Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)

I will think about that, if I may. There are various phrases, such as “tourist”, “charter” and “heritage”—I was replicating the use by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of “heritage” to embrace all three. That is probably the best way of doing that. Some of the heritage seems questionable, as it seems to have occurred during my recent life—but I am quite old now. We are talking about heritage including both charter and tourist trains; the noble Lord nods, so I feel confident about that. I turn to Amendments 92, 95, 96A, 97A, 101, 98, 99 and 100. While I appreciate the intent of Amendment 92, it is not clear to me that the Bill needs to set out that the strategy will be 30 years’ long in legislation. We have stated a clear intent for the strategy to cover 30 years in multiple locations, including in the strategy’s factsheet, in the Bill’s explanatory notes, and at the Dispatch Box in the other place, and I confirm it again today. I also confirm that it will feature in the discussion document on the long-term rail strategy, which we have referred to. Although nothing in the Bill requires the Strategy to be 30 years’ long, I remind the noble Baroness that precedent plays a strong role in government. On amendments 95, 101 and 96A, the Bill already requires the strategy to be published, and we have also committed to the Transport Select Committee to place copies in both Houses’ Libraries and to publish a Written Ministerial Statement alongside the strategy publication, so that the contents are immediately brought to the attention of the House. Our intention is that that should also apply to any changes in the strategy. I am confident that if the strategy were to fall short of its 30-year goal or if Members of your Lordships’ House took issue with its contents, there would be many, including the noble Baroness and noble Lords present in the Committee, ready and willing to hold the Government to account, including by requesting a debate, without needing to say that in legislation. I do not agree with amendments 97A, 98, 99 and 100. One of the Government’s key ambitions is to grow passenger numbers and encourage modal shift. The passenger watchdog is valuable in recognising barriers to passenger growth, enabling the Secretary of State to prioritise tackling obstacles to it in the strategy. Wales is included as a statutory consultee because, as we discussed previously, the devolution position in Wales is different and the strategy will cover England and Wales in full. Mentioning Wales on the face of the Bill therefore demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the Welsh Government’s views are represented. Meanwhile, our memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government already sets out that Scotland will be engaged on the strategy, to ensure that our respective strategies are aligned, but the Bill reflects the different devolution settlements in rail. I add that the Scottish Government have consented to this Bill as drafted. While I agree that mayors play an important role in local transport planning and economic development, it is not necessary to name every single one of them as consultees on the strategy. I assure noble Lords that engagement with mayors is planned as part of the strategy’s development, and that engagement will inform the final strategy. That is made clear in the document we published today. On Amendment 98, the role of the ORR is that of a regulator and adviser. It is not for the ORR to set out priorities for the railway for 30 years; that is clearly for the Government of the day to do, and it is for the ORR to provide advice about how that vision is actioned. That is exactly what the ORR will do by providing advice on the funding and business planning processes for GBR, which will include advice on how GBR should go about achieving the wider priorities set out in the long-term strategy. The Government will engage with the ORR in the development of the strategy, as we do in the development of almost all railway publications, but this is regular business and does not require a statutory footing. On Amendment 99, the strategy is about setting out a vision for rail, including the long-term outcomes that need to be delivered to support the Government’s broader social, economic and environmental policy ambitions—for example, growing housing or improving access to jobs. Rail operators can help to deliver that vision, and they will of course be involved. As a routine matter of business, the Government engage with freight and passenger operators regularly, and we have had multiple discussions on the development of the strategy already. This has allowed them to feed in without the requirement for them to be formally consulted. They will of course also be consulted on GBR’s business plan, which will explain how the rail industry will achieve the Secretary of State’s objectives. The access and use policy deals with consultation on access decisions and service frequency. On Amendment 100 and consulting the British Transport Police, although I agree that safety and security are key for users of the railways and that the British Transport Police are critical to supporting this, the strategy will not set out operational decisions which will be more relevant to the transport police. The strategy will set out what the Secretary of State wants to achieve and GBR’s business planning will work out how to achieve her goals. That is when the engagement with the BTP will take place. On Amendment 102, the existing duties in Clause 16 already ensure that ministerial strategies will be prioritised. GBR and the ORR will be expected to demonstrate how they have considered the strategies and how their activities align with the objectives set over time. As already mentioned, GBR’s business plan will work towards delivering the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Minister’s strategy, and will set measurable KPI targets to help it achieve the overarching long-term goals. The Secretary of State will sign off the business plan only after the ORR has confirmed that the plans align with these strategies and GBR’s other duties. I propose not to talk to Amendments 103 and 104 as I note that the noble Lord, Lansley, who is not in his place today, and I agreed last week not to repeat the debate. As I said then, I will reflect on the valuable points he has made. On Amendments 105 and 128, I briefly address the Moreton-in-Marsh transport hub collaboration that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised. I am a great supporter of projects such as this which seamlessly link rail and bus services, taxis, pedestrians and cyclists to reduce road traffic and congestion and, while I cannot pre-empt the community infrastructure levy process, I encourage the town council and the Great Western Railway to continue their engagement with it. I look forward to hearing more about this in the future. I hope that will do him. The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the importance of integrating rail passenger services with other public transport modes, which is why we published a strategy for integrated transport in April this year that set out our ambition to create a simpler, more connected and people-focused network across England. In addition, I have also committed to the long-term rail strategy including objectives to improve the integration of railway passenger services with other modes of transport. The discussion document discusses the importance of meeting multimodal expectations and reducing end-to-end journey times and this will be a key long-term priority. We are absolutely committed to improving connectivity across the country. When noble Lords read the Secretary of State’s introduction, they will see commitment to integration set out there too. The Bill also includes practical measures to make integrated transport a reality. Both GBR and the Secretary of State will be required to promote the interests of passengers and to act in the public interest, which would absolutely include working with the providers of other transport modes to improve connectivity. In addition, as we have already discussed, GBR will have regard to local transport plans, which will naturally lead to improvements in connectivity by encouraging collaboration with mayoral strategic authorities that have responsibility for wider local transport services. The Bill also continues to enable the local devolution of railways, and the Government have published guidance to support this, creating more opportunities for integration of train and bus services. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is talking about the commitment in the 1993 Act, I am firmly convinced that the commitments to the mayoral combined authorities in this Bill and the other commitments that I have discussed equally meet that commitment. I will just say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that he can have his own views about British Rail and integration but, in fact, it used to be quite good and it is the deregulation of buses outside London in 1985 that destroyed a lot of the integration over much of England. For example, railway tickets were interoperable with bus services, but that Act finished that one. I turn to Amendment 101A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It was a pleasure to discuss all the issues that she spoke about today, and more, with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, when we met this week. Our overarching plan for the framework is that the Secretary of State sets objectives in the long-term rail strategy and GBR delivers them through an integrated plan. It is our strong view that accessibility should not be considered in isolation. Decisions about stations, rolling stock, passenger assistance, information and investment are most effective when planned together. Embedding accessibility within the long-term rail strategy rather than a separate document ensures that it informs every major decision GBR takes, rather than being treated as a stand-alone issue.