Railways Bill
Tuesday 9th December 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 173 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Two centuries ago, the first passenger railway services to run in the UK symbolised the hope and ambition of a confident nation, yet today that same railway symbolises something rather different. Every cancelled service, every cramped carriage and every dodgy wi-fi connection reflects not only a railway that has been beset by years of dysfunction, but a transport network, an economy and, indeed, a whole country in desperate need of renewal. It is therefore little wonder that at the last election millions of people voted for change, voting for a party that committed to bring train services back into public ownership—a service that would put passengers before profit.
No one should underestimate how seriously this Government take the instruction of the British people. The King’s Speech set out no fewer than five transport Bills. Two have already received Royal Assent, and this Railways Bill is the third. After years of spiralling rail costs yet plummeting performance, years of promises of rail reform that never saw the light of day, and years of an industry run at the altar of private profit over the public good, today we kick-start the biggest shake-up of our railways in a generation. This landmark Bill means that Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public for the public—one that puts passengers first, that seizes the opportunities of freight, that offers a better deal for taxpayers and, above all, that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State is extolling the virtues of nationalisation. South Western Railway, which serves my constituents across Teddington, Twickenham, Hampton and Whitton, was nationalised earlier this year. We have only seen the service get worse and worse, with delays, cancellations and short-form trains leading to overcrowding. When can my constituents expect a better service as a result of her policies?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is right to say that South Western Railway had a difficult few months after it came into public ownership, but the problems that it is experiencing were inherited from the private sector operator. The number of new Arterio trains on the South Western Railway network has quadrupled since the train operating company came into public ownership, and there have been, on average, fewer cancellations in the directly operated service than there were in the privately run service.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for joining me at Branksome depot in my constituency to launch Great British Railways. It was welcomed by engineers, passengers, railway operators and local schools. I have a very different experience from that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), so will my right hon. Friend tell us how the Bill will benefit constituents and passengers across the rail network?
Heidi Alexander
We had a wonderful day in Bournemouth marking the first train operating company coming into public ownership under our new legislation. We will have a laser-like focus on building a railway that the public can be proud of and rely on.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
The Government’s determination is to build a railway that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is not just about getting us from A to B; the railway is a route to aspiration, jobs and higher living standards right across this country. My message to passengers is simple: better times and better trains lie ahead.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Railways Bill represents a promise made and a promise delivered to set up Great British Railways, with its headquarters in Derby. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about how GBR will work together with our UK rail supply chain to ensure that we have the jobs, skills and growth needed to deliver a railway fit for Britain’s future?
Heidi Alexander
I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Derby, pulling together the plans for the new headquarters in a city that I know is already brimming with railway talent. We will be publishing a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy next year to give confidence and certainty to the supply chain, and we will be able to perform longer-term planning precisely because we are bringing the management of track and train together.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. Her Wiltshire constituents and mine are not really interested in organisational change, but they are interested in railways that run on time, are reasonably comfortable and have interconnectivity. When will those passengers who use South Western Railway expect to see tangible improvements, rather than the 50% increase in cancellations that they have seen since May and the 29% increase in delays that they have seen during the time that the service has been renationalised?
Heidi Alexander
Next year the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have their fares frozen for the first time in 30 years. Under the last Government, fares went up by 60% between 2010 and 2024. I can only assume that he was not listening to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
Several hon. Members rose—
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress.
The Government have already begun the work of change. We passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act last November, which began the process of simplifying an industry fractured into over a dozen different bodies. Seven operators are already in public hands, with seven more to follow. We are a step closer to saving up to £150 million a year in management fees, which previously went to private companies but can now be reinvested in our services.
I have said it before and I will say it again: like most of the public, I do not care who runs the railways; I just want them to work. Despite what some might claim, Labour Members are not possessed by some sort of ideological fever dream when it comes to rail. Instead, we are led by the facts and by what our constituents are telling us, and it is beyond doubt that the current model has failed passengers time and again. While public ownership alone cannot deliver the reform we need, let us be clear that reform would be hamstrung without public ownership.
We could wait for the wheels of legislation to turn before driving improvements, but I do not believe that passengers should wait any longer. That is why, last month, this Government froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years. That is an historic shot in the arm for millions of passengers, many of whom are struggling with the cost of living and could now save hundreds of pounds a year.
That is not all. We have expanded pay-as-you-go contactless ticketing in the south-east, with plans to launch further schemes in the west midlands and Greater Manchester. We are currently trialling digital pay-as-you-go in the east midlands and Yorkshire. Combined, this means that millions of journeys will benefit from a best price promise.
Finally, integrated leadership teams are in place on Southeastern and coming to South Western and Greater Anglia. One person will ultimately be in charge of both the tracks and the trains in those areas. That is a step closer to better decision making on our railways, and a move away from everyone blaming everyone else when things go wrong.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—she knows I am a huge fan. In that spirit of solidarity, will she join me in supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway company’s bid to the Office of Rail and Road for a new service into Shropshire, stopping at important market towns such as Wellington in my constituency? Does she accept that it is not just the big cities and urban centres but rural market towns that need to be included on timetables?
Heidi Alexander
Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. Network Rail supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision. If a new proposal comes forward, I am sure that Network Rail will look at it closely. We are keen to improve connectivity wherever we can. We are bringing forward this legislation because Great British Railways needs to take the track access decisions, so that we can ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of passengers overall.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the huge ambition in this truly transformative Bill. For cities like Bradford, that ambition must translate into real delivery, because Bradford has been left behind for far too long. When will she announce the development of a new, modern train station for Bradford, which will finally give our city the fast, direct connections that we have been denied for far too long? Will she also set out a timetable for progressing full connectivity in the TransPennine route upgrade?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case, which has also been put to me by Mayor Tracy Brabin and the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe. I hope to say more about improving connectivity in the north of England in the weeks and months ahead.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech on a very important matter of policy. May I thank her for the outstanding work to reduce the cost of rail travel for my residents in Reading, and residents in many other parts of the country? Will she say a little more about the benefits of contactless, and the significant benefits for residents of smoothing out the very complicated ticketing regime?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that. The travelling public want their journeys to be convenient and easy, and the roll-out of pay-as-you-go and contactless ticketing removes some of the friction in the system. Through Great British Railways, we also want to simplify the ticketing structure, because we have a baffling array of millions of fares and ticket types. We need to sort that out, and we will, through this legislation, and through our ambition for the railways.
Several hon. Members rose—
Heidi Alexander
I will make progress; I will give way some more in a minute.
