Air Traffic Control Disruption
Lord Moylan Excerpts(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, last week was a catastrophe for many families and businesspeople trying to go about their business, sleeping in airports and barely recovering, even days later, back on to the routes that they wanted to pursue. The day before this calamitous event, the noble Lord’s colleague in the other place, Keir Mather, said in response to a Written Question that all 34 recommendations from the inquiry into the previous NATS calamity in 2023 had been implemented. The very next day, it happened again. Do the Government still have confidence in the management of NATS? When are they going to get a grip?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I first make it clear that this was an unacceptable event, and I apologise to passengers and others affected. The event was less than a week ago, last Tuesday afternoon, and the Secretary of State, the Aviation Minister and my department were all completely focused on alleviating the effects of this while it was going on—relaxing controls on night flights and so on—while of course making sure that safety was not compromised. The Secretary of State and the Aviation Minister met the chief executives of NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority the following morning, and the Secretary of State has commissioned a report into this event from NATS and asked it to report to her this Wednesday. The noble Lord should think this a very quick response, because the Government, as with everyone else, do not want these things to happen and regard it as unacceptable, but need to understand why it happened and what needs to be done to prevent it again.
Railways Bill
Lord Moylan ExcerptsThursday 10th September 2026
(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 25-II(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (10 Sep 2026)
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think it might fall to me to speak next, if my noble friend does not want to speak to his amendments at this stage.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of this group, I would like to say that I received this morning from the Minister, as I imagine other noble Lords have, a letter setting out certain corrections to statements that he made on Tuesday. I have not had the opportunity to study that, but I hope that there will be an opportunity at a later stage in Committee, if necessary, to come back and question the noble Lord on the points made in that letter.
However, I also yesterday received an email from a group calling itself the Association of British Commuters. It referred to the debate that we had on Tuesday concerning what constituted in this context a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR and whether that was consistent with some sort of public/private partnership for the purpose, for example, of developing land. This was not a strange email; it was very coherent, sensible and well written. The thrust of it was that not only did noble Lords on these Benches get it all wrong—if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Lansley; if he has not received the email, I will send it to him—but so did the Minister.
I have two questions before I start on this section. First, has the Minister received this email? If not, I am very happy to send it to him. Secondly, does he expect to return to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to make corrective statements? Clearly, if he has not seen the email, he will not be able to answer the second question, because his officials will not have had the chance to advise him, but he is under an obligation to return at the earliest opportunity if he has something to correct, as he has today—I am giving him that opportunity. When I sit down, I will send him the email. If he tells me at the end that he has not received it, I will very happily send it to him, as I will to my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I turn to the group of amendments that we have been debating. I shall speak to—I shall not read out the numbers—all the amendments that I have tabled in this group, which are quite a lot. I shall also speak briefly on Amendment 27 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grayling.
These amendments go to the heart of the devolution agenda. None of us is satisfied with what the Bill contains on devolution to local authorities, strategic authorities, regional authorities—whatever they are called. I have been thinking about why none of us is satisfied and what the fundamental flaw of the Bill is in this regard. The answer is that there is no devolution in it. What the Bill does is give those authorities the right to request things from Great British Railways—as I said on Tuesday, I find the phrase “right to request” quite objectionable in a free country, because we all have a right to request things of Ministers as part of our democracy. In other words, they have the right to ask to become customers. If those things are granted to them, they will have those services provided by Great British Railways and they will make payments towards them, if necessary, to justify the carriage of passengers on that particular route. All they have, therefore, is the right to request to become customers. There are no devolved powers in any of this. There is no devolved running of railways, because that would be inconsistent, I suspect, in the Minister’s mind with the single directing brain that is going to be controlling the railways. So there is very little.
The amendments that I have tabled fall into two groups. Two of them relate to devolution in general, and the second group relates to TfL in particular. To start with TfL, I need to start by saying that although it is not a current interest, as many noble Lords in the Room will know, I used to be deputy chairman of TfL and indeed worked closely with the Minister during that time. The Mayor of London has made it clear that he wants further devolution of rail services to TfL. In fact, this is a process that started when I was deputy chairman of TfL and the Minister was commissioner, and very successful it has been. Lines that were, in effect, abandoned became busy commuter routes, with very little investment—just through good management, making the stations attractive and having some new trains. It has been a huge success. The London Overground is one of the huge rail successes that this country has achieved in the past few years—all of it run on a concession model, incidentally, involving the private sector or external train companies of one sort or another.
The Mayor of London wants more of that—that is understandable. I think Londoners want more of that. The Mayor of London now has a high-powered friend in Downing Street. The Prime Minister has said that power has been hoarded in SW1 for too long. He wants power carried to every postcode in the land—et cetera—and the Government will be redistributing power. This Bill does not redistribute power to anybody in local government. So I would hope that the Minister would have changed his mind in recent weeks and would be extremely sympathetic to these amendments.
Amendments 28 to 30 seek to ensure that the Secretary of State remains properly involved in arrangements between GBR and TfL, rather than allowing those relations to be determined solely within GBR. This is the bear in the room again. GBR is going to be so huge. It will make all the decisions. Everybody else is just a taker of decisions by GBR, they are not participating in them.
Amendment 159 seeks to protect existing TfL and London Underground arrangements and would ensure that they could not simply be displaced without proper process and consultation.
Amendment 301 makes the principle even simpler: where GBR is making a decision affecting TfL, it should inform TfL and allow TfL itself to determine whether the decision is sufficiently significant to require consultation. That seems entirely consistent with the Prime Minister’s philosophy. The same principle lies behind Amendments 23 to 25, 156 and 297 in relation to mayors and local government more widely, to which I now turn.
Amendments 23 and 24 would give greater flexibility for railway functions to be exercised locally and for the necessary financial arrangements to flow in either direction. At the moment the Bill allows GBR to collect money from local authorities. Why should it not be the other way round? What if GBR makes a profit on a line? Why should it not pay money to the local authority? Why is everything so one-sided in the Bill?
Amendment 25 would provide an independent route to the ORR where agreement cannot be reached. There is no way in the Bill of resolving disagreements. So let us provide one. Let us have an appeal to an independent ORR. It is not that I think the ORR is tremendous, but it is currently the only available appeal body. If the Minister says he is happy to have an appeal but would like a different structure, we would be open to discussing that, but let us have an appeal route so that disagreements can be resolved independently.
Amendment 156 would allow mayoral and combined authorities to procure local passenger services through concession agreements, including using private operators where that offers the best solution. Currently they are limited to using GBR to provide the services. What if GBR is no good? I know that GBR is going to be managed beautifully and nothing will ever go wrong in the utopian vision we are looking forward to, but what if it is not actually very good? What if people are constantly on strike? What if the management is sloppy? Why should you not be able to turn to a private train operator to manage your local service? This is not a question of track access or timetables, because they have been agreed, but why would you have to use GBR to provide these services if you are genuinely enjoying devolution?
Amendment 297 would require GBR to notify a mayoral combined authority before taking a relevant decision. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley that that terminology might be improved, but I am not entering into that issue at the moment. That would allow the authority itself to judge whether the decision is sufficiently significant to require consultation. Why should GBR be the body to decide whether something should be consulted on, when it is the local authority that has the knowledge of how sensitive it might be with the local communities that could benefit from consultation?
These amendments test how far the Government intend to follow through on the Prime Minister’s policies. Do they genuinely trust mayors and local authorities to shape local services? Do they support further rail devolution to London where TfL can demonstrate that it would improve services? Will they ensure that GBR becomes a partner in genuine devolution—not simply acquiring local authority customers—rather than just a national body through which decisions are centralised? Given the new Prime Minister’s stated agenda, I hope we will see a different approach from the Minister for the first time.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Berkeley, and my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Grayling are at the heart of many of the issues that I have raised in this group. They also sit squarely with what the Prime Minister himself advocated when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester—a song that he has continued to sing, on the whole, since he became Prime Minister, about the importance of devolving power, giving local leaders greater control over transport and allowing places to shape growth around their own priorities. It is time for the Minister to step up, get real and get with the swing of where, we are told, Burnham’s Britain is going.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I return briefly to a point raised in Committee on Tuesday on Amendment 146, regarding the long-term rail strategy and its relationship with devolved railway responsibilities. I was less than clear on this issue when we discussed it previously and thought it would be helpful to make a point of order to provide clarity and correct the record.
For clarity, the Government consider that Clause 15 is correctly drafted and accurately reflects the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy will cover Great Britain. It will cover all of England and Wales and will address the railway in Scotland with regard to reserved matters only. Reserved matters include issues such as cross-border services, technical standards and railway safety and security. Scottish Ministers have devolved responsibility for matters such as Scottish passenger services and Scottish funded infrastructure. Accordingly, Clause 15(3) prevents the long-term rail strategy making provisions about functions of the Scottish Ministers, who will cover those matters in their own strategy.
I hope that explanation is helpful. The key point is that there is no inconsistency between describing the strategy as Great Britain-wide and providing an appropriate carve-out for devolved Scottish functions. I also reassure noble Lords—
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We thought that we had been saved by the bell, but we were not, so I thought that it was right to put it right.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that to my knowledge I do not have an email from the Association of British Commuters, although I do get several emails a day. If he sends it to me, I shall talk to officials about what it suggests. I think that is the most I can say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
On group 1, of course this matter is of significance to this Government, with a new Prime Minister, and I firmly believe that the Bill already empowers mayors in local areas. I am clear that Great British Railways will not work unless it works for and with mayors and local communities.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who quoted me, I stand by what is said. This is absolutely not a tick-box exercise.
I turn to Amendment 22A in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has kindly spoken today. I absolutely agree with him and with the noble Baroness that the partnership approach that the Bill sets out must be effective. GBR must engage with partnership offers seriously, and the bar for GBR to reject a partnership must be exceptionally high. As we are aligned on the intent behind the amendment, which she described as the principal amendment in this group as it covers all circumstances, I commit to taking it away and I shall see what can be done after this debate.
I turn to Amendments 147 and 156. The Government absolutely support further rail devolution where it is in the interests of passengers and the wider rail network. That is why the Bill already provides a route for passenger rail services to be devolved through exemption from designation by the Secretary of State in Clause 28. Where services are devolved, mayors already have flexibility to choose their approach to securing passenger services and may secure them via a concession contract, including to the private sector, if they so wish. The Bill does not change that. TFL, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, describes, operates on precisely this basis. There is therefore no need to duplicate the existing devolution provision in the Bill, which already achieves that intent in full.
On Amendments 23 and 24, Clause 5 is already intended to support local commissioning arrangements: it enables mayors to contribute funding where they wish to secure services or improvements that reflect local priorities and go beyond the national railway offer. This gives local leaders a mechanism to invest in additional rail outcomes for their area where they choose to do so, providing the local input that we know is so important for enhancing our communities. The details of these arrangements, including revenue-sharing options, will be agreed separately from legislation via collaborative partnerships between GBR and mayors. Work on developing this model has already begun, using Greater Manchester as a pathfinder—I am going to meet the new mayor of Greater Manchester tomorrow.
The Government absolutely support greater local influence over rail services, but allowing mayors to run rail services is a financially significant decision, with safety and public interest impacts; that is why it is right that the current process in the Bill for devolving services to local leaders remains the route that is used for this. That route is well understood, familiar to industry and proven effective. Allowing mayors to run GBR services outside of the usual process is not necessary and does not better serve local communities.
I turn to Amendments 26, 64, 304 and 333. The Bill is focused on mayoral strategic authorities to reflect their growth across England and the role that mayors can play to convene local partners and tackle regional challenges. Mayors have the most far-reaching and flexible powers; therefore, this level of authority is of the appropriate scale and capability to integrate rail with wider public transport, enabling them to engage effectively with Great British Railways.
Furthermore, as outlined in the Cabinet statement Rewiring the State, published in July, the Government consider that mayors who are directly accountable to the residents who elect them can provide the best governance for their communities. As a result, the suite of powers available to areas with mayors will be commensurately greater, recognising the role that they play as leaders in their regions. However, this is not to say that other levels of local government will be excluded from engagement with Great British Railways, and I take the point that it is important that no local authority is left out, as indeed the Prime Minister said a few days ago. The plan is for all tiers of local government to benefit from local GBR business units, and some existing authorities have collaborated well with the existing structure, including Devon, with several new stations, and, recently, Cornwall, with the Mid Cornwall Metro.
Our approach does not intend to exclude anyone from working with the railway, but we think it is sensible to use mayors as a focal point for powers, responsibilities and representation in their local areas. That said, I am happy to see if there is anything we can do outside the Bill to reassure foundation authorities that their views will be properly considered, and I will reflect on that further.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think that illustrates a point. The Minister talks of devolution, but everything is flowing one way, so I will come back to this point. It arose in relation to Scotland—and, I think, also Wales—on Tuesday. GBR will be obliged to consult with local authorities on matters of significance. Significant is the word. But GBR will decide what is significant. Amendments I tabled that would allow the local area, or, in the case of Scotland, Scottish Ministers, to decide what is significant for them were brushed aside on the grounds that it would be far too difficult, they would have to review hundreds of decisions and could not possibly do that.
Of course, GBR has to review hundreds of decisions to decide whether they are significant. In local authority terms, one picks out very quickly what the significant decisions are because one has the local knowledge of what will cause a terrible fuss, which GBR does not have. Does the Minister see that the Bill cannot survive claiming a devolution mandate on the basis of this mentality, which keeps coming back? The Minister wants to be a proactive partner but, given GBR, I find that a rather terrifying thing, because it suggests that the other partner will be managed the whole time by GBR; then, at the end of the process, it will think it had a successful partnership. It is the wrong mentality, and it has to change.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is in a different place in his imagination of this. These proposals will generally originate with GBR. Its structure, which I described on the first day in Committee, will be organised locally and regionally and so it will know how those proposals are going to affect local communities.
There will be timetable changes, station improvements and infrastructure improvements. It is much easier for GBR to identify those in relation to the local and combined authorities that it deals with than it would be for them to sift through what, sadly in many cases, is railwayese in describing what is going on. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe this will work and that it will be a genuine partnership with those authorities.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments cover directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. They push for greater transparency around those, which is something that we really support. Information that has supported key decisions and directions should be placed in the public domain. It is really important that Great British Railways develops an open culture right from the start and that it is clear where and how decisions have been made and on the basis of what evidence. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, focus in particular on any Secretary of State directions relating to the level and structure of fares, which are, I think, of great interest to everyone. Clarity on these points from the Minister would be helpful as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37 in my name, which is a probing amendment. It would limit the power of the Scottish Ministers to issue directions to GBR to circumstances where a KPI has been missed or performance has not been up to snuff.
I do not advance that because I think it is an appropriate thing to put in the Bill; it is a question of probing when the Government think the powers should be used, because it is not clear. We are meant to have a single directing mind—GBR is meant to be the single directing mind—but, as I said on Tuesday, we have several other directing minds here, too. One of them is the Secretary of State, who can issue directions—after all, directions are exactly what a directing mind would be expected to produce—but, now, we also have the Scottish Ministers issuing directions, and it is not absolutely clear that they cannot overturn the directions of the Secretary of State. I want to know what the powers can be used for, how clashes and contradictions can be avoided, and how all this is coherent with the Minister’s claim that he is creating a single directing mind in the shape of Great British Railways.
I wish to comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Grayling has tabled Amendments 34 to 36, to which I have added my name. It is an important constitutional principle that directions issued by the Secretary of State are not only published but laid before Parliament. The Minister will say, “You can’t possibly expect MPs to read these things. They haven’t got time. They might be full of railwayese. What is the possible advantage of putting them in front of MPs?”, but I think that MPs and Peers would value having these important directions put before them so that the Secretary of State can be held accountable for his or her actions in the management of the railways.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 32 and 33 are also entirely reasonable. Where relevant functions have been delegated and the Secretary of State proposes to give GBR directions affecting infrastructure, capacity, timetables, charging or performance in Scotland or Wales, surely it is right that the Scottish or Welsh Ministers are consulted.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this group.
On Amendments 32 and 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, access to railway infrastructure is a reserved matter. It is important that access and timetabling decisions make sense across the entire rail network; therefore, there must be one central decision-maker, to avoid fragmented and disparate decision-making, which increases delays, cancellations and disruption. However, GBR must consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers before issuing, revising or replacing its access and use policy. It must consult them on other decisions if those decisions may affect their interests, and must take into account their transport plans when making access decisions. There are therefore already adequate safeguards for devolved Governments in relation to the access regime.
Lord Moylan (Con)
On my Amendment 37, if the Minister insists on responding solely in the literal sense to explicitly probing amendments—seeking in this case to work out how a conflict in directions between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, for example, might be addressed—all he does is encourage further amendments to be tabled to the Bill to bring the subject back so that it can be debated. One has to keep finding wording that will make that happen. I genuinely would like to know how he sees these multiple direct laws, producing directions, operating together. Do they collaborate, what happens in the case of contradictions, and so forth? These are questions to which Parliament is entitled to an answer.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe I did answer the noble Lord: the memoranda of understanding between Scottish Ministers and this Government, and between Welsh Ministers and this Government, set out the processes by which these things will be co-ordinated. Were there to be any real difficulty in the circumstances he is describing, we would not have been able to get as far as we did in drafting the MoUs, which we have done, and in the agreement of Scottish and Welsh Ministers to the provisions of it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, I found London TravelWatch a rather annoying body. I suspect that when the Minister was the transport commissioner he found it even more annoying than I did, because of course it was there to complain as well as to make suggestions for improvements, so I can understand that there may well be a level of resistance to the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. However, I have added my name to her amendments because, objectively speaking, she is absolutely right: this is a very important statutory body. It should be treated on a level footing with other transport users’ committees. I can see no possible grounds for objection that the Minister may have. I suspect this will be one of the concessions he makes on Report and, if he does not, it will be inserted in the Bill whether he likes it or not. I look forward to hearing him say that the noble Baroness is spot on about this and that he willing be able to accept, if not her amendments as drafted today, at least amendments in lieu to the same effect that he might produce in the near future.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for these amendments. I should directly contradict the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: as the commissioner of transport for Transport for London, I found London TravelWatch a very constructive body. I enjoyed dealing with it; there were other people we dealt with who were far more difficult.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some of the board.
As the noble Baroness says, London TravelWatch plays a vital role as the statutory watchdog for London, championing the interests of people who travel across all modes of the city’s integrated transport network. That is precisely why the Bill will strengthen its rail powers to ensure there is consistent passenger advocacy across Great Britain.
However, the passenger watchdog will have a new role in the reformed railways which will be different to the role of London TravelWatch. It will go beyond being solely a watchdog and passenger champion. It will have a central role in holding rail operators, including GBR, to account by setting consumer standards for the industry and monitoring operator compliance with them. It would not be appropriate to have two different bodies setting standards, which is why the watchdog will work closely with London TravelWatch to ensure that standards applied across all operators reflect its expertise. That is why London TravelWatch is treated differently in the Bill and why GBR, the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road must consult only the watchdog on certain matters such as the licence, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s business plan. London TravelWatch is not expected, for example, to have any role on the licence.
That said, I can reassure the noble Baroness that I absolutely agree that London TravelWatch must continue to have a voice on matters that impact the London transport network, and indeed the wider scope of London TravelWatch that she referred to. I understand that Transport Focus, the future passenger watchdog and London TravelWatch will update their existing collaboration agreement to reflect changes in roles. I expect this will include additional expectations around consultation and engagement where matters will affect London and the other services which London TravelWatch oversees. For these reasons, I urge her now to withdraw her amendment, though I am happy to discuss this with her further after Committee.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 65 and 73. Rather than the broader issues of funding, mine are much more nitty-gritty questions about the transparency of the business plan and how the funding processes for Great British Railways are to work.
Amendment 65 is to Schedule 2, which is that part of the Bill where Great British Railways shows us in its business plan how its money is received and allocated towards activities. If I remember correctly, we are in that bit where it has to set out various things. We are at line 27 on page 71:
“The plan must set out … the activities Great British Railways proposes … the costs of carrying on those activities, and how Great British Railways proposes to meet those costs”.
Strictly speaking, all the things that I am asking for in Amendment 65 might be comprised within that.
This is an opportunity for us to be clear about what Great British Railways should do. In a separate group I will come to another issue related to the relationship with local government bodies. In this particular instance, there would be important transparency in Great British Railways being required, when setting out its business plan, to show what contributions are received by GBR itself from GBR companies, presumably by way of profits or revenue remitted to GBR for this purpose, and vice versa: how much is being paid out through GBR companies and how much is being received. Amendment 65 is for that purpose: where the activity is carried out by a GBR company, the contributions received from or provided to GBR in relation to those activities. I hope that is a straightforward transparency issue when the business plan is being presented. A good plan would do that anyway; it is just a case of trying to be clear about that now.
