Lord Boateng (Lab)

My Lords, Amendment 142 is in my name. I speak with apologies for not having attended Second Reading and with some trepidation, given the level of expertise on railways and rail that is clearly present on all sides in this Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, began his contribution to today’s proceedings with a reference to the 1970s. He will forgive me if I do not go there. That, for me, was a time of flares, floral shirts and an afro. There are many Members here who are familiar with flares and floral shirts, but perhaps not so many with an afro, but that was the 1970s for me and I do not intend to go there. However, I do intend to go to the 1980s, when I was a member of a local authority that had oversight of the Docklands Light Railway, and to the early noughties when, as Chief Secretary in two spending reviews, I took a particular interest in Crossrail. From both those experiences, in the 1980s and the noughties, I learned that the significance of railways in promoting economic growth is absolutely central. As a result, Great British Railways should not merely operate a railway but should help grow Britain. That has to be at the heart of our consideration of this Bill, and therefore ORR’s regulatory framework should recognise the economic geography of the whole country, as well as the economics of the railway. Hence the importance of regional growth: that should unite us on all sides of this Committee. We may have different views on how we get there, but we all believe that growth is essential for the future of our country. I will not go down the road along which the noble Baroness tempts me, but I can add the words “sustainable growth”. She will not demur from that proposition. I have no problem with the notion of sustainable growth, nor with that notion being on the face of the Bill through this amendment. The amendment is by no means perfect, but it seeks to elicit from the Government how—with their commendable commitment to growth across the country, and particularly to addressing regional disparities—they will make this Bill fit for purpose. I suggest that we will have to come back to the issue of sustainable growth during our consideration of the Bill. As it stands, it does not make the point that railways have a vital role in the country’s future going forward. I take as an example the situation which exists today in relation to HS1 and Kent, and that county’s regeneration. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is sadly not in his place, but he made a very important contribution to our earlier deliberations. When he was Secretary of State—and, indeed, when I was in the other place—he made the following point about the railways, and the Channel Tunnel rail link in particular: “The benefits of the deal for the nation are wide-ranging and substantial.” He went on to say: “The railway will be a great boost to economic development and regeneration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 29/2/1996; col. 999.] So, indeed, it has proved in relation to Kent. But, sadly, the decision made in March 2020 to close access to the channel rail link for Ashford and Ebbsfleet had a devastating effect on the region and a negative effect on its growth. That point has been very well made in the work, which I commend, of the local Members of Parliament in the other place: Helena Dollimore for Hastings and Rye, Tony Vaughan for Folkestone and Hythe, Sojan Joseph for Ashford, and others in the region. They worked with the Good Growth Foundation to demonstrate what the impact of the lack of access through Ashford has meant for the region: £80 million of infrastructure investment rendered useless and business across the region losing footfall and trade, perpetuating some of the deep inequalities that exist in Kent and East Sussex. After all, they contain some of the most deprived communities in the UK, with child poverty and unemployment concentrated particularly along the coastal towns, which I happen to know well. All that is impacted by a decision made by a rail operator in relation to one specific station. My point, at this stage of our consideration of the Bill—I am hugely grateful to the Minister for his interest in this subject over the years—is that we must amend the Bill as it stands with a regional growth duty requiring the issue to form part of the regulatory decision-making process, rather than being treated as somehow external to it. The Commons Library reported on this just in August this year, in relation to the four potential competitors for Eurostar that have aspirations to operate international passenger services through the Channel Tunnel. The ORR has already approved track access agreements between Virgin Trains and HS1 Ltd, following its earlier Temple Mills decision, of which I know the Minister is well aware. The Minister will be equally well aware that the Government have supported an industry working group to look at the remobilisation of the Kent HS1 stations for potential new international entrants. If we do not amend the statutory framework now, and if the ORR were considering competing access applications from one operator proposing a London-Paris service running non-stop through Kent and another proposing to call at Ashford, the Ashford stop could appear disadvantageous under a narrow railway economic analysis: a few minutes additional journey time, station operating costs, border security arrangements and possibly reduced London-Paris capacity. If that were the only consideration, the ORR would be driven in one particular direction, but a regional sustainable growth duty would require the ORR to consider the other side of the ledger: inward investment attracted by European connectivity, tourism expenditure, labour market accessibility, business productivity and the agglomeration effects. There would be development around Ashford, connectivity for Kent, East Sussex and the wider south-east, utilisation of existing infrastructure —a model transfer for car, air and international rail travel. If that is true—and it is true in relation to Ashford and Kent—think about the rest of the country. Think about those parts of the north-east, the Midlands and the wider north of our country. Without a specific duty to take note of the issue of growth, they will be denied the benefits that a railway system can provide for the whole country. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Minister and hope that his reply will give us some hope that these issues will be addressed in the Bill.