We have to be honest about the state of our railways; they are still a bit of a mess. Underlying structural problems, fragmentation and complexity remain, and passengers still pay the price. That is why this Bill matters. It will sweep away the fragmentation and dysfunction that have plagued the railway for too long, and will bring the 17 organisations involved in running the railway together into one public body—Great British Railways, which is the directing mind that this industry has long called for.
GBR will co-ordinate much of the network, including track, train, and revenue and cost. Tickets will be simpler, costs will be reduced, growth will be prioritised, journeys will be made more reliable, and every decision will be taken in the interests of passengers, taxpayers and freight operators.
The railway will look and feel different, too. Passengers will no longer have to navigate the mind-bendingly complex system of organisations, which has been designed to benefit private companies, at the cost of decent services. We will wave goodbye to the blame factory that has come to define the industry, whether it is the armies of lawyers arguing over whose fault a delay is, or questions about whose responsibility it is to fix a broken lightbulb. Instead, we will see one railway and one team, with one mission: to deliver better public journeys.
Several hon. Members rose—
Heidi Alexander
I give way to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has tried to get in a number of times.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State has touched on the role of the Office of Rail and Road. In 2018, after the Croydon tram accident, the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board was set up; at the same time, the chief inspector of railways recommended that a similar body be set up for heritage rail, which is run mostly by volunteers. Can we take the opportunity presented by this Bill to look at whether we could set up that body for heritage rail?
Heidi Alexander
I am very keen to maintain the excellent standards of safety on the railways. If we do not, I will be failing in my responsibility as Secretary of State. I am aware of the recommendations that the right hon. Lady refers to. The ORR, as one regulator, provides coherence, but if she writes to me, setting out her case in more detail, I will look at the issue.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Decades of rail privatisation have failed my constituents. Between August 2024 and August 2025, 4.5% of trains from University railway station in my constituency were cancelled, and 60% of Avanti West Coast trains failed to arrive on time. Given that record of failure, how will the Secretary of State empower passengers and local communities to make decisions on how their local railways are run?
Heidi Alexander
There are two key points in this Bill that my hon. Friend will be interested in. First, there are the provisions relating to our partnership work with mayors and mayoral strategic authorities, which will ensure that we work with our devolved partners. Secondly, there is the really beefed-up passenger watchdog, which I will come to. It might help if I say something more on that.
We have a laser-like focus on improving the railways for passengers.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress.
For too long, the priorities of passengers and the industry have not been one and the same, and that has to change now. Alongside GBR, we will create the passenger watchdog—a strong, independent voice for the customer. It will set tough standards, independently monitor the experience of passengers, investigate persistent issues, and relentlessly push for a more accessible railway.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Almost 1,000 residents of Althorpe, Crowle, Thorne and Hatfield have signed a petition; all they want is one train per hour. At the moment, it is every two hours, and on Sundays there is hardly any service at all. GBR is streamlining matters; decisions will be made in one place. Does the Secretary of State foresee practical issues with the timetable being resolved quite quickly?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is often said that he or she who controls the timetable controls the railway. That is why this Bill will put power into the hands of the integrated rail body, Great British Railways, which will take decisions about the best use of the rail network.
Several hon. Members rose—
Heidi Alexander
I will give way to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), then I will make some progress.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her strong support for rail across the country. She talks about the passenger watchdog. I stood for 54 minutes on the train from Bicester to London yesterday, along with many other passengers. They want to know that the passenger voice will be heard. Will she clarify for the House whether the watchdog will look back at performance? If not, how will the passenger voice be heard, under the new governance arrangements that she describes?
Heidi Alexander
The passenger watchdog will be able to look at patterns, and will have the power to compel GBR and operators to provide information to it, and it can make recommendations to the ORR for enforcement. If our constituents have been failed by passenger assistants, if their trains are always delayed, or if they experience shoddy customer service, the passenger watchdog will be their champion.
I spoke briefly about devolution. Great British Railways will not be a British Rail mark 2; instead, it will be an agile organisation that embraces innovation and devolution. It will be rooted in the communities in which it operates, with local leaders finally getting a say in how their railways are run.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I salute the ambition of the Bill, and determination with which the Secretary of State is articulating that ambition. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) that the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow? What steps can she take to highlight to her colleagues in Government that there is the possibility of constructive dialogue between the two Governments, as she has ably demonstrated?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for the tone in which he has made them. I put on record my thanks to Scottish Minister Fiona Hyslop and the Welsh Transport Minister, Ken Skates, for the way in which they have engaged with me and my officials during this process. I know that my colleagues across Government share that determination to do what is right for the country as a whole.
I was setting out how GBR will work closely with mayors. We will reach bespoke partnership agreements to match the specific transport needs of different communities, and we will of course continue to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who I am pleased have lent their full support to the aims of the Bill.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Bill makes clear that GBR and the Office of Rail and Road would be required to have regard to local transport plans produced by mayoral combined authorities. However, that requirement does not apply to local transport plans produced by single strategic authorities outside mayoral combined authorities. Within Cornwall, we cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority, so will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how Cornwall will not be left out and penalised because we cannot join a mayoral combined authority?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to ask the rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend to have that discussion.
One of the other biggest concerns of passengers is the baffling array of fares and ticketing, which is why GBR will drag the current complex system into the 21st century. A new GBR website and app will allow passengers to buy tickets, check train times and access support, all in one place. There will be no booking fees and no confusion—just simple fares that offer the best value for money.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the fact that Greater Anglia was one of the first companies to move into public ownership, and the freeze in rail fares. On devolution, many of us in the east would like to see East West Rail—which will have a huge impact—extended to Norwich, so that we can maximise our economic growth. Will the Secretary of State help arrange a meeting between the rail Minister, the relevant MPs and other stakeholders in the region to discuss that issue, as well as the Ely and Haughley junctions?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to arrange that meeting. This issue was raised with me when I visited Norwich, on the day that Greater Anglia transferred into public ownership. As my hon. Friend is aware, the delivery of East West Rail will happen in three stages. We first need to get to Cambridge; after that, I would be happy to have that discussion, but it will take a huge amount of work to get us from where we are today to seeing trains running between Oxford and Cambridge, which has to be the priority.
Dr Mullan
Understandably, the Secretary of State has been talking primarily about passengers so far, but of course, the railways also transport freight; for example, they are important suppliers to British Gypsum in my constituency, taking many lorries off the already congested A21. Could she lay out what her ambitions are for increasing the use of freight on the railways, and how she will deliver those ambitions?
Heidi Alexander
I do think we need to move some of the freight that we currently move by road to the railways. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to set a freight growth target, and Great British Railways will have a duty to have regard to that target when it exercises its statutory functions, so that is at the heart of this Bill.