This affords me the opportunity to say something to my noble friend Lord Moylan. We discussed on Tuesday the question of GBR companies, and he returned to this issue and chastised me, saying that I was inaccurate. I do not think I was as inaccurate as he might imagine.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I would never dream of doing that. It is inconceivable that I should do that. I drew to my noble friend’s attention an email that I had received that said that he had made a mistake and that the Minister had also made a mistake. I gave no opinion myself on that. It was very well argued, and I shared it with the Minister and the noble Lord. In writing to the noble Lord—I hope he has received that by now—I explicitly said that I did not know whether it was right or wrong, but I wondered whether he wished to make a comment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may wish to make a comment at any time he chooses, but not a comment, I hope, that is intended to be a rebuttal of any chastisement, or even a mild criticism, suggested by me.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that correction. He has shared the email with me. I think it is worth putting on the record the point, made in that email, that it is important to distinguish between joint ventures on the one hand and corporate activities of companies on the other. However, the point of the debate on Tuesday was that I was seeking to establish under the legislation that GBR companies do not have to be wholly owned. Hansard will show that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was seeking to establish that GBR companies are required to be wholly owned. That was the simple debate.
As I understand it, Clause 99 of the Bill makes it clear that GBR companies are a subsidiary of GBR, and a subsidiary under the Companies Act does not require to be wholly owned. If the Government had wanted GBR companies to be wholly-owned subsidiaries, they would have said so. So, as far as I am concerned, it is a subsidiary and, as we know, under the Companies Act, a subsidiary is a matter of control, not of complete ownership. As far as I am concerned, I got what I wanted out of that debate, which was my assurance that GBR companies are not required to be wholly owned.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we are now redebating what was debated the other day. However, since there was an element of confusion, the noble Lord has accurately characterised the difference in position between himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but it was in the context of an important debate about whether GBR would be able to carry out partnership—I use the word loosely—arrangements with private sector developers for the development of land in which GBR had a stake, with a view to achieving things like more housing or whatever it might be. Of course a subsidiary does not have to be wholly owned, since it is a question of control, so there can easily come a point where a joint venture company might not be controlled by GBR, and the question then is whether those arrangements would still apply.
The fundamental issue in the debate as I saw it—I entirely understand what the noble Lord is saying—is whether the structure proposed by the Government in the Bill inhibits what we would all agree are desirable developments that could take place using GBR assets working with the private sector. I heard the Minister give assurance on that, and of course I accept that, but I was merely advancing this to him because the suggestion was that confusion had arisen about joint ventures, subsidiaries and wholly-owned control in the course of debate, and that the Minister had fallen into that confusion, along with others. Therefore, I was giving him the opportunity to say whether that was in fact the case, although I do not expect him to do so today because he has only just had the email.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think that was an intervention. I can only speak for myself, but I do not think I am confused now. The Bill does not inhibit this from happening in future and that is a satisfactory position for us to have reached. That is relevant to this debate in that my Amendment 65 is about the relationship between GBR and its companies, and financial transactions—the resources provided to or the resources received from GBR companies—ought to be explicit in the business plan.
I turn to Amendment 73. Now we really are in a happy position. It is many years since I was responsible for the public expenditure of a government department. I do not mean as Secretary of State; I mean as the official responsible. Knowing what powers one is using in relation to spending money is important. Amendment 73 is a probing amendment but I have used the structure of saying that the same activity should not be funded out of both the powers in the Bill, where financial assistance can be provided by the Secretary of State to GBR, and Section 6 of the Railways Act 2005, which noble Lords who know these things better than I do will remember is a broad-ranging power to provide financial assistance to GBR. I want to establish at this point—we might return to it at a later stage to see whether it is a satisfactory position—which GBR activities will be in receipt of financial assistance from the Government under the Section 6 power that exists now under the 2005 Act, or the financial assistance to be provided under this legislation. We need to avoid the confusion of two different powers providing financial assistance to the same activity.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what an absolute pleasure it is to hear from my railway expert noble friend Lord Bradshaw. It is such a delight that he has been able to join us in Committee in person today and to contribute to our debate, particularly after he had a significant birthday yesterday.
Funding certainty is absolutely crucial for the railway going forward. Being able to plan investment and work properly, and deliver it in a timely manner, is essential. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s amendments try to show the seriousness of changing mid-programme railway investment and putting in additional steps for any material change to an agreed funding settlement by involving the ORR for an independent assessment, which should be published. This would ensure transparency and expert assessment if funding for the railway is changed, particularly mid-year.
Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require more transparency. That is welcome, as was the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. In fact, it is notable that he has spoken on every group apart from the one with solely my amendments on London TravelWatch. I will not take that personally, but I say, “Once a Secretary of State, always a Secretary of State”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 55, 56, 70, 78 and 86. I start with Amendment 78. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 states:
“Financial assistance given to Great British Railways or a GBR company”
primarily to enable it to carry out its infrastructure functions under Clause 3(1)(a)—this is one of the general functions that we discussed on Tuesday—is not to be treated as
“a subsidy for the purposes of the Subsidy Control Act 2022”.
This is a probing amendment to find out the justification for that. I suspect that the justification is that it is not treated as a subsidy currently and, therefore, the Bill simply carries forward the existing situation. I wonder whether that is appropriate.
The Subsidy Control Act 2022 exists for a purpose and requires that public authorities should consider whether subsidies are proportionate and necessary, whether they distort competition or investment, and whether their benefits outweigh their adverse effects. I wonder why the management, renewal and operation of infrastructure on railways should be specifically exempt from those requirements. This exemption does not apply to the other general functions listed in Clause 3, but it applies to this one. I do not want to be hypercritical, because I know that these things are very difficult and there are often excuses, but why should this condition not apply to these functions—particularly when there is a general lack of confidence in these functions being carried out with great efficiency at the moment and when they always seem to be very expensive? Is there a reason other than simple inertia? I do not think that inertia is enough.
The Act also requires safeguards on transparency, the scrutiny of particularly significant subsidies by the Competition and Markets Authority, and ultimately the ability to challenge subsidies decisions via the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Noble Lords may say, “All of this is going to happen. It’ll be GBR doing stuff for GBR rail, so how does competition come into this?” But, as noble Lords know, a great deal of maintenance activity on the track is carried out by private companies contracted for that purpose; that may upset the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but there we are.
As far as I know, there is no indication in the Bill that that will change, and so I understand why the provision of subsidies might raise competition concerns. There is an appropriate authority here that can address them. That is my first question. It is a probing amendment, but I would like to know why these potentially very substantial sums should be outside the regular framework.
In Amendment 70 I am simply asking for the business plan to be published. I think it is important that people should be able to see it. It is possible the Minister will say that he has every intention of publishing the business plan; TfL publishes its business plan, and most other similar organisations publish their business plans. As far as I can see, there is no statutory obligation in the Bill—I may have missed it—to publish the business plan each year or period to which a new business plan would apply.
Amendments 55, 56 and 86 are about building financial discipline, both in the Government and elsewhere. Here, perhaps, I contest the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harper and will say something about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is a serious issue here and I do not think that the noble Lord has got it right. I do not actually think that my amendments have got it right, but this is the right place for us to talk about the general question of how the Government treat the railways in terms of funding and the provision of funds—not how much they give, but how they do it and what the process is.
The reason for that is as follows. I used to be in a local authority and very often we had to set a budget in March but did not know until Christmas—even after Christmas—what the subsidy from government would be. It is extremely difficult to put budgets together at short notice. With the railways, it is even more difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has already said that significant changes require a great lead-time and planning to be delivered and just as long for them to be reversed.
Most of my amendments are trying not to fetter Ministers—I accept the comments from my noble friend Lord Harper that Ministers have to be accountable for public expenditure and that they have to make difficult decisions sometimes—but to build in a notice period. I have suggested two years so that, if changes are to be made, they would be lagged by that period, so that Great British Railways knew where they were going to be.
When the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about timetables and so forth, he was discussing the operational side of the railway, but there is also the infrastructure investment side of the railway, which may extend to building a completely new railway. One of the problems we have—we all acknowledge this—is that it is impossible to build new infrastructure on a one-year settlement. We give long-term settlements to railway developers so that they know that they will have the money to carry the project through to the end. Should that change in funding not also be subject, if it is necessary, to some sort of notice period?
Further down the line from that, we have the supply chain. A colleague of mine recently visited a British train manufacturer. I will not say which one because I cannot remember. Maybe I can, but what I was going to say might be adverse—not about the manufacturer but about its situation—because it is down to using one manufacturing line at the moment, as the orders have effectively dried up.
We all know that the ideal situation is that British train manufacturers have access to a steady supply and a steady stream of demand, so that they maintain jobs and do not go from famine to feast. Where is the discipline going to come from, as a result of all these changes, to address that? What sort of lags and notice are necessary? As I said, I do not think I necessarily have the answer in these amendments, although they all point to this debate. We may not get further on this today, but the Government will have to talk seriously about this. When they create a wholly new structure to operate the railways—Great British Railways—funding has to be mentioned. An understanding of the approach to funding, not just for the operations but for the infrastructure, has to be addressed.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham because his expositions of difficult issues are always so clear and compelling. There is a movement on the left wing of the Labour Party—which is well represented in your Lordships’ House—to nationalise the roscos so that we can have a full sweep of nationalisation. To date, nationalisation of the railways has cost the Government nothing because, of course, they already owned nearly everything. All it has done is allowed certain franchises to expire at no cost to the taxpayer.
But the cost to the taxpayer of nationalising the roscos would be absolutely enormous, which is one of the reasons why the Government have resisted pressure from the more Corbynite wing of their party to proceed on that basis. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is suggesting that, at the stroke of some scribal pen in the Office for National Statistics, at least the financial consequences, if not the legal consequences, of nationalising the roscos would land on the Government’s plate as a result of the Bill—in other words, as a result of eliminating the relative multiplicity of buyers of rolling stock that exists at the moment and replacing it with a single buyer: a state-owned entity. As I understand it, that is the gravamen of what my noble friend is saying.
The amendment is almost too gentle for the circumstances because this is something that we would need to know in advance of the passage of the Bill. It is dilatory of the Office for National Statistics to say that it would review this matter only after the Bill has passed because it is of such consequence that legislators should know before they pass the Bill whether it will ensue as a consequence of their doing so. This is a matter of considerable importance. I do not know whether the officials advising the Minister perceived the full complexity of the noble Lord’s amendment in advance. They may not have given him a full response to the points made by my noble friend—although they may have done so, of course—so he may wish to follow up in writing. That may be acceptable to my noble friend—I do not know—but this is an extremely important matter that we really need to know about.
I do not propose to comment on the other amendments in this group so I turn to my own amendments, which were slightly mocked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We have been told—I accept that this is probably the case—that, should the Bill pass into law, it is likely to set a framework that will last for many years. People say that it is often 20 or 30 years before you get round to restructuring the railways; that is roughly the cycle on which it happens. I think, therefore, that it is very disappointing that the Government are seeking to restrict the debate to very narrow issues around the structure of the railway, which is the main basis of the Bill, when noble Lords want to debate other matters.
For example, in our debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is sadly not in his place any more, wanted to discuss the whole structure of funding the railways—not the amounts of funding but the mechanism by which it is done—in order to avoid crashing from one decision to another and to make it possible for both the railway and suppliers to plan what they will do with some knowledge that the funding will continue for at least a period into the future. Essentially, the Government want to escape having that debate and say, “Everything’s fine as it is so we’ll carry on as before”.
Through my amendments here, I want to have what I think is a very important political discussion about the Government’s vision for the level of subsidy that should go to the railway and for the balance between fares and taxpayer funding to support it. We have in this country a particular balance that is different from what exists in many European countries, and we have held on to it, but where do we want to go with it? The noble Baroness says that the railways will always require funding but, for their first 100 years, they did not require any public subsidy at all, and they provided the most comprehensive, intense and innovative transport system you could imagine, reaching to nearly all parts of the country. Further, they did so at a time when there were practically no roads, and there was certainly no air travel. Yet they did this without subsidy. We really only talk of subsidies to the railways when you get to the 1920s and 1930s, when money started leaking out of government and into the railways. That was before we had the full subsidy regime that came in with the Second World War and what followed. So it is possible to think about it.
I am not saying that it is particularly realistic to think about it, because I accept what the noble Baroness says: there is likely to be an element of subsidy all the way through. But what is the Government’s plan and what is the direction of travel on this? Would the Government not like to set out their policy and vision? If they do not want to do so today, then where in this process is it going to appear? Is the noble Lord going to tell us that it will all be in the long-term rail strategy, so that we can have a debate then about what is the appropriate level between taxpayer and fare payer? Remember that only 10% of the population makes regular use of the railways; the rest of the population is expected to subsidise it through their taxes, but only 10% actually use it. Is that a fair and sensible balance in an allocation of subsidies? These are important issues.
Amendment 112 is closely related but not quite the same. It asks for the railways to publish annual savings targets. Why should they not have such targets? There are great inefficiencies in every organisation. I do not say “in every public sector organisation”, although that is true, because there are inefficiencies in private sector organisations as well. When I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, we had a process for trying to reduce, with an annual savings target of 3% per annum. We took out that amount of cost year after year, bringing it down because we could find those efficiencies. I had learned from local government officers that they could do exactly that, because they knew where the inefficiencies were. In fact, they built them in a little, to give themselves some fat, but if they were required to reduce them under pressure, they could do it. Why should Great British Railways not have a similar discipline imposed on it? Where is the sense of financial discipline that we are looking for?
These are times when the Government have very little money; I think we know that. The tax burden is higher than ever, yet public expenditure is under huge pressure. Choices about defence and so forth cannot be made sensibly because of commitments elsewhere. I am not disagreeing with or criticising the noble Baroness. It is all very well to say that railways will always require subsidies, but the fact of the matter is—I believe this firmly, and I am a believer in the railways—that a railway that relies consistently and heavily on subsidy, in the current and foreseeable fiscal circumstances of this country, is a railway that will come under huge pressure and will be cut. It is not sustainable unless it can show that it is contributing from its own efficiencies and through generating higher fare income, which does not necessarily mean through higher fares but can be a combination of fares and passenger numbers. It needs a plan to show that it is doing that. These amendments ask the Government to set out that plan or tell us when they are going to do so, in the interests of Great British Railways itself.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 61 are about the funding of passenger services. In principle, I support the intentions of these amendments and acknowledge the benefits to business planning that aligning the funding cycles could bring. However, the reality of passenger services funding is that it is inextricably tied to passenger revenue, which changes in response to a number of factors that are difficult to predict, particularly over longer time spans.
Certain factors, such as wider economic conditions and the weather, are outside both GBR and government’s control, so it is quite difficult for any Government to commit passenger services funding in fixed five-year periods, given the revenue-forecasting challenges. It will, however, be a goal to work towards, and in particular it cannot be achieved before GBR’s funding settlement processes have bedded in and Ministers have confidence in how the settlements operate.
I recognise how important it is that GBR has the confidence to plan across track and train to make the most of integration. That is why it will be required to produce and publish a business plan covering all its activity, including on passenger services, and this plan will span the duration of the five-year funding period, regardless of changes to passenger funding. In addition, once Ministers have more experience of funding an integrated body and GBR has demonstrated that it is fiscally responsible, the Bill will provide a route to include passenger services in the five-year funding settlement in future, via statutory instrument. That will allow passenger services funding to join the five-year settlement. I hope the noble Baroness sees that we are as aligned as we can be on this amendment and that she can therefore support the Bill as drafted.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Is the noble Lord’s position that one of the consequences of this Bill, if enacted—we will not know for some months until after it is enacted—is that roughly £25 billion-worth of rolling stock could be added to government debt? I do not want to argue about the figure, but I believe that is roughly right. We are going into this in the dark, not knowing whether that will be the case. What soundings has the Minister taken with Treasury colleagues about this interesting possibility?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Since it is independent, nobody can predict the consequences of an Office for National Statistics examination until it concludes one. I said that the Secretary of State will work with it, because it will also need to consider the recent past. The Bill is in Parliament because it has cross-government agreement from all the departments of government. We cannot contemplate what the future might hold in respect of the decisions of the ONS.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am sorry to press the noble Lord. I agree that if the ONS is independent he cannot say what its decision will be, but he could secure that decision before the passage of the legislation. That cannot be too difficult. Given the consequence, it must be possible to secure the decision first. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that you would try to manipulate the decision; that is not my objective. Could the Government not take that approach? These are very significant sums, and to hold one’s nose and just jump into the dark seems reckless.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I already said that one thing the Secretary of State will do is to help the ONS with its understanding of both the recent past and what will happen as a consequence of the Bill. In the recent past, the Government have specified, to the most extraordinarily detailed degree, all the rolling stock used in all franchises for probably the past 10 or 12 years. They have also determined how long it runs for and how long it lasts. In those circumstances, we are very content to wait for the ONS to do its work when it chooses to do it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 59 looks at the statement of objectives that the Secretary of State sets out for GBR and what is intended to be achieved over the funding period. The objectives, as we can see in paragraph 2(2),
“may include objectives as to standards to be achieved when carrying on activities”
that are to be set out in the business plan. It is a simple proposition and one of those happy subjects that we always discuss in Committee: should the word be “may” or should it be “must”? The implication of “may” is that it may not be, and we are considering whether it would be acceptable for the statement of objectives not to include reference to the standards that are to be achieved in relation to these activities. One of these lists about which we are not supposed to be too specific follows, but standards to be achieved are not set out as such in that subsequent list. They tend to be objectives relating to other things.
However, my other amendment is intended to see how these things interact. Separately, in Clause 65, Great British Railways has the responsibility to consider whether it should have a performance scheme, which, as I understand it, is essentially about minimising disruption to the network and to passengers. The question is: where are the objectives in relation to minimising disruption to passengers? I do not see them in paragraph 2(3). You could argue that they arise from the carriage of passengers and goods, but I do not think it is sufficiently explicit. I am not sure whether it is included in objectives as to standards. Are those the same standards as in a performance scheme?
I see the two amendments being linked. We are looking to ensure that the objectives set out standards and are clear about what is required in terms of avoiding disruption and enabling passengers to be confident about the availability of services according to the timetable. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful to the Committee, since I have such a large number of amendments in the group and no one else who is present has any, if I speak now, and then it will be easier for the noble Baroness to comment on the amendments I have moved.
I shall start with Amendment 63A. I have tabled it because in the last 24 hours I have been contemplating the wipe-out of 10% of the global population by artificial intelligence, which a whistleblower at Anthropic has said is a very likely prospect some time in the next 10 years. It is possible that these claims are somewhat overblown—I do not know—but it is astonishing that we have a Bill whose measures in all likelihood, as I say, will stay in place for 30 years but we are not having any debate about digital, artificial intelligence or the innovative future of the railway.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I just interrupt my noble friend? I think he has moved on to the next group. We are on the group led by Amendment 59, to which I just spoke.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
And today’s Committee is due to conclude with Amendment 63.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I will speak to my Amendment 82 in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has added his name. It would create a new board of Great British Railways, and it provides detail of the composition of this board. The board would increase the transparency and accountability of the Secretary of State’s decisions, as it would create a vehicle for these to be properly discussed and would ensure that a wide range of expertise were at the table. If the Secretary of State decided to make a decision that was against the advice of the board, the reasons for that would need to be set out clearly and publicly.
The membership of the board would represent Great British Railways and other key stakeholders in the running of the railway, such as open access operators, freight operators, the Office of Rail and Road, the Passengers’ Council and organisations that represent passengers with accessibility requirements. It would comprise of at least six members. To make sure that there is a voice for other stakeholders, no more than half of the board’s membership would be employed by or otherwise represent Great British Railways.
This amendment would allow for any decision or direction from the Secretary of State concerning Great British Railways to be notified to the board prior to its being made. The board would then need to publish any decision or direction it had considered and whether it had approved it. If the board did not agree with the Secretary of State, it would still be free to go ahead with the decision, but it would need to publish a statement setting out its reasons for that. For us, this is a way to ensure that the Secretary of State uses the powers in this Bill wisely, with a proper sounding board for feedback from experts with different viewpoints in the field. I hope that the Minister will consider this proposal seriously.
