My Lords, in moving my Amendment A1 I will speak also to Amendment 48A in this group. First, with permission, as it is the first time that I have addressed the new Minister in the House, I congratulate him on his promotion—I think it is a promotion—in joining the Government. I have had the absolute pleasure of working closely with him and knowing him personally since 2008. I saw at first hand his sterling work when he ran Transport for London, alongside the equally impressive Mayor of London, Boris Johnson—something on which I know the whole Committee will agree with me. There are few people in the land more knowledgeable, so it is the country’s gain in having the Minister help tackle our many transport issues.
I declare that I am a regular commuter, and have been for years, travelling in and out of London from home almost daily—not least today, when I had a 15-minute delay to a 25-minute journey. It is because of my time as a commuter, as well as my time in London City Hall, working alongside TfL and many others, and my time in Downing Street looking at rail reform, that I am speaking today.
I turn first to Amendment A1. I do not intend to rehash the universal view that something has to change when it comes to our rail services, and I shall park temporarily whether I believe that the Government’s plan in this Bill is the right one. For now, I will take them at their word and do them a favour by setting out at the outset what this Government believe that the Bill will achieve. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Labour manifesto said that the Government will
“put passengers at the heart of the service”.
In April, the then shadow Secretary of State, who is the current Secretary of State, said in Labour’s Plan to Fix Britain’s Railways that:
“Public ownership for our railways is about the practical need to deliver better services where they have failed”.
My amendment tries to encapsulate that in something concise, setting out that the overall aim of these reforms is improving service. It does not set out every promise that the Government have made in trying to deliver these reforms, such as saving tens of millions of pounds and having more affordable tickets and even better mobile connectivity—more power to your elbow on that one. Amendment A1 is simple, short and streamlined. The Bill would open with what its purpose is and what the goal is, so that, in effect, like Ronseal, the Bill does what it says on the tin.
Some have already quizzed me on whether this purpose clause is necessary in the light of the Bill’s tight scope and focus solely on the effect of nationalisation of passenger rail services. In answer to that, I draw the attention of the Committee to those clauses relating to the temporary extension of privately run franchises. In that part of the Bill, it is clear that the Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on whether it is practical for a service to be provided by a public sector operator. With the addition of the purpose clause and the connected duty, the Secretary of State will have to have due regard to the improvement of passenger services under the Bill when making these decisions.
Turning to my second amendment in this group, Amendment 48A, as I have already said, and as was well covered at Second Reading, no one can deny that the current system is not working. It is fraught with endless delays and cancellations, yet year on year we have fare increases, so my amendments today are not done to halt reform of the railways and certainly not done from an ideological position, even if it has been said that the Government are driving this policy for ideological reasons. For me, it is quite the contrary.
4 pm
When I worked in Downing Street, one of the factors driving me to be so keen for radical reform was that I always felt that I, along with my merry fellow travellers, could not actually do anything about train delays or cancellations. When I am standing on a platform, I often feel that I am echoing my long-lost
cousins in Boston all those centuries ago. We pay taxes—our fares—yet have no representation, no ability to make change or express our views. We have no accountability when a train is delayed, no ability to make things happen, because it falls between so many people. There is no point protesting at the Government, even though I regularly would, and we cannot blame the helpful and courteous chaps and chapesses on the platforms, either, who are often as baffled and distressed as my fellow commuters. It would fall between some company and another, be the fault of congestion, a mysterious train ahead, signal failings or even the weather.
It has already been noted that, without the subsequent legislation, this is all piecemeal—yet, to be blunt, for the purposes of the Bill, are we not replacing one faceless entity in a crowded field with another? That is what I am driving at in this amendment. What is the purpose of going down the path of partial reform unless there is evidence to show that there will be an improvement to the services from a passenger point of view? The inclusion of my amendment would mean that, upon the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State should produce a report effectively setting out the pros and cons of what would be the current franchising system versus the potential public-sector-only option proposed in the Bill.
Unlike my Amendment A1, there are four areas which I believe should be addressed: timeliness, likely cancellations, passenger numbers and ticket costs. If there are not predicted improvements made on these benchmark tests, I do not see what the overall purpose is, never mind the possible decrease in service and increase in costs that may follow. While the current franchising system is far from perfect, it allows the Government to intervene and break a contract when it fails, and competition does drive standards, while there is not much clarity as to what would happen under the proposed changes. This amendment will also provide the public with a transparent analysis of their railways and what they can expect. Both amendments combined put the public where they should be—at the heart of improving their railway network. I beg to move.