Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I will call Josh Babarinde to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, sadly, as it is only a half-hour debate.
It is a private joke, don’t worry!
rose—
On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?
I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government. I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said: “surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.” That is wholly unwise. I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical. This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.
The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view: “On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.” I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy. It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.
The Bill returns to the House at an important time of year. Next week, we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, when communities across the country will pause to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust. As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the strength and dignity with which Jewish communities have preserved the memory of the Holocaust. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw that also in Israel and in other countries. The people who preserve that memory do so not only to honour those who were murdered, but to educate future generations. That act of remembrance is a service to the whole country, and it shows that education is essential if the memory of the Holocaust is to endure, and if we are to confront antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears. This Bill has taken much longer to progress than any of us would have wished. I am therefore pleased that the Government have chosen to take it forward. The primary purpose of the Bill is clear and narrow in scope. It is about the Holocaust, ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are learned and that history is preserved for future generations. On that point, there is strong and genuine cross-party agreement in both Houses. I thank the Minister for meeting me and listening carefully to the concerns raised by the Conservatives. Those discussions have been constructive, and I welcome the seriousness with which they have been approached. There has been contention during the passage of this Bill. Strong views have been expressed about the location, the security and the design of the memorial. Those debates reflect the importance of this project and the desire to ensure that it is done properly. However, the issue before us today is the purpose of the learning centre. Conservative and Cross-Bench peers have been clear in expressing their concern. They have sought assurance that the learning centre will exist for one purpose only: to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism. I welcome the assurances that the Government have now provided, in particular the commitment that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and on antisemitism, and that there must be no question of its drifting from that mission or that purpose in future years. I also welcome the commitment that the governing documents of the future operations body will make that purpose clear. Those assurances matter. This memorial is intended to last for generations, and it must have a clear mission that future trustees and future Governments cannot dilute or reinterpret. In the light of those assurances, we will not press this matter to a Division. That reflects the progress that has been made through constructive discussions in both this House and the other place. Let me make one final point clear. Those assurances must be carried through, and the good faith of those who have entered into the conversations needs to be rewarded. I recognise that concerns about the design have been raised throughout the passage of the Bill both directly with me and with the Government. While those matters fall outside the scope of the legislation before us, I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns and will ensure that they are communicated more widely to those involved in the construction of the education centre. If this House is to create a lasting national Holocaust memorial, it must be clear in its purpose and faithful to its promise.
Nonsense.
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I raise these issues as a sanctioned individual. Not only am I sanctioned, but my whole family is sanctioned, I have been trolled by operatives from the security service of China, and I am under constant watch by them, all the way through. On the basis of that, I simply ask him this. When the Secretary of State issued his letter, he said—this was quoted earlier—that the concern about cables should not present a problem for “a lawful embassy use”. Nothing about the Chinese is lawful here in the United Kingdom. Is it lawful for them to attack Hongkongers who have fled here? Is it lawful for pop-up police stations to go on pulling people in? Is it lawful for them to place bounties on people’s heads? Is it lawful for them to be asking British citizens living next door to Hongkongers to bring them into the embassy, so they may collect their bounty? These are all unlawful acts. The truth is that this Chinese embassy, with its 200 extra staff, will increase that. In every place where China has put more people in its embassy, transnational repression has increased. Does the Minister not agree with that?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.
I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people. Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.
I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.
It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part. On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3. Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations. I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it. Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today. Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.
I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?
While I associate myself with the wider security concerns, will the Minister forgive me if I raise a narrow point? He knows what I am going to ask, because I have asked this twice already and not had an answer. The correspondence between the Government and the Chinese reveals that the medieval monastery on the site—an important monastery called Eastminster, rather than Westminster, where we are now—will remain on inviolable Chinese territory. Any UK citizens visiting it will have to be frisked, and will effectively be in China. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who have bounties on their head—the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) mentioned them—or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been sanctioned by the Chinese state? What further reassurances can the Minister give that UK citizens visiting their own heritage will not be in danger when going on to the site?
There is universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It is widely and wisely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus in the Jewish and local community about the learning centre, or how it should be used. That was evidenced by the 2018 letter in The Times, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal. The decision to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions—the proximity to Parliament was in recognition of the importance of the Holocaust—but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation, and it was opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws in the choice of site, and we cannot have a discussion of what the learning centre will be used for without understanding that. I have taken part in several debates on the subject, including the previous one, in which Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House, spoke. That was on the day the general election was called. No satisfactory answers have ever been given. The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred on the site within recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We have had no answers on that point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a public park, protected by statute. It is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on the site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area’s few open green spaces and set a dangerous precedent. Statutory protections dating back to a 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with little debate. The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park. There would be an 80-metre ramp and a wide moat dividing the space, and large areas of grass would be replaced with paving. Rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the national Holocaust memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop-off points or parking, so the pressures on Millbank would be compounded. Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society. For residents and regular users, the park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space; ordinary activities would become inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options. Let us talk about the purpose of this memorial. I have been to Holocaust memorials. The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington model, which I visited. That Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful, because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, to ensure that young people understand the Holocaust fully, and that its memory is never diminished. Had the learning centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we have constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants, hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay.
