise cost over passengers. I cannot understand why we would not want a public body to act efficiently.































































































































































































 Of course, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on amendment 187 by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. Clause 37 requires the passenger watchdog to proactively monitor passenger issues and maintain a good overview of any problems with passengers and station services. It can then use this information to make representations to the Secretary of State and GBR to advocate for passenger improvements. However, some issues may be complex, requiring careful consideration of funding implications and wider priorities for a statutory deadline such as the one in this amendment. Risk prioritising speed over substance and may not may not lead to the best outcomes for passengers.













































































































































































 The result of this amendment would likely be likely to bring about problems which cannot be solved quickly or will never be solved at all. Of course, representation should still be considered and responded to as promptly as possible, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guysborough, that we are working with Transport Focus and the Orer to ensure that will happen. The next amendment of the Noble Lords Amendment 188. Assessing passenger satisfaction is a well established part of transport focused work. It will remain so once it becomes the passenger watchdog, the Rail Customer Experience Survey already provides regular, robust and consistent insight into passenger experiences across the railway.



























































































































































 Transport focus currently assesses the access to the underlying data and conducts its own independent analysis, publishing regular assessments of passenger experience which fulfils the reporting proposal. In this amendment, the passenger watchdog will continue to work once established, but the bill will also give the watchdog oversight of passenger complaints and the power to increase its passenger insight further, which will increase the usefulness of these reports. I therefore think the bill goes a good deal further than this. This proposed amendment with regard to amendments 194 and 195, the watchdog will routinely publish reports of its investigation within a reasonable time frame.











































































































































 However, it is important that it retains some discretion. The watchdog's investigation may uncover issues that need to be kept confidential, for instance, commercially or personal sensitive issues, which requires careful handling. That is why the bill provides watchdog for the watchdog to publish its investigation, but gives it some discretion on about how and when it does so. I do agree that investigations should be published promptly. However, some investigations will naturally be more complex and time consuming than others. In some cases, reports may may benefit from being shared in draft, with time allowed for those impacted to consider improvements and suggestions, the watchdog should be able to determine when and how publication best serves passengers.























































































































 Amendment 202 A from the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would commit the passenger watchdog to publish all its advice to governments, operators and other bodies. The watchdog will be transparent about its advice and representation on behalf of passengers. Nonetheless, a statutory obligation automatically to publish all its advice is not appropriate. This could make some bodies cautious, cautious about consulting the watchdog about early ideas and proposals, and might not deliver the best outcomes for passengers. Moving on to amendment 188 B and 189 to 3 to 193, and amendment 201. A the government's view is that there should be one independent enforcement body for the rail sector, the O RR, the passenger watchdog, will have significant powers to investigate issues require information from GBR to a deadline.































































































 Set mandatory standards for operators in their licence and demand improvement plans from operators. Amendment 188 188 B seeks to amend the watchdog's powers to obtain information during investigations. However, in practice it replicates the broader information gathering powers the watchdog has in the Bill already under clause 37, subsection two, and is therefore unnecessary. Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Evans amendment 189, it is important that enforcement decisions remain within or as the independent regulator , having a single enforcement body for the sector avoids duplication, conflicting decisions and uncertainty for industry. This also provides consistent and fair oversight for all operators.











































































 That is why the O will enforce against GBR and other licence holders to ensure noble lords. Further, however, I will say that we intend to consult on the GBR licensing later in the year and expect our proposals will include a licence condition requiring operators to cooperate with the passenger watchdog. This will ensure license operators will cooperate with the requests from the watchdog. The bill has also been drafted so that concerns identified by the watchdog can often be addressed through constructive engagement and improvement plans, before formal, formal regulatory action becomes necessary. In many cases, that is likely to deliver faster and better outcomes for passengers than immediately escalating every issue to enforcement proceedings.

























































 As required by amendment 190 through to 193. The bill also already contains safeguards to provide transparency on enforcement decisions sought by these amendments. Where the O. RR receives enforce and enforcement referral, it must explain to the Secretary of State and the passenger watchdog what action it has taken, or why it has decided that a different approach to enforcement action is appropriate. Amendment 201 a we expect the watchdog to work closely with the o. RR as compliance issues are identified and as the watchdog takes steps like requesting improvement plans from operators. To address. This memorandum of understanding is being developed between O.



































 RR and the watchdog and will cover how referrals for enforcement actions are to be dealt with ahead of terms. Document for the MOU was published in June and with the final MOU to be published after Royal Assent. I therefore do not feel that the need to do anything further on referrals for enforcement actions in this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, highlights within amendment 333 a, the Transport Select Committee has recommended that the chair of the future passenger watchdog will be added to the list of appointments subject to Pre-appointment scrutiny. The government agrees that the future passenger watchdog must command confidence and be seen to operate in representing passenger interests.

















 The government has considered the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee, and Lord Hendy has written to confirm that he will intend to follow this through with approval from the Cabinet Office. My Lords, these amendments raise important questions about how best to champion passengers interests, and I. It leaves me no more than to say and ask that. I hope that we have covered all the points sufficiently sufficiently that, my noble. That the noble Lords will therefore withdraw their amendments.
18:09
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

My Lords, I'd like to thank everyone for taking part in this debate, which I think has highlighted a number of shortcomings in the legislation at the moment, which we will probably return to in future, I should perhaps complete the the tale I was telling about the London Transport Users Committee because I realised that I didn't complete it when I spoke up last time. It's a discourtesy to leave noble Lords in suspense, and any way. It contains a number of lessons which might be useful for. For the. The Minister and for the Committee, in that our recommendations around the London Transport Users Council were to reduce the size of the board considerably, and in the course of doing that we found we needed a new chair, and the Assembly appointed a man called Brian Cook, who some people here will remember.























































 And one of the first things that he did was actually change the name of the . Of the London Transport Users Committee to London Travelwatch the Committee may be interested to know that that is the origin of those two different names. The reason he chose London Travelwatch was that it reflected the responsibility of that body for road users, as well as for public transport users, and therefore he had very much in mind the concerns. My noble friend Lord Harper, which which he has raised, and perhaps that's something that could be looked at by the chair of the of the the, the transport watchdog when they're appointed.











































I think the second lesson from this, of course, is that the chair of London, Travelwatch, was appointed by a committee of the London Assembly, the scrutiny body, rather than directly by the mayor . And my noble friend Lord Moylan's amendment asks merely for. For effectively a confirmation hearing in front of the Transport Committee, not for full appointment, and I think it is an amendment that is well worth considering and supporting. Very much agreed with the with the noble Baroness, the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Harper, in their support for value. For money to be a part of the terms of reference here, and I am tutted at by by the noble Baroness.































 But I think if. If the organisation wishes to be treated seriously within the industry, it needs to make recommendations which are financially viable, otherwise it will start to look like any of the other campaigning organisations that that we see and that make recommendations which are perhaps less viable. The noble Baroness Jones asked me about the pronunciation of the town in my in my title, and I'm going to I'm I'm I'm just going to well, let everyone know what the correct pronunciation is not, not least because I have six more amendments in the next motion. And I think we can probably do without three different pronunciations.















 It is in fact, Guisborough. The U is silent, but I have heard all three pronunciations in other places, so I hope that's helpful to the committee. But the debate has, I think, exposed a number of shortcomings in the legislation, which we will return to at third reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment number 183.
18:13
18:14
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Yes. Yeah.
18:14
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment hundred and 88 A standing in my name. This is not the first time, I think in the course of the afternoon, that reference has been made to the Transport Select Committee and the other place. And this amendment, too, was inspired by the deliberations of the Transport Select Committee as they sat in consideration on the issues in the Bill. The issue was raised directly in evidence taken by the Transport Committee. Transport for all told, the committee that lived experience of disability needed to have a formal role, a formal role within the new passenger watchdog, and argued for a statutory requirement that disabled for disabled representation on the council.

















































































































 The committee itself subsequently concluded that the bill needed to give its accessibility duties greater teeth, and recommended the passenger Council should exercise its functions in a way that actually improved accessibility across the network. The minister has previously said that the current Transport Focus Board already includes members with direct experience of accessibility issues, and that the government expects that representation to continue. If that's the government's expectation anyway, I struggle to understand the objection to putting a reasonable minimum guarantee in the Bill. I hope the minister will look favourably on my amendment, which requires two places on the council to be reserved for people with those with that experience.































































































 That brings me to the important amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gray Thomson, and and and Lady Brinton. Amendment 198 addresses some of the very practical problems that disabled passengers continue to face, in particular, the provision of passenger assistance during disruption. Amendment 200 similarly probes the availability of sufficiently trained staff at stations to assist disabled passengers. I also think that amendment 204, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, makes an entirely reasonable proposal where the passenger's Council identifies a systematic failure to provide accessible services or infrastructure. It would be able to issue an accessibility improvement notice requiring GBR to rectify that failure within a specified period that seems entirely consistent with the government's stated ambition to create a passenger watchdog with real influence.













































































 The difficulty is that one isn't entirely convinced that the government does intend to create a passenger council with real influence. I turn finally to amendments 198199201202 and 203, tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough, to which I've added my name 198 would require standards to cover the things passengers actually experience every day reliability and cancellation, safety and security, cleanliness, overcrowding and facilities on board, and affordability and value for money. These are the issues that really matter to passengers. If the passenger's council is intended to be their champion, why should these matters not be clearly stated in the Bill?





























































 Amendment 199 concerns the requirement for the Council to obtain the consent before setting or revoking or varying standards. If the government trusts the council to represent passengers, why does another organisation need a veto over the standards it sets? Amendments 201 and 202. Under the bill, the passenger's council can identify a contravention, demand an improvement plan and ultimately refer matters to the Orer. But it cannot itself enforce that improvement plan. The government says that they are creating a powerful passenger watchdog, but without enforcement powers, there is a risk of creating a watchdog with no teeth. The government's answer in the other place to these amendments was that there should be one clear enforcement body.







































 And indeed, at the end of the last debate, that was the message that the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, was broadcasting. But why? Why should there be one clear enforcement body who actually benefits from that? Having one clear enforcement body simply makes what might be called regulatory capture more attractive to Great British Railways. What is the. What is the drawback in having two enforcement bodies? After all, there are other bodies outside the architecture of this bill which can enforce their decisions on great strength. The police is one of them. Another is the courts. And if a decision in the courts went against Great British Railways, I'd expect them to comply with it.