The other amendments in this group are around clear objectives for Great British Railways. Amendment 64A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require consultation with the supply chain and railway service providers when preparing objectives for a funding period. That would appear to be a sensible way to ensure industry buy-in and prioritisation. Other amendments seek different ways to try to measure and assess the performance of Great British Railways. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide details of how the Secretary of State and Parliament will assess this going forward, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the Committee’s pardon: I got slightly muddled because of changes to the groupings.
I come to my Amendments 60, 64A, 83, 84, 87, 94, 124, 125 and 291. The central issue running through these amendments is accountability. We are creating an enormous, new, publicly owned organisation that will, in all likelihood, receive billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and exercise extraordinary control over the railway. It therefore needs clear objectives, measurable performance indicators and consequences for when it fails to deliver.
Amendment 60 addresses the funding objectives. As drafted, the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may include” the specified objectives. My amendment would change that to “must include”.
Amendment 64A would require consultation with railway service providers and the rail supply chain when those funding objectives are prepared. GBR will continue to rely enormously on the private rail supply chain. These businesses invest in skills, equipment and capacity on the basis of decisions taken by the Government and GBR, so it is sensible that those decisions are informed by their expertise and knowledge, as well as the consequences for employment and profits in the private sector that would arise from those decisions being made. They should be consulted.
The remainder of my amendments address what might be called the problem of the missing key performance indicators. We have repeatedly been told that GBR will be held to robust performance measures, but what does “robust” actually mean? Amendment 124 would answer that question by establishing a proper, statutory KPI framework covering the things that passengers and taxpayers actually care about: reliability, safety, passenger experience, affordability and value for money, passenger growth, financial sustainability, productivity and efficiency, and freight performance. Of course, one can argue about what should be on the list; I would be willing to enter into discussions with the Minister about putting in something else or maybe adjusting something that I have proposed. However, we need to know what performance indicators are in the Bill—otherwise, we will be allowing GBR far too much unconstrained power and latitude, with little accountability.
Amendment 94 would ensure that the long-term rail strategy is geared towards enabling GBR to meet these KPIs. The Government may say that a long-term rail strategy should not be dictated by short-term measures, but we have to get from the short term to the long term. A 30-year aspiration is of little value if there is no way of measuring whether GBR is moving towards it year by year.
Amendment 125 would, therefore, require annual reporting and quarterly updates against those KPIs. Even I admit that quarterly updates might be a little onerous so, if the Minister objects, I will meet him half way and say, “Let’s have semi-annual updates”—I am a reasonable person and am open to suggestions—but something is needed if we are going to succeed. It is no good saying, as we did the other day, that the target is to achieve 75% growth in freight by 2050. Only the day before yesterday, the Government produced a statement saying that they have set an interim target. So they appreciate what I am saying, which is that there should be interim targets. However, the interim target is that freight should achieve 40% growth by 2040. None of us will be here. Nobody is asking, “What is the 2030 target?” There is no 2030 target; there is merely a 2040 target. That is not good enough. It is playing with achieving targets and would be simply laughable in the private sector. We need these targets; as I say, quarterly updates may be too onerous, but an update every decade or 15 years is just not good enough.
Amendment 291 would give the ORR the important, independent job of assessing whether GBR is actually achieving its targets. Surely GBR cannot be allowed to mark its own homework.
Amendment 84 would apply the same principle during the transition. This is a generational restructuring of the railways, involving employees, operators, freight, open access, local authorities, the supply chain and millions of passengers. A quarterly ministerial Statement—or even one once every six months—on progress towards GBR becoming fully operational would increase transparency, maintain focus and, importantly, prevent drift.
Lastly, Amendment 87 concerns consequences. When I have asked the Minister privately how the Secretary of State will exercise control over GBR, he has said—he said this in a meeting for all Peers the other day, so I think I can repeat it—“Of course, she can always sack the chairman”. I suppose she can, because she is the sole shareholder in the business, but there was nothing about sacking the chief executive. Of course, it is not the Secretary of State’s job, as I understand it—we are not vouchsafed of these arrangements—to appoint or sack the chief executive; that would be a decision for the board. I am trying to introduce some accountability for the chief executive. We are giving the Secretary of State the power—not a duty, obviously—to dismiss the executive head of GBR when the organisation is failing against the KPIs and has also failed to act on guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It is not enough just to sack the chairman. You will not get anybody of any quality applying for the job if they are the only person whose head can roll; the chief executive needs to have their neck on the block as well.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 59 is obviously sound. The Secretary of State may
“include objectives as to the standards to be achieved in relation to railway services”,
but that “may” ought to be a “must”.
My noble friend Lord Grayling’s Amendment 66, to which I have added my name, would require GBR’s business plan to contain measurable performance indicators for its statutory duties. This is simply basic accountability. If Parliament gives GBR duties, its business plan should explain how its performance against them will actually be measured.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Let me come to that point. I believe that there is a provision, but before I say so, let me check.
The long-term rail strategy is designed to provide ministerial direction on the long-term trends that will affect the railways and, at a high level, what they expect GBR to do about them. The business plan is clearly the right place for short and medium-term targets to be included, which GBR should set for itself and which the ORR should review and comment on.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Can I be absolutely clear about that? The Minister is saying that GBR should set its own KPIs. The ORR may look at them and comment but, having heard the comments, GBR will set its own KPIs and amend them, or not, as it sees fit. That is the plan.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The long-term rail strategy will set out the Secretary of State’s expectations. The business plan will set out what GBR believes it can achieve to move towards the long-term rail strategy. The business plan has to be agreed with the Secretary of State, who might well disagree with some of its targets. In the end, GBR has to satisfy the Secretary of State about the progress that it proposes to make. I do not think that is much different, as the noble Lord will recall, to the Transport for London business plan, which translated the mayor’s transport strategy into targets related to the budget of the organisation and which were agreed by the mayor.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right that some of these KPIs relate to wider economic circumstances than the railway currently has, but we discussed on the first day in Committee the fact that the need for a long-term freight target is so that GBR focuses on its own part in growing freight. Clearly, it is much subject to what shippers want to send, how they want to send it, where they want to send it and so forth, but I do not see any conflict in GBR having a long-term freight target. It may have to take different action if the economy or the things which are transported by rail change over time. There has been no greater case of that than the case of coal and steel, which were once a significant part of railway freight but which today are virtually nothing. On the other hand, intermodal traffic and construction materials have vastly increased, and there is no doubt in my mind that the railway could contribute more than perhaps it has done in the recent past to growing those particular categories if it were minded to do so, and the freight target is designed to make it think about how it could do it.
I do not see any contradiction in that; it will be like running any other business. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to his experience at Transport for London and it is, of course, exactly the same. It is a large organisation which is contributing to, but to some extent dependent on, the economy of London; that will be true of the railways as a whole. I agree with noble Lords that there should be KPIs for GBR, and it should be held to account for meeting them. The reason we are discussing these now is because there is no doubt that, in the end, they should be in its business plan, set next to the costs that they incur and the revenue it will derive from them.
I should go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 says that GBR must keep the business plan up to date. We are pretty clear that that means annually; it could be more often if circumstances change. It is not unknown for businesses of this scale to have to change their business plan if the economic circumstances dictate, but I think annual is reasonable. I would not expect the Secretary of State or the board of GBR to tolerate any circumstances where it did not propose an annual business plan.
If I may, I will try to find my place regarding Amendment 66. I am glad that the noble Lord agrees that GBR’s business plan is where its KPIs should sit. However, these need to evolve over time while, by contrast, GBR’s duties are unchanging—a core list of ambitions guiding GBR over the next decades. While GBR’s business plan is where it will show both how it will discharge its duties and set out its KPIs, there is an important distinction between them. Duties and KPIs are not the same thing. KPIs need to be driven by the specific, often numerical, outcomes sought by the Government, whereas duties are behavioural expectations. Some of the duties would be impractical to even turn into measurable KPIs. How would GBR measure whether it has provided businesses with certainty or acted in the public interest? I believe it is right that the two should not be statutorily linked.
Amendment 87 proposes action about the chief executive. I hope the noble Lord understands that, primarily, the powers of the Secretary of State rest with the right, in the end, to dismiss the chair if that chair fails to do the job that the Secretary of State expects of the chair and the board. That might well be the case if the Secretary of State believed that the chair failed to challenge the executive and chief executive effectively. The Secretary of State will also have the right, as we discussed this afternoon, to issue legally binding directions to GBR, and those could be where remedial action is required. The Secretary of State could also remove accounting officer status from the CEO, effectively taking financial management of the company into the department.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
What I would say to the noble Lord about all these things is that we are setting this organisation up and, conventionally, it is the chair and the board that support, hire and fire the chief executive. I do not believe that his amendment is the right way of doing this. It should be done through the chair and the board, and the expectations of the Secretary of State should be conveyed to them. Whatever action might be necessary regarding the chief executive should be taken as a consequence of that relationship.
On Amendment 83, the Bill already does what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. Much of the substance of this amendment is already enabled by the process created by Schedule 2. GBR is already required to produce a business plan containing all its activity and how its costs will be met, which will be reviewed annually, as we have discussed, to ensure it is up to date. The plan will be published, which will allow Parliament and the public to hold GBR to account. The ORR will monitor GBR’s delivery of its business plan. I agree with the noble Lord that transparency is important, but we do not need to hardwire in excessive bureaucracy, as this amendment would.
On Amendments 59, 60, 62 and 64A, I can understand the desire to codify the contents of the statement of objectives, but this legislation needs to be drafted to last as long as the last Railways Act has and therefore needs to be open to future Governments to suggest their own objectives for the funding period. The Bill provides a suggested list of what could be included, setting a strong precedent for future government but leaving options open for Secretaries of State. This is a tried and tested method, being the same approach that underpins the periodic review of funding today. The periodic review is widely considered one of the most successful parts of the current regime, which is why the Bill replicates the five-year length of it. Similarly, the statement has to be capable of accommodating different approaches based on wider environmental and socioeconomic circumstances. That is why the current list of potential topics to be covered by the statement serves as a guide for future drafters but does not constrain the Government.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Bill should be amended to say that the business plan is annual, especially as that is the Government’s clear intention. The Minister has just said the business plan is going to be annual and it was precisely to get stakeholder engagement with business away from the annual cycle that the amendment was tabled. Can the Minister take account of that? It is not good enough to turn up once a year and have a word with the industry about what your plans are. That is what we are trying to get away from.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I am expecting an organisation, as GBR will be, to be constantly in discussion with the wider railway industry and the supply industry, and indeed its customers, simply because, as we have discussed, the market will change over time. I do not see that there is any confusion between an annual exercise of producing a business plan and the sort of engagement over a prolonged period that will confirm and vary industry’s advice over time about what should be in it. That is a perfectly natural way of doing business. If I refer, as I probably do too often, to Transport for London, that is precisely the way in which Transport for London did it. The business planning cycle was an annual cycle, but the engagement with those parties who had an interest in both the inputs and results was an activity throughout the year.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister has just changed the story. A moment ago, he was saying that engagement with business stakeholders would be through the business plan. Now he is saying that it is not actually through the business plan once a year—because anyway, we do not know it is going to be once a year, but it is likely to be once a year—but it will be a continuous process. Of course, it can in a sense be both, and other things, but that is not giving us the level of assurance and precision that I think noble Lords are looking for. This is one of our big opportunities to speak up in Committee for the interests of the supply chain—there may be other opportunities coming in later groups. This is the chance for the Government to nail down our interests. We are interested in passengers and freight, but we are also interested in the supply chain, and trying to secure for it a degree of visibility about the future is important. What we are getting is not very clear, I am afraid.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that the supply chain is crucial. Actually, for much of the supply chain, what really makes a difference is the five-year periodic settlement. That highlights the need for this engagement to go on, both at the time when the five-year plan is formed and the rest of the time. I do not see any contradiction in those two things happening. The five-year settlement for infrastructure could not possibly be done properly without the involvement of the supply chain, but they do not go away for the next four years until the next one. The dialogue with them is constant—and so it should be. I had better make progress, if I may.
I turn to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I do not often completely disagree with the noble Baroness, but I do here, I am afraid, because her amendment would fundamentally blur accountability for the railway system and undermine the clear responsibilities in the Bill. I do not think that interposing another board between the Secretary of State and the board of GBR would be right. However, the Bill contains a number of provisions such that both the Office of Rail and Road and the passenger watchdog will have many opportunities to provide the Secretary of State with advice before she takes decisions. The reality is that she will most likely have taken advice from either, or both, of them before any performance matters should escalate to the point of requiring a direction.
On Amendment 84, as we discussed in earlier groups, the Government are dedicated to providing a steady drum beat of publications that will inform the House—and, indeed, this Committee—on progress in establishing GBR. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to look at the Government’s policy publication timetable on GOV.UK; indeed, I have just written to noble Lords about the publication of the draft access and use policy by Network Rail. Given the ambitious timeline that we are working to on this, it would not seem to make much sense to divert resources away from the business of establishing GBR in order to write progress reports that would largely duplicate existing information that the Government are already making available.
Given what I have said, I encourage noble Lords and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Railways Bill
Lord Moylan ExcerptsTuesday 8th September 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 25-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (8 Sep 2026)
Lord Moylan
“(1A) The body corporate must be a company constituted under the Companies Acts.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify an ambiguity in this and the following Clause as to the legal character of the body corporate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in the course of preparing for this Committee, I have had a number of meetings with the Minister and his officials, and I thank them for making themselves available for those meetings. I say that now because I shall almost certainly forget to say it at more appropriate times later on, but if I do it is not because I do not mean quite seriously how grateful I am for the contribution and effort that they have made.
We are here on the first day of the Committee to create a Soviet-style railway in the United Kingdom and to go back—and we now know explicitly that it is the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s intention—to the warm and fuzzy 1970s. The 1970s are now the paradigm of where our nation should be. Those of us who remember the 1970s—there may be a number of us in the Room—do not have such fond memories of the standard of public services then compared with what we have today. We do not today have bodies unburied, we do not have refuse piled high in the streets as a result of government folly and we have railways that run broadly on time compared to the—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is not here to be annoyed by this—relative catastrophe of British Rail in its worst days as it trundled towards its final station. Now it is to be resuscitated. We are to get Great British Railways in place of British Rail and we are going to have it on a totally nationalised basis.
There are two separate things going on here. First, the Minister makes a case that the railways would operate more efficiently if, as he puts it, track and train were united. That argument can be debated. I do not wholly accept it, but it can be debated, but it is not necessary in order for track and train to be united that they should all be owned by the Government in a single company. We know that because the Williams review, which was warmly welcomed by the Minister when he was chairman of Network Rail and was supported by the Conservative Government at the time, gave an alternative way forward, so the decision to nationalise the whole thing is particularly spiteful. The only explanation for it—because it is not necessary for the purpose of achieving the Government’s stated objectives—is that it has been done to pay off the trades unions that made such generous contributions to Labour’s victory at the polls in 2024.
We know that privatisation has been a huge success on the railways and that passenger numbers increased enormously after privatisation. It would be astonishing if the Government nationalising the railways achieved anything like that increase in passenger numbers. New operators entered the market and competition stimulated improvements.
I have four amendments in this group, but one of them is consequential, so three that I intend to speak to. My Amendment 2 addresses a particularly vicious little clause in the Bill, which says, first of all, that the body designated as Great British Railways has to be owned wholly by the Crown. In other words, a future Minister would have to pass primary legislation to redesignate or designate a different body in the private sector to carry out Great British Railways’ activities. What is the need for that? It is simply to gratify the trades unions. A second part almost seems to impose a penalty of some sort on any Minister who makes even a suggestion that Great British Railways should be transferred to the private sector. My Amendment 2 deletes that part; it does not stop Great British Railways going ahead as a nationalised body but it allows a future Secretary of State without the need for primary legislation to redesignate a different body, not necessarily owned by the Crown, to carry out the role of Great British Railways.
Amendment 1 is addressed at sloppy drafting more than anything else. The Bill talks about a body corporate being designated as Great British Railways, whereas later, in the next clause, it is implicit that the body corporate should be a company constituted under the Companies Act. But the Bill does not actually say that the body corporate has to be constituted under the Companies Act; it only says that it has to be wholly owned by the Crown. Other bodies corporate could be designated, as long as they were wholly owned by the Crown. It is simply sloppy drafting not to say at this point that it is to be a body constituted under the Companies Act.
When I mentioned this to the Minister, he said, “Oh well, everybody knows it’s going to be a company constituted under the Companies Act”. Well, they do not, if they read the Act—it needs to be written into the Act by him that that is what the intention is. It should say quite explicitly that that is what he intends to do. We will come back to this when we discuss amendments later in Committee that relate to the board of this company. There are some from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, about the board of this company and how this corporate structure works, because the Bill is very silent on that. This needs to be done.
Finally, Amendment 8 probes Great British Railways’ organisational structure. To this day we still have no idea at all—and maybe the Minister has no idea at all—how Great British Railways is going to be structured. Let me give a couple of options. It could be that it will be structured geographically, roughly mapping the existing structures, so that one division deals roughly with the south-western main line, one division deals with the east coast main line, and so forth. It could be structured like that, but you could have a totally different structure. There might be an argument for saying that we should have one division that deals with operating the railways, one that deals with managing the major stations, another division that deals with the minor stations and another again for retail. You could have an organisation that was completely functionally based rather than geographically based. These are important questions, which I think Parliament should have a chance to have a say on, yet not only is the Bill silent about them but the Government are silent as well. The effect of Amendment 8 is to require the Government to publish their organisational structure before the Bill can come into effect.
That is enough for the moment—I understand that other noble Lords have things to say. I will just say in advance—and I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for pre-empting her—that I have taken note of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They are not wholly aligned with my view of the role of the private sector and she will not therefore, I think, be surprised if I find myself not able to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to join this first group in Committee. I am sitting to the left of the Liberal Democrats because that is where I now find myself; I always want to be sitting behind my noble friend on the Front Bench in Committee to back him up, but I cannot do that because there is no back row in this Room, so I cannot be self-effacing in the back row. Anyway, I look forward to Committee. I do not have the experience of railways that the Minister and my noble friend speaking for the Official Opposition do—I do not pretend to that intimate knowledge of the railways—but I hope to bring something of my interest in how competition should be applied in the delivery of public services to some of the issues that we will be debating.
I turn to this group. There are a number of amendments in my name which are just about trying to find out, as I was going through the Bill, whether it works in the way described or precisely what it means. Rather in line with what my noble friend was just saying, we need to be sure that we understand that the Bill is functionally correct in the way that it works. I have just two amendments in this group.
Amendment 3 relates to the question of what must be wholly owned. As my noble friend said, Clause 1 is constructed around the proposition that Great British Railways not only must be wholly owned by the Crown but cannot be anything else. That relates to GBR itself. The purpose of Amendment 3 is to test whether that also applies to GBR companies. We do not encounter GBR companies in Clause 1, but we do subsequently as a means by which GBR will undertake its activities. This is not surprising. As my noble friend said, we do not know how GBR will be corporately structured but, by way of example, we know how Network Rail is structured. It has a significant number of wholly owned subsidiaries and quite a number of joint venture subsidiaries, including through Platform4.
For example—and here I declare my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and others—Platform4 is a Network Rail subsidiary company that has just recently, happily, entered into an agreement with partners to develop at Cambridge North station as part of the Government’s proposal to develop around stations, with 450 homes around the station. It is a joint venture company; it is not wholly owned by Network Rail. So my starting proposition is that this prohibition on companies not being wholly owned must apply to GBR itself but cannot apply to GBR companies. I want to be sure that that is the case. If it is not absolutely clear in the statute then it ought to be, which would be the purpose of my amendment.
That differentiates the amendment from those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to which we will no doubt turn in a minute, who wants precisely that to be the case. For the reasons I have just explained about the many joint ventures for things such as housing developments and commercial developments around stations through companies such as Platform4, if I may respectfully say so before she has put her case, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that all GBR companies should be—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, with the permission of the Chair, I will do something I have not done in the 13 years I have been here as a Peer. The place name in my title is “Mole Skoomb”, okay? There is a railway station at Moulsecoomb, near Brighton; in fact, it is not in Moulsecoomb but in Bevendean, which is a source of great irritation to people living in Moulsecoomb; Moulsecoomb is a mile up the road. Anyway, it is pronounced “Mole Skoom”. Thank you.
I said in my speech at Second Reading that I welcome the Bill; the Green Party has long argued that our railway should be run as a public service, not for private profit, and that is exactly where my five amendments here are going: they all make basically the same point. It was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to point out that he did not agree with me; in fact, it sort of made me feel slightly better because, worryingly, there are times when I do agree with him, so it is good to get back on our tracks.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Sorry, I did not mean that.
