My Lords, a great deal was said earlier in Committee about the achievements of Transport for London in improving passenger rail services in London, predominantly through the London Overground system. It would be wrong and unnecessary for me to repeat that; any noble Lord who wishes to see it summarised can read the excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who explained it all extremely well.

When it comes to London, the Bill has a huge lacuna at its heart: the mayor. The office of the mayoralty was established by referendum, and it is not to be treated with contempt. I may surprise noble Lords by saying that I had an increasing regard for the first mayor, Ken Livingstone, who defeated his Labour opponent to become mayor in 2000. We bonded over our joint opposition, on which we worked together, to Gordon Brown’s disastrous PPP for London Underground. That brought us together, and he always treated me with great courtesy and kindness. He started London Overground, and it was his success in winning the Olympic bid that secured for Transport for London a huge amount of investment in the capital’s transport, which was transformative.

How do this Government treat his successor? On 9 July, immediately after meeting the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the immediate wake of the election, the mayor said:

“What’s clear from listening to Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer today is they are really keen to devolve more powers not just to London but to other parts of the country. You will be hearing in the course of the next few weeks and months examples of those additional powers”.

Well, here we are, a few weeks and months later, and what do we hear? But he said something else on 9 July:

“One of the things that was confirmed from the meeting this morning is once those franchises end and are brought into” the Department for Transport,

“they will be talking to mayors like me about which of those railways we can take over. I’ll be lobbying for once those franchises end, those commuter trains that come into London for us to have that”.

That was the position of the mayor and, as far as I know, it remains unchanged.

But the truth must have dawned on him when he read—if he has by now read—the letter sent very courteously by the Minister on 18 October to noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, in which he said in unequivocal terms:

“The Government has no current plan to devolve responsibility for operating further national railway services to local authorities”.

I take it—of course, he could contradict me on this—from that and from the tone of the debate earlier in Committee that he includes London and the mayoralty among those local authorities.

So, what is he actually offering? The Mayor of London will have the ability to agree national and regional services with Great British Railways, to be run by Great British Railways, and earlier in Committee, the Minister gave an example of how that might work. Again, I am not reading this from Hansard, but I think my recollection is correct. He told us that he was already in discussions with the Mayor of Greater Manchester about how the mayor could purchase services, I presume from Network Rail at this stage—as we know, Great British Railways does not exist as a legal entity, nor does shadow Great British Railways have any legal substance—which could even be branded with the Bee Network logo, which is the characteristic mark of local transport services in Manchester and of the buses operated by the mayor.

It is worth dwelling on this for a moment. I think I can say—it is very much up to the Minister to correct me—that, had this been put to the Minister when he was commissioner of Transport for London, he would have rejected it out of hand. The Transport for London brand is of huge value, and it goes to the reputation of Transport for London in a very intimate and direct way. There is no way that he, or I think the mayors he served under, would have accepted that services operated by a different operator altogether could have been travelling with the TfL brand on them, over which he had minimal control. Some noble Lords may say, “But doesn’t that happen already? He has private companies operating services in London with the TfL brand on them”. But they are of course operated on a concession basis, and they are very tightly controlled by Transport for London. Transport for London remains in control of its own brand. It is a question of the power relationship.

But what is the power relationship going to be between the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Great British Railways if the services it offers are branded with the Bee Network—which, I admit, does not yet have the global brand recognition that TfL, with its logo, its merchandising, its map and so forth, has? None the less, the Bee Network is an important brand for the people of Greater Manchester. What power is the mayor going to have if those services are operated in a way that is shoddy or objectionable or fails in some way? I will not speculate on the way, because we can all imagine it, whether it is timeliness, frequency, reliability, cleanliness or any of the other standards that have a direct and immediate impact on passengers. Of course, he will have no power at all, partly because he has nowhere else to go. He is simply a mayor, while this is Network Rail. It is huge and he is relatively small.

This is an arrangement that would have been wholly unacceptable to Transport for London under the guardianship of the Minister—and quite rightly so—but this is now what is going to be offered to London. The Government are trashing a system which is known to work and has delivered significant improvements, certainly in London, and replacing it with something that is untried and untested and goes to the heart of their own conception of what the railways should be like: that they should be running everything but some things can be run by other people because they already are run by other people. That is the irrational basis on which this project is being advanced. The Government seem to have very little clarity about where they are taking us as a direct consequence of this Bill and its prohibition on the Secretary of State awarding franchises or contracts of any sort to anybody, any organisation, that is not a public service company effectively owned by the Secretary of State.

So the question I started with, “Where is that the mayor?” is a broader one than simply for London. It really is, “Where are the mayors?” Where does devolution belong in this? What is that the Government’s vision for this? Is it really workable? Why are they trashing something that works to give us something which they claim will work but which evidence does not necessarily support?