 And there will be mechanisms for enforcing it. So in the broader architecture of society, Great British Railways is not subject to one enforcement body, but to a number. And why shouldn't the passengers Council, with its particular remit, have those enforcement powers? If the government means it to be a serious body? My Lords, I beg to move.
18:20
18:20
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

My Lords, I've got a few amendments in this in this group as well. I strongly oppose clause 46 because it's a central part of how the Bill deregulates passenger and accessibility related duties, moving all responsibility away from the much stronger regulator, the RR, to the weak passenger Council, which, as previously discussed, is little more than the existing transport focus or whatever. The first issue is the way this works within the internal mechanics of the bill. It's complicated but vital that this two step deregulation is spelt out on the record. Firstly, all forms of licensing are deregulated because they no longer need to have regard to the general duties.















































































































































 And next, the role of standard setting has moved away from the RR to the passengers Council, which is not itself subject to the general duties. Clearly this is all severs, all links between the general duties and the standard setting. And then of course, the RR is the much stronger regulator. And so there's a significant safety dimension here to, especially when it comes to accessibility, which has many crucial links to safety and operations. The RR has years of institutional knowledge and a much superior perspective on how this system fits together. So even if it could be justified to move consumer rights and passenger standard related issues away from the RR to the council, it could never be justified to sever this link between accessibility and rail operations.





























































































































 If anything, accessibility needs to be treated with the same seriousness as safety from a regulatory. The same point about safety should be made even more strongly about monitoring and enforcement. Under current legislation, serious issues such as license breaches are dealt with by the RR, meaning they get the oversight of the regulator. Most expert in safety and operations. According to this bill, such issues can now be dealt with by the council alone. A body with a much weaker negotiating position under an overarching duty of cost efficiency, and much less knowledgeable about how the operational aspects of the railway fit together.









































































































 The watchdog's only recourse where an operator fails to comply, would be to refer the matter to the RR without any standards or timescales for this referral. It creates scope for operators to delay, obstruct or exploit a non-enforcement stage before the RR can become involved, potentially more than doubling the time scales and meaning that later enforcement action would take place according to much weaker standards. For these reasons, amendment 190 from Lord Evans of Guisborough is important because it would make sure that referrals are always made to the RR. While his amendments 191 and 192, require that the RR always acts on these referrals, my amendments 201 A and 202 B.



























































































 My amendment 201 A adds to this approach with a backstop to ensure that any serious issues or licence breaches relating to rail operations, safety or accessibility are always directly referred to the RR and never diverted down the much weaker route of the passenger's council. And 202 B addresses the main weakness in clause 49, in which GBR must consult the passenger's council when it appears to GBR that the changes will significantly affect the affect the interests of the public. This is clearly a subjective standard, and this. This amendment makes it an objective standard. When the change would reasonably be expected to have a significant effect.











































































 On this note, I'm strongly in favour of noble Lady Baroness Pigeon's Amendment 209, the wording of which also removes this subjective standard while ensuring that the London Transport Users Committee is also a statutory consultee when it comes to services operating within the London area. 330JA concerns the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. This is a very credible and active statutory body, which is an adviser to the Secretary of State on rail policy matters and as I understand it, it was previously thought to be given that role in rail policy would be expanded to GBR, and this was included in the Conservative's draft rail reform bill in 2014.































































 So they did something right. I suppose the alternative would be to greatly reduce its statutory role in policy, since most decisions relating to rail policy and operations, and many of the strategy functions currently held by the DFT will move to GBR. Hence my amendment. 330JA amends the Transport Act 1985, which originally established the role of Dytac. It mirrors exactly the amendment that was previously used in the Conservative's draft bill. Instead, the bill has no requirement for disability related advice or the participation of disabled people. Extending the role of Dytac is really the minimum that should be done.









































 The committee already exists and is well thought of, so extending its statutory role in this way would be minimal cost and change. And if any explanation exists to justify this deregulation, I'd really like to hear it. In the previous group I did mention my amendment 204 A, which I shouldn't have done. I'm sorry about that, but it is a crucial amendment . Solving another major issue with the passengers Council. The fact that there is no link to real life passengers whatsoever. Public engagement and consultation is not only necessary for the fairness and openness with the public and disabled people, it's also one of the most valuable possible forms of input for the benefit of the council itself.



















 Passengers and campaigners are crying out for a proper system of engagement, and this would finally establish a much needed link with what passengers are actually experiencing and their priorities for change. And with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who is more expert than the people using the network every single day, this amendment introduces a new clause that would require the passengers Council to establish arrangements for the input of passengers, ensuring they can contribute to its work programmes, priorities and input on national policies, and receive transparent information about its activities and the outcomes of its work, and also prioritise arrangements for engagement with disabled people and their organisations, as well as other groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.





 I'd like a fair world, and what I'm trying to do with with my amendments is to create a fair bill.
18:27
None Portrait Speaker 18
-

My Lords, I have amendment 200 in this group, and I've also. It's also signed by Lady Gray Thompson and my noble friend Lady Pigeon, which is a probing amendment to try and provide a mechanism to ensure that disabled passengers are not left stuck on a platform or, worse, a train because there aren't sufficient staff to assist disabled passengers on and off trains and on some occasions, to help them get on and off the station. To more detail on that in the next group. But that's where this amendment comes from. This amendment also mentions access to ticketing information.





















































































 Other facilities, especially accessible toilets. It's specifically identifies the monitoring of compliance with the service for disabled people with the passenger Council, which is why it's in this group. And I thank Lady Jones of Mosul for recognising that putting accessibility on the same footing as safety is really important, and I'm interested in her amendment 330 J, which makes Dip Tack, an official adviser to the Passenger Council. My Lords, I know that both Lady Grey-thompson and. And Lord Holmes and I talk about coproduction frequently, but co-production with disabled people before policy is formulated is absolutely vital. And someone who's never had to rely on the services for people with reduced mobility, known in the trade as PMR, will often not understand how precarious travel can be for a disabled person.































































 Lady Grey-thompson and I have recounted our own experiences in this and other bills. The easiest way to describe what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assist that goes wrong because of a failure of staff, either on the platform or on the train, is that , firstly, you lose all your independence. Secondly, you have to try and find someone to help you. And people may not know what to do or worse, just won't. I live in Watford and the train from Euston to Watford Junction is often full of visitors to the Warner Brothers Studios.















































 It's transformed my home town, which is lovely, but many of the visitors don't speak English. And if you're sitting with the doors open but about to close and no sign of any staff member with a ramp wondering whether I'm going to get off at Hemel Hempstead or possibly even Milton Keynes because I can't even find the easily to let them know I'm stuck on the train. The problem, my Lords, is that staffing can be patchy. And that's a real issue. Some stations no longer have any staff at all, and some larger stations end up without their full complement of staff.





























And frankly, that's often when things start to go wrong. But I want to emphasize for me, this is rare. And when we move to the next group and I talk about the percentage of assistance that works, which is really important, I want to thank the thousands of staff at every station and on every train, who give a smooth and friendly service to disabled people, enabling us to get from A to B. That's not what this amendment is about. This amendment is ensuring that when planning for staffing, the needs of assistance are taken into account. My Lords, I've been left on a train twice at Kings Cross at around midnight on a Sunday when staff dashed off and there were no accessibility staff left on the station, no answer from the Kings Cross or the assistant's number.











 What do you do then? You call 111? Possibly. Well, no. I have an answer to this. I'm lady Jones gets ahead of me.
18:31
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Call a Paralympian.
18:31
None Portrait Speaker 18
-

All a Paralympian is the answer I tweeted. What do I do now? By this time it was about 12:30. It's an interesting question, but there we go. My answer is you need a lady Grey Thompson, who reads her Twitter at half past midnight on Friday night because she knew the CEO of lNer. She rang him, poor man, and he called someone. He found someone. I could not have seen them from the train. Wow. But in the half an hour before that happened, I wondered how long it would be before the cleaners arrived for the early shift, or the train driver arrived to take the train out.







































































 I literally did not know what I could do. Nowadays, on some lines, there are never any conductors on the train or staff on the train, on the station because they just. And if they don't have level boarding access either, that means wheelchair users are reliant. Believe this or not, on staff travelling from other stations when they are free to do so. This can cause delays. There was a by election nearly a decade ago in Lewisham, and might have travelled a few times down to help. Chesham has an accessible toilet on its station, which is wonderful, but the door is locked.



















































 It's not even locked with the standard radar key. That's because, apparently it had been used for people to trade in drugs, but no staff. So if you either need to get hold of the key to use the toilet while waiting for a train, or you want staff to put you on a train, you have to call Hither Green, who finds the staff manager, who finds who might be the next member of staff, who could possibly jump on the next train to go from Hither Green to Lewisham, and then they'll put the ramp down for you and off you go.







































In my case, back towards Charing Cross. That is not a turn up and go service. It's not even a booked service. It just ruins your working life. I could never, ever live near that station because I would never know when I could get to and from work. I also signed Lord Holmes of Richmond's Amendment 204 that sets out accessibility. Notice where there are systemic failures to deliver good PMS PMR service. Now, I'm not talking about that in my amendment. So far, I've talked about staffing also being a deal breaker, but I support his amendment completely.





















 Now, I admire this government, and specifically Lord Hendy, for having strong aspirations for Great British Railways to offer an excellent service to all passengers. Passengers who need assistance should also be considered at all times. So can I ask the Minister if she wants to resist this amendment? What guarantees can be given to ensure that when staffing is considered at whatever level that will happen under Great British Railways, the service for passengers who needs assistance will be part of the calculation and that the passenger council should monitor that performance. I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
18:34
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

Yeah.
18:34
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

My Lords.
18:34
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

I rise.
18:34
18:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Yes,
18:36
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Unacceptable, but still occurs. My Lords 204 talks about accessibility improvement notices where systemic accessibility failures occur. We're talking the infrastructure, we're talking the kit. We're looking at this through the lens of experience, the experience of disabled passengers, or one might say those who would really like to be disabled passengers if they got a chance to get onto the transport itself. There has to be an ability to make change through this bill in the form of improvement notices. So things don't just continue. Don't just get reported upon. Lessons will be learned. Change will happen. Well, let's have improvement notices to not just suggest, but to ensure that that change does occur because travel by train for disabled people all too often isn't a luxury.





































 It's a necessity for leisure, for pleasure, for appointments. Critically work. And there's more than a correlation. There's all too often causation between the employment levels of disabled people and the accessibility of public transport. Tragically still in this country, we don't have public transport, we have transport, which is accessible to some of the public. Some of the time, public transport must be accessible by all, inclusive by design, a measure of the distance to travel well. The employment rate for non-disabled people in the UK is 83%. For disabled people, it's 41% for those of us who are blind and partially sighted, it's 27%.