I will finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. The House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that “The sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.” It is a mystery to me why the Government oppose that, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much-desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not imposed in a way that stifles discussion. I am suspicious of why the Government are opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords. One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate is that it is not a proper museum. I have been to the memorials in Israel and in Washington. They are huge structures, where people are taken through the whole process. We cannot understand the Holocaust unless we understand its beginnings, and how people came to be filled with such horrible hatred. This is basically just a bunker. It is totally inappropriate. It is also a security risk: there will have to be armed guards and railings. Just imagine the terrible nature of any appalling atrocity, perhaps a terrorist atrocity, that might be committed there. It is simply an inappropriate location. I do not know, but I suspect that the reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they are worried that this bunker—this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum—might become a target.
All right, I will.
The point is that we—it is not just me, by the way, but a large part of the Jewish community—want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington, and this, I am afraid, is not a proper museum. It is a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to secure. If this Government and the previous Government had proceeded with consensus, and had wanted to build an aesthetic memorial that paid proper tribute to the people who died, this could all have been passed years ago. The whole debate has been about the underground learning centre, not the memorial. Everyone accepts that there should be a memorial. Everyone wants a proper museum, but this is not a proper museum, and I am curious about why the Government are resisting the perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords. There is a real danger that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may drift from the Holocaust, which would be extremely regrettable. I am sorry if I have irritated the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, and we are all entitled to express a point of view.
China is notoriously transactional in its international relations, so what do we get in return?
Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?
Let me point out that when the previous Conservative Government proclaimed a “golden era” of relations with China—when David Cameron welcomed President Xi for a state visit in 2015, as Theresa May was championing Huawei for our 5G infrastructure—the security services supported their then Prime Minister; or they were brought into line, which I expect is what happens under these circumstances. Can we ensure that we are not using the security services for propaganda purposes? I predict that in the fullness of history, we will look back at this decision with great regret.
As the Minister will know, part of the official development assistance budget goes to investment in businesses creating employment in the poorest parts of the world, such as British International Investment, which is now undoubtedly the best development finance institution in the world. Will the Minister continue to ensure that BII receives injections of capital so that it can go on doing that brilliant work and earning a decent return for the British taxpayer?
Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?
As the Energy Secretary insists that we move as quickly as possible to renewables, may I ask the Minister what steps he has in place to ensure that the materials—90% of them are processed materials—used in renewables are made without slave labour and human rights abuses?
We have censorship for films, which is not necessarily for violent or sexual content and sometimes for psychological content. Policing such things could be difficult. Following the consultation, it will take time to put together a report. What concerns us is when and how action could be taken, because the King’s Speech will have passed. If the right hon. Lady concludes that there has to be a social media ban for under-16s, what mechanism could be put in place in such a short time?
The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?
When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—
The Minister says that China continues to pose a risk, and yet the Government today welcome this Trojan horse of an embassy into the heart of our capital. Consolidation helps China, not us, and planning conditions deal with the establishment but not the actual, real use inside the building in years to come. This has been asked many times before, but I ask again: are the British people safer as a result of this embassy—yes or no?
A 14-year-old child, the son of my constituent Mr Greaves, has been detained by the French state for 440 days. He is a British citizen with no dual nationality. He has received no schooling and, most concerning of all, has not received even a single welfare visit by the British consulate, despite having been chased many times. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene personally in this case and meet with me to be able to secure a welfare visit?
Q I was going to ask more about devolution. I will just make the point that I was going to make, and then I will ask you a very quick question. The application of the term “devolution and local leadership” to this Bill is quite distracting, because ultimately, unless you are a mayoral combined authority, you do not get any of these powers. I think that was what Jayne was alluding to. To my mind, GBR is an increasingly two-tier system: you have the devolved local authorities and everywhere else. I am concerned about what that is going to mean for accountability to local areas. That was more of a statement than a question—apologies. You keep saying that you want a meaningful relationship with GBR. The question that has kept coming to my mind is: what does “meaningful” actually look like? Can you unpack what you mean by “meaningful”? Andy Burnham: On your statement, I think we have to get our heads in the space of an all-devolved England. I know it can be difficult, but sometimes people have to see the bigger picture of the area where people live and travel. People go across those borders every day; they do not think about borders as much as politicians.
