Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he is concerned about Amendments 79 and 293, not only will I withdraw them but I will invite him to discuss them further on Report. I turn to Amendments 134, 135, 137, 138 and 140 and the opposition to Clause 20 standing part. This Government recognise that there are many circumstances in which competition brings benefits to the users of railway services. Noble Lords have mentioned the supply chain, where competition drives innovation and efficiency, and the online retail market, where competition provides choice and drives up the quality of passenger experience. However, there are other railway functions where the promotion of competition in the new circumstances is not appropriate and will be counterproductive. We have deliberately specified in Clause 20 when this competition duty should apply. I will set out our approach here. Competition should be focused on where it delivers the outcomes that we are seeking, as set out in the duties. In other words, competition is a tool that can be used to achieve better passenger outcomes, or more freight services, or economic benefits. When competition supports those aims then we agree that it should be promoted. For example, competition in retail online markets supports better outcomes for passengers because it gives them more choice. We know from the debates in your Lordships’ House that lots of disabled passengers are looking forward to the GBR app, which will allow them to book all tickets and passenger assistance in one place. Other disabled passengers, such as passengers with vision impairments, prefer a wider choice of apps so that they can select which ones integrate best with their support systems. This is a perfect example of the competition that the railway genuinely needs, which is why the ORR’s competition duty will apply when it writes the code of practice. On access, in comparison, the best outcome for passengers is the service which most meets their needs. That often means a frequent, reliable service, with stops in the right places, and a regular, coherent pattern of services. Competition does not necessarily achieve that. In the past, competition has resulted in operators making timetable changes that seek to maximise their own revenue share, not designing an overall timetable that makes sense to passengers.