Railways Bill

My Lords, perhaps we could have a bit more of an explanation from the Government as to why this Bill is being taken not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. This is a major piece of legislation which affects every rail user up and down the country. It was first announced in the first King’s Speech of this Session and, unusually, repeated in the second King’s Speech, so it is not as if it is something new. This was supposed to be a priority. It is a priority which is taking a long time to deliver. It has incredibly important consequences and should be discussed not in Committee but on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government want to take this Bill into Committee rather than deal with it on the Floor of the House, as we usually do with most of the controversial pieces of legislation before your Lordships’ House.

My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s concerns. I am a relatively new Member of this House but I believed that significant pieces of legislation were taken on the Floor of the House and that less significant legislation was taken in Grand Committee. I really do not understand why the Government appear to have downgraded this legislation, particularly when it involves the biggest change to our transport system for more than 30 years. It involves a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money and support. The Bill also contains what can charitably be described only as a poison pill for a future Government: it seeks to tie the hands of the next Parliament on the specifics of governance. Surely all those things merit a debate in Committee on the Floor of the House.

Just before the Minister rises, I ask him to forgive me, as an even newer Member of the House than my noble friend. I fear that we, as former Transport Secretaries, have managed to appear in threes; I hope that will not be a precedent. I echo what my noble friends said. This is supposed to be a flagship piece of legislation, according to the Government. It is controversial: even though setting up GBR has some element of cross-party consensus, there are quite a number of areas of controversy, as demonstrated at Second Reading. It is a Bill which potentially touches on everybody in the House. It is not a narrow piece of legislation; it is very broad. I would have expected it to be taken on the Floor of the House. The Minister will be pleased to know that the usual channels were sufficiently persuasive to hold us back from dividing the House on this matter, but they may be less successful in holding us back when we reach Report, unless we hear a convincing explanation from the Minister today.

My Lords, as someone who has been in the House for a little bit longer, I would be really concerned about us seeing the work that is done in Grand Committee as downgraded or second best. From my point of view, the work done in Grand Committee is equally important. It is a really good opportunity for technical, detailed scrutiny of a Bill. If there are any areas that need to be voted on, there is always Report.

My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s point, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that any Member of this House can attend Grand Committee, and that it is recorded and can be watched back?

My Lords, I sat through the Second Reading of this Bill. At the first debate, 30 people spoke and then a whole raft of amendments were put down by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

Wrong Bill!

To help the noble Lord, we are discussing the Railways Bill commitment Motion.

What I want to say is that the numbers towards the end of that Bill were not as big as people suggest. Look in Hansard; the numbers were less.

My Lords, what a joy it is to hear from three former Transport Secretaries whom I have worked for. I predict hearing from a former deputy chair of Transport for London whom I have worked for shortly as well. I know, as many do in this Chamber, that passengers and taxpayers have had enough of the current failed system. Change to our railways cannot come soon enough. I want to get on with fixing the railways by starting the scrutiny of this Bill as soon as possible. Divisions such as this simply delay the job that we are all here to do. It is perfectly normal for Bills to be committed to Grand Committee. A significant number of Bills, many of which propose significant legislative change, are committed to Grand Committee each Session. In the last Session of the previous Government, much important legislation was scrutinised in that way. As my noble friends have confirmed, Grand Committee is not a lower standard of scrutiny. Any noble Lord can participate and proceedings are broadcast, as my noble friend just said. Its use means that the House’s time can be managed more effectively. It does not hinder, curtail or prevent detailed scrutiny of legislation. The Bill will return to the Chamber on Report.