 That's almost three quarters of blind and partially sighted people of working age, not in work. Inaccessible public transport is part of that problem. This bill needs to be part of the solution. I look forward to the minister's response.
18:39
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Here.
18:39
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

My Lords, I'd like to speak briefly to the amendments that I've tabled in this in this section. I'm not going to say a great deal, because my noble friend, Lord Moylan, has actually explained the purposes of the amendments very clearly. And the noble Baroness, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb actually the. Points home very clearly when it comes to the the independence and the strength that we want the passenger watchdog to have. I would like to say something in. In support of Baroness Brinton on disabled access, because she brings to us some some valuable experience of her own here, but I.

















































 I think it's worth the committee being aware that it's not just a problem on the worst railway lines. It's. It's potentially a problem everywhere. I regularly use the Elizabeth line, which is an excellent line. Most of the stations are accessible for people with disabilities. All of them have lifts most of the stations. The gap between the train and the platform is taken care of except for on the branch, which leads out to to Shenfield, because that's a place where the platforms are historically lower and TfL staff are normally in place to help passengers in wheelchairs off the trains.

































 I was on the service a couple of weeks ago when they weren't there, and a passenger in a wheelchair was effectively trapped aboard the train at Romford and would have gone to to Shenfield at the end of the line. But for one of the very quick thinking, other passengers who actually pulled the emergency handler made the train stop at the station until a member of staff came up and provided the ramp. Now, now, that, of course, was an entirely justifiable thing to do, but it delayed the train for everyone else and impacted the rest of the line's services.





















 So disabled access is not just important for disabled people. It's important for everybody. And I know how the the noble minister, Lord Hendy, took this incredibly seriously when he was the Commissioner for Transport in London . Buses which didn't have disabled access ramps working, were not actually allowed out of the depot to provide the service. If they couldn't demonstrate they had that facility. And I suspect that the noble Lord, if he travels on London Underground these days, must be disappointed to see and embarrassed really to see the state in which some of our underground trains are allowed out of the depot in these days, so I very much support support Baroness Brinton's amendments, and I hope the committee will consider supporting mine.
18:42
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

Lord, I'd like to rise very briefly in support all the speakers who've moved these amendments and talked about the problems of accessibility, perhaps led by Baroness Brinton. But it's a it's a it's a it's been really an eye opener because we're trying to adapt a Victorian railway or as much of its Victorian. Apart from the Elizabeth Line, the noble Lord has said. But to what we're. What we want to expect, aim to get. And I mean, when I go to my little station in Cornwall, there's so many people who can't lift their luggage over the.

















































 Over the bridge. Are they going to build a footbridge? Well, sometime. And last time I heard somebody ask for a left over the bridge, the person in the booking office and there was somebody there said, well, I can't do it because I've got a bad back. Which is fair enough. But I think the problem we've got is we. There are many footbridges and other things which need to be either to have lifts added or whatever, but we've also got to make sure that what we do have works. As many noble lords have said, it's fine going to a toilet in a station and finding it's out of order.

























 It's fine when the train gets cancelled, and there's been many of them recently and it's just generally uncertain uncertainty, which I which I really worry about because I think putting it right, getting the right number of staff in these different places, as well as improving the infrastructure like bridges or whatever, whatever they want, is something that we should be doing, but it's going to cost us money. It's cost the taxpayer a lot of money. And I think that's fair enough because it does need doing. But we can't always have our cake and eat it. So I but I hope we can go on and continue to improve services and the availability of staff which enabled the Lords have said is absolutely fundamental.







 Give some certainty to those who need help during across the journey. In the meantime, let's have a few more footbridges as well.
18:45
18:45
None Portrait Speaker 20
-

But that doesn't mean there should be an excuse for poor service. Now, the four examples enumerated in 46, two of the bill, I think, can be viewed through the lens for the convenience of the state of the operator, the effective administration of the ticketing and the transaction. It's incomplete. Now, competition is a device that should be used to improve service, but instead, this bill provides for the dead hand of the state and the provision of a monopoly operator in this nation, and that's to be regretted. I particularly regret that it could see the end of the Grand Central Service from King's Cross to Sunderland, one I use frequently.































 It's direct, it's much better value and it's quicker, but it's all to be swept away. And I think it's a shame that this Railways bill takes us backward in the terms of service. I welcome the focus provided by the amendment one nine, eight and the additional three paragraphs that are proposed in that amendment, which bring service for passenger experience and comfort, rather than the bill as laid through the lens of the operator that Lord Evans and Lord Moylan bring it through the lens of the customer. Comfort, the lack of overcrowding, the speed of the internet and the cleanliness of the toilets.

















 These are things that really improve the experience. The provision of a first class service, not a third one. So these things are laid out in paragraph three, should absolutely be within scope, and I hope the ministerial team will adopt them, because if they want to be seen on the side of passengers who pay the fares, rather than for the administrative convenience of the state, then they need to be seen to be on the side of all of us, people who pay the fares, not just the government.

 I commend this amendment to you all.
18:47
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

And my Lords, I wanted to speak to four aspects of the amendments in this group. The first one is amendment 188 a in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. And I think I can be very brief on this one, which is. It makes the point very clearly that there should be at least some members of the Passenger's Council who have lived. Experience of being disabled people, and I think both Lord Holmes and Baroness Brinton set out very powerfully why that is important, and I don't think I can put the case better than they did, but I strongly support that.







































 The Second Amendment I support is I support the principle of. It is amendment 200, which is the one about minimum staffing. Now, the point I wanted to make here is that the amendment, as drafted very sensibly, sets out the things that you want the staff to do. And it was one of the things that and I and I regret this didn't happen in the end. It was one of the ideas that was behind the proposal to get staff out of ticket offices and into the station, partly to assist disabled passengers and those that required more support to do their journeys, rather than sitting in a ticket office, where in many stations, very few people purchase tickets, paper tickets anymore.





















 The vast majority of tickets are purchased online and in a in a railway which does not have infinite resources. And you have staff. I want the staff to be deployed in the best way that they can to serve customers, and I think that the. Let me just finish the point, and I can see Baroness Brinton wants to intervene. And so actually, I think her. Her amendment here, which sets out. There are some services that need to be delivered at a station, I think is very sensible. And then it leaves the service provider the flexibility to work out where the staff need to go to deliver those services, rather than prescribing where they sit and what job they do.



And I think it's therefore worthy of support. And of course, I will take her comment.
18:50
18:50
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

No, I take that point. The point was though, it wasn't to remove staff from the ability to sell tickets, it was to enable staff to be more flexibly deployed. So, for example, one of the things staff would have done is been able to do exactly that transaction. What they wouldn't have had to do was sit in a specific place, unable to interact with passengers. And but I absolutely accept her point that some some people still either prefer which is their absolute right, or have to. In the cases that she set out, purchase a physical ticket and we should make sure they're able to do so.





















































































































 But but in many stations, you literally have staff who sit there for an entire shift interacting with almost nobody, which frankly isn't a very good job either. It's not a very satisfying job. And I just think they could be better deployed. And her amendment sets out actually how you could better deploy staff to serve particularly disabled passengers. And I think it's therefore worthy of support amendment 204 in the names of both my noble friend Lord Holmes and Baroness Brinton about accessibility improvement notices, I'm not sure whether that is the particular correct solution, but I support the thrust of the amendment because I've sat in now a number of debates, both on this bill, but on other occasions where I have completely seen the frustration that lots of things are set out as objectives, but they don't happen in practice.



































































































 And the real challenge is, and this is not just a challenge for passengers, but it's also a challenge for ministers and operators. How do you make sure that the things that are required, that are responsibilities of these operators are actually delivered in practice, because lots of these things are delivered in theory. But as both of my noble friends, I think Baroness Brinton, one of my noble friends on this occasion set out. They don't always happen in practice, and they. And getting them fixed shouldn't depend on Baroness Grey-thompson having the telephone number of the person in charge of an operator.



















































































 It's a very effective solution, I think, but that shouldn't be the way that we make sure these services are delivered. And so I think having the ability of the passengers council where it finds there's a systematic failure. So not just a failure of a specific circumstance, but a systematic failure means there's not the staffing, there aren't the policies, there aren't the processes to deliver this. I think being able to direct that something happens as a result is very valuable. The final thing, which is one of those relatively rare occasions where I can be in agreement with my with Baroness Jones of Molluscum is the excellent amendment she's tabled 330JA which I can't really fail to agree with, since it broadly replicates what was in the draft rail reform bill, which I was responsible for, which doesn't go as far as our draft bill, but it does half of it.

































































So it does one very important thing, which is to, as she said, make the Disabled Persons Travel Advisory Committee, not just a statutory adviser to the Secretary of State. And I should say, in passing, I found the work they did extremely helpful, both providing direct advice, but also the work that they and their chair did in the department in ensuring that parts of the department were listening properly to the experience of disabled people, and reflecting that in the policy and operations of the department. So her amendment makes the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee an adviser to GBR as well as the Secretary of State.























































 I clearly thought that was the right thing to do. It was in the the draft legislation that I was responsible for. I think it's the right decision. I would be interested to understand the reason why, given it was in the draft legislation in the first place, that we were responsible, I'd be interested to know why, effectively somebody has decided to take it out and why they don't think that's helpful. And I would genuinely say to to ministers, having the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee providing that advice to GBR will actually be helpful to GBR in making sure that it delivers a better service for disabled people, but also helpful for ministers, because that will stop ministers effectively having to be the conduit.



































 Because what will happen now is that that advice will be provided by the Transport Advisory Committee to ministers, and the ministers will end up having to issue directions to GBR. It would be much better if if the Transport Advisory Committee could just advise GBR directly. The second thing that isn't in Lady Jones's amendment was was the draft bill I was responsible for. It also had collaborative enforcement, which specifically gave the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee the ability to work alongside the passenger watchdog to safeguard the rights and interests of disabled rail passengers and directly influence GBR licensing agreement and accessibility standards.





















So actually, it would perhaps have either been an alternative to the amendment put forward by Lord Holmes and Baroness Brinton as a mechanism, or perhaps an adjunct to it. But it would have meant that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee could have taken evidence and listened to some of that first hand testimony from disabled passengers who had poor experience, and then they would have had a a direct role in working with the passenger watchdog Transport Focus in actually the licensing conditions that GBR had. And I think that would have been very helpful. And again, I would like to hear why ministers decided that that aspect of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which was in the draft bill, that I was responsible for, why they decided to take that out as well.



 And I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
18:57
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

My Lords, many amendments in this group are really just trying to tease out the different responsibilities of the order versus the passenger's Council and what what should sit where. I want to endorse my noble friend Lady Brinton's probing amendment, which I've added my name to which my noble friend has set out so clearly and passionately, and given real examples of why staff are needed so that disabled passengers can have the same service we all expect. We all expect to be able to turn up and get on a train and be able to travel somewhere, and so should disabled passengers.





