What I am trying to do with these five amendments is to make sure that public ownership of our railways really means public ownership. The Bill, as it currently stands, could allow companies within Great British Railways to have private shareholders. The Bill is, or should be, about bringing our railways back into public ownership, and we therefore should not be creating a back door that allows private ownership to creep in.
This is the worry that the Association of British Commuters, We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have brought to us. They and the others are asking a very simple question: what exactly do we mean when we say that Great British Railways will be publicly owned? At the moment, the answer is not clear in the Bill. The Government made a welcome commitment that all the shares in the parent company of Great British Railways would be publicly owned, but does that extend to the companies sitting beneath it?
The Bill defines a GBR company as a subsidiary within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. A subsidiary does not have to be wholly publicly owned; it can be partly owned by private investors, provided that the parent company retains control. We could have a railway where the parent company is entirely publicly owned but where companies carrying out important railway functions have private shareholders. Does that not fundamentally change what public ownership means? The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 used a much clearer definition: a public sector company had to be wholly publicly owned. The Companies Act itself provides the Government with the wording they could have used if they intended to require wholly owned subsidiaries. I think we have to ask this: why was that stronger definition not used here?
This is not helped by the Government not being clear about exactly which functions GBR companies will carry out, as the Bill gives these companies the ability to carry out potentially any GBR function. That could include train operations and infrastructure management, which leaves the door open to a very different railway in the future. In a worst-case scenario, the new definition of GBR companies as subsidiaries could even lead to the part-privatisation of rail infrastructure management—a direction of travel thought impossible in the UK since the days of Railtrack.
Railway privatisation has been a disaster: it fragmented the railways, drove up costs and put private profit ahead of passengers. We should not be creating a structure today that would enable a future Government to say, “Well, the legislation already allows private investment and we’re simply making use of the powers that Parliament has already given us”. These amendments would stop that happening. I should also say that I have not yet had the delight of meeting with the Minister, but I am sure that that is in progress.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My experience of Network Rail’s property and Platform 4 is offset by increasing age and failure to remember the details. I will not only write to noble Lords about the 50:50 aspect, but about Mayfield, which I remember vaguely is of a different percentage, partially because much of the land is owned by somebody else rather than the railway. I will write on both those points, because I think they are germane. I appreciate the point that people need to understand how this will work in practice, particularly with those areas of activity of GBR that are not the provision of passenger railway services or the basic railway.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I start, may I add to the comment made by my noble friend Lord Lansley? My example is not a Network Rail example, but a TfL one, with which the Minister will be very familiar: the Earl’s Court development. The essential structure is that the initial ownership of the joint venture was based on the value of the land that each party was contributing, but that the TfL structure would fall well below 50% over the course of time, as more investment was added by the private sector partner. Structures such as that would simply not be possible for Great British Railways land under this Bill, because you could not go below the 50%. So, a site such as Earl’s Court, if it were a national Network Rail site— pari passu, mutatis mutandis—would of course remain undeveloped until the Government found the money to develop it. The Government will never find the money to develop these things.
Turning to the debate that we have just had, I must say that, whenever I speak in Committee, I always seem unwittingly and unintentionally to attract the disappointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I am surprised about this, because the only reference I made to her in the course of my speech was to say something complimentary about amendments that she has tabled, which we will debate later in Committee and to which I have added my name. Obviously, I am at fault in some way, in that I am constantly giving her cause for complaint.
On the question of organisational structure, the Minister has read out some words about how Network Rail will be organised, but they do not provide a level of assurance or satisfaction that people are looking for. They are very woolly, but I will leave that and grant him that for the moment; he can stick with that level of woolliness. However, let us switch focus slightly and think about timing. When I spoke on the then passenger railway services Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government were embarking on a very long multi-year transformation process. Here we are, two years later, and we still have not completed that. We are at least six months away, I should guess, from seeing the enactment of this necessary legislation. That is two and a half years on.
Transforming an organisation as complex as Network Rail and all the companies being brought into this group is something that is going to take years. So let me change the question: is the Minister able to say, before we conclude this debate, at what time he expects that structure to be in place, which he has described to us even in woolly terms?
Just to develop that a little further, it is said throughout the industry, although it is acknowledged that nobody has written this down, that the intended designation date for Great British Railways is October 2027, which is 12 months from now—say, six months after the enactment of the Bill, if it goes through in its current form, according to its current plans. Is that date valid? Does the Minister believe that the structure that he has described in whatever woolly terms will be in place in time for that designation date, or is it all going to muddle on for years afterwards, being put in place?
Finally, on the second important point that we have discussed in this short debate, I express my gratitude to—I am going to say this correctly now—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Kudos! But do not minute that in Hansard. I am very grateful to her because she put her finger on one of the key issues in this group, which is the question of the justification for private ownership. She has said, effectively, that it is party policy, in her case, and she is going to stick to it, for that reason if not for others as well. But we did not get a clear answer from the Minister to my question: what is his justification for wholesale nationalisation for the purpose of achieving his objectives, which could have been achieved by a Williams report approach? It is wholly irrelevant whether the last Government did anything about it, for heaven’s sake—what is the point of making a comment like that? The last Government were all over the place; that is why they lost the election. Is that the standard that the Minister is setting for the Government, that they are just about better than Sunak? Is that it? Is that the point of making that remark?
The Minister has one further opportunity to give us a clear explanation. The only explanation that he has given is that it is in the manifesto. If that is the sole explanation, that is very helpful to us, because knowing that there is no rational basis for the decision makes it very much easier for an incoming Government to advance the argument that the necessary measures should be taken at pace to reverse it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, first, the operative date for Great British Railways will be sometime in 2027, but of course it depends on the passage of this Bill. Secondly, I can give a very sound explanation for being in favour of public ownership, which is that progressively, as we have taken recent train operating companies into public ownership, we have been able to put both the track and infrastructure and the operations into the management of the same person. That is delivering results that no previous arrangement for over 30 years has been able—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Why, if that is such a good thing, are there fewer and fewer services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I shall continue with what I was saying. It has not been possible, in any previous iteration of the railways since the early 1990s, to have both under the same control. There was such an arrangement with South Western Railway in the 2010s, and it collapsed, because the commercial arrangements were incompatible. We are making steady progress in improving the railway in some pretty difficult circumstances, in companies that had not been particularly well managed, as a consequence of being able to manage them together. To my mind, that is a very good reason for public ownership.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy, in so far as that is directed at me, to bear it in mind. Of course, I could be quicker in challenging the Minister when I sum up. I am not summing up, of course; I am actually testing him on his response to the points I made in moving my amendment. I would be a great deal quicker if he had properly addressed them to my satisfaction in the course of his speech. When Ministers do that, I shall of course be briefer. But, if the Minister does not do that, then, with every respect to the noble Lord, I shall take exactly as long as is needed, because we are in Committee and those rules do not apply. I will not be curtailed. After all, thanks to the noble Lord and the Whips, we have five hours, not four, to play with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
It sounds like I have missed the best bit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw Amendment 1?
Lord Moylan
“Purpose of Great British Railways(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,(e) expanding and improving the network, including services and connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,(g) supporting economic growth and national productivity, and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance, (i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and(m) supporting multi-modal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak, with my customary brevity, to Amendment 7 and to open the debate on this second group. I have a large number of amendments in this group, so I shall speak only briefly to each of them because I do not want to provoke any noble Lords to start waving their hands at me again, which is only intended to distract and does not promote debate.
Although Amendment 7 starts the group, I intend to return to it towards the end of my remarks. I will start with Amendment 9, which may appear to be pernickety, but I will explain it to noble Lords, many of whom will know that I have a background in local government. But it is not entirely a local government matter; it applies to legislation more broadly. We are well familiar with the notion of powers. Local government is given powers to do things, and so is the Secretary of State periodically. We are also familiar with the notion of duties—we are clear what the distinction is—which can be placed on local government and, similarly, on the Secretary of State. I do not claim huge experience, but I have never come across the question of functions, and I do not understand what a function is. It is sloppy drafting. Is a function a legal power? We understand what that is. Is it a duty? When does a function slip over into being a duty, and vice versa?
But then I go to a second level of refinement. Clause 3 refers to the “general functions” of Great British Railways. If I am unclear what a function is, I am doubly unclear what a general function is. It could be that this is a fuzzy notion—it is a general thing and we are not quite clear what it is—in which case it is not very satisfactory as a piece of legislation. Or it could seek to set out a hierarchy of functions, where these are the general functions and there are other more minor functions that sit under them but have to conform to, contribute to and be ancillary to the general functions. Is that what “general functions” is meant to mean, or is the word “general” simply redundant? I ask because later the Bill refers to “the functions” of Great British Railways on several occasions and the expression “general functions” never reappears.
I suspect that this is not a very complex issue. I suspect it is just sloppy drafting. But we cannot put up with that—we need to know what is meant by functions, how many duties are being imposed on Great British Railways that we can hold it to account for, how many powers are being given to it by statute that it has to explain and justify using or not, and whether “general” is creating a hierarchy with subordinate functions that must comply or not. I do not think this will necessarily be settled today; it is very likely that we will come back to this so that we really understand what the Bill is doing.
Amendment 13 would exclude rail safety advice and standards from Great British Railways. Under Clause 3(1)(g), Great British Railways will be
“publishing advice and standards on matters related to railways and railway services”.
I really do not know why it is doing this. Publishing advice and standards is normally the function of either a regulator or an independent standards board. I do not know why Great British Railways is doing this. In so far as it is doing it to itself, that is okay. I have no objection to its setting internal standards. However, my Amendment 14 says that it should not be able to create standards and issue advice to non-GBR actors on the Great British Railways network. Internal standards are no problem, but if standards are to be set then they should be set by an independent board, a regulator or the ORR.
Finally on this point, Amendment 13 would exclude safety standards entirely from that scope. I say this because safety on British railways has been at a very high standard and it is a common view that the role of the Office of Rail and Road as safety regulator has been an important contributor to that. I do not want to see its role diluted, and I do not know anybody in the industry who does. The danger here is that the power being given to GBR to set standards implicitly for other people operating on the railways, implicitly including safety standards, creates a tension with the role of the ORR that can be only destructive of and damaging to the effectiveness and reputational safety of Great British Railways.
Amendment 18 relates back to the question of functions. It would remove the Secretary of State’s power to confer additional railway-related functions on Great British Railways. If it requires an Act of Parliament to set up the general functions of Great British Railways, why should we want to give the Secretary of State the undiluted, unrestricted power to create new functions to add to them? I do not think this is the correct way of doing it. If there is a requirement for further functions in future, it should at the very least be done by statutory instrument, if the power is to be granted at all.
I turn to Amendment 80. My noble friend Lord Grayling, with his very considerable experience of the railways from being Transport Secretary, has tabled a number of amendments but unfortunately is unable to be in the House this week. But I have signed Amendment 80 in its support, so I will speak to it. It is slightly out of place in this group, but we will come back to this topic eventually.
The amendment would require that charges imposed by Great British Railways for certain railway services are “reasonable”. Who can object to that? Who would want charges that are not reasonable? But that is not the power given to Great British Railways by the Bill. The power to make these charges is relatively unconstrained— I agree that it may be constrained by competition law—and would, in effect, allow GBR to set charges as it sees fit. That is too much latitude; the power should be constrained by the necessity for charges to be reasonable.
Amendment 81 is, in fact, in my name, but is close to the previous one. It would give to an individual—it might be a company—who is aggrieved by the charge, term or conditions imposed by Great British Railways a right of appeal to the Office of Rail and Road. Again, who would think that this very modest constraint on the absolute discretion of Great British Railways could be anything other than reasonable and necessary? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am keen not to be seen as a support act to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, although some of my remarks might echo points that he made in the previous group.
Amendment 15 would place on Great British Railways a duty to act as a single employer for the staff transferring into it from Network Rail and the train operating companies, as they move into public ownership. The starting point is that the Bill is silent on this question. It creates Great British Railways and sets out its functions, and it deals in some detail with the machinery of transfer, but says nothing about who will employ the people who run the railway. There are well over 100,000 people involved: more than 40,000 are directly employed by Network Rail and there are more than 60,000 across the train operating companies. They are no clearer today about who their employer will be than they were before the Bill was published.
This matters more than it might appear. The operators are coming into public ownership on a staggered basis, contract by contract, over several years. The uncertainty is therefore not settled by a single moment of transition; it is spread out and repeated. Staff in one company would inevitably draw conclusions from what happens in another. In the absence of a stated employment model, people will assume the least favourable one: that subsidiary companies will be retained, terms and conditions will diverge and the integrated railway will turn out to be a holding company with much of the same fragmentation underneath it. I hope that this is not what the Government plan.
The founding document here is Getting Britain Moving. Those interested in the reason for putting the railways into public ownership would find their time well served by consulting that document, which addresses the issues in contention today. That document was explicit that Great British Railways would be “a new, single employer” and that the workforce would be treated
“as an asset to be nurtured rather than a cost to be cut”.
That was a clear commitment, and these amendments asked for it to be put in the Bill or, failing that, restated from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Harper, for their contributions.
I start with Amendment 7, which would introduce a purpose for GBR into the Bill. The Bill already provides a purpose for GBR, just as we promised the Liberal Democrats it would during the passage of the public ownership Act. The Bill’s purpose is set out through its functions and duties. The functions tell us what GBR must do, and the duties tell us what GBR must consider and achieve while doing it. Much like the noble Lord’s amendment, the duties provide a list of objectives for GBR, which it must bear in mind when undertaking every decision and its railway activity.
I hope the noble Lord can see that the duties are in fact similar to the breadth of outcomes his amendment is seeking. The duties already require GBR to prioritise the needs of passengers and disabled passengers; to consider value for money, high standards of performance including reliability, social and economic benefits, and the environment; to grow freight; and to advance the public interest. We do not need a new purpose clause to provide GBR with these objectives: the Bill already does so.
Unlike the proposed purpose clause, the functions and duties are supported by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will also provide clear long-term objectives. That strategy is how Ministers will communicate to GBR what it should consider while planning, expanding and improving the network over the next 30 years, and GBR will develop its own pipeline of projects in response to that. Rather than a static requirement in the Bill which is not set in the context of wider priorities or funding expectations, we have a system that might actually work better to make our railway better. Instead of setting out a clear purpose, the proposed new clause duplicates many of the provisions already in the Bill, making outcomes less clear and, overall, less likely to be deliverable.
Amendment 9 is seeking clarification of what “general” means. A general function is an umbrella term for an activity which a body can undertake by doing lots of different things. For example, running passenger services involves a large number of intermediate actions such as procuring and operating rolling stock, employing train drivers and other staff, and selling tickets. The Bill requires GBR to run passenger services as a general function, and it therefore does not prescribe exactly what actions it should take in which order to do that.
In comparison, a specific function would be an individual action that the Bill requires GBR to do at a certain point or in a certain way. An example of this would be the requirement on GBR to draft and issue the access and use policy in Clause 59. This is a specific requirement to kick off the access process and not a general function.
The term “general” is therefore helpful in distinguishing between a specific activity that GBR is required to perform and the continuing business of GBR in running the railways. I assure the noble Lord that functions are a standard drafting approach, used also, for example, in the Communications Act 2009, the Climate Change Act and others. I hope that this explanation provides the clarity that the noble Lord seeks and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister would be so good, this really is very important. I did not think he would adopt that approach, but it is one of the two approaches I offered him, and he has chosen to adopt that which says that this is essentially hierarchical, so that the general functions set out in the Bill subsume a whole load of subsidiary and ancillary functions. I am still not clear whether these functions are powers or duties. Does GBR have some choice over whether to carry out these functions—in which case, they would be akin to powers—or is it obliged to do so?
My key question, now that we have established that, is this: to carry out a general function, there are a whole load of subsidiary and ancillary functions you may have to carry out. I understand that completely, and the Minister did not have to give examples, but he did very helpfully. Is the functionality, so to speak, of Great British Railways therefore limited to the functions set out in this clause? In other words, can it do anything else or is it limited to doing the things that are general functions here? Does it have the power to carry out any other activity? These are really important questions, which may end up being tested in court. I know he has quoted some examples but, because generally unfamiliar language is being used, it is unclear to me whether we are talking about the general functions being the full scope of GBR’s activities or not.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I am at least clear about this. The functions are more like powers; the duties are the things that GBR must do when doing the functions, but it is not limited to those general functions. Indeed, we have already discussed quite extensively what it might do, for example, in property development and with third parties, which, because it is a Companies Act company, it can do. I think that is reasonably clear. I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord in more detail, because I think we are getting tied up in nomenclature. I think it is reasonably clear what GBR’s functions are, which are described in Clause 3; it describes running the railways. It is also clear that, in the process of running the railway and because of its activity, it is able to do a number of other things.
Let me carry on to Amendment 12, if I may. Amendment 12 would require GBR’s functions to facilitate the provision and use of railway services to be carried out in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. I absolutely agree that GBR should act fairly; however, the duties in the Bill already require GBR to act in the interest of the public, taxpayers, passengers and freight customers. GBR will act fairly in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions. We will no doubt discuss this more when we discuss ticket retailing and access. For now, suffice it to say, there are already protections in the Bill—and indeed in wider statutes, such as public law principles and the Competition Act, which applies in full to Great British Railways—that will require GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. This additional requirement would duplicate only the Competition Act requirements, adding uncertainty and administrative burden without increasing protection for non-GBR operators.
Amendments 13 and 14 relate to the publishing of advice and standards for the railways. I thank the noble Lord for this probing amendment, and I reassure him that the ORR is the sole safety regulator for the railway. The Bill does not transfer the ORR’s safety regulatory functions to GBR, nor does it change the current railway safety regime at all. The ORR will continue to exercise its independent safety, regulatory and enforcement functions, including its ability to ensure that GBR and other operators comply fully with all safety legislation requirements.
Comparatively, GBR’s function to publish standards is a reference to technical standards, which GBR would publish and share with industry as a method of promoting best practice. This is similar to today; at present, Network Rail and the train operating companies develop and publish technical standards covering many aspects of their operation. These standards include operation and maintenance protocols, design specifications and engineering guidelines. This does not in any way prevent it adhering to the ORR’s safety regime, which it is required by law to comply with. This also does not give GBR any remit over safety regulation. The standards are non-binding and designed simply to support shared learning across the industry.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The obligations placed on GBR by the long-term rail strategy, and the consequent approval by the Secretary of State of the business plan, should adequately deter Great British Railways from seeking to achieve that by diminishing services. Indeed, there was an example in the franchising era of the Government being loose with their definition of train services, only to discover that the franchisee had, remarkably, reduced the subsidy by withdrawing a number of services on rural branch lines. That clearly would not be possible with a decent long-term rail strategy and a consequent business plan to which a Government should agree.
Amendments 80 and 81 relate to the Clause 13 provision allowing GBR to charge for its functions. I agree that GBR must act reasonably while setting charges, and I assure the noble Lord that there are already safeguards in the Bill to ensure that charges are reasonable. GBR has a duty to ensure that railway service providers, such as other operators, can plan, invest and make decisions about their own businesses, so GBR must set charges that are consistent with this and do not undermine other people’s ability to run viable and successful businesses.
Competition law will apply to GBR, ensuring that charges it sets are not anti-competitive. In this context, an additional reasonableness test is duplicative without delivering any material additional protection. It is also important that GBR can recover appropriate costs from those who access and benefit from the services it provides. If it were prevented from doing so, the burden would ultimately fall on the taxpayer and passengers.
Amendment 81 would provide an appeal route. All I say to the noble Lord is that an appeal route to the ORR across every possible charge that GBR could levy is disproportionate. I have already mentioned the safeguards in existing law to ensure that those charges are fair.
On the private sector growth target referred to in Amendment 114, nothing in the Bill seeks to exclude or marginalise the contribution of the private sector, but I do not agree that a statutory target is the right approach. The Bill is absolutely an opportunity for the supply chain, but in that case, we have to let the market determine its contribution.
On Amendment 305 from my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I assure him that existing legal rules already allow railway operators to seek recovery of costs and other losses through civil law. A substantial amount of cost recovery is achieved already, and the limit to it is to do not with legal powers but with the identification of perpetrators who drive off. Given what I have set out, I encourage noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I begin with a craven apology to my noble friend Lord Harper for my comments about the Sunak Government. For the avoidance of doubt, had the last general election been fought solely on the question of his conduct of the office of Secretary of State for Transport, I am sure the result would have been very different and more favourable to the Conservative cause.