Finally, I will talk about access to the rail network. Great British Railways will be responsible for getting the best use out of the finite network capacity that we have, which is essential if we are going to improve performance, reduce disruption and allow more communities to be served by the railway. We want customers to be given the best choice of services and routes; this will be a core principle of Great British Railways, so it will work with open access and freight operators to harness the best of the private sector, taking access decisions across the whole network in a way the current regulator never could. We saw the urgent need for change only last week, with the ridiculous prospect of an empty 7 am train running from Manchester to London—a decision by the regulator that has now thankfully been reversed. However, let me be clear: GBR will not be allowed to act unchecked. The Office of Rail and Road will have robust powers to hold GBR to account, and all decisions GBR makes regarding access and charging will be appealable to the ORR. This will ensure that GBR’s decision making is fair, considered and transparent across the board.
Before I finish, I draw the attention of the House to our accessibility road map, which was published alongside the Bill. My colleague Lord Hendy, the rail Minister, wrote in that publication that
“for too many people…the railway remains a system of barriers. That must change.”
I could not agree more. As far as I am concerned, a railway that fails to serve everyone is not fit for purpose—which is why the Bill also gives GBR and the passenger watchdog clear duties, ensuring that the needs of disabled people are at the heart of decision making.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Despite serving a town of nearly 50,000 people, Weymouth station, in my constituency, does not have a working toilet, which presents disabled passengers with a huge barrier to travel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this legislation, and action from the Government to bring our railways back into public hands, will help to make our railways and our stations far more accessible to those disabled passengers?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree. That needs to be a priority, and it will be at the heart of what GBR does.
For too long, the railways have been a source of national parody rather than national pride—a symbol of public services not working as they should, and of life unnecessarily made harder—but 200 years after the first railways transformed the country, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to restore, renew and reimagine the potential of the industry, and to place it at the centre of the Government’s plans for national renewal. The rising living standards, greater opportunity and greener economy that we promised at the last election all rely on a growing, high-performing railway, a railway that connects us to the things that matter most, connecting people to jobs, businesses to growth, families to days out, and all of us to our loved ones; a railway with public service at its core and that is frankly obsessed with the needs and wishes of passengers, and one that we can finally be proud of again. That is the railway that Britain deserves, and the one that we will deliver. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it prioritises putting the rail system under state control, rather than prioritising passengers and taxpayers, and the effective and efficient running of the railway; because it significantly reduces the role of the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, whose duties it transfers in large part to Great British Railways, with limited rights of appeal against Great British Railways’ decisions, so there will be no proper accountability for the state controlled operator, and this, along with the duty for Great British Railways to prioritise its own services for access to track, will squeeze out popular and well-regarded open access operators, who run services without taxpayer subsidy; because it allows ministers to interfere at will in the running of the railways, for example by setting fares, which will not create a stable environment for private sector investment, with the result that reliance on taxpayer subsidy will increase; and because it will do nothing to grow passenger numbers, or modernise or improve the rail network, and does not include provisions to grow rail freight, which means that the chance to create a thriving railway which delivers economic growth and relies less on taxpayer support will be lost.
Once again, just as with the “Unemployment Bill”, we are gathering to witness a throwback to the 1970s. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, ideology is clearly core to the legislation that she is presenting today, because otherwise she would not be ruling out concessionary schemes like those operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. This time it is our railways that are about to become the latest victim of the Government’s desire not for Government oversight, but for state control. So down the rabbit hole we go.
Despite the warm words of the Secretary of State, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees growth in our rail network or cheaper fares—in fact, only this morning the Secretary of State refused to say that rail prices would continue to come down—and nothing to guarantee safer, more comfortable journeys on our railways. There are no plans for greater electrification, which is hardly surprising given that the last Conservative Government delivered 20 times as much electrification in our 14 years as Labour achieved in its 13 years. This Government have chosen to betray North Wales again, and have abandoned the midlands main line upgrade as well. Both were important electrification projects.
There is nothing in the Bill that promises better and more consistent internet connections on our trains. Instead, like the card soldiers in “Alice in Wonderland”, the Secretary of State is busy covering up her blunders by painting the roses red. She claims that the new branding is
“not just a paint job”.
Well, what on earth is it? We on these Benches know the answer to that. The Secretary of State is trying to paint over the cracks in a rusting hulk of a Bill that picks the pockets of every other DfT budget, whether it involves our roads or bus users, air passengers and air travel. All of them will be hit with cuts, and also with higher taxes so that the Secretary of State and her civil servants can play trains in the Department of Transport.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
One of the first acts of this Labour Government was to hose money at striking train drivers to buy them off. Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that we will see the cost of a publicly run railway increase dramatically at the cost of taxpayers, and that we will also see services get worse?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was interesting to hear Government Members saying, “Yes, yes,” while he spoke, because that is exactly what they did: they threw money at the transport unions. It is particularly interesting that the Secretary of State said today that the railways will face a £2 billion-a-year subsidy for the foreseeable future, because that is not what the Government have said in answers to written questions submitted by me or Opposition colleagues.
Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to Britain’s railways, we are not against the idea of uniting track and train. We would back a model that brings coherence to the system, but not one that weakens scrutiny and clamps down on competition. That is why we have supported a concessionary model, which the Secretary of State will no doubt recall from her time at Transport for London, as will Members from Merseyside and Greater Manchester, where such a model is being proposed. I do not think anybody has ever considered them to be on the far right.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to ideology; surely it was Tory ideology that privatised the railways in the first place. That ideology has not been copied anywhere else in the world precisely because it costs the taxpayer more and the passenger more.
Mr Holden
We can all see the ideology at play today. I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is in Greater Manchester, where the mayor is calling for a concessionary model—a partnership between the state and the private sector that is directly opposed in the Bill that he will support this evening. The hon. Gentleman is quite far off the mark.
The number of passengers on our railways doubled in the 25 years after services were returned to the private sector after half a century of decline. We support the vital role of open access operators, which always give passengers brand-new routes with cheap, affordable fares, and often run direct services to London. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) called for direct services recently, but I do not think that option will be available under the new system. Neither will a direct line from Cleethorpes to London, long campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers)—I visited his constituency a week ago—be on offer.
We back a joined-up approach that places passengers and taxpayers at the heart of our railway. We recognise that fragmentation held our railway back, and have long championed partnership with private sector involvement to drive innovation and growth. That is why we conducted the Williams-Shapps review.