 And it's really, really important that we hear that as we consider this legislation. Lord Holmes of Richmond's Amendment 204, also signed by my noble friend Baroness Brinton, requiring an accessibility improvement notice to be issued by the Passenger's Council in response to systemic failure in accessible services or infrastructure. I think this is a really interesting proposal, and it certainly would focus minds and efforts in this space. Lord Moylan's amendment 188 A, also supported by the Transport Select Committee, is, of course, something we should support to board members who are disabled people with that lived experience they can bring to the board.





















And of course, the board must be representative of different types of passengers to ensure that breadth of thought. And I would have thought any Secretary of State would want to ensure the board is diverse. Amendment 300 and 30JA from Baroness Jones about diptych advising Great British Railways as well as Secretary of State. Obviously we have lots of former secretaries of states in the room as we debate legislation. It's interesting to hear about draft legislation. What was in that and what hasn't materialized. So that will be interesting to hear from the minister. And I also just want to clarify amendment 209, which is in my name, which was mentioned earlier.





 We debated that in an earlier group on London Travelwatch, which is why it's not sitting in this group now. I look forward to hearing from the minister on these points.
18:59
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Neil.
18:59
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

I've spoken. To.
18:59
18:59
18:59
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

These amendments concern the passenger watchdogs role in setting standards and improving accessibility outcomes for passengers. I will begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsham, probing that the clause 46 stands part of the Bill. As set out in the previous group, the ORR will remain the sector's independent enforcement body, but the watchdog will take an important responsibility for setting and monitoring minimum consumer standards. These standards will be included as mandatory licence conditions for all operators, including GP R and the O, R, R will enforce them. The clause also sets out the standards what the standards may cover, including, for example, passenger assistance, provision of travel information, the process for compensation if services are delayed or disrupted, and complaints about passenger services.





























































































































































































































 This is not an exhaustive list, just an indicative one. The watchdog can set standards across any aspect of passenger experience. The watchdog must seek the Secretary of State and our consent before setting new standards, varying or revoking existing ones. The standards and any variation must be published, and watchdog must monitor how operation operators are complying with them. Consumer standards in operated licence are currently set and monitored by the ORR. We want the watchdog to take over this function to ensure most consumer functions sit in one body. Our passenger champion, which can monitor the outcomes. Passengers are seen and use this intelligence to drive up standards, advocate for improvements for passengers and uphold the operators and make them accountable in a meaningful way.



































































































































































































 To be clear, we are creating a body that is able to see real life experience of passengers and translate this into real action to ensure operators make improvements where needed. The ability to set standards is a key part of this. The drafting of clause 46 allows the watchdog to develop standards covering areas of passenger experience. The list in subsection two, as I said, is not exhaustive and does not prevent additional standards relating to passenger experience from being developed in future. Therefore, amendment 198 makes no practical difference to the watchdog's powers. Our proposal is for the passenger watchdog to focus on passenger experience, whereas some of the areas for standard proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, are more appropriately overseen by specialist bodies such as the ORR, for example, safety should be overseen by the ORR as the safety expert, although the watchdog could have a role in.













































































































































































 With respect to passenger security and personal safety. Next one amendment 199. Because of the. The ORR remains responsible for enforcement. It is important that it is satisfied that the standards are clear, proportionate and enforceable before they take a bite. Take binding effect. This arrangement reflects the separate but complementary role we envision for the two bodies, with the watchdog setting and monitoring standards as passenger champions and the O r acting as the independent and impartial enforcer. Amendment 200, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Brinton, raises the important issue of accessibility and station staffing. I would like to thank her for sharing her experiences and others, because this is something this government takes very seriously indeed.



















































































































































 As was discussed in earlier in an earlier debate, well-trained staff play a crucial role in delivering an accessible railway and providing confidence to passengers who require assistance. That is why we are already taking action to improve staffing outside of the bill. Next month, we are launching a single industry training framework for passenger assistants across the rail network, shaped by frontline staff, operational experience and customer customer needs. It will drive greater consistency, reduce failed assistance, strengthen handovers between operators and building. Build self confidence, giving disabled passengers a more reliable, joined up and inclusive journey. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that it is already possible for the watchdog to develop accessibility standards, including on staff levels or the quality of training, if this is deemed necessary and appropriate through consultation.



























































































































 But the watchdog will have those powers to set standards and ensure that they are , are met by and even by any means necessary, which includes enforcement by putting it forward through to the ORR, but it also allows that dialogue to take place so that rail operators can put measures in place quickly and effectively. But if they don't, they can then escalate it to the O. RR. The bill ensures that this. This ensures this because it specifically enables the watchdog, as I said, to set standards which help passengers who need assistance. If it did create such a standard, it would then monitor compliance with it and the O.











































































































 RR would enforce any failures to comply. I hope this reassures noble Baroness that the Bill is set up to enable precisely the kind of improvement she is suggesting. On a related point, it is not necessary to provide the watchdog with additional powers such as accessibility Notice or civil penalties, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes in Amendment 204. There is already a clear enforcement route in the bill that should achieve the Noble Lords aims. The watchdog will set accessibility standards and hold operators to account for meeting these standards . Where it finds any failures, it will require operators to an improvement plan setting out how these failures will be addressed.



























































































 If operator does not produce a plan or does not follow the steps in it, the watchdog will refer the operator to the ORR for enforcement action. The ORR has the all the usual enforcement powers available to it, including mandatory directions requiring operators to take specific actions. This approach preserves the watchdogs role as a passenger champion while ensuring there remains a single independent enforcement. It also recognises that direct engagement and improvement plans will often secure improvements more quickly than formal enforcement proceedings. With regard with respect to amendment 188 A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.









































































 Transport Focus Board is already comprised of eight members, two of whom have direct experience of accessibility issues. One has lived experience as a disabled passenger, the other is the chair of the National Center for Accessible Transport and the former chair of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. This will remain the same as Transport Focus transforms into the watchdog. The Secretary of State is also accessibility duties in clause 18 of the Bill, which will apply when making future decisions relating to board appointments for the watchdog. This will ensure that the future composition of the board continues to be suitably representative of disabled passengers.

























































 While we are not directly mandating mandating specific disabled representation in legislation, I want to be very clear that this government is committed to continuing the strong disabled representation that already exists on the transport focused board. Disabled voices will be central to the watchdog's work and set, and setting a specific quota in statute is not necessary to achieve this. Amendment. 300 and 30JA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones requires the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee to act, to act as the statutory adviser to GBR boards. This same proposal was explored by the Transport Select Committee during its scrutiny of the bill.









































 When asked why the bill does not give tack a formal advisory role to GBR, Dick Tack highlighted that their purpose has always been that of an expert adviser to the Secretary of State on accessibility across all transport modes. Deep tech endorsed the endorsed the government's decision for it to retain this remit, noting that the passenger watchdog will be better placed to act as the day to day passenger champion while Deep Tech continues its broader strategic role, advising the Secretary of state, the watchdog will be in a unique position to monitor the day to day experience of disabled passengers and identify barriers facing them on our railways.





























 It will also have the connection and structures to engage directly with passengers and groups representing them, ensuring their voice voices are never ignored when it comes to accessibility on our railway. Deep tech, meanwhile, will continue to play a vital role. It has a 40 year record of advising on accessible transport infrastructure. Nothing in this bill will change that. The Secretary of State values deep tax advice as much as ever, and its members will continue to be critical influencers as we develop GBR. There are advantages in maintaining these distinct roles. There may be times when the Secretary of State wants advice from deep tech on GBR actions.





 This may not be appropriate if Deep Tech were advising them both as proposed by this amendment. Turning next to amendments.
19:10
19:12
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Here, here.
19:12
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Well.
19:12
19:12
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

No, no.
19:12
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

And I gave a very good example in what I said earlier regarding that matter. I will reiterate that we intend to consult with GBR licenses later on in the year and expect . Our proposals will include a licence condition requiring operators to cooperate with the passenger watchdog. This will ensure that the RR can take enforcement actions if other licensed operators. Oh, sorry. Let me just step back a minute, because I don't want to be accused of missing any of the the amendments. So I'm referring to amendments 201, 202, 203 and 341, which I thank the noble Lord Evans for placing them.







































































 Many of these amendments return to the issue that we debated in the previous group, and the government's view is that the railways should continue to have a single independent enforcement body. I'll continue with my next point, which is that we will ensure that RR can take enforcement actions if GBR and other licence operators do not cooperate with requests from the watchdog, including requests for improvement plans , making amendment 201 and unnecessary. The next two amendments concern GBR consultation of the watchdog. They are amendments 202 be tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and amendments 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough.























































 The intent of these amendments is already achieved, as the Bill already ensures that GBR will consult the passenger watchdog on all significant passenger matters. Under the paragraph four of schedule two, GBR will set out its proposed activities over a five year period via its business plan and will consult the watchdog during its development. In addition, clause 49 puts a requirement on GBR to consult the watchdog when developing policy and procedures affecting passengers. Subsection two gives an indication of of the activities GBR should consult the watchdog on, but this, once again is not an exhaustive list.









































 There is a catch all provision at the end of this subsection, covering all matters impacting on passengers. I will conclude by addressing amendment 204, A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This bill includes a requirement for the passenger watchdog to keep passenger matters under review at clause 37. In order to do this, they will need to ensure that there is wide engagement, including with passengers and passenger bodies. Transport focus already has arrangements to consult and engage with passengers, including rail customers. Experience surveys, which is based on a large scale research directly with passengers.























 We expect these arrangements to continue and be strengthened further as transport focus becomes the passenger watchdog, such as through its oversight of complaints and disputes. And while I sort of bring to my recollection, Baroness Jones, you was talking about you mentioned about deregulation. So I just want to absolutely confirm that there is also no deregulation of consumer rights or weaknesses of enforcement under this bill, compliance with consumer standards, such as provision of passenger information or minimum accessibility requirements, will continue to be a requirement in train operators licenses and will remain enforceable through our as they are today.









