Contribution
With respect to my noble friend, I do not think that is what I said, and certainly not what I meant. That is why we have separated the infrastructure capacity plan from the operation of trains by GBR. One of the purposes of this Bill, which I hope the Committee would accept, is that we have invested quite a lot in railway infrastructure capacity and found ourselves in the past unable to utilise some of the capacity allowed by that investment, simply because the structures were not there to use it in the best way for the railway.
The investment in the infrastructure should allow the determination of the best use of the network by optimum allocation of the type of service. The subsequent duty in Clause 63 is designed to make sure that GBR operates the passenger services which it is allocated under Clause 60 and is therefore funded to run. I am very happy to explain further when we get to the access group, but I hope that I have explained the basic principles.
Turning to Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, supported ably by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and other noble Lords, heritage railways are of course an essential part of tourism, cultural and educational life in this country. No Government would be interested in allowing the decline of such an important and thriving sector. I am assuming that the noble Lord is referring to those heritage services on the main line and charter operators, including the operation of heritage locomotives on the main line, because he will also know from my discussions with him outside this Committee that we are attempting not to use this Bill to unduly or adversely influence heritage railways in their own regard, only as much as they interact with the national railway network.
We know that today’s access system of contractual access rights and timetabling rules provides the heritage and charter sector with a clear process to follow to secure paths in the timetable, in respect of regular operations—for example, both the British Pullman, at one end of the luxury band, and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway to Whitby, at the other, have regular operations which have paths in the timetable—but we also know that there are many one-off charter operations. In 2025, there were 1,155 bids for paths from charter operators—I think I have used this statistic with the noble Lord before. Some of those were subsequently withdrawn by the operators, but only eight were withdrawn because Network Rail was unable to offer suitable paths.
GBR will, as I said, have in Clause 60 a clear remit to allocate capacity fairly, taking into account the range of users including passengers, freight, heritage, charter and open-access operators, while GBR’s function under Clause 3 to facilitate the provision and use of railway services will apply to all providers of railway services, not just those provided by GBR itself. The future access framework is intended to build on, rather than replace, many of the mechanisms familiar to heritage and charter operators today. Charter operators will continue to be able to secure access to contracts, including capacity commitments. I can say to the noble Lord today that the specialist team within Network Rail that currently supports heritage and charter operators, and in particular facilitates one-off paths, will continue under GBR, ensuring continuity of expertise and a clear point of engagement for the sector.
Finally, GBR will have to ensure that heritage and charter operators have the certainty they need as part of its duty in Clause 18 to ensure that businesses can plan their future with a reasonable degree of assurance. This will make sure that these operators have the stability they need to continue enriching the lives of both passengers and the community with the experiences they offer.
On Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, Clause 18(1) explains whom the duties apply to. They must be discharged by Ministers, GBR and the ORR when they exercise their statutory functions as outlined in Clause 18. This is designed to ensure a common set of incentives and objectives for all the key players on the railway, to reduce conflict and fragmentation and to create a railway in which everyone is pulling together towards the same goals.
On Amendments 330K and 334A, what I have just said on Amendment 115 means that the Secretary of State will be bound by these duties when issuing GBR’s licence and that the ORR will be bound by them when issuing licences and statements of national regulatory provisions for other operators. The ORR will also be bound by them when enforcing GBR’s licence. There is no loophole for GBR to avoid the duty for its licence, and the two mechanisms are already joined up. I thank noble Lords for this debate and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her amendment.