What the Secretary of State has brought forward is not a coherent model at all; it is something altogether different, and ought to trouble Members throughout the House. Her Bill ignores the evidence, the experts, and the fervent cries of freight that growth has to be at the forefront of any rail reform. Instead, in keeping with the worst traditions of the 1970s, a return to state control runs throughout her Bill. It is not about the growth in passenger numbers that would reduce taxpayer subsidy; otherwise, why is that not on the front of the Bill? It is not about the growth in competition that would bring down prices for passengers, the growth of freight that would take more lorries off our roads, or the growth of new routes to serve the length and breadth of the country. Nowhere on the face of her Bill is there a target for passenger growth. The Bill actively works against open access, which, if the Secretary of State gets her way, will be left wholly, and deliberately, vulnerable.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
One area where we can all agree we want to see passenger growth is among those with disabilities and those who find steps incredibly difficult. On 24 May 2024, the previous Government announced that 50 stations, including my local station at Leagrave, would benefit from step-free access, but the funding never existed. How can the shadow Secretary of State criticise our plans, when he made promises about funds that never existed?
Mark Pritchard
Whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, and whether it was under the last Government or this Government—by the way, the current Government have been in power for 18 months, so all that is wearing a bit thin—passengers, and particularly disabled passengers, just want a railway that works. On that I agree with the Secretary of State.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done on step-free access? There is currently very little in the Bill that suggests that more will be done, particularly for rural stations such as Cosford, Shifnal or Albrighton in Shropshire. If it cannot be done at every station, and there is no money for that, there at least needs to be step-free access and improved disability access somewhere along inter-county railway lines.
Mr Holden
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on that issue. Earlier, he made the important point that people want to see through-trains running, because there is nothing that benefits disabled passengers more than the through-train services such as from his constituency, which would be available with open access. I believe that the Department for Transport has opposed that for the service he mentioned. The Transport Secretary can correct me if she wishes, but it comes to something when this Government are actively working against new routes across the country. This Bill actively works against open access, which, if she gets her way, will be left wholly and, I suspect, deliberately vulnerable. GBR is mimicking some statist salami-style tactic that will cut it slice by slice until open access is dead.
Above all, this Bill does not put passengers or taxpayers first. Having been watered down beyond recognition, the passengers’ council is a far cry from what the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) envisaged. What remains is no watchdog at all, but a dog with no teeth or, as it has no enforcement powers, a dog that can barely bite. Even in the Government’s own factsheet, this so-called watchdog is confined to advising and reporting. GBR must “listen”, but nowhere does it have to comply. This is not accountability; it is blatant window dressing behind triple glazing.
If the council is not to be toothless, there have to be standards that GBR is expected to adhere to, so I ask the Secretary of State: where are the rigorous performance standards and the key performance indicators for the network that, in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question, she and her Ministers have promised will be released? She has taken operators into state control, but refuses to set out by which standards they should be judged. Does she have no standards—or perhaps she would rather let performance slip and then claim credit for any tiny improvements she can spin down the line?
We must contend instead with insufficient protections for ticket retailers, so passengers who use apps such as Trainline, which is incredibly popular, TrainPal or Uber will no doubt have to pay more for a shoddier service, as the Government push these growing businesses to the brink, as they are doing. From these depths, one inescapable conclusion emerges: the people who will benefit from this Bill are not passengers or taxpayers. The only ones who will benefit are the Secretary of State’s union paymasters, who stand to cash in, with no commitments to modernisation, to increasing efficiency or to abolishing outdated working practices. Every possible incentive for increasing efficiency has been ignored or abandoned on the altar of ideology.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State talks about modernisation and his concerns about the Government’s approach. In 2017, South Western Railway spent £1 billion on new trains to serve my constituents on the Reading to Waterloo line. Those trains sat in sidings, and it was not until SWR was brought back into public ownership that we saw a quadrupling in the number of those Arterio trains being rolled out. That is the real, demonstrable benefit of this Government’s approach. Does he not agree that the model to which he proposes we return failed, and there is no clearer sign of that failing than those trains sitting in sidings?
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman, along with some of his colleagues, has not been listening to what I have been saying, because we put forward the Williams-Shapps review to deliver a new concessionary model. Some of the funding he mentioned was delivered through modernisation, and it was delivered under the last Government. Let us be clear about what is happening with SWR: under this Government, his constituents are seeing greater delays right across the network. They are seeing that month after month, despite the promises of the Secretary of State.
Despite the right hon. Lady’s flagrant disregard of taxpayers’ money and an “ain’t bovvered” approach to passenger welfare, I had hoped that she would have ensured that this Bill contained the necessary safeguards—guard rails, perhaps—and a strong regulator with the statutory authority to intervene and set things straight. Are we going to have such a regulator? Oh, but we dare to dream! [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) wishes to intervene, why does he not stand up?
Today, operators propose and the Office of Rail and Road decides, but under this Bill, GBR will propose and GBR will decide. We find ourselves in the most bizarre position of the Office of Rail and Road handing over its powers on deciding track access and access charges to GBR, which is the very entity that has the most to gain by acting in its own self-interest. In this Bill, that self-interest is unfettered and unperturbed by any genuine oversight.
Who, can I ask the Secretary of State, will be in charge of the railways in this new thrilling world of state control? According to the responses I have received to parliamentary questions, we are still not clear. Rail fares, apparently, will be decided by Ministers in the Department for Transport. Automation of train technology will be, according to the answers to written parliamentary questions I have received, the Government’s collective responsibility. Working arrangements with unions will be managed by individual local train operators, and the guiding mind of it all will be GBR. This is not, as the Secretary of State and her Ministers have claimed, how any organisation ought to be run. It is an organisational mishmash—rudderless, directionless. It will not serve passengers, it will not serve freight and it certainly will not serve taxpayers.
Certainty, supposedly guaranteed to freight, industry and manufacturing, is entirely absent. In its place, we have the misfortune of funding mechanisms that can be changed and amended at any time, without any oversight whatsoever. We have a duty to freight, which, although clearly an afterthought, is obviously welcome, but once the reality kicks in, GBR’s overlordship of the process of access, pricing and timetabling will leave freight operators permanently in the lurch. We have conflict of interest after conflict of interest permeating the Bill, with about as much credibility as the Secretary of State’s promise a couple of weeks ago that the Government had no plans to introduce pay-per-mile on our roads. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady has corrected Hansard yet.