 This will apply to GBR and to all other operators. What will change is that the passenger watchdog, as the new champions for passenger interests, will become responsible for setting up and updating these consumer standards rather than the. So I hope that the noble Lords have put through amendments will see fit to withdraw them.
19:17
19:17
19:18
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Moved.
19:18
19:20
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Not moved moved.
19:20
19:20
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

My Lords, amendment 198 a in the name of Lady Grey Thompson, and which I have signed, is the first in this large group of 25 amendments submitted by Lady Grey Thompson, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and myself, and they often tackle overlapping issues, so I don't think it will take Grand Committee very long to work out that these amendments are all about improving the experience of passengers who need assistance on trains and stations. Unfortunately, my Lords, Lady Grey Thompson is unwell and has asked me to lead on her amendments in her absence. I hope colleagues will join me in wishing her a very speedy recovery here.













































































































































































































































































































































 I also want to thank the Minister and his officials for the meeting that we had last week or the week before. I lose track of time in this bill and also for the conversation that we wouldn't meet about this specific group, but perhaps we would do that between committee and report stage, and I'm very grateful to him for that suggestion. I think it's helpful, given how many amendments there are here, and if Noble Lords will allow me, I would like to use Lady Grey Thompson's excellent amendment 198 A, which summarizes most of the issues that she.

































































































































































































































































































































 Lord Holmes and I would like the government to consider through amendments in this group. So. In the last group, I raised the issue of an effective and properly staffed service for people with mobility reductions, not all of them disabled, by the way. And I say that because we have to recognise with our changing demographic, there will be elderly people who would not describe themselves as disabled, but a member 198 A specifies nine different areas that need addressing, and I'll use Lady Grey Thompson's notes to guide us through them and the amendments. In this group, the first areas are easy to access stations, platforms and trains.



















































































































































































































































































































 So starting with level boarding, Tyne and Wear, Greater Anglia and Merseyrail have really started to move towards level boarding, which is encouraging. I've used level boarding and exiting at Saint Pancras on Greater Anglia and Heathrow on the Heathrow Express, and it's just transformative for a wheelchair user as it makes you completely independent, but not if it only works for part of your journey. And in the last group, Lord Evans of Guisborough talked about good lines and bad lines. The difficulty is that when one bit of your journey goes, it doesn't matter whether it's a good line or a bad line, your day becomes a bad day.



































































































































































































































































































 Exactly right. A disabled passenger only needs one element of the journey to go wrong, to lose their independence and frankly, often their confidence. That's me also speaking personally, we know that over the last decade, a number of train companies have bought new rolling stock that will require ramps on those lines for many years to come. I think it was Lady Grey-thompson about 4 or 5 years ago who said that when she and I first came into this house almost within weeks of each other in 2011, the target for level boarding was in the late 2020s or possibly early 2030s.























































































































































































































































































 But much of this decade's new rolling stock isn't suitable for level boarding, and it will have a working lifespan of probably about 30 to 40 years based on previous ones. So our grandchildren will be approaching old age before there is universal level boarding across the UK. That, my Lords, is ridiculous. I hope that one of the aspirations of GBR is that we move away from the idea of each area having completely different rolling stock. That means level boarding is impossible. Instead, level boarding should be a goal for all trains, which in turn will reduce the need for some staffing.







































































































































































































































































 And by the way, it will also reduce lawsuits when passengers end up stranded and no help. Even better, a smooth level service will encourage more disabled people to use the trains even more regularly. And frankly, given what Lord Holmes said in the last group, will open opportunities for them to have regular employment as well. Many don't do that now because of the risks of problematic journeys, so more passengers will bring good economic benefits to to GBR. Shockingly, new stations are still being opened at the moment that are not accessible because they are not step free.























































































































































































































































 The data is very depressing. Up to 1001 stations, that's 39% are not listed as fully step free. This is not acceptable and needs to change fast. Looking at the type of station, as you would expect, category A national hubs are 100% step free. Category B regional interchange are 97% step free, category C 80% free. But categories D, E, and F are all between 54 and 57%. And finally, interestingly, small unstaffed category F stations are 60% step free. So increase on the previous groupings. And my Lords, there are also variations by region. Can the Minister say what are the government's plans to improve the number of step free stations and regularise issues over regions?





























































































































































































































 My Lords, lifts at stations are also a really thorny issue. Even if the station has lifts, reliability has plummeted in the last decade. As I know the noble Lord. The minister is well aware because he has heard this from a number of us on a regular basis. The key data is that 57% of lift faults are due to wear and tear, and when spare parts are needed, the lifts can be out of order for months on end. Because the lift suppliers are not based in the UK, Saint Pancras is a regular case in point, but I get ahead of myself.













































































































































































































 GBR must ensure that there is a proper assessment of lift life and that built lift repairs and replacements into regular maintenance and not wait for things to go wrong. That really doesn't happen consistently at the moment, and far too many lifts are failing repeatedly and then out of service. A spare parts have to be made abroad for Thameslink. Lifts at Saint Pancras have been a nightmare for years. The consequence of them not working is as follows. You have to stay on the train. You get off at Farringdon, assuming their lifts work, assistant staff will help you leave the rail station.

























































































































































































 You cross the road, go into Farringdon Underground station, get a lift down to the platform, wait for assistance to join you to get you on the tube, which takes you back to Saint Pancras. I am not alone in having nearly missed a connecting train because of this nonsense. We can all tolerate the occasional problem, but this is so frequent that the service is now unreliable and I try to avoid it. In my home town of Watford, all the lifts had to be replaced recently. That's within the last five years. Each of them took well. They did them in pairs, took the best part of a year with absolute chaos.









































































































































































 Last year, the new two year old lift on the island platform had a major part fail for three months. My Lords, that lift was out. So instead of commuting home late at night after leaving Your Lordship's house on a 20 minute journey from Houston, I faced either an overground. That took well over 55 minutes. But at that hour of the night, there weren't many of them or trains that had to be diverted to the down line, causing chaos to the scheduled services. And believe me, they did not shy away from voicing it. Irritation to fellow passengers.

























































































































































 And they're cross with me. They weren't cross with the network. The UK rail network has 1403 lifts. My Lords, that should give us some purchasing power in the matter of lifts and lift spares. I just don't understand why spare parts are not planned for and kept in the UK. So can the Minister provide reassurance that purchase of and maintenance of lifts will be improved? And again, this is not just for people in wheelchairs, it's actually for many passengers, especially those with large cases as well. The space in trains for wheelchairs and other mobility aids has not caught up with current practice.







































































































































 Specifications for the future should include enough space for both larger wheelchairs and also for wheelchair scooters. You can no longer just say scooters anymore. It means something different, as many people now use them with an aging demographic, using wheelchair scooters by preference and expecting to travel. This will only increase and get worse, so changing the reference size wheelchair is important. When new rolling stock is being designed and ordered. More irritating all the rolling stock has different sizes of wheelchair spaces, some with very limited turning or manoeuvring spaces. Secondly, please will train designers ensure that there are places for other passengers to store their damned suitcases.





















































































































 Even with the new rolling stock on lNer, it is a problem and if there are staff handy, they are really good at shouting down the carriage. But if they are not, the person in the wheelchair has to shout for themselves and sometimes people deliberately don't answer and we cannot get further down to start to find out where people might be. Replacement services and alternative transport remain consistently poor, especially about the carriage of wheelchairs and other mobility aids. Only 2.8 of surveyed disabled passengers say replacement services are fully accessible. Nearly a third of disabled passengers are left without a viable alternative when trains are cancelled.



































































































 My Lords, that happens to me too. And quite often that's when I have to use the remote Parliament. But I'm lucky I can do that. Most worrying of all, 66% of passengers say their experience during disruption has deteriorated over the past year. Other replacement service issues include unclear and inaccessible. Site would include for visually impaired inconsistent staff support and limited information. My Lords, it's not the first time I've said this in this speech. This is woeful. So can the minister say how the government is planning to improve the rail replacement services system? I was shocked to discover that only 19% of stations have an accessible toilet.









































































 I recognise that for older stations, space may be difficult, but many disabled and elderly people need a toilet that has a higher toilet seat with rails and access into and out of the toilet. Those with hand problems, including many of the elderly, can open easily. So a compliment to Network Rail the changing places disabled toilet at the new station of Cambridge South is wonderful. Now I say that, my Lords, I haven't seen it yet, but a disabled friend of mine specially rang me to tell me about it. She was so thrilled. However, can the minister say what the plan is to increase the number of disabled toilets across the network, including changing places, toilet stations, over the next decade?





















































 And he probably won't have this to hand. But what might the budget be for the next decade? Only 61% of stations have accessible ticket machines. That's just astonishing. Are there plans to increase the number of accessible ticket machines? Despite some problems, Passenger Assist continues to perform over the year 2526 87% customers were satisfied with the from booking receiving assistance. The satisfaction level is broadly the same since 20 1819, so that's a good baseline. However, improvements do still need to be made. Gaps in delivery are a shocking 10%, where customers receive none of the type of assistance they booked and 12% only received some.



























 It is important to note that passengers with non-visible disabilities often have the worst experience, and I wonder if that's something to do with training for staff, which actually. Does it cover non-visible disabilities well enough? There's a suspicion sometimes from staff about whether the person is deserving of assistance. Finally, amendment 198 A repeats the point that I made in my amendment in a previous group about the involvement of disabled people and organisations representing disabled people in the development and review of accessibility standards. That's absolutely vital. The disabled community talk about co-production so that the wide and varied experiences of people with differing disabilities, and therefore with different types of help needed, that must be taken into account when developing new services.









 Not after all the design has happened. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that in future this is the case? I beg to move.
19:33
19:33
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments two, 14, 15 and 16 in my name and signed by the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, will come to them. It's a pleasure to follow Baroness Brinton, who sets out all of the issues in this group. As I said in the previous group, planning should be experiential, not operational. It's about a passenger journey, right from the point that she or he leaves their home, or even before that point, when she or he decides they want to try and purchase a ticket online. If you plan operationally, it's never going to work for the passenger, and it's certainly never going to work for the disabled passenger.



















































































































 Worth reminding the committee. I think at this stage of the progress of the bill, what we're all talking about when we talk about accessibility, accessibility isn't for disabled people. Accessibility is for all people, inclusive by design, not for disabled people, for all people. Because one would imagine it's self-evident, but seemingly it needs restating. If you make a change which seemingly has to be purported to be said for disabled person, everybody benefits suitcases. Toddlers in pushchairs with parents, older people, younger people, all people. Accessibility for all people, inclusive by design for all people. Planning and thinking through in a co-produced co-creative way.

























































































 The passenger experience and only having done that move into the operational. What's extraordinary in some of Baroness Brinton's testimony is that even when a railway plans. Operationally, it's not even planning operationally, because if it were the issues that we've heard about, not least around lift provision wouldn't happen. And yet it does blighting lives. To rehearse the statistics I set out in the previous group, in terms of employment, only 41% of disabled people of working age in employment set against 83% of the broader population. And that's hardly surprising if you take the examples which Baroness Brinton has set out.



































































 Going through all of that exhausted before you've even got to work, before you've even begun the first minute of your working day, is it any wonder that it's 41% in employment for disabled people, 7% for those who are blind and partially sighted? My Lords, my amendment 214 through 216 do some of that experiential thinking and I must, as others in previous groups have done, commend the Minister of State, Lord Hendy, for all of the work that he has done whilst being in post as Minister. But before that, all of the work that he did as Commissioner across London, because he showed what is possible and he never took no for an answer, or accepting the status quo , or accepting just because you can't make 100% of something accessible, doesn't mean you shouldn't make part of it accessible.



















































So by doing that, you've made an accessible service. And this goes to the heart of 214 around level boarding, because he and I and others were told it's impossible to make the London Underground accessible for wheelchair users. How is that doable? But he and others worked on the whole concept of platform humps and the underground. Not every door of every train of every station, but. Nor did it need to be. It was a practical, effective, accessible, inclusive solution where the trains could pull up. The disabled passenger would know from information from the station they were coming from, that they would arrive where the platform hump was at that station.

































