Contribution
My Lords, the debate on this group shows that across the Committee, we are all supportive of increasing the use of rail for freight as well as for passenger services. Amendment 107 in my name would strengthen Clause 17 on the rail freight target. The Bill as drafted states that GBR
“must, when exercising its … functions, have regard to … the target”.
My amendment would change this to say that GBR must “give significant weight” to the target, strengthening the focus on freight as an important part of the rail network, both economically and environmentally, as we have heard.
However, I want to put freight into context here by trying to drill down and understand the true meaning of the target. A lot of this discussion has been about the target and what it means. The December 2025 release of Transport Statistics Great Britain says that rail has an 8% share of domestic rail freight and 1% for international. In this context, even the target of a 75% increase by 2050 feels unambitious. We have heard that it was inherited from the previous Conservative Government. For comparison, Switzerland’s percentage share for rail is 39%; the Government are looking at a 6% increase by 2050.
Let us go back further. In 2000, the Department for Transport published a 10-year transport plan; it pledged then to increase freight by 80% in that timeframe. I do not think that was achieved, but the questions that arise here are: why did it not succeed, why will this target be different—as has been discussed in this debate—and why is there much less ambition now? If that is perhaps a product of learning from past failed target-setting and delivery, maybe this is an ambitious target, but is it? It does not seem so at face value. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
I have also read the access and use policy that is out for consultation, which was referenced in the recent letter from the Minister. As I read that, Great British Railways will try not to meddle with freight services, but it says that it can do almost whatever it likes with its passenger services, including changing frequencies. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, set out that he sees a potential threat to the freight sector compared with the passenger one.
The consultation document says, in paragraph 2.31, that for passengers:
“It does not require the continuation of a particular operator or … service design features (such as frequency, calling patterns, origins and destinations, or timings)”.
It goes on to say, in paragraph 2.32:
“Having considered relevant issues and mitigations, GBR may decide to make such a change to better serve the wider interests of all passengers”.
I would be alarmed by that as a passenger, but paragraph 2.34 says:
“For freight, supporting established traffic is fundamental to making rail an attractive and commercially viable option for customers and to achieving freight growth”.
It seems to me that freight has far more protection than passenger services within GBR and the consultation documents. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the meaning of that within the consultation document, because it would be of huge concern to passengers and wider communities.
The other amendments in this group are in a similar space, and we have heard from former Transport Secretaries on this area. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about investment in infrastructure alongside any target is really important. The Ely junction example he gave shows what is needed if we are to achieve this target or a more ambitious one. I know that the Minister is passionate about growing freight on the railway alongside passenger services. I look forward to his response and clarification on the issues that have been raised, as well as the assurance that the industry, but also passengers, are looking for.