We desperately need an indication of purpose. What is this for? Who is this all for? It is pretty clear that we want to passengers to be put first with reliable, safe and accessible journeys that provide value for money, and open access routes protected, including those serving Hull, championed by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and those serving Doncaster, which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) know their constituents really depend on. Oversight must be accompanied by actual enforcement, and passengers and taxpayers must be at the forefront of the Bill. Currently, they are not.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State talks about passengers being at the heart of the Bill. He earlier raised watchdogs and dogs not having teeth. As a veterinary surgeon, I am very conscious of a subset of dogs that we need to think about in relation to passenger access. Does he agree that people need to work together to ensure that people with assistance dogs and guide dogs have good access to the railway? In terms of modernisation and access, we need to keep those people in our mind.
Mr Holden
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that when it comes to modernisation, access and new trains, that is exactly what we want to see delivered, and there is no mention of that in the Bill.
We have tabled our reasoned amendment today because a Bill with no independent regulator, no protection for competition or taxpayers’ money, no passenger growth duty and no credible enforcement, cannot command our support. Throughout this murky and blinkered process, the Secretary of State has shown that she does not have the will to make sensible changes. Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), she does not have the guts to face down her Back Benchers, who call for greater state control right across the system. She will not strengthen the Bill. She will not restore independence. She will not protect open access, embed growth or put passengers first. Instead, she presses on, convinced that centralising power will somehow solve the very problems that centralisation always creates. Let there be no shadow of a doubt: when, as is inevitable, things go wrong, leaving passengers without recourse or redress, she and she alone will face the consequences. She will own the cancellations, the overcrowding, the endless complaints about no internet signal, the strikes, the rising taxpayer subsidy and the fateful day when passengers learn she can no longer afford to use taxpayers’ money to prop up her much-vaunted fare freeze.
We on the Opposition Benches will fight to deliver a railway that works for passengers, taxpayers, freight and the future. We will not sit idly by and allow the Government to turn GBR into judge, jury and executioner on the network it alone controls. I hope that Members from other parties will support our calls here and in the other place over the coming weeks and months.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular the donations from trade unions through my constituency Labour party, of which I am proud.
This landmark legislation will finally address the imbalance in the sector. Since Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation of the railways, the taxpayer has been funding the huge cost of infrastructure, while private operators and shareholders have benefited by taking all the profits. For too long, companies have been cashing in while passengers pay the price with poor service. It is time to put passengers first and profits second.
I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State a number of times: Reddish South station in my constituency has one train a week, and that is simply unacceptable. Friends of Reddish South Station, who I have met a number of times, have been campaigning for proper passenger rail services at the station for many years. I hope that, with GBR, proper rail services will be restored to Reddish South station. In the latest reporting period, the station recorded 102 passengers in an entire year. The recent increase in housing around Reddish South and changes in Reddish over recent years mean that we need proper rail services and connectivity.
Sadly, three out of five train stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access. I want the Access for All scheme to be increased in size. Unfortunately, the scheme is very slow and the roll-out tends to involve a need to apply for funding. The north’s rail stations have poor accessibility; fewer than half the stations have step-free access. Some stations in the north have benefited from Access for All, but progress has been slow, with an average of only three stations per year in the north benefiting from step-free access.
In response, the north’s mayors and political leaders have been pressing for the devolution of Access for All funding to mayoral strategic authorities, to ensure that decisions on local stations are prioritised locally and taken locally. It is simply unacceptable that disabled people, people with mobility issues and people with health conditions are discouraged from using the railways by issues with step-free access. I pay tribute to Nathaniel Yates, a young local campaigner who has been campaigning for step-free access for a long time; Nathaniel was able to say hello to the Rail Minister during a recent visit to my constituency.
At Stockport station, which is one of the five stations in my constituency, and which recorded over 4 million entries and exits in the latest reporting period, the Passenger Assist scheme is not adequately staffed. Avanti is responsible for staffing at the station, and a number of staff members and passengers have told me that the coverage is simply not good enough. Davenport station is in a neighbouring constituency, but I also want to see step-free access there, because many people from my constituency use Davenport station. Local councillors Wendy Wild, Paul Wright and Dickie Davies have been campaigning for step-free access at the station for a long while.
Sunday services continue to be a significant issue with Northern Rail. I have met Friends of Heaton Chapel Station twice in recent weeks, and a number of passengers and members of the group tell me that Northern’s Sunday services are simply not good enough. Northern is also failing to staff ticket offices adequately, in particular at Brinnington, in my patch. I raised that with the company in October; it is now December, and the station still does not seem to be staffed adequately. The ticket office needs to be staffed properly.
I have also raised this issue previously in the House: funding for British Transport police is quite concerning. We had the sad attack in Huntingdon, and I pay tribute to the rail workers and passengers on the train, but British Transport police’s coverage is not good enough. It needs more funding. Staff at Stockport station frequently tell me about the low presence of BTP officers. I met British Transport police recently, on 28 November. Unfortunately, crime is up by 5.4%, antisocial behaviour incidents are up by 9% and violent offences are up by 14%. BTP is facing an £8.5 million shortfall in the next financial year after receiving just a 4.6% uplift against the force’s 9.8% request.
I have very limited time, so I will finish on the point of rolling stock companies, which are one aspect of the large-scale profiteering on the railways. The firms typically pay in excess of £200 million per annum in dividends, and Office of Rail and Road data tells us that they paid out £275 million last year. I would like to see more work on that. Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank those who have put so much work into the Bill, which has had a long gestation, with its roots in the multiple timetable change meltdowns across the network in May 2018. They and the Government are right to recognise that our railways need change. That should be our starting point.
I will start with the reasons why we need that change. Unfortunately, the British Railways Act 1994 framework introduced by the Conservative Government of that era has certainly been full of problems, and previous Conservative Governments have presided over above-inflation fare increases, overcrowded trains and frankly incomprehensible and totally baffling contract extensions awarded to failing train operators such as CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast. I think we can all agree in this House that the current structure and system is not putting passengers or freight users first, but we should also recognise that meddling and interference from central Government has increased since the pandemic and is at the heart of some of our problems—more of which anon.
Let us start with what is good about the Bill. It is certainly an honest and serious attempt to simplify the current convoluted industry structure and processes. It is quite right to focus on the need for accessibility improvements, and it is welcome that it introduces the idea of a long-term rail strategy, although the usefulness of that will depend on how “long-term” is defined. The creation of a passenger standards authority to build on the work of Transport Focus is welcome to ensure that the passenger really is put first.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In constituencies such as North Shropshire, where access to the railway is very poor indeed, we have initiatives for step-free access at Whitchurch station and to connect Oswestry, which is the second largest town in Shropshire but has no rail connection, to the line at Gobowen. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill really needs to take up those types of opportunities? Otherwise, many people will fail to recognise the benefits of hopefully improving the rail system.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that some of the more sparsely populated parts of our country have been neglected in their rail offer. It is important that the spending recognises that and does not just follow large towns or cities or inter-city routes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Surely improving our railways should include the ambition of making our public transport cleaner and greener. In Bath, dirty diesel trains are still running through the city. Surely one of our first steps should be an ambitious electrification plan, reversing or addressing the years of failure of the previous Conservative Government.