 And not only could they access an egress the train, they could do it independently, with dignity. As with any other passenger. Why was that possible? It was possible because we had the most immovable of deadlines. Nobody would have said what a great, accessible Olympic and Paralympic Games I had in 2013. The most immovable of deadlines, having a target, having that vision and putting it into a mission is the way to get things to happen. That's why I suggest for level boarding 2036 year end. What a phenomenal celebration that would be achievable if the same logic and approach is taken as was taken in that London 2012 planning.







 Not that every door of every station, of every platform, but that every station in that way would be accessible for disabled passengers. Achievable London 2012 showed what could be did we only had
19:39
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

We only had fewer than seven years to achieve that. This amendment suggests over ten years, and no matter how good the celebrations were at 2012, sport is fantastic. But what a celebration to have a level accessible rail network across the world enabling. Empowering what possibilities? Not for disabled people, for all people. My amendment on the accessibility of the rolling stock follows a similar logic. Why should it be that if you're a wheelchair user and you're fortunate enough to be able to get on the train, that you can't sit with your friends, your family, your colleagues with access to the buffet rightly highlighted last week.































































 And with access to the accessible toilet facilities, it's extraordinary that this is having to be asked for in 2026. It's basic, it's fundamental. And yet disabled people still can't rely on this on the rail network. My final amendment goes to the question of staffing, which Baroness Brinton has already touched upon. This is about enabling, empowering, training and supporting all our fabulous staff across our rail network. So they have the comfort and the confidence to act, to provide support and assistance to disabled people, and that they are there on the station in operating hours. Again, this isn't about making a change for disabled people.







































 This is making a change for all people. And it goes to the heart of demonstrating how this change would, of course, benefit disabled people to have benefits in terms of the safety of all passengers on that station, by the dint of having staff humans at all times of the operating hours of that station. Again, this is basic stuff, but it's not currently the case. And finally, my Lords, if we don't plan experientially, if we continue to so chronically insufficiently plan operationally, we can get results such as this, which were the case. And I'll ask the minister whether this is still the case.



















 We had stations on the network that were described as fully accessible, and indeed those stations were fully accessible. The wheelchair user could enter the station, take the lift down to the platform, position themselves by the train with no hope whatsoever of being able to get on that train because there was no accessibility at that point. Can the minister confirm that there are no stations at all on the network where the station describes itself as accessible, but it is not actually possible through all hours of the operation of that station for disabled passengers and indeed for all passengers to board to access an egress, the train service itself.



 I look forward to the minister's response.
19:44
None Portrait Speaker 21
-

Yeah, yeah.
19:44
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

My Lords Committee, I hope, will be pleased to know that I'm not planning on speaking to all of the amendments in the group. I a couple that leaped out at me, I thought worthy of of comment. But first of all, I'd just like to say it's a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes, because I think he repeats something which bears repeating, which he said before, and which I have said, which is that if you make services, all services. But we're talking here about railways more accessible for disabled people, you are making them better for everybody.









































































































































 And I think Baroness Brinton also mentioned in her remarks that we're not just talking about wheelchair users, but we're talking about people with visual impairments. There are people with hearing impairments. I notice in some of her amendments she also talks about wayfinding because it's also about people, for example, with learning disabilities who may not have any physical disabilities themselves, but need better signage and clearer ways of navigating a station. And all of that's about making sure that disabled people can have the same life experiences as everybody else. And my noble friend Lord Holmes , also refers to the very important point about making sure that people that are able to can work.





















































































































 And if you're not able, if you're not able to use a car, you depend on public transport. When if the public transport doesn't work for you, you're going to find getting into the workplace and staying in the workplace very difficult. And that is, of course, a big focus of public policy at the moment. Both the government and opposition are talking about it. And this, I think, will make a critical improvement. So the two amendments I wanted to talk to briefly. First one is amendment 219 about the single accessibility digital service. And two things I wanted to say.



































































































 One was I absolutely see the benefit of trying to bring together all of the digital tools that people need for all aspects of the service. The bit I would particularly commend Baroness Brinton and her colleagues for , is that it says that GBR must provide or secure the provision, of which I think is incredibly important. I shall no . AM somewhat skeptical about the ability of GBR to be at the cutting edge of innovation on digital technology, but it absolutely does have a responsibility to make sure this stuff happens. And what I think is much more likely is if it makes clear, as we discussed at the time, the data that's necessary on a number of these facilities, for example, it's referred to here about lifts, ramps, ramps, escalators, and other accessibility equipment are in working order.

















































































That means the data about whether they're in working order needs to be available. My sense is if they make sure all of that information is available, we know from from other services that nimble agile providers will provide the technology, technological solutions to use that data for customers and will probably do it more quickly, more cheaply, and in a more accessible way than a monopolistic state behemoth will. So I think the key thing for me is that it's about providing the service and making sure the data is available, but it isn't wedded to this amendment that GBR has to do the delivery itself, which I think is incredibly important and much more likely to be successful.





































































 But it does have to make sure the data is available for other people to produce the app. The second one and final one that I'm going to comment on is amendment 220 M in the names of my noble friends, Baroness Grey-thompson and Baroness Brinton, about passenger assistance and making it a statutory entitlement so that passengers who need help to use the railway are effectively put on a level playing field with everybody else. And I think the very important part of the wording of this amendment is that it should also be an entitlement for passengers who have not booked assistance in advance.























































 Now, clearly, if you book the assistance in advance, it does help with providers to do that, but it shouldn't be necessary for disabled people to have to overplan and micromanage their lives in a way that non-disabled people don't have to just to get around. Now, I know they do. And I see Baroness Brinton nodding in a knowing way, and they do at the moment. And it may be that it's never going to be possible to have no planning and no forward, but it shouldn't be necessary to do it to the extent it is now. And I think to have that statutory entitlement and to have as a at least an aim that you don't need to have booked the assistance will make people think about not just providing enough assistance, also to think about smart ways of doing it, to make sure that staff are flexibly deployed.





































 Trained. Baroness Brinton referred to the training, whether they cover the breadth of disability, so that you've got people who are able to respond. What you really want are staff that can talk to the passenger, understand what the needs are, and then have the skills themselves to deliver what is required, or the ability to call on the help of others to deliver what is required without everything having been prescribed in advance. So I think I'd be interested to know from the minister whether this is an aspiration of the government. I suspect it's an aspiration of his and and if this amendment doesn't do the job, whether the government would think about bringing back an amendment at report stage to make the provision of assistance a statutory entitlement which would improve the circumstances for disabled people.

















And as I said, I am particularly, I think, struck by the the need to not have to book everything in advance. That clearly makes the delivery of services better, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Disabled people should have the same right to have to be spontaneous, to turn up for a journey, to not have to plan everything in advance, and also to be able to change things on the fly depending on what happens during their day. Now, it may be that you can't get to the same level of flexibility for some people with particular needs.





That may just not be possible, but we can do an awful lot better than we do at the moment. And I was therefore struck by this amendment, and I think it worthy of the committee's support.
19:51
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Brinton has spoken in great detail and so eloquently about the issues and thinking behind the detailed amendments in this group, that I only wish to really add my complete support to it. We do need our railways to be accessible to all passengers and reliable for all passengers, so people are not left stranded, can travel around with ease and without fear of something going wrong. And just as we've had this debate, it just remind me. Yesterday, as I was sitting at home planning my trip to Kew Gardens to suddenly discover there's a rail replacement bus for part of the journey, I could quickly use a few apps and work out a way around that.

























I could avoid using that rail replacement bus, but actually, if I had a mobility issue, that would have been so much harder. And actually, probably you would have had to have cancelled the planned trip. The point about lifts is really important about parts, and I recall wracking my memory back to the 2012 games. There were lots of spare parts and we had teams all over to make sure that certainly in London that the lifts did not break down. But also there's the issue of having trained staff at station able to help with lifts and a number of them on the underground in the past have been closed because they didn't have train staff at stations.











So it's a a double issue there. But I really think this debate has teased out a lot of issues around the accessibility agenda, and I really hope that the minister will will be able to talk to us about a way forward before report stage on these important issues.
19:52
None Portrait Speaker 21
-

Yeah.
19:52
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. Disabled passengers deserve a good, reliable and dignified service from our railways. What we have heard today and what the evidence shows, is that too often this is simply not the case. The government's own accessibility roadmap found that disabled people make 53% fewer rail journeys than non-disabled people. It also found that more than a third of disabled passengers would use rail more if accessibility improved. A number of these amendments dealing with step free access and level boarding. There is an important distinction between being able to reach a platform and being able to board a train independently.

























































 The government's own figures suggest genuine level boarding is available only at a very small proportion of stations. I therefore understand why my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and other noble Lords have tabled amendments seeking greater ambition on level boarding, accessible rolling stock and new stations. I hope the Minister can tell us what the government's own timetable and ambition are in this area. Passenger assistance is another major concern. The latest figures show that 1.9 million pre-booked assists were made last year, alongside at least 1.5 million turn up and go assists. Yet 10% of passengers surveyed said they received none of the assistance they had booked.





































 Disabled passengers should not have to plan every journey around the possibility that promised assistance might not arrive. The amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-thompson on accessibility, Standards, Enforcement, Senior Accountability and Reporting raise important questions about how these duties will work in practice. I do not propose to commit to the precise structures they have proposed, but the underlying point is an important one. Accessibility duties must mean something in practice. There must be clear responsibility, proper reporting and effective consequences. When standards are repeatedly not met. There is a strong case for greater consistency. Disabled passengers should not face different rules on wheelchairs, mobility, scooters or assistance simply because they change.













