Contribution
That is right; the previous Government did nothing about it. The Government’s commitment to the public ownership of passenger train operations has been consistent since the lead-up to the last election, and it was then and still is very popular with the public.
On Amendment 126, as I have said, a duty on fairness and non-discrimination is unnecessary because this requirement will already apply to GBR. These matters are protected through the Competition Act 1998. GBR will be subject to competition law, which prohibits anti-competitive behaviour and the abuse of a dominant position, and the Office of Rail and Road and the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to provide independent enforcement in the rail sector.
Turning to the general duties about value for money, I contend that the intention of these amendments is already achieved through the duty to consider the effective use of public funds. All bodies subject to this duty will need to consider carefully how resources are used. This will naturally mean that these bodies must consider all options available in both the public and private sectors when assessing value for money, which I know is a particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I would say it is essential that GPR leverages the best of the private sector to provide the best service for passengers, which is why it is being set up in this way. Nothing in this legislation prevents that, and the duty to consider the efficient use of public funds is crucial and will include looking for innovative approaches and private sector providers.
Our estimation—I have used this statistic before—is that about 60% of GBR’s total expenditure will be in the private sector, even following the public ownership of passenger train operations, and I expect that to continue. Many of the tests of value for money suggested by the noble Lord are those that I would expect a body such as GBR, with a long-term outlook, to be able to consider. In fact, it should be able to consider them more easily than at present. The duties proposed by noble Lords in these amendments and those already contained in the Bill are, for all practical purposes, seeking the same outcome and I therefore urge noble Lords not to press them.
On Amendments 118B and 127 on affordable fares, I appreciate the concerns raised here and agree that GBR has to get fares right. We have a group later on about fares, but the Government have been clear that GBR will have a greater level of autonomy and flexibility over fare setting than train operating companies do today. It is crucial that we allow GBR to simplify fares, ensuring that passengers have clearer choices and can get better value for money on their tickets. The Secretary of State’s absolute priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. We have frozen regulated rail fares for one year from March 2026 to help with the cost of living. We have also made changes to the 16-17 Saver Railcard, meaning that 18 year-olds will now benefit from half-price travel on most train services. Noble Lords should be assured of our genuine, committed intention to improve affairs across the country, and I hope that I can see at least some evidence that we are working towards that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke to the amendments about transparency and reporting concerns tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Government are committed to interacting with GBR transparently. I am happy to reassure her and the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that we will publish our assumptions, objectives and criteria related to fares. We will publish the parameters set out for GBR on fares, and GBR will ultimately publish its fares policy. However, this is just good government. It does not need legislation.
On Amendment 123, tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have a whole section on access later on. In the meantime, GBR determines the best use of the network by proposing the optimum allocation by type of service—freight, open access, heritage and GBR. It records this in its infrastructure capacity plan which is dealt with at Clause 60. When GBR determines best use by designing its infrastructure capacity plan, it must not unreasonably favour its own services and the duties at Clause 18 apply in full. The capacity duty does not apply at all.
The purpose of Clause 63 comes after the determination of the best use of the network. That capacity duty exists to ensure that GBR maintains sufficient capacity to operate the passenger services that it previously determined it should be allocated and which it has therefore been funded to run. That is because taxpayers are contributing billions of pounds each year to support the railway, and it is right that the Government have a mechanism to protect that investment and ensure that GBR runs the trains that it has been funded to run. The capacity duty is not intended to influence the best use assessment or to exclude other operators from access to the network. I am sure we will come back to that in the access section.