Olly Glover
I shall have to ask my office to initiate an investigation into the leak of my speech—I will go on to say why we do indeed need a rolling electrification programme, which is something that has hitherto been missing under Governments of all colours.
Nevertheless, we Liberal Democrats have some concerns about the Bill in its current form. First of all, though, we certainly welcome the Government’s recent embrace of a seven-year Lib Dem call for a freeze on rail fares. It is very welcome, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest—to be fair, the Secretary of State has not yet done so—that GBR is needed for such things. This is all about influence and persuasion with the Treasury and making sure we make coherent choices about fares and the cost of motoring, so that we encourage the transport choices we wish to see.
The legislation as drafted will not in and of itself bring better value for money for customers in the form of affordability, reliability and improved access to the network. It is not just me who thinks that; the Secretary of State herself stated in May that she could not promise lower fares under renationalisation. One of my biggest concerns is that GBR currently sounds like a railways version of NHS England—something that the Government themselves have decided to abolish—rather than an organisation given real autonomy, following a clear vision and long-term plan for the industry, that is likely to create customer focus and commercial flair, which is what our railways really need. What they do not need is even more state control and micromanagement, which, to date, has not produced good outcomes. The capacity duty for GBR laid out in the Bill is another big concern here; in just three short paragraphs, it sets out a very broad and draconian basis for rejecting applications to access the network that are not GBR.
Let me give some examples of how state control and micromanagement has hurt us to date. It was the Department for Transport, not any failing train operator, that specified the inter-city trains currently in service with LNER and GWR, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will know from her own travels, have been replete with problems and concerns about suboptimal internal comfort and design. Indeed, the current significant rolling stock shortages—a result of problems that GWR is facing with those trains—were confounded by a DFT decision to withdraw high-speed train rolling stock from the west country after the pandemic without a replacement, which has led to frequent overcrowding on trains serving my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, partly because five-car inter-city trains designed for journeys such as London to Bristol and London to Penzance are currently operating stopping services in Devon and Cornwall.
It was a Department for Transport decision to appoint Chiltern Railways to operate East West Rail phase 1 between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The new railway has been ready for more than a year and we still have no passenger services running on that line. We have had 20 years of Department for Transport-specified timetables, with relatively little improvement to connections between trains and non-London journey times. When I used to work at Southern, the timetable specification document given to us by the Department for Transport had 200 pages of detail as to exactly what should be followed.
There is a real lack of clarity on how open access passenger and freight will be effectively regulated and protected in the new structure. That is especially important for freight, which the Government have decided not to nationalise. There is no requirement in the Bill to set a target for passenger growth, which may suggest a lack of ambition. The Bill is very vague on the criteria for calculating things such as network access charges. The Bill gives GBR the power to apply discounted or elevated track charges, but it is totally unclear as to what criteria will be applied in deciding the charges. It is also unclear how the ORR will be able to police and enforce that effectively, given its reduced powers. The Bill seems to imply that appeals against GBR access decisions will require judicial review-level criteria, making them very inaccessible to most parties that may wish to make those challenges.
We hope that some of those concerns will be addressed through further scrutiny on the Bill Committee—in the miraculous event that the Bill passes later today. We hope that, with an open-minded approach from the Government, we will be able to set a specific time definition for “long-term rail strategy”. The Liberal Democrats believe that it should be 30 years rather than a short period of 10 years or 15 years. We hope to see a clearer definition and some bounds put in for the many references to the Secretary of State’s powers to override, and we want to see greater ambition for both freight and passenger growth.
We need more recognition of the importance of competition and open access for both freight and long-distance passengers. Rail freight remains in the private sector and therefore needs protections, given the Government’s clear preference for state ownership and operation. Open access has driven up ridership and customer satisfaction on the east coast main line but is now at risk. The real question for the Government is whether something as innovative as Hull Trains, which has transformed the inter-city passenger offer between Hull and London, would even be possible under GBR?
We desperately need competition on the west coast main line, given Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and performance. There is no guarantee that when Avanti returns to the public sector those fares will come down. There are many positive examples of private sector tendering and operation—particularly the Spanish high-speed network, the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which is the busiest high-speed line in Europe, and French and German operating contracts procured by regional governments. Although the Passenger Standards Authority is welcome, we need an even stronger and louder passenger voice on it.
What would the Lib Dems do instead or additionally? [Laughter.] Well, I am going to address that in case anybody wanted to accuse us of being negative without articulating our positive vision. We need to make sure that as well as making the structural changes it intends to, the Bill, and whatever follows, addresses the real problems on our network.
Successive Governments have failed to set out a clear, long-term vision and set of objectives for the railway that cover passenger and freight growth, customer satisfaction and punctuality. They have failed to accompany that with a long-term funding settlement and infrastructure plan, which should include incentives and rewards for contractors and suppliers for hitting quality, time and cost objectives when it comes to enhancements to the network. They should be based on a vision for a regional or national timetable designed around convenient and reliable connections between trains at well-designed major interchange stations, as is the case in Switzerland.
The Bill should limit future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation, which would deal with the arbitrary approach that has been taken up until now. We need value for money and quality guarantees for passengers given the high fares we have. In particular, the Bill does not guarantee that my Oxfordshire constituency will get the improvements that we really want to see, such as electrification between Didcot and Oxford. The equivalent part of railway to Cambridge was electrified in 1986 under that hardly well-known pro-rail Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We need a clear, long-term rolling programme for rolling stock. We need accessibility improvements at stations, including Cholsey, and new stations such as one to serve Grove and Wantage. I am desperate to see that for my constituents.
Peter Swallow
I am listening carefully to all the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations. Many of them sound wonderful, but I suspect that they come with something of a price tag. I hope he will get on to the part of his speech where he sets out how the Liberal Democrats would fund those investments.
Olly Glover
The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). I am still trying to work out what a Lib Dem Bill would include that this one does not.
I welcome the Bill, which is universally agreed to be long needed. It is the essential next step in ensuring that rail in Britain is more unified and that we deliver a rail system that is reliable and safe and provides value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.
The Railways Act 1993 led to 30 years of a poor deal for passengers, other customers and taxpayers, with 17 different organisations providing track and trains, multiple fare options and prices, hundreds of staff employed to attribute the cost of delays, staff shortages and no single voice to address individual systemic failures of service. Yet the railways have a workforce who are universally committed to delivering a high-quality service to passengers and customers.