 Operator. Nor should they be disadvantaged when disruption occurs and a replacement service is inaccessible. The noble Lords who have tabled these amendments speak with considerable authority and experience on these issues. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance to disabled passengers , will be a genuine priority for Great British Railways, and that accessibility will be embedded in its operation from the outset, rather than treated as an afterthought.
19:55
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

My Lords, I am bound to say to start with that those who question the concept of Great British Railways and the reform of the railway have to explain why the previous system so conspicuously has failed to deliver the consistency that all passengers, including disabled passengers, deserve. It's one of the best reasons to create GBR as a as a as a controlling mind, because it's consistency that will allow the freedom of travel that noble Baroness Brinton, the noble Lord Holmes, and indeed the noble Baroness Tanni Grey-thompson when she tabled these amendments, is looking for. I. I add to the noble Baroness Brinton my good wishes to Greg Thompson, and I hope she'll be back shortly, though she did send me a picture of the lifts at Eaglescliffe yesterday.





































































































































































So she's not. She was. She was mobile then, she said. She said to me colloquially last week that her amendments amounted to a to a bucket list, but I can't argue about any of the any of the content of it. And I'm determined to change the experience that people have and make sure this bill leaves accessibility on the railway in a better place than it is now. I'm going to try to deal with these amendments by theme and quite quickly, because what I want to say to Noel, Baroness Brinton and Noble Lords here is that I am, as I said at the previous committee session, very keen indeed to meet about all of these amendments, to see what it is that we actually need to put into the bill at the report stage, and what can be left to the various other devices that will allow things to happen on the railway.





















































































































































 If I might deal with two and four, five, seven, eight and 220 J, which are all about accessibility, accessibility of rolling stock. It is clear to me that progress on level boarding has been hindered, because decisions about trains and stations have historically been made in silos, and many of them, even recently, have not been taken with a view to accessibility at all. With its coherent whole system view, GBR can and will fix this. The Rolling Stock and infrastructure strategy, published on the 28th of September, sets out how GBR will approach rolling stock design and procurement.



































































































































 And it is quite clear, and I'm happy to say so, that unassisted level boarding and alighting will be the baseline expectation for all new trains on great Great British Railways. They will use low floor designs. Doors will be aligned with the standard platform height of 950mm. And the only problem with that is that platforms vary all across the network. So a nationwide platform study, a network wide platform study is already underway, which will identify what else would be needed to achieve level boarding. And as an aside but an important aside, the His Majesty's Treasury agreed to the publication of the rolling stock strategy.

















































































































 Beyond boarding, passengers need also to be able to move through trains, easily, use the facilities with great greater independence. Toilets, internal layouts, aisles, signage, dedicated wheelchair spaces, multi-use spaces for wheelchairs, scooters and bikes all need to be considered as part of this strategy, and it commits GBR to engaging directly with passengers, disabled passengers, the passenger watchdog and other representative bodies on rolling stock design. The business plan for GBR will set out how it will meet the strategy, along with its accessibility duty and any accessibility standards set by the watchdog. We expect the business plan to be updated annually to provide a transparent record of Gbr's progress towards its accessibility goals, exactly as proposed by the noble Baroness Brinton's amendment 217 on 190 8A220BGS and 330 F and the and the topic of accessibility, standards and governance.































































































 The bill gives the passenger watchdog new powers to set passenger experience standards, including on accessibility. They will be binding on all operators via their licence conditions and enforced by the ORR 109 amendment 198 proposes that the watchdog sets standards relating to passenger information and access for disabled passengers, and I expect, absolutely expect the watchdog to set standards in those areas. I don't think the list in subsection two of clause 46 is exhaustive, and it is wide enough in my belief to cover all the areas proposed in the amendments. I also agree that accessibility must be represented at the highest levels of railway leadership.

















































































 The object of amendment 220 s. I'm pleased to confirm that GBR will have a board level accessibility champion and a senior leader accountable for accessibility, achieving the outcome by this amendment on 220BG and 330 F, I would say that the bill already provides a clear framework for accessibility, oversight and enforcement. The watchdog will research, will research and investigate problems, consult with passengers design standards and publish evidence on passenger experience, including passenger assist data to ensure transparency. If operators fall short of these standards, they will take enforcement against them. I think that's clearer and better than creating an additional independent commission, or revisiting the enforcement arrangements on station accessibility.





























































 Two 2220 F. Two 2220 Q the access for all programme has, of course, been designed to improve accessibility at stations, and there are now 1484, with a further 12 to come. But we're committed to reforming access to all into a rolling programme of improvements, informed by consultation with disabled people and local transport bodies, that should result in sustained funding to enable more efficient, long term planning and delivery, providing greater certainty for the programme and the supply chain that supports it. And I have to say I'm frustrated myself at the at the length of time these things take to deliver and the individuality of the solutions proposed in circumstances where you would imagine that they that that they should be done on a more consistent basis.













































 Whilst funding decisions beyond 2030 will be a matter for future spending reviews, I do absolutely expect the improvements to continue and GBR, the O r r and the Secretary of State will all be bound by the accessibility duty every time they develop another five year business plan, proposed new investments or design and refurbished stations. I hope that's a better way of embedding embedding accessibility into long term decision making on on the railway. We also recognise the importance of integrated journeys. We publish Better Connected this April, our strategy for Integrated Transport committing 616 million to improving walking, wheeling and cycling routes to stations.































And it also sets out that GBR should work with local authorities to connect stations to other transport modes. And additionally, we've committed to deliver a new accessible journey planner that will be integrated with passenger assist. In time. It will incorporate first and last mile connections such as buses, trams and active travel options, creating an end to end travel experience on passenger information, which is 220 E and 220 N. I completely agree that all passengers should have access to clear and reliable information. We've completed a national accessibility audit of all stations, and have undertaken a major redesign of station pages on National Rail enquiries, making significantly more information available for passengers.











And we're taking forward welcome points in a national British Sign Language Service to improve how passengers access information and assistance, but I recognise that there's more to do. I've mentioned the accessibility standards set by the strengthened watchdog, and I would reiterate that those will include standards relating to passenger information. .
20:04
20:05
20:06
20:07
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Well, there's a subject. I. With with with with about about 40 minutes to go in this committee I. I daren't even start that discussion. But the noble Lord must recognise that the rolling stock order for HS2 was. In fact, the order was placed some years ago, and the challenge with HS2 now is to make is to make those trains both fit for the dedicated infrastructure they'll run on, but also for the for the existing network. And we will we will have to do absolutely our best with it. I won't. I know there's more to say about the new GBR website and app, how much it will do.

































































































































 The fact that it. It should include. It will include an accessible journey planner and real time updates on staff availability and the status of station facilities such as lifts, and also being able to put passenger assist alongside buying the ticket on accessibility during disruption and with rail replacement. I completely agree and in fact, my noble friend, my my my, the minister for buses in the other place and I have spent quite a lot of the summer on a on a prolonged and I believe to be successful. Mission to make sure that rail replacement vehicles have the same accessibility requirements as other public service vehicles.















































































































 It has not been easy at all, but we are getting there because it's quite unacceptable that where the. When trains don't run, accessibility becomes even worse than when they do run. And I completely agree. I can see the noble baroness nodding and we know that, especially on a. And under a fragmented railway. It was profoundly difficult, actually to find out what really went on from each different train operator. But we do know that now, and we are doing something about it, because I think it's already a legal, a legal obligation to provide it. The accessibility roadmap has is already that we committed to during the last bill has already begun driving improvements.



























































































The National Rail Enquiries Journey plan are now includes real time information on disruption and rail replacement services, and we have provided actually the best thick end of a of £1 million to develop technologies to improve audio and visual information on rail replacement vehicles in order to deliver real time information accessible formats. But the real difference made by this bill is that we're creating the passenger watchdog precisely to set national standards for operators to follow, including baseline expectations, provision of things like accessible railway replacement services. Exactly as the noble Baroness Gray Thompson proposes in to 20 L on staffing and training for staff, which is 21621922220H220M and 342 A nobody could not be moved by the experiences described, both in this committee, at previous committee meetings and to me in private by the noble Baroness and by others.











































































There are many, many instances where the railway should have and must do better and. And although disability and equality training is mandatory under operators accessible travel policies currently. Sadly, it varies enormously between operators and we know that. So we're piloting a new comprehensive training programme co-designed in partnership with disabled people to improve consistency across the network. It will be fully in place on GBR day one, and it will teach teach staff to understand the the expectations and the legal rights of disabled people and best practice for providing passenger assist and. It will include supporting supporting people with non-visible disabilities.



























































 We've invested more than 11 million in improving passenger assist, but I would be the first to say that clearly it isn't consistent enough at the moment. All of the things like handovers between station staff, the booking experience which differs between train companies and between apps, better integration of assistance requests, seat reservations and accessible journey planning all need to be made consistent. And the. What I would say is that we are committed absolutely to Gbr's future digital platform, whoever it's actually provided by, to provide a single unified offer, allowing disabled passengers to plan journeys, buy tickets, book passenger assist and access support in one place.









































 And I it's one just one of many reasons why I strongly believe passenger assistance will improve under the directing mind of of of of of GBR. I would just conclude quickly by saying that I think I think much of the, much of what the we've heard this evening and in other places, and what I hear in, in private is that the railway seems to have had to have been kicked constantly into dealing with this, and what I'd like to see and what I believe this bill is going to provide, is an organisation that's committed to active, to actively providing accessibility without needing excessive punishment for so, so doing.



























 I have listened very carefully to every point that's been made today. I haven't addressed them all deliberately because of the because of the time that we have. But as I said at the start, I am committed to having further meetings with noble Lords and and Baroness to discuss how best we deal with this, both within the Bill and outside it. And given the period of time that we've got before the report stage, I will endeavour to do that to all our satisfaction, so that we can come to report stage, understanding what the Bill can do, what will be in the other supporting things like the GBR license and other documents, and move into a better future.







 In the meantime, I'd. I'd be grateful if the amendments could be withdrawn.
20:14
None Portrait Speaker 21
-

My Lords, I want to thank everyone who's contributed to to this debate. It was somewhat daunting to have 25 amendments in one group, even if they were covering the same theme. There was a lot of rich detail within that, and I think everyone who spoke has added value to the debate, including, if I might say so. The minister, who has once again shown his interest in trying to improve the services where there have been problems in the past. He he says what went on with rail replacement? I know what went on with rail replacement. They.





































 The train Co's bought the cheapest system they could and they went for coaches, not for buses. And it was just impossible for anybody in a wheelchair to get anywhere near it. And outside of London and Liverpool and Manchester. It's very difficult to get a wheelchair taxi in the evening, and it's very difficult to get a wheelchair taxi at going to and coming back from school time because the contracts are let to the local councils. So they really say it's all right, you can have a taxi, but you can't because there aren't any running at that time.



















 So I'd be really grateful if that can be looked at. That's important. I want to reiterate the point that I'm I'm really I have great hopes for GBR, and I talked about procurement and the lifts. I do think that that will be a real benefit that instead of being done on a much more ad hoc basis, for one organisation to be able to do it will give it enormous power on the detail of what we need on the face of the bill versus how other things can be covered. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for suggesting a meeting.



