Contribution
My Lords, this is a very varied group, and many valuable points have been raised. My belief is that the Bill addresses the majority of the points raised, but I am happy to discuss any of them further if I do not cover them in the speech that I am about to make.
Turning first to Amendments 114A and 120, these proposals are duplicative of GBR’s duty to promote the interests of not only users but potential users of railway passenger services, which already requires GBR to consider how best to encourage new users on to the railways. Considering the interests of potential users will incentivise GBR to think about underutilised markets and their interests. For example, we know that older people on average travel less. To meet this duty, I would expect GBR to be thinking about what it can do to attract this group to use the railway.
As I have explained before, I do not think we should have an additional or stronger passenger growth duty, as I am concerned that it could push the duties out of balance and undermine the incentive for GBR to promote freight. As GBR’s revenue already comes from passengers, and there will naturally be pressure to increase that revenue, there is already an inherent risk that GBR might seek to prioritise passengers to the detriment of freight. The Bill seeks to address this by having two freight duties and only one duty designed to address passenger growth.
I will address Amendment 114A in slightly more detail, as I appreciate that it also includes explicit modal shift and intermodal elements, as does Amendment 118B. I can confirm that the long-term rail strategy will reference and encourage modal shift and connectivity between modes. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and other noble Lords are right to emphasise this. GBR will include in its business plan how it will work towards the modal shift objectives in the long-term rail strategy. It will also need to take account of the strategies of Scottish and Welsh Ministers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.
The long-term rail strategy is also being developed in tandem with, and will be informed by, the Government’s integrated national transport strategy. The discussion document published last month on that strategy outlines how encouraging modal shift by increasing the attractiveness of rail is key to the Government’s sustainability objective. The Bill also supports this objective through the inclusion of the public interest duty at Clause 18, which explicitly includes the effect on the environment in its definition. This ensures that GBR is bound by this duty not only when making key decisions but when responding to the long-term rail strategy via its business plan, meaning that modal shift is actively considered throughout.
I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, about the other duties that he proposes, but, as he said, although these things are important now, times may change. I will address with him separately how the six issues that he raises will all be addressed.
Turning to railway performance on Amendment 122, we have known from passengers for a long time that the main issues affecting their journeys are reliability, punctuality and overcrowding. That is exactly why we have specifically referred to these issues in the definition. However, the definition is not exhaustive or limiting: GBR and the ORR will be able to consider any other factors of railway service performance that they assess as relevant. Specifically, passenger comfort would already be considered as part of the interests of passengers and potential passengers and so is already accounted for by the duties in the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that notwithstanding the comments about the reputation of British Rail, which are now more than 30 years old, it is interesting in the current situation how the reputation of LNER is so much better, despite it having been in the public sector for quite a long time and, conversely, how poor the position of Avanti is, despite it being in the private sector.