I particularly welcome the proposal that the Secretary of State will issue a long-term rail strategy setting out objectives and the direction of travel for railways for the next 30 years. That will please so many stakeholders, including, in particular, investors in rail as well as mayoral authorities—in fact, all those who work in and use rail. I welcome that clause 18 includes duties on GBR to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, which specifically includes disabled passengers, and to run the railway in the public interest—in other words, to meet social, economic and environmental objectives.
Clause 18 sets out a series of significant duties for GBR, including the promotion the use of rail freight. But while clause 17 requires the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a target for growth in rail freight, there is no such target in the Bill for growth in passenger demand.
My Committee launched an inquiry on the Bill on 5 November—the day that the Bill was published—focusing in particular on three core aims of the reform: improving rail travel for passengers, network access, and devolution. We have published the evidence we have received so far, and the oral evidence taken on 26 November is tagged as a relevant document for this debate.
First, passenger experience is central to all our constituents who travel by rail—or who would do if it was more accessible, more reliable or cheaper. The passenger watchdog is a new voice providing advocacy and advice, sharing best practice and providing alternative dispute resolution. Clause 36 says that it will have a duty to have “particular regard” to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. It will set standards on how travel information is provided, including when there is a disruption. It will handle complaints and delay compensation, and it will require operators to make services accessible. Those powers in London and on Eurostar will be covered by an expanded London TravelWatch.
On the detail of enforcement powers, clauses 42 to 47 give the passenger watchdog powers to receive complaints. That is helpful, but I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. Will the Passengers’ Council be sufficiently independent, powerful and resourced to challenge GBR to deliver meaningful change if needed? What will the governance relationship be between the watchdog, the ORR and the rail ombudsman? What remedy will passengers have if the passenger watchdog’s recommendations are not adopted? Who will appoint the members of the council and the chair? Will passenger groups and disabled people be represented on the board?
Accessibility is a particular interest of the Transport Committee, following the publication of our report “Access denied” in February. I welcome the fact that clause 18 explicitly includes the needs of disabled passengers as a general duty, but that is only one of six duties that will have to be balanced. What guidance will be provided to GBR on balancing those needs, to ensure that disabled people do not lose out yet again? The wording in clause 18 on accessibility could also be said to be slightly objective. What safeguards are there against a future Secretary of State cutting costs and altering, diluting or even removing accessibility requirements?
On fairs and ticketing, we welcome a unified system. On network access, there is slightly less clarity on the future role of passenger open access. If the Government want to end open access for passengers, do they have a plan for retaining its benefits, such as filling gaps, opening up new routes and promoting price competition? On freight, how will the targets be aligned?
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a danger of a conflict of interest? At present, the ORR, an independent body, holds the power to grant track access rights. Under the Bill, those powers will transfer to GBR, while the ORR’s role is watered down. If GBR is able to block applications, it becomes judge and jury. Open access operators such as Go-op may struggle to get the access rights that they need to run new services, including through Melksham.
Ruth Cadbury
There are questions about the relationship between the Secretary of State, GBR, the ORR and the passenger watchdog, which we will certainly pursue—and so, I am sure, will others.
Devolution is central to the Government’s vision, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and elected mayors will have greater control of their areas. Will there be an oversight role, so that local decisions do not conflict with national priorities, such as providing access to rail freight?
In conclusion, I really welcome the Bill, although the two Opposition amendments do not. The Bill will work if it relieves the Secretary of State of day-to-day operational decision making, and lets those who understand the rail system get on with delivering for the benefit of passengers, the economy and the environment.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I support some of the aims and intentions behind the Bill, and having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, I certainly agree with her reasons for it, but I do not believe that what she is doing will deliver what she says.
Key parts of the Bill are taken from the previous Conservative Government’s 2023 plans to unite train and track, which were not realised due to the change of Government at the election. That does not inevitably have to be done by nationalisation; indeed, under the last Government’s detailed plans, it would have been done under a concessionary scheme. That is not ideology but pragmatism. It is using the state and the private sector to deliver better railways. That model is very similar to the model used by Transport for London, which was designed by Labour and is run by Labour in London.
It is unfathomable why the Government will not look at that sort of pragmatic scheme for the rest of the UK through this Bill. I suspect that the only answer is the inevitable one offered by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden): this is a matter of ideology. It is about satisfying Labour’s union paymasters and Back Benchers—those Back Benchers who fundamentally run this Government, who vetoed the Government’s attempt to cut the welfare bill last summer, and who ensured that the Budget two weeks ago increased taxes to allow more welfare spending. For the Secretary of State and the Government, this is about a politically prudent pay-off, but it is bad for passengers.
I did some market research earlier. I travelled on a publicly owned service on a publicly owned track from Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo, and it was delayed because of signal failure. In fact, I do market research on that route quite often. The track has been in the public sector for over a decade, and signal failure continues to be the most common reason for delays to the train. The issue is not the train company, which was historically private, but the publicly owned track. It is not inevitable that nationalisation will lead to improved services, and there are no guarantees in the Bill that prices will be held down long term, or that services will improve and more passengers will travel by rail. That is simply a matter of faith, driven by a belief in nationalisation.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Southeastern was nationalised under the previous Government, and it remains nationalised under this Government, but this year, it has been brought into one organisation with Network Rail, and there has been the best customer satisfaction for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and the best journey times you could see. Southeastern is at the forefront of this programme, so does the hon. Member agree that the proof is in Southeastern’s statistics?
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member obviously was not listening to what I said at the beginning, which was that I absolutely believe in uniting the trains and the track; that was the 2023 plan of the previous Conservative Government. If he is right about the improvements in his part of the world, I suspect that the reason is not nationalisation, but bringing the two together, so that they are subject to similar decision-making processes.
The Secretary of State opened her speech by saying that she wanted a railway system that was greater than the sum of its parts. I agree. If she were to buy a National Rail ticket in Shanklin on the Isle of Wight, get on a train there, and travel to London Waterloo or Guildford, she would, like me, use the ferry service that connects parts of the railway. Fares are not being frozen for that part of the rail route, because the Secretary of State has no powers to do that, and is not creating those powers. In fact, the cost of rail travel from Sandown, Shanklin or Ryde on the Isle of Wight through to Guildford or Waterloo will go up if the unregulated ferry companies put their fares up. The Secretary of State is doing nothing to deal with that part of the railway for people who live in my constituency.