 I suggest that we might need more than half an hour to go through it.
20:15
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

But I agree.
20:15
20:15
20:16
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

Not moved moved.
20:16
20:17
None Portrait Speaker 20
-

Content.
20:17
20:18
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you very much. If Great British Railways is to succeed, passengers need to see a real difference and have confidence in their train services. That is why I have tabled amendment 206 today. This amendment requires, within six months of the act passing for the Secretary of State to lay a passenger's charter before Parliament. Passenger passenger charters are not new. Every train operating company has one of sorts. This amendment would introduce greater consistency, cut the gap between good intentions and reality, and create a strong charter to put passenger experience first. The current rail system does not guarantee a seat for passengers, with the exception of advanced tickets, though numerous times I have to say I have found the on board system is not working, so people are allowed to sit anywhere, causing serious upset.













































































































For those who have reserved seats for a long journey to find it's taken and particularly it's an issue if you have mobility issues or you have children with you and knocking confidence in using the railway services, perhaps noble lords, if they want to have a conversation, could have it outside rather than when I'm speaking. Please. Many trains lack the necessity necessary space for storage of luggage and buggies, and the quality of Wi-Fi and mobile phone signal reception is highly variable, to say the least. So a new passenger's charter for Great British Railways would give confidence to passengers in the service they should receive across the network, and should help to encourage more people to choose the railway for their journeys.





























































































 Now, the areas we believe should be covered include guaranteed seating for journeys greater than 30 minutes, reliability targets and over time, clear improvements to trains including high speed Wi-Fi, power outlets, storage for luggage, bikes and pushchairs, cleanliness and accessibility standards. Old favorite on board catering for services of two hours or more. Something I still regularly discuss with the minister with regards to Southwest Rail, and I'm hoping we get some progress soon. Automatic delay repay which my noble friend Baroness Leman has spoken passionately about. And once the charter is established, a framework for compensation for failing to comply with the charter.













































































 Now we understand the train designs will take longer to come on board, so a timetable for that would have to suffice in the short term. And in addition, following the discussion in the last group of amendments, a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of train stations, areas immediately surrounding stations, and interfaces with connecting transport modes and replacement road services for passengers with disabilities. But once train fleets are upgraded consistently and have the amenities the modern passenger expects, the charter can be properly expanded to include the principle that what is offered on a given train fleet, whether that's seats, toilets or Wi-Fi, should be working now in the European Union, rail passengers rights are protected in the following areas compensation for train delays, right to self rerouting where passengers have not been offered a solution within so many minutes of a disruption through ticket rights, where passengers have rights if they miss a connection, improving accessibility rights for people with disabilities or reduced mobility and dedicated places for bikes.























































And this is dedicated spaces which are mandatory for all new trains that have been ordered or upgraded after June 2025. Now, various operators across the world have their own terms and conditions. Sometimes they call them charters, which outline different service levels that they're prepared to provide. So you've got the Public Transport Victoria in Australia, which has customer service charters and Amtrak in the US, has a ten point pledge to their customers. And of course, domestically we have a number of charters, whether it's lNer, Southern Railway, South Western Railway or TransPennine express, and we strongly believe that there should be one Great British Railways passenger charter to constantly improve services and the standard of service passengers should receive on every journey, and we hope the government will be sympathetic to this amendment and its aims.



































 Now, the other amendments in this group, from my noble friend Baroness Leeman, cover the issue of the use of electronic audio devices on rail services, and we welcome the government's announcement today. The world is a very different place to. Certainly when I started commuting and traveling around by rail, where people used to read newspapers and books, most of us are working on devices or listening to podcasts, or people are watching or scrolling, looking at videos, even catching up on shows. And this all requires the Wi-Fi infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier. But some passengers choose to let us all share whatever they are doing on their phone.



















 Occasionally it's a phone or video call, but more often, whatever show they are enjoying or music. And this can also apply to children and adults gaming too. Many of us do enjoy the quiet carriages on our long distance journeys. I have to say, I have seen them enforced in recent weeks by Southwest Rail staff, but these amendments have really been tabled to probe the government about what action they will take in this area. And obviously, the announcement today , as part of that, it's increasingly a real problem for passengers who don't want to be disturbed on their journeys.





I look forward to the minister's response to this group on the passenger experience, and I beg to move.
20:24
20:24
20:24
20:24
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

My Lords, I just wanted to speak and ask the minister some questions about amendment 311, which is obviously linked to the government's announcements today. Now, the Minister will know that there's been a considerable amount of of cross-party support for the announcements today. Both my party last year for both buses and trains and the Liberal Democrats, in the spirit of sharing the benefit of all of both campaigned for these measures. So I think in principle I support them and I may . Rail user and I if I ever use my devices for sound, I always use my headphones, which I think is appropriate.















































































 And in fact, just last week I was using the train and I politely asked somebody who was scrolling through her phone and we were having little snippets of every little video that she found, if she could possibly not do that. And that polite injunction did the trick. Now, the problem is it doesn't always do the trick. And some of the people who are the worst offenders are the sorts of people that, firstly, you probably wouldn't want to speak to directly for fear of what might happen. So I suppose my question for the minister is, given that there have been either laws or regulations or rules in place for really quite considerable period of time that says people shouldn't play music loudly or or other noise.

































































 This is primarily either an enforcement question or a culture question. And I suppose that the the two questions I would have for the minister are, if you raise the profile of this issue and you have more signage, more announcements, as long as there aren't too many announcements, because frankly, lots of announcements are just as bad as people playing devices, to be perfectly honest, if they're not very helpful, announcements. Announcements about your journey are very useful, but lots of other stuff. It's not really very helpful at all and is annoying. How much does that shift the culture and to what extent is the annoyance caused done by a relatively small number of hard core offenders?















































 Now, I don't know what the answer is to that question, and I don't know whether there's any good data on it, because the question is, is how do you enforce this? Because, you know, it's not always reasonable for train managers to do this. They can have a go. But again, if somebody refuses to take any notice or behaves aggressively towards them or violently, that's a bit of a problem. And I'm not sure given again, we had this discussion last week that British Transport Police have limited resources. I'm not sure they may have to do it in extremist.



































I'm not sure I want them to be the first port of call to enforce noise regulations, given the very important job they have to do. The conversation we had last week about combating, for example, violence against women and girls. I think that my book that would be higher up the list of things for BTP to be focusing on. The noise is important, though that is. So I suppose my question is on both buses and trains, and obviously we'll keep it train focused here. How does the government actually see this working in practice? Because the danger with announcements that I think pretty much everybody would agree with, I don't think there's anybody that's going to disagree with it.















And I think I saw some polling that said, I think 100% of people agreed with it is, how do you actually make it happen in practice? Because if you talk about things that we think are desirable, that are good, and you don't actually have any specific concrete plans to make them happen, all you do is increase cynicism and make people even unhappier than they were in the first place. So I think this is primarily an enforcement question. So in response to amendment 311, and no doubt the government will look forward to the opportunity to to comment on their announcements today.





 I want to hear some very specific practical steps that ministers are going to take on trains to improve the passenger experience as far as unwanted noise are concerned, and specifics, I think will be very helpful indeed.
20:29
None Portrait Speaker 18
-

My Lords. Could I start by saying that I welcome the amendments, the linked amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Leeman, on tackling anti-social behaviour, must be a coincidence that they arrived and debated on the same day that the government said they were going to do something about it. So there's a great danger that we're all going to be in violent agreement on this particular topic. But my noble friend Lord Harper makes a very, very good point. We have a government , which I believe the Prime Minister has instructed ministers that they have to make one sort of improve, improve your life announcement every day this week.





















































































 And it's the announcement. The policy is the announcement effectively. So what on earth is actually going to be done to make these effective? And so they make a big difference to people's lives. On the question of the passenger's charter. I'll just start with one little fact. I understand that in the latest four week period, only 51% of trains between Guildford, Woking and Waterloo arrived on time. That's what South West Railways is achieving at the moment. This is the railway which, when it was nationalised, the Secretary of State announced was a new dawn. But this is what nationalisation is giving us and it makes the case the very strong case for a passenger's charter.























































 Now the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, has made that case. I don't necessarily have to agree with her on every detail of what it should contain, but I do agree with her on the principle that there should be a passenger's charter and that it should come not in detail from Parliament, because Parliament. This amendment has not asked Parliament to write the charter. It requires, as I understand it, the Secretary of State to do that, and so that passengers know against which standards are new peoples. No choice. Railway is going to be judged and. And that we should have a role in setting that the noble Lord.

































The minister, I suspect, will say no to the noble Baroness. And it's another instance of the government's or Great British Rail's attitude to this project that. Not that they oppose, that passengers have rights as such, and they'll probably internalise it all, but they don't want to be told by somebody outside Great British Railways what to do. They want us to take the whole thing on trust and they will sort it out. And they don't need to be told. The regulator, apart from safety, is being emasculated. The passengers council is to have no powers of direction.

















 A passenger, the Secretary of State control , is going to be extremely limited and attenuated and so forth. We're told nothing about who's going to be on the board, what powers the board is going to have and so forth. The passengers council, we're not allowed to specify what sort of person might be on it. Everything has to be entrusted to Great British Railways, and I really think that is not going to wash. And a passenger's charter is so, so obviously necessary that I think, again, it's almost inevitable that we will return to these this issue unless the noble Lord, the minister, defies my expectations.
20:33
20:33
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

My Lords. The best Improve your Life announcement I can make is that I'm determined to finish this group by 8:45, and I'll start by saying how wrong the noble Lord Moylan is. I understand the strong interest, the strong interest behind amendment 206, and I share the ambition of the noble Baroness Pidgeon for a railway that delivers better outcomes for passengers, although I don't think the level of detail which is proposed in the amendment should be in the Bill. I do agree with her that GBR should have a passenger charter. I can see her point that passengers want to understand what service they can expect from GBR, and we in this committee will also want to satisfy ourselves that GBR passenger offer is fit for purpose.



































 It's important that GBR has a clear policy setting out what it aims to deliver of its customers, and I appreciate the noble Baroness thoughts today on what that charter might contain, so I'll be happy to discuss this with her in more detail in the coming weeks. On to amendments 311 and 343. We are, as I think , noble Lord said in in violent agreement because because the of the nuisance electronic devices can cause when they're not used responsibly. I should just say that by law, seven of the national railway byelaws makes it an offence to cause annoyance through the use of sound producing equipment, and provides for fines up to £1,000.





















 And noble Lords will have seen today the government's announcement, which is about a nationwide campaign about sharing the carriage and not the noise, encouraging passengers to use headphones and to be considerate of those around them. And the campaign will highlight the impact that playing music videos or phone phone calls aloud can have on fellow travellers and reinforce the message that existing railway rules already provide for enforcement action, where behaviour causes nuisance or annoyance. We are.

 I'm. Sadly. I'm. I'm bound to use this. We are going to make a noise about this.
20:35
20:36
20:38
20:38
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page