I will not refer here at any length to the question of functions, except to say that it is a mess. At the end of this debate, everybody in the Room who has thought about it can probably see that it is a mess. However, the Minister kindly offered me a meeting to discuss this, and I think my noble friend Lord Lansley is now very much included in that invitation, and possibly other noble Lords. I ask that that meeting takes place reasonably promptly as these issues will return at later stages in Committee rather than being left to the end of Committee and rushed through just ahead of Report. A sensible meeting on that could be very valuable.
I will comment about the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I do not agree that there should be a single employer as such, although I think there will be one because I think the unions will get their way. My noble friend Lord Harper explained the danger to the public of going down that route. I fully expected—and was disappointed—that the noble Lord, given his background, would refer to the difficulty with pensions, particularly the fact that all these organisations currently have individual pension schemes within the Railway Pensions Scheme. Is the Minister satisfied that it will be possible, in the timescale he is working towards—namely, the designation of GBR in the second half of next year—for the Railway Pension Scheme trustees and Railpen to achieve a smooth and lawful transition of pension arrangements in that time? He may not be able to answer that question now, but we must find some way of coming back and discussing this because pensions are a very important aspect of the remuneration of the employees.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a strong debate on an important issue. It is about ensuring that passengers have a wide range of retailers from which to buy their tickets and other associated services, whether for leisure or onward travel and so on, and that there is a level playing field between Great British Railways’ retail arm and the third sector providers. At the start of the discussion on this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, made a clear case about the issues, which are uniting members from across the Committee.
Throughout the discussions on all the amendments in these groups there has been a desire for genuine and fair choice for passengers. We want to promote a competitive retail market and equal access to systems, data and products so that they can be used by start-ups and others as well as established practitioners in this area. The latter point is important. It is part of Amendment 211 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and is supported by a number of other Members, including my noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho. I want to spell out why these issues are so important.
I was really interested to hear about the recent product launched in Wales earlier, which not all third-party retailers were able to promote. In the last week, South Western Railway has had a special discount, some kind of flash sale, on rail tickets on its services. I was not able to find these on my usual app—Trainline, though others are available—but only on the South Western Railway website, which is what I had to use to purchase these super-discounted tickets. It may well be my technological limitations failing me, but, if I had not seen an email from South Western Railway, I would not have known about these special tickets and would have ended up paying three to four times the amount for my travel.
There has to be a genuine level playing field where all retailers can sell the same tickets and discounted tickets and use their skills and innovations to drive more traffic through their sites and apps. Different people read data and information in different ways, and that is why we have such a range of apps; we all look at things differently and have different ways we want to purchase tickets. It is important that this can thrive, with the jobs and innovation that this creates.
Members from different parties are in the same area on this issue, but some go further. Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wishes to prevent Great British Railways having any retail website or application until Parliament has had a say over its full-life cost. This sounds a little bit like what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was talking about—when he was in the department saying, “Why is Great British Railways getting into this space at all?”
As we have already heard, if you look internationally, SNCF has a retail arm in France, but it is kept separate from the main SNCF network, so there is no conflict. In some ways, that is a bit like the regeneration and planning functions of a local authority. They are a part of the same body, but they have to be kept separate because of their distinct functions. Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, suggests a way to do this, which may help with this concern.
My noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho spoke eloquently at Second Reading about this area. I know he has held several meetings with officials to discuss his concerns not just about the existing third-party retailers but the ease for new entrants—start-ups—to come into this marketplace and offer the quality services that passengers desire.
Finally, I want to pick up on Amendments 208 and 339, tabled by my noble friend Lady Leaman. This is so important for passengers. It would ensure automatic Delay Repay compensation, whichever retailer you have bought your tickets with. It is about putting the passenger front and centre so that, if something does go wrong, they are compensated without having to jump through hoop after hoop. It is a basic right if we are to transform our railways into the modern, passenger-focused service that we all desire.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on this really strong debate; I hope that it is far more than simply saying that the retail code of practice, as an approved document, will deal with all these issues. I think the Minister will have heard loudly and clearly—and not just from the transport enthusiasts, though many of us are here in this Room—that noble Lords are rightly concerned about this area, and we must get this right.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but I will not speak to them because right at the outset my noble friend Lady Harding said that there were quite a lot of amendments in this group which offered different means of achieving the same thing, and it was hard to say which were the better ones. I am not claiming that mine are better than others, and I think my noble friend Lord Harper said something along the same lines. We have put them down because we feel strongly about a very important issue, we want it debated, we want the Government to take note and to do something about it before we get to Report. Whether they do what my amendment or somebody else’s amendment says is something we might have a chance to debate and discuss privately before we get to that point—I do not know—but I am not wedded to my particular solutions and therefore will not speak directly to them.
I will say that we on our side support everything that has been said, in that we are curious about why GBR is doing this. I will come back to this point; I will make the Minister’s case for him in a moment, rather against my own interests. We are curious as to why the Minister wants to do this in the first place but, if he is going to do it, there has to be a level playing field for those who are already in the field and other new entrants, because they have demonstrated the advantages they can bring to passengers. The difficulty here—it will arise in the next group—is that GBR is effectively a huge bear sitting in your front room. That bear is both a competitor and a regulator, and its slightest twitch, even unintentionally, could do serious damage to your business. There are a lot of private sector businesses, not just in ticket retailing but those who want to have access to freight and for other purposes, which we will come to later—open access and so forth —which are very worried about what is being created.
The only assurance we are getting from the Minister is essentially, “We are decent professional people; we will do this well”. That is fine. The noble Lord is a decent and professional person. Having worked with him for many years, I am happy if it is of any value to him to give him that endorsement. However, he lacks the quality of immortality. It is necessary to give at least 30 years’ guarantee, if this is going to be the legislative background for 30 years.
Lord Moylan (Con)
He may do that. He lacks the ability in himself to give us the level of assurance that we and various aspects of the industry—not just retail—want.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having held a meeting, which was open to all interested Peers, last week. I will say something that I raised then. I have to say that I had to slip out briefly during my noble friend Lord Holmes’s speech. He may have said something along these lines. I know he spoke about data.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It was a very good speech that I will read several times in Hansard before tomorrow is out. I just wanted to address what I would do if I were in the Minister’s position—and he and I have been in a similar position together when we were responsible for Transport for London. One of the interests you have as a business in operation is that you want the direct contact with your customers. You want direct customer contact, partly because you want the data. The noble Lord has said this—we have had some conversations, both privately and in that meeting. You want their data. This is perfectly obvious.
In my pocket now, I have a Nectar card and a BP card. I am carrying these things around, not really for my benefit but for the benefit of the companies, which want lots of data and information about me. GBR will be in no different position. Therefore, in one sense, it wants to be, like TfL, a monopoly supplier of its own tickets. The temptation to be a monopoly supplier of its own tickets will be huge, quite apart from any pressure that might come from the Treasury or anywhere else, because it wants that data.
Yet the position of the noble Lord seems to me slightly incoherent. He could step forth boldly and say, “We want that data. We need to be a monopoly supplier, and all these private companies, whatever they do, have to go, because they are getting in the way of what we want. You cannot buy your groceries from Sainsbury’s through a third-party retailer—you can only buy them from Sainsbury’s”. He could say that. That would be a coherent position, although not a politically very easy one in current circumstances, I have to say. Or he could say that he is happy to have a large amount of competition, which is what he seems to be saying.
I can be corrected if I am wrong—I have heard this figure without absolute certainty in it—but I understand that close to 90% of tickets are currently sold by third-party retailers on the railways, so when the noble Lord starts, he will be starting from a very low base. To get any useful data at all on his customers, he will have to build up a huge customer base from a very low start. Is that his intention? Does he regard that as a business goal, and if so, what does it say about his strategy for dealing with the private sector?
I do not know what the answers to these questions are. It is difficult. It is right to look at this, as noble Lords have, from the point of view of the benefits of the customer. However, it is also worth thinking about the commercial imperatives that GBR will have and whether it should be allowed to pursue those commercial imperatives, or whether it should be constrained in order to benefit a competitive field.
Lord Moylan
“(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office of Rail and Road.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continue to make decisions about access.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group. I have extracted them because, if we thought that the last group dealt with private sector concerns of some significance, this group deals with much larger private sector concerns. One of the biggest fears of the private sector, particularly those who operate trains, is the question of access to the rails—access to the track. The current system is that an independent body, the Office of Rail and Road, decides on applications for access to the track. Network Rail decides what should be paid for that, but that is also supervised and approved by the Office of Rail and Road. So there is an independent balancing authority in place that makes these crucial decisions.
Who are we talking about? About 75% of the train movements on Network Rail’s track will be GBR movements. The other 25% are people who need access to that track. They need an independent body; they value an independent body deciding whether they can have that access. They are freight operators; they are what I will call regional operators, such as Transport for London with the London Overground network and Merseyrail; and they are the open access operators. Here, I also have to mention, although it will be debated separately, the heritage railway sector, which has made representations to us and no doubt to other noble Lords about its need for access to the track.
I said on the last group that Great British Railways was like a huge bear—though a friendly bear, in the shape of the noble Lord—sitting in your front room, and the slightest twitch could wipe out your business, even inadvertently. The fact is that this bear will be a regulator making regulatory decisions about access and will be a direct competitor for use of some of those tracks. I say “some” because there will be some tracks where there is sufficient capacity and everyone can have a go so there will be no problem, but a lot of the network is congested. GBR will have a powerful incentive to allocate to itself tracks that it needs for its growing passenger service. When it is not doing that, however, it will be held up by the fact that it also has an objective to increase freight. There is a number attached to that; I cannot remember the number just now, but it requires freight to be increased fairly consistently over a period in order to hit that target. Its second thought, if it is considering who is to have access to congested track, will be, “If it’s not us at GBR, perhaps we’re going to give it to freight”. But that will not be always; not all the freight people will get what they want. Then it will only be further down the line that it will be thinking about the other players that I mentioned.
Amendment 16 is straightforward. It would leave the current situation as it is and those decisions would be made by the Office of Rail and Road. Everybody would understand what was happening. Amendment 221 offers a fallback position. It says that, if the Government are going ahead with this, there must be a right of appeal to the ORR. At the moment, amazingly, having created this huge insensitivity, the Bill says that you can appeal to the ORR but its decisions will not be binding. They will, in effect, be advisory to Great British Railways. This amendment states that the process would be binding and that it would be done not simply on judicial review grounds—that is, whether GBR followed the right process—but on the merits of the case. That, I think, would be a good fallback. The Minister, in writing a very lengthy and helpful letter to noble Lords after Second Reading, said that, if we were to have an independent appeal body, it would create what he called a second directing mind, and he is not willing to have a second directing mind.
I just want to dwell on that for a second because I think it shows the difficulties that we are all going to have with this problem. It is true that you could say that the ORR in that capacity would be a second directing mind, but there are many other second directing minds. The structure being created by the Minister will not have a single directing mind; after all, the courts could make decisions about matters subject to judicial review that will be binding on the Minister. But the Minister does not say, “I wish to be excused supervision by the courts because that would be a second directing mind”. Again, of course, the Secretary of State has huge powers of direction over GBR built into the Bill, but the Minister does not say that that is impermissible because the Secretary of State would be a second directing mind. So to say that a regulator is a second directing mind—and to some extent all regulators are, where they exist—is not a defence to the claim that there must be somebody capable of giving the assurances to the open-access operators, regional government operators and freight operators that their case will be considered fairly and that the charges when set will be fair.
Then we come to another point. The Bill requires GBR to set a scale of charges for access to the track but then gives GBR the power to decide to set a higher charge for access to the tracks if it believes that an economically efficient operator can bear it. Of course, deciding what is an economically efficient operator requires a whole set of experts doing nothing but that. If you go to somewhere such as the Civil Aviation Authority, which has to make decisions about whether something is economically efficient, there is a whole suite of people working there who make these decisions. It is their expertise; they are economic utility regulators. The same thing happens with other utilities. There is no mention in the Bill, however, or anywhere else, that GBR is going to recruit that capacity, but none the less it is going to set itself up to make the decision about whether somebody is or is not an economically efficient operator and what they can bear. It will be able to set higher charges limited only by that consideration. None of this washes with the private, municipal or freight sectors. They simply do not accept this any more than the retail sector accepts what the Government are offering to it.
As with the retail sector, the private sector operating on the railway—it is very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is not here to disagree with me about this—has added huge amounts. The whole of the freight sector is privately owned, and nobody is suggesting that there is going to be any change to that. Open-access operators using white track spaces offer benefits. The heritage sector brings in a modest, but none the less very useful, income to this country. It is part of our tourism industry and very useful in that regard. It gives jobs, entertainment and value to people who live in the communities served by the heritage railways.
The purpose of these two amendments is to open up a debate on this very important issue, where the Government have been obdurate, despite all the representations made to them, but which I think will have to be addressed by this House. I do not think this Bill can leave this House with this structure in place. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will not give it now but will come back to that in the debate. I should also say for the benefit of the Committee that Network Rail is publishing the access and use policy consultation tomorrow, which will apparently address the noble Lord’s questions on abstraction. I am sure we can debate his points further when we get to the detailed debate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it will not wash. The noble Lord did not give any explanation of why there should be an appeals system which cannot look at the merits of the case and cannot bind GBR. He says that we are going to come back and discuss this again. I am sure we will and I hope we will. We should be discussing it several times in Committee, and we will certainly be discussing it on Report. At the moment, I beg to withdraw my amendment, but I am absolutely clear that this will not wash.
Lord Moylan
“(e) such other body corporate as they see fit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to explore why the Bill places limitations on Scottish and Welsh ministers as to the manner of their exercising their functions relating to the railways or railway services.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Clause 4 deals with relations with the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales. I have a number of amendments here—five, in fact. They all appear in a sense to be relatively minor but they go to the heart of the devolution settlement. They raise the question of whether the Bill is in line with the new Prime Minister’s policy—I know he has not been elected to anything but he is the new Prime Minister—of making devolution a reality. I will run through the amendments fairly straightforwardly and leave it to others to debate them and the Minister to respond.
One of the things that can be done is that any combined authority or devolved authority has a right to request. I always find this slightly offensive, because we are a free country—everyone has a right to request something from the Minister—but apparently, this valued “right to request” is going to be given. You can go along and ask GBR if it will run a service local to you, which might even be branded your way, to which you might contribute some of the costs. That is the general idea. I can understand that in relation to English combined authorities but not the devolved Administrations.
For example, I do not understand at all why Scotland should be confined by statute to running that service using Great British Railways. If the path is available and the service can be run, why should Scotland not make its own choice about who the operator of that service should be? As I understand it, that would not be possible under the Bill; it would have to be a GBR service. I think that is a bit insulting to Scottish devolution. The same applies to Wales. My Amendment 21 would correct that and allow them to exercise railway functions through a body corporate other than Great British Railways.
Amendment 145 goes hand in hand with Amendment 146, because they relate to Scotland and Wales. They relate to the fact that, under the Bill, there will have to be a memorandum of understanding between Great British Railways and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. There is a great deal of reliance on memoranda of understanding in the Bill, but we never see them and have no entitlement to do so. I am not saying that they will not be published, but I am not sure that the Government are under an obligation to publish them. They are so much a part of this Bill, but their substance is being concealed from us in Parliament and wrapped up in documents that are ancillary to the main agreement. My Amendments 145 and 146 would require those memoranda to be laid before Parliament before they could come into effect.
Finally, I have the paired Amendments 294 and 295. Again, one relates to Scotland and one to Wales. Amendment 294 relates to Clause 82. There is something fantastically cheeky in Clause 82, which reads:
“Great British Railways must consult the Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2)”—
which would be a decision about cross-border services and additions to a part of the railway network operated by Great British Railways that is situated in Scotland—
“if it appears to Great British Railways that the decision will significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in or visiting”
the area. I come back to a similar question I asked in the last group: what economic capacity would Great British Railways be employing to make disinterested decisions about whether something would have a significant effect on the interests of Scotland’s economy? Secondly, is it not more likely that the Scottish Government would be the appropriate body to make a decision about whether something will have a significant effect on the interests of the Scottish economy? My amendment would put that right by reversing it. Amendment 295 would do something similar for Wales.
There is a certain arrogance in the Bill, certainly with regard to local government in England, but the arrogance towards the Scottish and Welsh Governments is beyond the pale, given what the Prime Minister has been saying and what those Governments would accept. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say that the matters to which I have drawn attention are slips in the drafting that he will be happy to correct, either through my amendments or amendments that he will draft and submit to us on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to talk to my Amendment 22 in this group. Before I do that, I might just say so to my noble friend that I see the point he is driving at with Amendment 21, but I think it is a little more complicated. It seems to me that this is about the circumstances that apply where the Scottish or Welsh Ministers wish to use Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by themselves and Great British Railways. In effect, they are not subsidiaries of Great British Railways: we can already see in the Bill this distinction between GBR companies and a company that is jointly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers and GBR.
They can use that to provide services but, as far as I can see, they are not prevented from doing the following. If you look at subsequent clauses, we have seen the whole process of designation of passenger services, which those of us who did the public ownership Bill will remember. They have to designate passenger services with a public sector company, but the definition of a public sector company in a later clause is not the same. It could be a company wholly owned by Scottish Ministers or by Welsh Ministers; they are not required to use Great British Railways. They could even do the same thing that the Secretary of State can, which is exempt services from designation, and then do the same as the Secretary of State does with TfL but in Glasgow, Cardiff and so on. So I think it is a little more complicated.
In particular, I think putting “other body corporate” in here is not necessary. More to the point, if I may say so to my noble friend, is to re-enter the question of the scope of who might provide designated services, which I know he will do with further amendments at a later stage.
Amendment 22, on my part, is just to see whether there is really a problem. At the point at which Scottish and Welsh Ministers look to change arrangements that they have made with Great British Railways to provide some services, they are required to consult with the Secretary of State and Great British Railways. However, those arrangements will necessarily lead to issues that need to be governed by the regulatory functions of the Office of Rail and Road and relate to the licensing of those operators through the ORR. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to require that Scottish and Welsh Ministers, at the point of making or changing those arrangements, should also consult the Office of Rail and Road in order to ensure that there is not a difficulty associated with what they are asking GBR to do on their behalf. The purpose of Amendment 22 is to put in that consultation with the ORR.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord draws my attention to something which, having read it to him, I concluded myself. This is the purpose of Committee, of course: to discover things that you have not thought about. I am as willing as the next Minister, perhaps, to decide what to do. We will take that away, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. For the avoidance of doubt, I still do not accept the contention about the connections between the MoU and the strategies, but I accept the points that the respective boundaries of the strategies could be much better placed than they are.
Amendment 146 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, goes further on the provisions on the allocation of ticket revenue from cross-border services operated by Transport for Wales. We do not think that is appropriate. Such operational and commercial matters are more appropriately dealt with through established industry arrangements such as public service contracts and the Wales and borders agreements rather than through an intergovernmental co-operation agreement, which is fundamentally about the governance of GBR, so I urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
I turn to Amendments 294 and 295 on consultation. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are consulted on decisions that have a significant impact on their nations. That is precisely why the Bill already places a duty on GBR to consult them before making such decisions. The amendment would go further by requiring devolved Ministers to determine whether consultation was required. That would add significant delay for no practical benefit, as Scottish and Welsh Ministers would be required to review decisions that would often be irrelevant to them before steps can be taken. The approach could create uncertainty about when decisions can proceed and risk shifting the focus from effective engagement to procedural questions about whether consultation is required. Scottish and Welsh Ministers will also continue to have important mechanisms through which they can influence the railway, including their respective rail and transport strategies, their powers, which are strong, and guidance. The Government therefore consider these amendments unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment 296 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, specifies that GBR should consult on access decisions where they impact Welsh Ministers. Clause 82 already requires that GBR consults Wales on issues affecting it. That requirement would also extend to access decisions. Therefore, I can reassure the noble Lord that his intent has already been achieved by the Bill but, bearing in mind what he said in support of his amendment, I will write to him, and copy it to other noble Lords, about the ownership and control of infrastructure in Scotland and Wales now and in the future so that he and other noble Lords—though I see the noble Lord is not in his place—can be clear about the present and future arrangements, since I think what he said expressed a degree of confusion about them.
