Baroness Pidgeon (LD)

My Lords, this group of amendments on the Office of Rail and Road is clearly seeking a different role or structure for the office than that envisaged by the Government. For many, it is more of the same. The amendments are, on the whole, trying to allow the Office of Rail and Road to assess competition on the railways to allow, it seems, more open-access operators. While I absolutely understand and have seen the benefits that open-access operators have brought to the railway, as noble Lords have described—and I hope those operators can continue to bring their services to passengers—there is the issue we have debated on the setting up of Great British Railways and the Secretary of State having so many powers. We have warned about the marking of their own homework. I think the Government will not move on these amendments, because this is an area they set out clearly in their manifesto, but I fear there is a real challenge here in how the structure will work in reality and what open access will be allowed. The clarity that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is seeking will be helpful. Freight is also an open-access operator, although obviously a different type of service. I think the freight industry would appreciate some assurance from the Minister about its role. We have other groups on this issue later, because it is concerned about the legislation as drafted. I am interested in Amendments 286 to 288, which would give the ORR a role in monitoring and auditing Great British Railway’s statutory functions. That could help with this whole issue of being judge and jury, while marking one’s own homework. I really like Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. First, I should welcome him to the transport enthusiasts’ club, which has many members across all sides of the House. He is welcome to stay through the many other days of Committee on this Bill.