Lord Bradshaw (LD)

The amendment that I am moving is almost self-explanatory. I think that most people in the Room will have witnessed arbitrary cuts in expenditure on the railway. These cuts probably emanate from the Treasury but come through the Department for Transport, which says that it must cut 10% of rail services or cut certain staff—or maybe have a recruitment ban. I am seeking to ameliorate that process somewhat so that if a Government—not necessarily the Minister’s—propose to make an arbitrary cut in the money available to the railway, whether that is the money available now or at some time in future, instead of leaving the railway to make the best of a bad job, a proposal can be made to the regulator. It would give the regulator a real job. The regulator would have already approved the business plan of the railway at some time previously. If an arbitrary cut was made in future, that cut should be referred to the rail regulator and, as it were, deferred for three months, during which time the regulator would have the opportunity, together with the industry, to come forward with better solutions than have been proposed under the arbitrary cuts. For example, it could seek to postpone some work or alter the scope of the work. Instead of having a crude ban on recruitment, it could ensure that it applies only to staff who are not absolutely essential to running the railway. In this amendment, I seek to make a change to the way in which the Treasury and the Department for Transport handle their relations with the industry. That would be a good thing that would give the rail and road regulator a chance to propose an alternative. As its remit also includes roads, it might also consider the terrible amount of money that has been wasted on smart motorways. It might propose that some form of taxation is levied on heavy goods vehicles, which I am sure most people would agree do enormous damage to our roads. I beg to move.