I finish by saying again, as I started with, that Scotland and Wales have been intensely involved in the drafting of the Bill and that both Governments are very supportive of it. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we see a pattern—there is always an argument as to why the bear in the front room should be able to make the decisions without constraint, and here we go with Scotland and Wales. If the Minister tells me that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are happy that Great British Railways, a largely unaccountable body that is largely concerned with English railways, should make a determination as to what is of economic significance to Scotland and Wales, and that they have had that question put to them, considered it squarely and come back and said “Yes”, then of course that is what the Bill should say. It strikes me as odd and not consistent with the general approach that the Scottish and Welsh Governments would take to these things. Beyond that, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on drawing out various points. I feel a swathe of government amendments coming on Report.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think there will have to be others as well. None the less, for the moment, I have done my best to defend the devolution settlement, keep up the policy of the Prime Minister and give Scotland and Wales a say over the future of their own economies in so far as they are affected by public transport. Having done that, I will subside and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Moylan ExcerptsMonday 20th July 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (17 Jul 2026)
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister, in particular for the exemplary way he has engaged with those of us who are Back-Benchers and on the Cross Benches over specific issues, and how he has facilitated moving forwards. If I may inform him, I have managed to secure a meeting with the CAA tomorrow morning, thanks to his intervention. I know that those who are disabled are also greatly relieved to know the seriousness with which he took the appalling situations in which they have often found themselves when travelling. I hope that he will continue, not only in his role but also in the way he has behaved towards all of us, because that personal contact has made it very easy to have very open discussions.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this was a pretty dreadful Bill when it was introduced to your Lordships’ House, in terms of its conception but also its drafting. It leaves it in somewhat better shape, which is very considerably due to the fact that the Minister paid attention in Committee to the many amendments and proposals that were made, and came forward on Report with an astonishingly large number of amendments to change the Bill—all of which, it is fair to say, noble Lords felt responded to their concerns, and which they were willing to support. I thank him for that.
Also, as was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, a large part of Committee was taken up with discussions of the treatment of disabled people in the course of flying. Amendments brought forward by the Minister characteristically represent an improvement in the approach that government will take to those issues in the future, for which I thank him.
I also thank his officials for their engagement and the Public Bill Office for its support in drafting the amendments we put forward. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her important contribution to the debate. I am sure I will have forgotten some, but I also thank my noble friends Lady Bray of Coln, Lord Grayling, Lady Foster of Oxton, Lord Harper, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Reay, Lord Redwood, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Goschen and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate for the experience and scrutiny they brought to our proceedings.
This is fundamentally an administrative Bill. As I say, it changes decision-making processes in the wake of our departure from the European Union. But we remain concerned that the Government have chosen to use the legislation to transfer not only those European Union powers but also powers that the Government themselves possessed to the Civil Aviation Authority, to be carried out in many cases—fewer now, as a result of the Minister’s amendments—with no external scrutiny, certainly no scrutiny from Parliament, that would indeed have occurred under the previous system. This is a retrograde step in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also concerned that the Government have said, quite explicitly, that they want to use their new freedoms in order to align more closely with the European Union. It is a very strange conception of Brexit that the Government seem to have developed. British aviation is a world-leading industry, and it succeeds because of innovation and competitiveness. It needs to have regulations made for it that are suitable for the success of British aviation.
There was also one amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on Report that did not have the Government’s favour. Naturally, one suspects, the Government will use the passage of the Bill through the other place to try to remove it, but I hope very much that they will not. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in this regard. Although it was my amendment that passed, that was as a consequence of the numerical placement on the Marshalled List. He had an amendment achieving a similar effect, which related to the drop-off charges made at airports that have now become scandalously excessive. Families and other travellers are charged simply for trying to pick up or drop off somebody, very often with no feasible alternative for doing so. There may be a lack of public transport or it may be unsuitable for somebody to seek to travel to an airport other than by car, for example, because they are wheelchair-bound or have some other mobility impairment that prevents them travelling on ordinary public transport, even where it exists. The amendment that was passed calls on the Government to conduct a thorough review of airport drop-off charges. It is as simple as that; it requires nothing more legally. We will look at that at ping-pong—or perhaps we will never get to ping-pong because the Government will take the advice of your Lordships’ House and accept the amendment that was passed.
With that, I am sad to bring an end to my involvement with this Bill. I hope that it becomes a route—I will not make a silly pun—or path to better regulation of aviation. If it does, it will be very much because of the efforts of Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, no more puns. I have two brief points. First, the noble Lord just referred to the new Clause 7; we will see what happens in the other place on that.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke this afternoon. I am quite clear that what I said to him when he raised the point about the Secretary of State taking action to support regional connectivity was not in fact correct. I am very happy to correct the record on that and am pleased to confirm that the Bill’s powers on airport slots and schedules would enable the Secretary of State to take action to support regional connectivity if that were considered necessary. The Government’s current assessment is that such intervention is not required, but I am happy to put the record straight for the noble Lord. I thank all noble Lords.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Moylan ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2026
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1–R–I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (13 Jul 2026)
Lord Moylan
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;(b) support economic growth in that sector;(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this is what I refer to as, in essence, an administrative Bill, in that it does not make large changes to the way in which civil aviation operates but changes significantly the way in which decisions will be made in future about how civil aviation operates. It does that necessarily because many of the decisions that have been made in the past and until now have been carried out under European Union legislation. Since we happily left the European Union, a substitute for that decision-making must be found.
My concern about this Bill throughout Committee has been that the new system has, in many ways, been a terrible botch. One of the features of it has been that very large powers are being taken away, so to speak, from the European Union and given to the Civil Aviation Authority almost without supervision or ministerial oversight: they are, in other words, being transferred to unelected bureaucrats. It is as if the Government have been completely deaf to what we voted for when we voted to leave the European Union.
I will be fairly brief on Amendments 1 and 3, but a few words of introduction are important in this case. The background to them—and I have to say this frankly— is the catastrophic Government we have suffered from in the last two years. They have been so catastrophic that they have had to depose their own party leader and Prime Minister and go outside Parliament to seek a substitute, in order to reset the Government and try to recover from what has been a complete disaster. In that context, it seems quite wrong that the Government should be seeking our trust to take these powers, with almost no parliamentary scrutiny, to pass many of them to the Civil Aviation Authority with very little ministerial oversight, saying to Parliament, “You can trust us to get it right”. I am afraid the basis of that trust has gone.
That is why we have two amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment 1, seeks to give a purpose to the Bill and sets out what the guiding principles underlying the Bill should be: that competition and the economy are important. I know that Governments generally do not like purpose clauses, and I have to admit that, as I think most noble Lords know, even the Public Bill Office does not like them. However, I have reinforced and buttressed Amendment 1 with Amendment 3, which gives specific guidance to the Government on what they need to take into account when making decisions under Clause 1 to do with passenger protection. They focus very much on the opportunities that aviation gives us for economic growth and on the necessity, to that end, of competition and competitiveness in the sector.
It is astonishing that when one talks to members of the Government and asks, “What about the economy and competitiveness?”, they often look at one as if one were talking about something from Mars. They are all for growth, but when you say that the mechanics of growth involve such things as competitiveness and light-touch regulation, they wonder what you mean. It is as if the only route to growth is the expenditure of public money—money we have now, in fact, run out of.
The Minister has said, and I do not think it is a matter of controversy, that the aviation sector—indeed, like other transport sectors—is an important infrastructural base for economic growth and that we need the capacity to give the country the aviation services it requires. Therefore, requiring the Government to have regard to those factors and to avoid overregulation is reasonable guidance to them in putting this together. It must be said at the outset that the Minister has clearly listened carefully to many of the points made in Committee and has tabled a raft of amendments in response. Many of his amendments could have gone further, but they have come some way in the direction I and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been arguing for, so I am grateful to him for that. However, he has not listened on this point, and it is perhaps time that he should. He still has a chance to redeem himself. I must say that if he fails to do so, I am very likely to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s two amendments. I have some general remarks about them, and two specific points which are questions to the Minister.
The first point, which I will not labour at length since we dealt with it in Committee, is the focus of my noble friend’s Amendment 1: the importance of growing the aviation sector itself and making sure it is competitive. It is important to have that as a focus, because there are those—some inside your Lordships’ House and also those outside—who want to stymie and stifle the aviation sector, which would be a retrograde step. I should have done this at the beginning of my remarks, but at this point I declare my interest, as in the register, as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation. I did that one or two moments too late but in the nick of time.
My second point is on my noble friend’s Amendment 3, which is about economic growth more widely and therefore links the importance of growing the aviation sector and its role in growing the economy. I want to put this point on the record because I suspect that a lot of the debate will be focused, rightly, on the impact of many rules on passengers. But it is worth remembering the very significant role that aviation plays in trade, and in not just the volume but the value of imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom. This is very significant. It is important to our overall competitiveness, particularly in high-value sectors, that aviation remains strong to promote the wider economy.
I have two specific questions to the Minister. He will remember that in Committee, we had a debate, prompted by an amendment I tabled, on the impact on airports following the revaluation and very significant rises—a multiple factor increase—in business rates. The Minister referenced the fact that a review is ongoing. I want to put on record the importance of this issue in the context of my noble friend’s two amendments, for this reason.
There has been some talk—which I recognise is only speculation at this point—from the man who will be Prime Minister next week that he favours an increase in business rates on what are loosely defined as out-of-town warehouses, large premises, in order to generate revenue for the Government and cut business rates for the high street. I ask the Minister to specifically make it clear that for this purpose—I am not going to go into the wider debate on business rates—airports should not be included in the category of large, out-of-town warehouse sites, and should not be facing a significant increase in business rates in order to pay for reductions on the high street. I ask the Minister to give whatever commitment he is able to at this stage about that, because that would be a retrograde step. The review that is taking place will, I hope, conclude that the very significant rise in business rates that has hit airports is good for neither the sector nor passengers and freight users, because those costs are just loaded on to the users. I hope the Minister can rule that out.
The second area is for me to reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord Moylan has made in both his amendments: the importance of economic growth. The Government have said on a number of occasions that economic growth is their number one priority. The problem with that assertion is that, since the general election, there has been almost no GDP growth per head. The economy has grown a little, but it has not kept pace with the rise in the population, so there has not really been any economic growth.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before addressing these amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It is clear that we share the common goal of improving the aviation sector. The Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been put forward during the Bill’s passage. The amendments in my name respond to that constructive engagement and I hope that they will be welcomed by your Lordships.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing Amendment 1 forward. We discussed in Committee how the Bill will promote economic growth. Having considered the arguments made then and, indeed, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just now, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and others, the Government’s position remains unchanged. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that, alongside consumer protection, we would continue to support a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those are objectives that the Government strongly support. As I set out in Committee, growth and competitiveness are already central to the Government’s aviation agenda. Beyond this Bill, we are also taking forward airspace modernisation, supporting innovation through the Future of Flight programme, embedding a pro-growth approach across regulation and backing airport expansion where it can deliver economic benefits and meet planning and environmental requirements.
The amendment also seeks to protect the rights and interests of air passengers. On that point, the Government have listened carefully to concerns raised during the Bill’s passage and have brought forward amendments requiring the Secretary of State, while exercising the powers in Clause 1, to have due regard to strengthening air passenger rights and to principles relating to dignity, accessibility and support for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We have done so because these considerations are directly relevant to the exercise of those powers.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this issue is important and relevant to economic growth. However, I do not consider Amendment 1 necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness are already important considerations in aviation policy and regulation, and these priorities are reflected in the Secretary of State’s engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the authority, I note the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, from her extensive experience, that the CAA is an excellent regulator. The noble Baroness will, I hope, note my later amendments on the proposed delegations and controls when we get to that section of the Bill.
More fundamentally, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to give statutory regard to a specific set of objectives when exercising powers under the Bill. Although those objectives are important, they are not the only relevant consideration. As I noted in Committee, this list does not include safety, which is fundamental to aviation and underpins the measures in the Bill. Nor does it capture the full range of factors that may need to be taken into account in particular circumstances. The Government’s view remains that it is better to preserve the flexibility to balance all relevant considerations rather than elevating a limited set of factors in legislation. I think that is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to, and I also note, as she did, that the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to a statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of its regulatory functions.
Turning to Amendment 3, the Government agree that economic growth is a priority. However, consideration of growth is already embedded across government decision-making. Policy proposals are assessed for their impact on growth and departments are required through options, appraisal and impact assessment processes to demonstrate those effects before decisions are taken. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, carefully and he referred to the call for evidence about the valuation methodology, which will involve constructive engagement with the aviation industry ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I note his view that airports should not be considered as out-of-town warehouses, and we will see what happens with government in the future about that. For all those reasons, I am unable to support the amendments, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord’s response; I would largely be repeating myself if I were to explain in any detail why. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been responded to by my noble friend Lord Harper. I will be second to none in admiring the valiance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this debate—I am with her entirely in that regard. None the less, I have no embarrassment in saying, even if we are the only party in your Lordships’ House saying it, that we are the party of economic growth. It is about time those words meant something. This amendment seeks to make sure that they do. I will test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 6, to which my name is attached, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, I chaired the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group
Those who have allergies do not easily fit into the current system of support going through airports. While it is better understood in the outside world, I think that within the aviation industry there is still a very long way to go. This is a case which is literally life and death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have to ensure that people are able to travel safely and easily. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of government Amendment 19. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to some extent it crosses into the next group.
Since our last debate, I have been contacted by several people who have been separated at the airport from the people they need around them. There was one instance where a young woman was separated from her family. She can communicate only by an iPad and needs family support to operate it. She was left in an absolutely terrifying situation, where she felt she had all her communication ability taken from her. We cannot continue to let that happen. It simply needs a little bit of empathy, some support and thinking differently about how we do this, because it is about getting people on and off aircraft as easily as possible.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have to look at lived experience. Organisations will contribute towards the consultation, but we need to listen to some of the absolutely horrendous experiences that disabled people have; they do not complain because it is too difficult to do so—which fits into the next group. We do not get to hear about some of those stories and those cases, until we actually sit in your Lordships’ Chamber. I support the amendments in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, if the House will indulge me, I will speak now rather than at the end of the debate, because I have amendments in this group and other noble Lords may wish to comment on them after I have spoken to them.
Before I come to those amendments, I will briefly refer to two others. First, I express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am pleased that she seems to have reached an accommodation with the Government.
Secondly, Amendment 71, in the Minister’s name, removes the cap on compensation for loss of wheelchairs. However, it is important to note that, as I understand it, this applies only to domestic flights. The reason it has no international effect is that matters such as compensation are subject to an international agreement administered by the ICAO, which is based in Montreal, and would, I suspect, require all parties, or at least a majority of parties to the treaty, to make that amendment. I want to hear that the Government will make this a priority and a commitment on their part. Even though it might take 20 or 30 years to persuade everyone to change their mind, I want this to be a goal for the Government and for it to be on their agenda at every meeting of the ICAO until, gradually, things are chipped away at and they get somewhere in the course of time. Unless the Government start, they will never get there, so it would be very good to hear the Minister say that he is going to start.
I have three amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in saying that she could not support my Amendment 4, somewhat gave the impression that I had invented the target of reducing the costs of regulation on business by 25%. That is the Government’s target. The only purpose of my amendment is to oblige the Government to achieve their own target in the aviation sector. If the Government say they do not want to accept the amendment—I understand that Governments do not like having their hands tied—will they at least say that that is still their target? Will they say that it is the policy of Ministers to make that reduction in the aviation sector, that civil servants in the Department for Transport are under clear instructions to achieve and deliver that reduction in costs, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will have it as a primary objective? If they did, I would regard the purpose of my amendment as having been met. I hope the Minister will say that.
My other two amendments are technical. Amendment 21 would amend Amendment 19, in the Minister’s name, by deleting one word from it. The effect of Amendment 19 is to require consultation. It is a good amendment and I welcome it; it responds to the debate we had in Committee. It requires consultation by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under Clause 1. However, it goes on to say that this obligation to consult relates only to matters in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) to (e). It is only those matters that arise under the subsection that are the subject of consultation.
Cunningly, I noticed that if you take out “concerning” and replace it with “not excluding” then you would bring the whole of Clause 1 into scope, allowing the Government to consult on other matters that are dealt with by the clause, not simply those mentioned here. That would be an improvement to the Minister’s amendment. It would not in any way damage or wreck the Minister’s amendment but would welcome and try to improve it. My amendment would allow the Government to keep their focus on the five items mentioned in Amendment 19 but would provide the scope and a statutory basis for consulting on the other matters as well. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept it.
My Amendment 26 might be regarded as slightly more controversial. It relates to government Amendment 24 and proposes the deletion of “in particular”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has an amendment in relation to this government amendment, which she has already spoken to. I will explain what I am trying to achieve. The amendment puts clear blue water between me and what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said in her opening remarks. The thrust of her argument is that there should be no regression from standards for consumer protection in the future—bear in mind that this whole argument is about consumer protection. That is a very bad principle.
This new clause effectively introduces what the noble Baroness is looking for, in that it is a non-regression statement on consumer standards. It then says, “In particular … disabled persons”, but it actually covers everybody, because disabled people are picked out only “in particular”. I do not think we should introduce a non-regression standard. It is simply the case that what counts as consumer protection changes over time and things that might be important to consumers now might be less important in the future. If we had non-regression of safety standards, we would still have men with red flags walking in front of motor cars, but things change and things are adapted. What matters to consumers also changes, and sometimes trade-offs are necessary.
The effect of removing “in particular” from the Government’s amendment would be to retain the non-regression clause in respect of disabled people—and having listened now and in Committee to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, I have no hesitation about the rightness of doing that—while removing the effect of a non-regression clause in relation to those who are not disabled.
Although that means that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that is what political difference is all about. We are in favour of a commercial and flexible approach to aviation, which is, after all, one of the few genuinely private and successful enterprises that we have in this country.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I have some comments and observations. This is a wide-ranging group, and very varied regulations are part of it. We must be careful not to mix them all together. The former EU regulation 261/2004 was about delays and compensation and regulation 1107/2006 was about passengers with reduced mobility. We appear to be having conversations here where it is all mixed into one, and that is obviously not how we can legislate.
These regulations are already in place, and I was very involved with them as a Member of the European Parliament. We put in place robust regulations over the last 20 years, and they have fared well. In my view, we have been let down not by the regulations themselves but by certain bodies in certain airports that are not being compliant in ensuring that they are fulfilling their obligations. We have heard examples of passengers with reduced mobility in wheelchairs being separated from carers or relatives. That is not allowed—it should not be happening.
I gently remind colleagues who were in Committee the other week that it was not, ironically, the airlines themselves that wanted to put in place the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility. The European Commission took away the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility to be looked after by the airlines. That was part of what you got in your ticket. That changed about 20 years ago, when it was put into the hands of the airports. As I said at the time, this will not be reversed now. It is a massive operation.
Lord Moylan
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators, (b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the Government’s response to my Amendment 3 and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, we have raised the issue of enforcement. It may be that amendments are put in place and will, I hope, reinforce the legislation but, unless legislation is enforced—we have strong regulations already in statute—then we are just having a conversation that does not go anywhere. I therefore ask the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to really put some pressure on airports to ensure that they are complying now—I emphasise “now”—with the regulations that are laid down to see whether we can at least put to bed these awful experiences that some of our passengers and fellow travellers are subject to.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute briefly to the Minister who, over the last 15 years or so that I have known him, has taken issues about disabled access on transport systems very seriously and made a personal commitment to them. I am delighted to say that the efforts made by noble Lords who suffer disabilities and the arguments that they made in Committee have found a resonance with him and, therefore, he has been able to come forward with amendments. They do not necessarily give everybody what they want—I suppose that is the nature of the way the legislative process works—but, generally speaking, they take this issue forward in practical terms. We support those amendments, as we indeed support the case that has been made by various noble Lords in the course of this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.
I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.
The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.
I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.
On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.
In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.
We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.
Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the CAA will be the sole aviation regulator.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group that are in my name. Nearly all of them are technical in character. None of them would make an enormous difference to the Bill, except perhaps the last one. There is not the slightest prospect of the Minister accepting any of them and I do not intend to divide the House on any of them. Therefore, it would be of assistance to noble Lords if I go through them briefly so that they are aware of the good things that the Government are casting aside and taking no notice of.
Amendments 7 and 12 relate to the Government having decided that the relevant aspects of the aviation sector, in particular consumer protection, will be regulated by two bodies—the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. The Government have no way of ensuring that they work together effectively, or who takes the lead on one rather than the other. None of this is vouchsafed to us, but the Minister will have a sort of balancing power at the top to sort it all out ad hoc. We made the argument in Committee that it would be sensible to have one regulator and that dual enforcement is never a good idea, especially where potential criminal penalties arise. We have tabled these amendments to put an end to it, but the Government are not going to pursue that line.
