My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the Bill is, in my view at least, narrowly focused on allowing the further public operation of existing franchised railway operations currently in the private sector. Many in this House will know that I was the commissioner of Transport for London when the original Overground was proposed and established. Some of the details of its success are extremely familiar to me and give me a glow of pride and satisfaction whenever anybody mentions them. I was also there when the Overground was expanded—in fact, some Members of this House could have allowed it to expand further but chose to oppose it on the grounds that, for a mayor of a different political colour, that might not suit the then-Government’s aims. I say all that because devolution is really important. I have no intention of closing it off, and neither does the Bill—but it has to be subject to the effective operation of the railway network as a whole. I will come back to that in a moment.
I will speak first to Amendments 31 to 33 and 37 of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Amendment 34 of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Moylan, and Amendment 36 of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. These amendments would empower the Secretary of State and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to award contracts to companies owned by various local authorities. Amendment 16 of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, aims to provide opportunities for local authorities to take responsibility for services in their areas before contracts are awarded to public sector operators.
Amendment 46 of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require another report, this time on whether public ownership makes it more or less likely that further services will be devolved by means of exemptions granted under Section 24 of the Railways Act 1993.
Amendment 50, also of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is another attempt to delay transfers to public ownership, as it makes the establishment of new regional partnership boards the trigger for the provisions of the Bill to come into force. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned shadow Great British Railways. This is not a statutory entity but a preparation for Great British Railways; it is not a mechanism to do its job in advance of the creation of the body itself.
In line with the spirit of all these amendments, the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role for local communities in shaping the design
and delivery of passenger rail services in their areas. Our plans for reform will make this a great deal easier for them, because they will need to engage with only one organisation—Great British Railways—instead of having to deal separately with Network Rail and multiple train operating companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, reminded us of the manifesto. We have already made it clear that our railways Bill will include a statutory role for the devolved Governments and mayoral combined authorities in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network, and there is absolutely no intention to enact rail reform without that statutory role. We are committed to a full and open discussion on that role, and how it will work, as we refine our plans for the railways Bill in the coming weeks, and that will be included in the published consultation.
5.45 pm
The Government and I expect close working with mayors and other local authorities to provide services that meet local needs. We are already having materially useful discussions with combined authority mayors, particularly in Manchester and the West Midlands. The proposals by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, which were referred to, are progressing very satisfactorily. These would allow the mayor to specify the characteristics of eight services within the Greater Manchester Combined Authority area, including services, fares and other characteristics, without owning and operating the service. He is not seeking ownership of the services but, quite reasonably, an influence on their provision for the economic benefit of the combined authority area. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that happening, either in Manchester or elsewhere, and I hope that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, some assurance that, first, I know the detail, and, secondly, it will continue to be available, both there and elsewhere.
It is clear that the railway network as a whole will not work if local authorities do not have influence over their areas, but I wish to distinguish between influence—the sort of influence that we are discussing with Greater Manchester—and the actual operation of the services. Ownership and operation are not necessary for services to address local and regional demands for services and facilities.
We want to reduce, rather than increase, the fragmentation of the railway network. The large number of different players in this industry is at the heart of the problem we need to solve. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right that, sadly, the railway geography of this country means very few railway services are wholly within one local authority area, a mayoral or combined authority area, or even, as she observes, in one country—you cross between England and Wales if you go from Chester to Newport; I think you cross the boundary 12 times, and it is a lovely journey.
We do not want passengers to interact with more operators than they need to. Many noble Lords, on all sides of this House, will know how much passengers resent the different characteristics of ticketing, information and other things, which the railway network currently suffers from. While the Bill does not disrupt existing arrangements in London and the Liverpool City Region,
it is not our intention to devolve operating responsibility for more services to local authorities at this stage. It does not mean that, in future, Great British Railways cannot integrate in a way that brings better services generally and addresses the needs of local communities.
If local leaders wish to bring forward specific proposals for further devolution of operation, then they will be considered carefully. I am aware of the aspirations of the London Assembly transport committee, which has, this morning, published its letter to me on this subject. I am, of course, also aware of the aspirations of the current Mayor of London, as I was of those of the two previous mayors. I will evaluate in detail what they have to say and look carefully at their proposals.
I should make it clear to your Lordships and others that, before we agree to further devolution of operation, we would need to be certain that doing so would not undermine the Government’s efforts to bring greater coherence, clarity and simplicity to the railway, and thus reduce costs, increase revenue and improve performance. We only want to make changes that benefit passengers and promote greater efficiency, a position I am sure that everyone in this Committee will support.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Randerson, will note, I hope, that we are not closing off further devolution of the operation of services. If the Government decide to do so, there are existing mechanisms in legislation to enable this to happen. Section 24 of the Railways Act 1993 allows the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to exempt certain services from the surrounding provisions of that Act, and this Bill does not change that. That is the basis on which services in Greater London and the Liverpool City Region can be operated by the relevant local authorities. Amendments to the Bill are not necessary to provide a statutory basis for further devolution to local leaders in our larger metropolitan areas, nor are they needed if those authorities wish to operate those services directly rather than contract them or have them as a concession.
To address head-on the questions posed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, it will not surprise him to learn that the Government have no intention of delaying public ownership until our longer-term reform plans have hit the statute books and been fully implemented. I have explained in response to other amendments why we need to get on with that as soon as possible. Given that we intend to give local leaders and their communities a stronger say in how their local railways are run in the future, I would expect there to be less appetite for services to be devolved than there was before.
On engagement, it is also worth noting that local authorities have broadly welcomed our proposal for their greater influence over and specification of their local services, but very few are interested in taking on the operation of services. As I have said, noble Lords will be aware that local leaders do not need to run their own services to have a really significant influence on the way the future railway network serves them.
The most important focus for debate, then, is how we provide the fullest possible opportunity for local authorities to influence the provision of services in their areas and to fund local improvements if they wish, while also maintaining Great British Railways’
ability to balance local, regional and national needs and to provide the right level of consistency across the whole system. That will, of course, be an important issue when we come to debate the substantive wider railways Bill in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friends—