It is more the fact that there are not going to be any more in certain parts of the country for this Parliament. Andy Burnham: For us, though, we are moving to a situation where Cheshire and Warrington are going to have a mayor soon, and I believe Lancashire will too—hopefully, Sarah. That would mean an all-devolved north-west. I think we would start to collaborate very differently with each other in that world, and it would work. I do not see why it cannot go everywhere; I suggest that it should. On “meaningful”, the answer is that it is joint decision making. Let us get away from the idea that we just mandate the railways. That would not be realistic, because running a railway is complicated. It is about joint decisions. We are already doing it, to be honest with you. We are working like that. We have a Greater Manchester rail board and all the partners come to it. It has moved on a lot in the last 12 months. Going back a year or so, it was a little fractious, but it is not so much any more. People are clicking into a new way of thinking and working. Culture change takes time, but it is happening. It is about jointly agreeing ways forward. I will give you an example. We had four different rail fares from Manchester airport to Piccadilly in the city centre. We said, “That’s just ridiculous; it’s confusing for visitors.” Picking up on what Jayne was saying, we have now agreed a fare simplification, which came in in December, as a sort of precursor to the cap system. That has just been jointly agreed. We have also agreed with TransPennine that there will be services through the night from Manchester airport. This joint decision making is beginning to happen in a meaningful way, and that is the meaningful bit.
Q Will you get that with GBR, though? It is great that those relationships exist across the network and the region, but the point in the Bill is specifically that you will be consulted by GBR, but you will not necessarily get to make the decision. You are saying you would like to make the decisions, or at least— Andy Burnham: Jointly.
Or at least make them jointly. Is that what you are after—that joint decision making? Andy Burnham: Yes, I think that would be what we would want. The risk would be that GBR is too remote and not responsive—everything that Lloyd was saying about slow decision making. That is not what we would want. From our point of view, we would want a Bee Network business unit within GBR, with joint decision making and a very place-based focus. That would be meaningful.
Q I want to go back to the accountability piece. You said to the Minister that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at this on the Transport Committee, and the closest thing I can relate GBR to is the NHS. It is not necessarily run by the Department of Health and Social Care; it is a separate organisation, and then it is devolved into local regions through integrated care boards and things. My experience is that it is incredibly difficult to hold it to account because you do not have direct access to the Secretary of State. I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established. John Larkinson: I could say something about the role of the ORR in holding it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Secretary of State and our role. Ultimate accountability is with the Secretary of State. For example, it is the Secretary of State who signs off the GBR business plan, which is a fundamental component of the new system, in my mind. If there were a very strategic problem at Great British Railways—if it were not following its duties or if it were breaking the law—ultimate accountability would be with the Secretary of State. Within that, some of the accountability comes through us. We have the role of enforcing the GBR licence. In terms of the provision of information coming out of the system, one of our big roles is monitoring everything that GBR does and all its functions. That will be done largely through the monitoring of the business plan. From my perspective, it is crucial that we have the ability to do that as we see fit and to publish information. A crucial role for the regulator is providing that information base and analysis to allow Parliament to scrutinise what GBR is doing more effectively. Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that there are three key mechanisms by which GBR will be held to account. First, it will have to balance its duties in law. Secondly, the business plan will need to be signed off by the Secretary of State and its delivery will be monitored by the ORR. Thirdly, there is the licence. One thing I would say is that the railways are slightly different from the national health service in so far as we have a revenue line of more than £10 billion per annum. We want Great British Railways to be a commercial organisation that can respond to the market with operational independence at arm’s length from Ministers. However, it is the duties, the business plan and the licence by which GBR will be held to account.
Q Can I just come back to you on that? One of the other things that came out when we had the Rail Minister in front of us was the devolution aspect, and my understanding is that each of these individual railway lines will still be run as an individual line. It will be like we have it now; they are just going to be publicly owned, rather than privately owned. The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior? Jeremy Westlake: Can I come in on that one? First, the intent of how we are constructing GBR is to introduce much more local empowerment to create an integrated railway that actually consults with the communities that it serves. Whether that is the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or mayoral combined authorities, we want those strategies to be built up from that level, so that you actually have a railway that serves the communities that it is there for. I actually think that the jobs of running these integrated business units are some of the best that you could have in the railway, because the intent is to have the rest of the organisation supporting them to deliver for passengers and the communities they serve. Actually, if you look at the statutory roles for consultation, and the intent in drawing those input and output requirements to those integrated business unit leaders, I think we will end up with a much better strategy for the railway as a whole.