Amendment 15 raises a cause of concern for the many noble Lords who are worried that the only ideas the Department for Transport has continue to come from the European Union. It would put restrictions and limitations on the ability of the Government to use these powers simply to adopt European legislation and continue to be compliant with European legislation as it changes, which indeed they are expected to do, because I understand that the European Union is reviewing some of these aviation regulation areas at the moment. I was moved to table this because I was shocked when I picked up the final version of the impact assessment that the department prepared to go with the Bill—a document that is at least two inches thick, I would think. One has to get only to page 3 to discover that the Government are saying how wonderful it is that this legislation will give us the powers to continue to align with any changes the European Union makes in the future, because those powers expire this month, so we would not be able to align with the European Union, but now we are going to be able to.
We have to have a Civil Service and a Government who actually realise that we are not part of the European Union, that there is no prospect of our being part of the European Union for a very long time—indeed, if ever; I do not think it will be ever—and that we have to come up with some policies of our own that are good for this country. That is the substance of Amendment 15.
Amendments 16, 17 and 29 address some of the many instances in the Bill where the negative procedure for statutory instruments is preferred over the affirmative procedure. There are also two massive Henry VIII powers in the Bill—I will come to these separately in their appropriate cases. I am not going to press these further at this stage, because to give the Minister the credit that is due to him, he has tabled amendments, which in some cases will move negative procedures over to affirmative procedures. Indeed, in one case, he has actually signed my own amendment having an effect on that. So he has come some way to meet the criticism that I tabled in Committee, so I will not press the fact that he has not come all the way, although I would be delighted if he announced, even at this last moment, that he would change his mind and perhaps accept these amendments.
Amendment 32, finally, perhaps has a little more hope of being adopted—I do not know. Under the current approach of the Bill, the only way that someone subject to a civil aviation decision can appeal against it is to the High Court. The courts are chock-a-block with demands on them at the moment. It seemed sensible to seek to create an intermediate mediation stage where someone aggrieved by a particular decision against them would have the opportunity to have an independent mediator appointed to seek to resolve the issue, and an amendment was tabled to that effect.
In Committee, the Minister was very dismissive of the whole idea and obviously believes that the High Court has nothing much to do and will be able to take these things on and that is the appropriate place. But a lot of money and testosterone can be wasted going to the High Court, when some of these matters can be sorted out better through more of a mediative approach, and that was the purpose of the amendment.
Those are my amendments in this group. As with many of the amendments I tabled in Committee, they are all intended to improve the operation of the Bill and the operation of administrative law. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 13 and 14 are in my name. I declare again my interest as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis in the UK and Ireland.
I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench and his comments about various aspects of the Bill; in particular, his comments about the European Union. We should not be looking simply to match the European Union going forward. Indeed, I am very much in favour of having high standards which are not tied to the European Union. Where we can do better—and we should do better—without doing damage to the commercial viability of the UK industry, we should seriously consider taking that kind of step.
While mentioning briefly the international side, in the light of the easyJet takeover proposals, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the department to use the most muscular approach on this. It would not normally be possible for a UK airline to buy a US one. We need to make sure that the rules and ownership are properly and rigorously enforced. It is urgent to do that.
My two amendments are designed simply to try to put some limitation on the powers that would reside with the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of the Bill. I always envisaged changes upon leaving the European Union as likely to lead to a degree of deregulation and a relaxation of restrictions. The Minister knows that I raised a number of concerns with him in Committee about the extent of the powers to enforce—to enter premises and to impose penalties. These two amendments are designed to put some limitations around the freedoms of the regulator to take enforcement action, so that it does so only in what are genuinely serious situations. I know the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, but I would ask him to give some thought to how this is applied in regulations. Of course, we need a regulator to have the ability to take serious action in a serious situation, but what we do not want is to create a situation where we have undue levels of enforcement on small matters in a way that is overly onerous on the commercial independence and freedom of businesses. We want common sense; these two amendments are designed to apply common sense, and I hope the Minister will be able to take that principle forward.
Finally, I will just comment on my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, which I am sure he will be speaking to in a moment. Given the impact on the airlines of the failures, when they do happen, in the air traffic control system, I think he makes an important point that is worthy of consideration by the Government.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am, of course, overcome with disappointment. The Minister has been disdainful of the many excellent amendments that have been advanced in this debate. I am not proposing to debate them further except to say, first, that he has waved his trump card in the shape of my noble friend Lord Harper at your Lordships’ House. From our point of view, it is rare, almost inconceivably rare, but none the less possible, that my noble friend can have made a mistake. In that context, if my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham chooses to divide the House, as he has intimated he would on this point, we will support him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Review of airport drop-off charges(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.(3) In this section, “drop-off charge” means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. Nobody, I think, in your Lordships’ House can fail to have been affected by the growing scandal of rapacious drop-off charges being charged by airports for people who have to arrive—some choose to, but some have to arrive—at the airport by car, sometimes to drop off and sometimes to collect a passenger who might be a relative or a friend. These charges have got higher and higher. They are a burden that people are not expecting. Many passengers, particularly families, older passengers and disabled passengers, do not have a realistic alternative to being dropped off at the terminal, yet the policy direction appears to be to make that more expensive, and the airports are stepping up to it with great enthusiasm.
Only last month, the Department for Transport published A Strategic Vision for Transport to an Expanded Heathrow Airport. That is a non-statutory document to accompany the now-renamed Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which was issued for consultation. The document’s purpose was to give us the Government’s picture, their strategic vision, of what transport would look like at an expanded Heathrow Airport. I have read it. I know very little about what transport is going to look like as a result of reading that document. It is very vague, and it contains no commitments, but there is one thing in it that is absolutely nailed on now even before we have a deliverable plan for Heathrow expansion. That is that there are going to be increased terminal drop-off charges or a fee to access Heathrow-owned roads. At the same time as motorists have been looking for relief from higher costs, including after His Majesty’s Opposition forced the Government to U-turn on their planned fuel duty rise, the Department for Transport is now openly floating higher terminal drop-off charges and road access fees for Heathrow.
This cuts against the Government’s stated concern for disabled passengers. The Government have gone some way, as I said earlier in this Bill, to improve protections for disabled passengers in aviation, but it is no good strengthening rights inside the airport while supporting surface access policies that make it harder and more expensive for disabled passengers or those assisting them to get to the terminal in the first place. Amendment 33 in my name—there is a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I am sure he is going to speak to now—simply asks for a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. That is the least that we could expect. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thought that was a deeply unsatisfactory answer that failed to address the amendment. The Minister said there was no case for restricting these charges in primary legislation. Who has proposed that? Nobody has proposed that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have asked for a survey, an examination or a report to be done on the effect of these drop-off charges. There is no proposal to restrict them. That was a deeply unsatisfactory answer, so I fear I will insist on testing the opinion of the House on my Amendment 33.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, this group addresses the most profound structural shift in this Bill: the delegation of aviation rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority. We are pleased to see that Amendment 62 now carries the Minister’s name, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This is a vital victory for parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment mandates the affirmative procedure for regulations, specifying the limits of the CAA’s new rule-making powers, ensuring that this House retains its right to debate and approve the scope of what is delegated.
We similarly welcome government Amendment 58, which requires ministerial directions to the CAA to be laid before Parliament. For too long, the single guiding mind of the aviation sector has operated one step removed from democratic oversight. However, we must go further to prevent the creation of an all-powerful and potentially unaccountable regulator. We support the spirit of Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would remove the CAA veto over the Secretary of State’s statement of priorities. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that a Minister must secure the agreement of the body they are intended to oversee before setting their strategic objectives.
We support government Amendment 56, which correctly identifies that the Secretary of State must retain responsibilities for matters of public interest, including environmental protection and the needs of disabled passengers.
Regarding technical safety, we offer our strong support for Amendments 34 and 37, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The monitoring of aircraft cabin air for carbon monoxide and other toxins is not a luxury; it is a fundamental safety requirement. If we are to grant the CAA more agile powers to update safety rules, those powers must be used to address the very real concerns of flight crew and passengers regarding air quality.
Similarly, Amendment 66, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, regarding the enforcement of flight time limitations, is essential to ensure that operational efficiency never comes at the cost of pilot fatigue or of public safety.
Let us all ensure that, as we delegate these powers, we do not defang the regulator or emasculate Parliament. We must fill this skeletal Bill with the furniture of transparent reporting and mandatory safety reviews. I urge the House to support these measures to ensure that the UK remains a safety-led aviation hub that respects both the expertise of the regulator and the sovereignty of this House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised important points that can only arouse the sympathy and interest of all Members of your Lordships’ House. Cabin air quality is crucial to safety. Without committing myself to the wording of either amendment, I do not think that this subject can be allowed to rest today. The Government will have to commit to come back to it in a credible and convincing way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is correct in saying that this group is largely about administrative matters related to Clause 8. Although we have tended to focus so far, quite properly, on the consumer protection parts of the Bill, in Clauses 1 and 2, we are now coming to that part of the Bill where the Civil Aviation Authority is authorised to make rules. These rules were previously made either by statutory instrument or by means of European Union legislation. The complaint from the Department for Transport is that it does not have enough time to do the statutory instruments and that it is all too much, so could we not, by statute, give the power to the Civil Aviation Authority to make these rules for it. I am not making that up. That is actually the complaint that has been made: that there are too many statutory instruments, so the department wants to give them to the unelected bureaucrats, regulators and so on—especially as it is not receiving new regulations from the European Union any more, which would be a different matter.
Many of the amendments in this group are about that administrative process and trying to reverse some of the original draft of the Bill, giving these powers without any accountability to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for his letter on this and for engaging in the concerns that were raised in Committee on this point. I also welcome the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In Committee we were clear that the Bill should set out the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making, and government Amendment 56 now seeks to do that.
Government Amendment 58 addresses an important scrutiny point by requiring directions for the CAA to be laid before Parliament. I am also grateful to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment 62, which ensures that the Secretary of State’s power to define exceptions to the CAA’s rule-making powers is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
I turn to Amendments 59 and 60. If the CAA is to make detailed aviation rules directly, industry must be able to find, understand and rely on the rules in force. The Bill says that the CAA may publish its rules. It really is not good enough to say that it may publish its rules; these amendments simply say that it must. It will not have to publish them in hard copy—they can be published on the internet—but even if the rulebook is very thick, which the noble Lord told us in Committee was the case, it must be possible to publish it and keep it up to date. Otherwise, how can anybody be sure that they are actually keeping the rules?
There is part of Clause 8 that really upsets me, and I am quite upset about it because I think it is a constitutional outrage. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it is on page 12, where new Section 61F is being added to the existing legislation, the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It says, in relation to these new rule-making powers:
“The Secretary of State must issue a document that … sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives … and … deals with matters relating to the exercise of the functions”.
That is good; I am all in favour of it. The document, by the way, is going to contain guidance. It says quite clearly, in subsection (2), that it will contain guidance on consultation, for example, and
“guidance about how the CAA should interpret and apply the environmental principles”,
and so forth. I imagine that is statutory guidance. But it then goes on to say:
“The Secretary of State … may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.
I think this is absolutely unprecedented. In Committee, the Minister said it was a new way of working; it certainly is. He said it was more like a contract. I think this is very misleading.
It is perfectly possible for the department, or the Secretary of State, to enter into contractual-type arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have no objection if they do that. Contractual types of arrangements exist in various parts of public life. It might contain key performance indicators. It might contain all sorts of things; I am not going to attempt to enumerate them. It would say, “This is your task, this is what we expect from you, this is what you are going to do in exchange for the funding” and so on. That is a contract—I understand that—and it is not precluded by this. But overarching all that, there must be a power, always, for an accountable Minister to issue guidance to an arm’s-length body or executive agency, to issue binding statutory guidance, without having to seek its agreement to the contents of the guidance first. Otherwise, where does ministerial accountability come in?
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I raised the issue of consultation in Committee. The Minister gave me a very helpful response, but he very clearly said that, in a case where the Government took a decision, that approach would already have been subject to detailed consultation. That was only one particular approach. In a situation where there could be three or four different options for an airport, what is his view on the Government’s job in explaining why they have chosen one of the different options available?
That is where we get down to the basic principle in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender: the Government cannot simply take a decision out of the blue without detailed explanation and without some degree of clarification to, and discussion with, the communities affected about why they have taken it out of maybe two or three options. I accept the Minister’s very helpful response to my comments in Committee, but can he now set out for us how the Government will approach a choice between numerous options? What approach will they take to consultation in that situation?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, some very important points have been made about consultation. I just want to be clear that I understand what points are being made. I believe these amendments are not about airport expansion. On airport expansion, I would say that, especially as it is subject to a process under planning law—namely, the development consent order—there will not be a shortage of consultation as a result of that development consultation order. Certainly, in the case of Heathrow, if it expands, the consultation will take place.
I think that the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, put forward is not about expansion but about airspace modernisation. Although I would not want to commit myself to the wording of her amendment in particular, she has a point which the Government need to be quite clear about and they need to reckon what the difficulties are; that is, the reorganisation of flight paths will have winners and losers. It is not simply that flight paths might be moved from one corner, one area or one approach to another; part of the purpose of airspace modernisation is to concentrate flights, so there could be quite a lot of winners but some very bad losers as a result of this. The Government need to take people with them as they do this. There is a strong case for doing it, and we support modernisation, but the Government cannot leave their successor in a position where people have not been given a chance to be brought along.
My Amendment 39A in this group is about charges for air traffic and air navigation services in Clause 6. I drew attention in Committee to the sheer incoherence of the drafting of this clause. The Government have come forward with an amendment which improves it somewhat, but it slightly misses the point—it still leaves it saying something quite incoherent. I offer this only because I like to see properly drafted legislation. There is no politics in this; the Government should be doing their job properly in the first place. Clause 6(3)(c) says:
“Persons may be specified … if the services concerned are available for their use”—
note that phrase—
“or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by … them”.
I understand the part about it being immaterial whether they are used: “It is available for your use, but you did not use it; we’re still going to charge you”. That may be right or wrong, but that is what the law says. That is the situation. How can the services be available for their use, but they could not be used by them? You could still be charged for them even if they could not be used by you. How is that consistent with them being “available”? I do not understand it. I just think it is very poor drafting.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am glad he has corrected the other part of it that was incoherent; we are getting somewhere slowly. Maybe he will come forward with some sensible amendments at Third Reading so that the Bill makes sense in some key areas.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the next group concerns airspace modernisation, consultation and charging. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for retabling her amendment, and I have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, on this matter.
I have considered this carefully, but the Government’s position remains unchanged. The environmental assessment and consultation are, and will remain, fundamental parts of the airspace change process. Nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts.
Any procedure or policy the Civil Aviation Authority puts in place, or any decision it makes to change airspace, must be exercised in accordance with the duties set out under Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. These require the Civil Aviation Authority to take account of the Secretary of State’s guidance on environmental objectives, as well as the interests of any person in relation to the use of airspace.
In practice, sponsors of an airspace change must undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions, and consult meaningfully the affected communities, airspace users and other relevant stakeholders. The CAA then scrutinises these assessments before any proposal can be approved. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, my understanding is that the CAA will bring forward only one proposal at a time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, he has again misconceived the point. It is not that you can be charged for something that you do not use. He says that this is a well-established principle. I have already said that it might be rough justice, but if it is what the law says then it is what the law says. What he has to explain is how something can be available—it has to be available before there can be any charge at all—yet be something which the person being charged could not use. What does he understand by “available” in that case, bearing in mind that, unless it is available, there is no charge at all, as that is the first condition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think I have explained that to the noble Lord. I certainly feel that I have.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, any debate on aviation is enriched by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I am grateful to him for what he said.
The House benefited too from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I have some slight concerns about his amendment. I appreciate that there may be a crisis in the supply of pilots, but I would be very anxious if the Government were to become involved in workforce planning in this sector. I understand entirely that his amendment does not quite call for that, but the last part of it points in the general direction that the CAA should be taking an active role in this, and that would be a very bad thing. Aviation is a very successful part of our private economy, and it should be for the industry itself to take responsibility for recruiting and training the people it needs in order to operate. That is the first principle.
However, the noble Lord does an important service in bringing to the House’s attention the cliff edge that is allegedly being faced. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for this and for his kind remarks. I also heard the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords clearly on this subject.
General aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities. As the noble Lord remarked, it plays an important role in introducing people to aviation and helping to develop the skills pipeline for future aviation careers.
Clause 6 seeks to provide the CAA with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the costs of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the well-established “user pays” principle.
As the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines, while general aviation is largely exempt. Any future changes would be subject to the CAA’s statutory consultation process, with affected parties retaining rights of appeal. The Civil Aviation Authority also has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This would and does naturally include considering impacts on the sustainability and growth of general aviation. Given those existing safeguards, the established charging process, and the fact that there are currently no plans to introduce new charges for general aviation users, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, which would require the CAA to report on anonymised demographic trends among commercial pilot licence-holders. Demographic trends among skilled aviation personnel are a matter of interest to the industry, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Civil Aviation Authority already collects demographic information on commercial pilots and other skilled personnel. This supports robust regulatory decision-making, enables the CAA to identify relevant trends and allows it to publish data on licence-holders where it considers that useful. Indeed, the CAA has published annual data on different categories of licensed pilots, including commercial pilots, broken down by age and sex, since 1994.
The proposed requirement to publish such statistics and analysis with a particular frequency could impose additional costs on the CAA. These would have to be met from the CAA’s scheme of charges and thus would be a burden on the aviation sector. For those reasons, I consider the amendment unnecessary and ask my noble friend not to press it.
More broadly, I reassure the noble Lord, as well as my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, of the importance that the Government place on maintaining a robust pipeline of flight crew, particularly pilots. The department is addressing workforce challenges through targeted programmes, such as Generation Aviation, and through evidence-based assessments of skills needs. The department will shortly commission a skills gap analysis across all aviation professions as a follow-up to analysis that was conducted in 2023. This will consider factors including retirements and sector growth, helping to identify emerging workforce pressures at an early stage.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the Government recognise and value the important role aerodromes play in their local communities. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework ensures that planning authorities consider their economic, leisure, training and emergency service roles when making planning decisions about them.
I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and I trust that, as a result, they feel reassured. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 42 to 44. Although we understand the desire for commercial certainty, slot allocation is a strategic lever for regional connectivity, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and for national health. We strongly support his Amendment 46. Hub airports must provide adequate access for regional destinations. Regional routes must not be casualties of best-profit models.
On transparency, we support Amendments 47 and 48, which would mandate formal consultation and parliamentary statements before reforming the slot regime. As we have talked about in the past, Parliament and the public deserve to see evidence regarding impacts on competition and consumers before the rules of the game are fundamentally altered.
Procedurally, we support Amendments 52 and 53. All regulations under new Section 34A should be subject to the affirmative procedure, in our view. We welcome government Amendments 45 and 49, in particular, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the removal of imprisonment for slot offences, which we see as a vital move toward proportionality. We welcome the Minister’s change on this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for saying that she would support them. Both would change the making of regulations from the use of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I shall not say anything more about them.
Both my noble friend Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made very important points. I have great sympathy with my noble friend, who is trying to ensure that the Government interfere as little as possible with the allocation of slots. I equally understand, and I do not think there is a tension with, what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says about the importance of maintaining regional connectivity. In fact, as I recall, not that long ago the Minister was the tsar of regional connectivity and wrote a very important report about it for the Government, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say, drawing on his experience and knowledge of the subject.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments and for the thoughtful debate we have had on the slots regime. I will deal with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, before turning to those from the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Moylan.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to limit intervention on slot allocation to specified circumstances. I certainly understand the intention behind the amendments but we believe that they would unduly constrain the flexibility that the Bill is designed to provide. The airport slots regime operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and future circumstances cannot be anticipated. Limiting intervention to a prescribed set of scenarios could impede timely and effective action in the public interest, particularly in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Government therefore consider it preferable to retain a sufficiently flexible regulation-making power, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under it.
Amendment 47 would require statutory consultation before any regulations on slots are made. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement before changes are made to the slots regime. I commit that, where new policy is developed under this power, there will be appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, it would not be appropriate to place an inflexible statutory consultation requirement in the Bill. This power may need to be used in response to urgent disruption in the aviation sector, as we saw during the pandemic. In those circumstances, the Government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately.
