Lord Harper (Con)

My Lords, I will start by referring to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked to, because it just so happened that, as I was travelling to London yesterday, a car struck a bridge at Burnham. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is nodding; perhaps he was on the same train. The reason why it is important is that, although there was, I think, no significant damage to the bridge, the train was significantly late, which meant that every single person on it was entitled under the Delay Repay scheme to a significant refund of their fare. It was not the only train affected; lots of trains were. The cost to the taxpayer of that single incident was probably very significant, and it does not seem unreasonable that the insurance company of the person who struck the bridge should have to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost of that significant damage. Having had that experience yesterday, I am instinctively supportive of that amendment. Before I talk about the other amendments in this group, I will make a teensy defence of the Sunak Administration, given what my noble friend Lord Moylan said, and since I was a member of it; I will not make an extensive one because that is not the purpose for which we are here. On this specific issue, we got the Williams review, which my noble friend referred to, and then we set in train the work that has, in effect, come to fruition with this Bill, in starting the process of setting up GBR. A lot of the preparatory work took place when we were in government, and there is a lot of agreement, I think, between how we would have done it and how the Minister is doing it today. The big difference, of course, is on the ownership of the companies but, in terms of bringing together a guiding mind—however one wishes to describe it—and a more seamless operation of track and train, that is certainly something that we intended to do and we started the process. That is my bit of a defence of what we did when we were in government. Let me now address the amendments, starting with Amendment 7, and Clause 3. The problem with purpose clauses and a list of functions is the danger of what parliamentary draftsmen call undue specificity: as soon as you have a list, you then have a question about whether you are allowed to do the things that are not on the list. In his list, my noble friend Lord Moylan has things that are not in the Government’s list of functions, such as “providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers”. But in neither of the lists is what we have talked about: the work that Network Rail currently does, and GBR will continue to do, not just on operating passenger services or facilitating freight services but on maximising the benefit of its property portfolio—not only to generate revenue to offset the cost of providing rail services but to generate a significant amount of economic development and growth in significant parts of the country, as my noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned. The Government are woefully behind their housebuilding targets, but one of their priorities is developing housing around railway stations, and some of that land will be owned by Network Rail and, in due course, GBR. In relation to the amendment, I ask the Minister whether the functions set out in the Bill are sufficiently extensive to give GBR the powers it needs to do its work. I also want to speak to Amendment 12, and the linked Amendments 80 and 81, on fair and non-discriminatory decisions, which it is important to put in the legislation. GBR will now make important decisions about access for private freight companies to the network, open access operators and—I will not labour this point here, because we will come to it in the next group—ticketing. Unlike the ORR, which did not have any skin in the game, GBR will be making decisions on, for example, freight access or open access, so it will be both a decision-maker and a provider of services, which are in competition. That is also true for ticket retailing. When it makes those decisions, it should have a legal duty to do so in a fair and non-discriminatory way, which is why I support the amendment. It would have two effects: it would govern how GBR operates and it would provide the opportunity for others to challenge it if it does not behave in that way. Amendments 80 and 81 are linked, because they are about the charges that GBR can make for services where it is a monopoly supplier and, therefore, people do not have any choices. Amendment 81 would provide an appeal mechanism if it charges in a way that people do not think is reasonable. Both amendments would be very sensible to ensure that it behaves in a reasonable way. There are two other amendments I want to comment on. Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, set out, sounds sensible on the face of it, but I will just flag three issues with it. First, when you move employers, there are potentially pension implications. I understand that the company that provides pensions to rail workers has flagged the time that will be required to do the pensions transition in a sensible way. We have seen in other areas of the public sector that, if you get that wrong, it can cause significant issues. The second issue is one that we have seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on in his remarks. I suspect that, at the moment, because these are all separate companies, there will be a range of pay structures. We have already seen this—as have the Government, to their own cost—in what they are doing with NHS England. They originally said that they wanted to bring NHS England and all its staff into the Department of Health and Social Care. As they set out on that process, because people in NHS England are in many cases paid significantly more than people in the Department of Health and Social Care, they have discovered either that they cannot do it or that doing it would be very expensive or require the Secretary of State or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to sign off the move of every single employee above a certain pay band. They have discovered that it is all very complicated, and they are effectively having to do the NHS England/DHSC change in a different way. If you stick everyone in a single company and you have to equalise all their pay and conditions, my concern is that if you do it in a downwards direction, it would clearly not be advantageous to those employees who lose out, but if you do it in an upwards direction then it is clearly damaging for the taxpayer, who has to pay all this increased cost without getting any productivity. I want to flag one final thing, but will not go into it at length because we have a later group some way down where we will cover it in more detail. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, slightly gave the game away when he referred to a letter from the RMT’s parliamentary group: the point of this is to have a single national rail employer so that the trade unions can increase their power and once again be able to deliver national rail strikes, closing down the entire railway network, which they have not been able to do with different rail operating companies, as you could not have a strike in one of them in response to a dispute at another. People should be very clear: if there is a single employer—I have some amendments to test this—we will be back in the days where we have national rail strikes and increase the bargaining power of those trade unions. The experience over history is that that power is not used for the benefit of the passenger and customer but to extract money from the taxpayer. That would be a very damaging thing. I flag that now, but will not go into it in any more detail as I will come back to it later. Finally, very briefly, I am attracted to Amendment 20 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The only point I would make to her, as I think I said at Second Reading, is that the reason why, when I was Secretary of State, I set up a freight target—there is reference to a freight target in the Bill—was to try to balance the fact that all the conversations we have about railways are always about passengers. The reason for the freight target was to slightly rebalance the conversation and have more of a level playing field. My worry is that, if you put the passenger target in the Bill, you reweight it back towards being all about passengers again. I absolutely agree with her that we want to increase the number of passengers and reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but the reason for having the freight target was to slightly rebalance and have more of a level playing field.