Amendment 48 seeks to require consultation, transparency and regard to commercial allocation for the slots regime. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. A core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. In the UK, this role is carried out by Airport Coordination Ltd. This principle is reflected in global guidelines, which require co-ordinators to act independently so that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. That independence helps prevent conflicts of interest, protects new entrants and maintains confidence in a transparent global system.
Amendment 50 questions whether criminal offences are needed under the slot allocation regime. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the power for any amended slots regime to include provision for new criminal offences. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for prompting a debate on this matter.
I turn to Amendments 45 and 49, tabled in my name. These amendments provide greater clarity and place a clear limit on the regulation-making power. In particular, they remove any ability for future regulations to create new criminal offences. At the same time, they preserve the effective operation of the existing slot allocation regime and make it clear that, where the existing regulations are restated, any offence already contained in those regulations may also be restated. This strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids conferring an unnecessarily broad power to create new criminal offences, while ensuring that restatement of the current regime does not inadvertently remove or undermine existing enforcement mechanisms. The amendments therefore support legal certainty, maintain continuity in the regulation of airport slot allocation and respond proportionately to concerns about the scope of the delegated powers on slots. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, will not press his amendments, and that he and other noble Lords will support my amendments.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks to require that
“adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom”.
The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the country benefit from effective air links, including access to major hub airports. However, the slot allocation regime gives airlines rights to equivalent slots in future seasons where usage requirements are met. This amendment could therefore require the reallocation of slots currently held by incumbent operators, raising legal and practical concerns. Of course, the slot regime applies only where capacity is constrained.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we are on the home stretch, and Amendments 51 and 63 are in my name. Throughout these proceedings, the Minister has offered various reassurances from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion, either directly or indirectly. We take those words in good faith, particularly from him, but, as I have argued previously, faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against the vast, unscrutinised delegated powers contained in this legislation.
Amendment 51 addresses the technical reality of Clause 7 regarding airport slots. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition for a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister points to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement—ANPS—as the proper venue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in the Bill. Without these safeguards, a future Minister could quietly facilitate expansion through the back door of delegated slot regulations without ever returning to this House for a discrete policy debate.
Amendment 63 provides the ultimate safety catch. It specifies:
“No power in this Act may be used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the facilitation of airport expansion”.
This is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad, touching everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making functions. If expansion is truly not the intent of the Bill, the Government should have no hesitation in accepting this new clause that makes the limitation explicit and enforceable. Indeed, it should be welcomed as a useful and helpful contribution.
The residents overflown deserve the certainty that can come only from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of an unelected regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two amendments and I beg to move Amendment 51.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some important points, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments on airport expansion. I addressed the relationship between the Bill and airport expansion in Grand Committee. Having considered the arguments put forward then, the Government’s position remains unchanged.
This Bill is concerned with aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. The measures in the Bill are needed regardless of whether any airport expansion proposal comes forward and regardless of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government are supportive of airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements. However, decisions on airport expansion are taken through separate planning processes, not through this Bill.
Indeed, during Committee, the Government published the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement for consultation. This underlines the fact that airport expansion proposals are considered through dedicated planning processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The Bill does not alter those processes or predetermine their outcome.
The Government are concerned about the practical effect of Amendment 63. Its scope is not limited to Heathrow or to any specific airport expansion proposal. By preventing powers being used “in connection with” the facilitation of expansion, it could create uncertainty around routine regulatory functions that are not themselves about approving airport expansion. For example, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity once it has been approved through the planning process. However, the amendment could potentially call into question the use of such powers where they relate to approved airport expansion.
Regarding the consultation requirements on slots regulations put forward in Amendment 51, the Government are committed to meaningful community consultation and robust environmental and noise assessment before any airport expansion proceeds. These requirements are already addressed through the statutory planning process.
As I have said, slot regulations do not determine whether airport expansion takes place. The Bill simply ensures that, where necessary, slot regulations can be updated to make effective use of new capacity at co-ordinated airports. The amendment would therefore add little, as consultation and assessment on airport expansion already take place through the planning system before slot allocation becomes relevant. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the power in section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to an affirmative procedure, in the light of the recommendations from the DPPRC.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. We have had discussions on this over the last couple of years.
When I was a member of the European Parliament, I was a rapporteur on GNSS—global navigation satellite systems. That was key when we were looking at how we were covering airspace and airports, et cetera. Switching off EGNOS when we left the European Union affected somewhere in the region of 27 airfields around the United Kingdom, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands, and the Scilly Isles, not just where fixed-wing aircraft go but where helicopters fly in. Therefore, it has reduced the landing limits—for landing and take-off—and the operational aspect, not just for passengers but when they are taking in goods or freight. It is an extremely important issue.
Under the last Government and this one, we have not got very far on this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we need to seriously look at this and reintroduce something like EGNOS, because it is important for the United Kingdom. To have done this and then just left it has not been helpful at all. I certainly support what the noble Lord said and I hope that the Minister will seriously look at this again, because we need to reinstate this system.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for this amendment. The Government are actively reviewing the case for access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS. This includes engagement with organisations that have been affected by the loss of the service, as well as those who could benefit from it in the future. I noted in Committee the importance of the service to connectivity; for example, for outlying islands and throughout all seasons of the year.
The output of the current work is expected later this year, but any move to rejoin EGNOS would in any case require agreement with the European Union. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. For these reasons, I am unable to accept it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII Clause.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, or perhaps at length, Amendment 70 would remove a Henry VIII power that allows the Government to rewrite primary legislation. It would do so on the grounds that the Government—or the department—have said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they have identified all the legislation that is affected by this Bill. Therefore, they do not need a Henry VIII power to make amendments to Bills that may yet appear, because they have already identified all the Bills. Indeed, I must say, they have not just identified them but made the corresponding adjustments to ensure that this Bill is in conformity with existing legislation, or that amendments are made to it through this process.
The power is entirely redundant. It is also offensive in general to your Lordships’ House that Henry VIII powers should exist. The Minister has been so good about accepting, at least in part, many of my suggestions in Committee and today on Report. However, it would be the cherry on the cake and would seal his reputation with all Benches in this House if just at this last minute, before we conclude, he were to rise to his feet and simply say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
How disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is going to be. Without Clause 10, any amendment to existing legislation which is consequential to this Bill, however minor or technical, would require further primary legislation. That would be an unnecessary and disproportionate use of parliamentary time and that of your Lordships’ House. This clause is needed to ensure that the statute book appropriately reflects the changes made by this Bill and to avoid any potential inconsistencies following the Bill’s enactment.
Powers of this nature are a well-established feature of legislation. They ensure that the statute book continues to operate coherently once Parliament has enacted new legislation. This clause is drafted no more broadly than is necessary. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the clause is both necessary and appropriately limited. It cannot be used to make substantive policy changes or revisit decisions taken by Parliament in the Bill. Where it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny by both Houses. For those reasons, the Government remain satisfied that Clause 10 strikes the right balance between ensuring a functioning statute book and providing appropriate parliamentary oversight where primary legislation is affected. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, you can always tell whether the Minister is speaking in his own voice or merely as a tool of departmental officials. I will leave it to noble Lords to decide which category that speech fell into. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Lord Moylan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure that I am as grateful to my noble kinsman as he is to me—but, as usual, I will answer his questions. This change has not taken place yet; it is due to take place in September. There is time for my colleague, the Maritime Minister in the other place, to listen and reflect. I have talked to him three times today and I will talk to him again after this Question. He will reflect deeply on what he has heard and what needs to be done.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the staff survey on which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has relied in making its case has been reported in the press as having been misrepresented by the agency to Ministers and, consequently, by Ministers to Parliament. In that light, do the Government still have confidence in the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Do they continue to rely on that staff survey?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two things to say. First, in the course of the Maritime Minister reflecting on what he has heard, he will reflect on the accuracy and veracity of the information he has been given. Therefore, it is far too early to say what the consequence of that might be. Secondly, he has asked his officials to tell him the data that can be legitimately released so that Members of Parliament in the other place and Peers in this Chamber can hold the Government to account.
Railways Bill
Lord Moylan ExcerptsTuesday 7th July 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by associating myself with the remarks made by noble Lords, particularly the Minister, concerning the doleful anniversary we are marking today of the attacks on London’s transport 21 years ago. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech and his service to your Lordships’ House over so many years as well as his broader public service. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate. I do not propose in this winding-up speech to respond to each of them individually, but it is worth saying that I was very touched, as I think all of us were, by the remarks made by our noble colleagues who have been affected by the very poor service that the railways often give to those who are in wheelchairs or disabled in other ways.
I thank the Minister for the way he introduced the Bill. Personally, I would be delighted—I am sure your Lordships’ House will understand my position—if Mr Burnham were to replace the Minister on the Front Bench in speaking for transport, but I entirely understand why that is not a widespread opinion across the House.
I will start with a point of agreement. The existing model of privatisation, despite having been profoundly successful and transformative over 20 or 30 years, is not fit for purpose currently, because it depended on very high volumes of passengers. During the pandemic, those volumes collapsed, and they have not recovered since. In current or indeed foreseeable circumstances, it is not possible to maintain the financial model on which privatisation was based. I will grant that point to the Minister from the outset, as I did when we discussed the previous railways Bill that he introduced. Under the existing privatisation scheme, the transfer of fares risk to train operating companies that are not able to bear it in a crisis was a flaw. Although it appeared to work for a very long time, that was, as I said, because the railways were doing very well in terms of passenger demand, but it is not capable of being sustained now.
A degree of reform is needed, and it is worth congratulating the previous Government and my noble friend Lord Grayling on recognising a need for reform and setting it in hand. So we had the Williams review, which recommended maintaining private sector involvement but having the operations conducted on what is often referred to as a concession basis. That is the basis used for the Docklands Light Railway, the Elizabeth line, the London Overground, and buses in London and Greater Manchester. On a concession basis, the fares risk is retained by the franchiser; otherwise, it operates in a very similar manner to what we have at the moment. Nobody recommended going back to British Rail, but that is what this Bill gives us.
At the heart of the Government’s argument is the claim that managing the track and train together is more efficient than any alternative. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I was not aware of his speech in advance—simply tore that argument to pieces, with complete forensic acuity, in explaining that what is regarded as fragmentation by the Minister is a specialisation that works in so many other areas of our lives. It is a completely ideological position—an unevidenced ideological bet—that the Government are taking on a particular model that has been tried in the past and failed, but they believe that this time somehow it will work again. The Minister needs to explain why the European Union has moved in the opposite direction. He needs to explain why train services are getting better with private competition on the European continent, not getting worse. He needs to tell us what would happen to this Bill if we rejoined the European Union. It would not simply be the detail that would need to change; the whole structure would collapse.
Let me move to the detail. The first question that comes up is devolution. These are the words of Andy Burnham in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place:
“We want the right to specify timetables … Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 78.]
He also said:
“From our point of view, we would want … joint decision making”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 86.]
Do the Government still adhere to the principles in this Bill on devolution, given that that is what the incoming Prime Minister said just a little while ago?
And he is not alone. The Mayor of London—hardly a person I would expect to be quoting favourably—has said something very similar. He said that, as drafted, the Bill would give GBR extensive control over network access for both GBR and non-GBR operators; the difference between the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, of course, is that the Mayor of London actually runs passenger rail services. He went on to say that there is no sufficient safeguard for devolved or open access services. So it is not simply a right-wing fantasy that express services might be given priority over local services. I ask the Minister plainly: will the Government now concede that Clause 5 must become a genuine right to devolution, or is the Minister going to come back to the Dispatch Box within months explaining why the Government have changed their position?
On the ORR, in effect, the Bill discards years of economic regulatory expertise that the ORR has built up on track access and charging decisions, handing that role instead to GBR for it to be judge and jury in its own operations. Where the ORR can still act under the Bill, its powers are illusory. It may quash a decision, but that appears to me no more than asking GBR to reconsider, with substitution of the ORR’s own judgment reserved for cases of legal error—a very high threshold and a very difficult bar to meet.
That brings us to understanding the policies that underlie the Bill. Five of the documents that are most central to how the Bill will work in practice have all, we are told, been pushed back to spring 2027. The rumour is that we are not going to have Committee on the Bill until October at the earliest—but even that is not good enough. It will not be spring 2027. We still will not have the documents we need. The ORR’s consultation on its own appeals function—the very process that freight and open access operators will depend on to challenge GBR—is not due until spring 2027. The retail code of practice, which was brought up by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, among others, is not due to be published until spring 2027. GBR’s own access and use policy—the document that is meant to stop it favouring its own services over freight and other users—will not appear until spring 2027. The long-term rail strategy will also not be out until spring 2027. So I ask the Minister: how are we meant to give the Bill serious and detailed scrutiny when so many of the documents are still missing?
Let us turn to freight in that case. I am happy to accept the Minister’s personal commitment to the role of rail freight and to increasing it, but there is a clear risk that freight will be deprioritised within Great British Railways—particularly given the network capacity constraints and GBR’s control of both infrastructure and passenger services.
We come to open access. The passenger-focused, innovative railway that the Government promise from GBR already exists. Lumo and Hull Trains scored 90% and 94% respectively for overall satisfaction in Transport Focus’s most recent survey, outperforming most of the contracted network, and they have delivered it through competitive fares and genuine value for money, not through a single national monopoly. Yet this is the sector now being asked to withhold investment in the railways because a Bill built around GBR’s vertical integration signals precisely the animosity towards open access enterprise that these operators have warned against throughout its passage. Of course, access charges can be set as high as GBR decides. It is a matter for GBR; there is no cap. Has the Minister costed the cost to the country of the loss of private investment from open access that this uncertainty is already producing?
That brings us to the passenger. Passenger numbers have gone up since privatisation, as journeys have roughly doubled over that time. The Government’s answer to any problems that passengers have is a new passenger watchdog expanded out of Transport Focus. It is going to cost a large amount of money to run, but what does the passenger get for this expense? It gets a watchdog with no enforcement powers of its own, because enforcement stays with the ORR on referral at the ORR’s discretion. What precisely is the watchdog for if it cannot make GBR do anything?
Turning to industrial relations, even the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, admitted that this is an area that needs proper attention. This Bill is a gift to the trades unions —one almost detects their hand in the drafting of it. The Government have removed in other legislation the 40% support threshold for strike ballots in important public services, including transport. They have scrapped the 50% turnout threshold as well, handing trades unions considerably greater latitude to shut down passenger services at will. But still there is no requirement that pay rises be linked to productivity. Indeed, the RMT’s own Network Rail settlement, which the union openly celebrated, secured a 3.8% RPI-linked rise with explicitly no efficiency or productivity conditions attached. The RMT has said that it now expects similar deals from the train operating companies. I have asked the Government twice at the Dispatch Box whether pay awards under GBR will be linked to productivity and twice received no answer. Will the Minister respond today? There is a further question that the Government cannot dodge indefinitely. The RMT has threatened national strikes, capable of shutting down the network entirely. Will GBR bring about the standardisation of terms and conditions as the sole employer? If it is going to do so, on what terms, at what cost and in exchange for what productivity benefits?
I come to the GBR website and app, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho. This is a solution in search of a problem. We already have a range of innovative retailers, and passengers are perfectly well served by them. Competition has built Britain a world-class rail retail sector, with passengers the primary beneficiaries. I have asked the Minister several times now in Written Questions how much the Government are spending on the GBR website and app but have not been told. Can the Minister answer today?
GBR will compete in a retail market that it also controls, having simultaneously taken over the industry management functions that are currently held by the Rail Delivery Group, including licensing retailers and managing access to data—that is an unprecedented structural conflict of interest, with GBR’s own retailer embedded in its operational business. There is no requirement for independent governance or accounting separation, and no safeguard against public funding cross-subsidising it against competition. When the Minister was Commissioner of Transport for London, under the wise guidance of Boris Johnson, all the TfL journey and fares data became open free to app developers. That was of great benefit to passengers, and we see the apps on our phones. Is he willing to make all of GBR’s fares and journey data, without restriction, open to app developers? Is that something that he might be willing to consider?
I conclude as I started, by trying to find a point of agreement. I concede that there are certain aspects of the railway where a single controlling mind is beneficial—for example, the timetabling or, potentially, the management, improvement and expansion of the infrastructure. However, there is no logic in the single controlling mind also being the largest operator of passenger services. It is that decision to make the single controlling mind also the largest but not the sole operator of passenger services that sets up all the contradictions and conflicts in this Bill which will keep us so busy in Committee.
Drink-Driving
Lord Moylan Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure that our hearts go out to my noble friend and to many other people like him who have suffered this sort of terrible family or close relationship catastrophe. Of course, the enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers. However, I have no doubt that, if we improve both the techniques that can be used to detect drink-driving and drug-driving and the range of penalties that are available for enforcement, chief police officers will treat this seriously, as will the courts.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on how to improve road safety, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that any response to that consultation needs to be evidence-based. In that light, how does he take account of the fact that it appears from Scotland, where the limit has been reduced, that there has been no discernible effect on accidents as a result of that measure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we should respect the evidence. Scotland’s experience is relevant, but it is not the only evidence. The Government recognise that Scotland did not see a significant casualty reduction, but we also cite wider evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability below the current England and Wales limit. Evidence cited in the consultation found that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 20 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres have at least a three-times greater risk of dying, and we will certainly take that into account when we decide what to do as a result of the consultation.
West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Moylan Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that this draft order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee without any concerns raised. It relates to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which, sadly, I will hereafter refer to as the KRN and the WMCA.
It might help noble Lords if I explain what a KRN is. It is a set of the most important locally managed roads in a strategic authority’s area. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, mayors are required to designate a KRN, but most strategic authorities, including the WMCA, already have one. It allows the most important local roads to be managed in a strategic way across the whole strategic authority area.
Statutory guidance on how to decide the composition of a KRN was published by the Government in April this year, as part of wider guidance on producing local transport plans. In short, the KRN roads should be those that are the most important locally for the delivery of policies in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider things such as traffic levels, public transport use, active travel and freight movement. In mayoral strategic authorities such as the WMCA, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. The KRN in the WMCA area constitutes 605 kilometres of roads, accounting for 7% of the total road network and carrying 50% of its traffic.
The constituent councils of the WMCA are Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The WMCA is responsible for the strategic oversight, but the councils are the local highways authorities and remain responsible for the management, maintenance and safety of the roads in the KRN. The WMCA does, however, have some powers over these roads, which it shares with its constituent councils. These include powers relating to making agreements with National Highways, promoting road safety and street works permit schemes.
In addition, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gave all mayors of strategic authorities a power of direction over the roads in the key route network. The power of direction allows the mayor to direct the local highway authority to exercise its powers over a KRN road that it manages. The power of direction is a limited power, designed to be used only when necessary for the delivery of a measure that has been set out in at least one agreed plan or strategy of the strategic authority, such as a local transport plan.
In summary, the KRN allows for roads to be managed in a strategic way across an area. It enables improved traffic flow and reduces congestion. It also allows for the introduction of traffic management measures to improve infrastructure and bus journey times. I hope that I have set out clearly why a KRN is a useful tool. I am sure that it will have occurred to noble Lords that, due to the changing nature of travel patterns, in particular during the years following the pandemic, it would be prudent for a strategic authority such as the WMCA to keep its KRN under review and update it when it no longer reflects the most important locally managed roads.
For most strategic authorities, updating the KRN is logistically straightforward. It usually requires simply updating the list of roads on its website following a resolution of the authority. For the WMCA, however, making changes is not as straightforward because the roads in that key route network are set out in legislation, in the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, where they are described as “combined authority roads”.
The WMCA was an early adopter of a key route network. In 2017, under the previous Government, listing the roads in the KRN in legislation provided certainty at a time when the combined authority was new and the key route network had not yet been used. Nine years have now passed and the WMCA would like to update its KRN as part of its work to publish a new local transport plan. The inflexibility of having the KRN roads set out in legislation is a barrier to this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a process whereby the combined authority must write to the Department for Transport to ask us to legislate every time it wants to amend its KRN is far from optimal. This is especially true when we consider that other authorities simply need to update their website to do the same thing.
After discussions with officials in my department, the combined authority has therefore written to the Secretary of State to ask that we draft and lay this instrument. This follows a public consultation in which 69% of respondents supported the proposal. Subject to its approval by Parliament, this instrument will remove the KRN roads from the 2017 order. Following this, the combined authority will be able to update its KRN roads in the same way as other strategic authorities, allowing it to respond as flexibly as possible to changing travel patterns and deliver better outcomes for road users in the area. I beg to move.
DVLA: Staffing Levels
Lord Moylan Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.
That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.