In fact, the situation is worse than that, because the Government are extending the emissions trading system levy to Solent travel. The ferry company Wightlink, which connects the railways, will pay £1 million a year in extra charges because of that levy being extended to it. The Government talk about freezing fares for mainland rail travellers, but they are in fact putting up the costs for Isle of Wight train travellers. The use of fossil fuels cannot be avoided in crossing the Solent, because there is not the electric grid capacity in the mainland ports or the Isle of Wight ports to allow the ferry companies to go fully electric, as the trains have done. That grid capacity will not be there until the mid-2030s. The Government are putting that cost on Isle of Wight rail and road users, but they have exempted Scottish ferry companies, because they say that those provide a lifeline service. Isle of Wight ferries are every bit as much a lifeline service for my constituents, who use them to access education, NHS, friends and family and all the things that everyone else enjoys.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this vital legislation, which will bring the railways back together into one cohesive system, which should allow better planning and use of capacity, and should increase passenger satisfaction. I am pleased to see this Labour Government making good on their manifesto commitment to take back our railways into public ownership and to establish Great British Railways, something that people in the great railway city of Exeter have long called for, after years of decay under the Tory Government. Putting passengers at the heart of every part of the rail industry was a promise on which I and many colleagues here stood for election last year, and I am proud to see that coming to fruition.
Since I was elected, I have been proud to see Exeter continue to grow in size and economic importance. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Last year, our city was ranked sixth in the PwC’s “Good Growth for Cities” index. We in Exeter can see what good, equitable growth looks like—in climate tech, in scientific research and in education—and public transport is a key driver of it. Indeed, Exeter and Devon folk are avid railway users. Our passenger numbers exceeded the pre-covid peak long before many other cities. However, rail performance has often been poor under the current system; all three major operators across the two main lines and the several branch lines have been affected by long-term delays and cancellations, and critical infrastructure has needed investment.
At a time when residents in Exeter want more frequent and reliable services, the opposite is being delivered under the current system. We want to continue to grow our economy and attract inward investment, and a fast, reliable and regular train network is needed more than ever. I very much hope that Great British Railways will take a better approach to operating our railways, in the interests of passengers. I welcome the fact that Great British Railways will have a whole-system view of investment, and will be able to judge where delivery will have significant impact, so that Exeter and Devon can deliver the sustainable economic growth that they need. That should mean backing the Devon metro proposal, increasing services into and out of Exeter to one service every 15 minutes by implementing passing loops on the South Western line, and improving the signalling on the Barnstaple line to increase capacity and reliability. That will enable further modal shift in Exeter and our growing hinterland, incentivise people out of their cars, and reduce some of our chronic traffic problems.
We need to improve the resilience of the line past Exeter to our great city neighbour of Plymouth and on into Cornwall. While our famous main line is scenic, it occasionally falls into the sea or is buried by a landslide, as happened at Dawlish in 2014. Reopening a completed line between Exeter and Plymouth north of Dartmoor would add resilience to the network, and it would prevent the peninsula being cut off, should Dawlish happen again.
I welcome the provisions that continue to allow open access operators on the network. The experience of the Lumo Edinburgh-to-London service and the Hull Trains service between Hull and London suggests that competition on the lines increases capacity and passenger numbers, rather than cannibalising numbers from elsewhere. Further, devolution and local decision making are imperative to ensuring that regions like the south-west can have a proper say on their transport infrastructure, and I hope that Exeter and Devon will achieve the local government reorganisation and devolution that I believe will work for us.
I welcome the commitment to embedding the relationship between GBR and strategic mayors into the functionality of the organisation, and I look forward to exploring how that will work effectively. GBR should be a real powerhouse and driver of innovation, seeking out new innovation through its procurement, but also allowing the continued free use of data, so that start-ups can build businesses and thrive in the wider ecosystem.
In this debate and beyond, I look forward to hearing Ministers’ vision for how GBR will look and feel. A nimble and strategic organisation with a defined mandate, working in partnership with the Department for Transport, will be more likely to deliver for passengers than a larger bureaucracy.
Finally, I welcome the provisions on accountability. As the Secretary of State and Ministers will know, I look forward to continuing to lobby them and GBR, as I have done on many occasions, on providing lifts at my St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge stations. I am proud to support the Bill, and I dedicate my words to the hard-working railwaymen of Exeter, who set up our local party in the 1950s, and who have played such significant roles, as elected politicians, in the development of my city and the county. They would be delighted by this return to a national railway system.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As the Government move to create a publicly owned Great British Railways, I want to speak on behalf of several thousand rail passengers in my constituency, and to say what they have suffered in recent weeks. We all want a rail network that delivers a fantastic service, supports the economy and protects the environment. In 2026, the last thing we want is ever more cars crammed on to our roads. Last year, the North Devon Tarka line, which runs for 39 miles through my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), recorded a record 1 million journeys for the first time. It is among the busiest branch lines anywhere in the south-west. Office of Road and Rail figures show that footfall at Barnstaple station, which is heavily used by young people and college students, has skyrocketed by 63% since 2019—by far the biggest surge at any station in Devon and Cornwall. The Tarka line has again set new records for passenger numbers nearly every month this year—until November, when that success came to a grinding halt.
On 17 November, heavy rain closed three bridges and ceased all rail traffic between Barnstaple and Exeter. Since then, our line has been shut three times. On Friday afternoon, it was closed again because of signal faults, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded in Exeter. The operator was issuing fresh warnings of likely cancellations just yesterday afternoon. If we were to ask those passengers what needs to be in the Bill, few would argue the merits of public versus private ownership. Instead, many in North Devon put up with immense overcrowding, or worry that their train may not even turn up. Back in 2017, Network Rail committed £2.9 million to improvements on the north Devon line, but that is only a tiny fraction of the capital investment in other parts of the country, and hundreds of thousands more passenger journeys now rely on that infrastructure.
Greater accountability to the public will be important for our railways. However, public ownership will be doomed to fail if the Government do not use this window of opportunity, and the extra powers in the Bill, to make lines in rural areas like mine more resilient for the future.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Too many rural railway stations are not accessible for disabled people. Without support staff, constituents in Yeovil have had serious accidents at railway stations. Although the Government’s accessibility priorities, which we are debating today, are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we need a strengthened access-for-all programme?
Ian Roome
I agree. Disabled access is absolutely necessary at all stations, particularly in rural areas. My hon. Friend is a big advocate for accessibility for disabled people in Yeovil who need it.
As the network and operator are brought together, we need joined-up planning for increased capacity, and against bad weather. My party has supported freezing rail fares after years of price hikes, but, as many of my constituents can attest, it is no good buying a ticket for a train that is not running. I urge the Government to resist declaring victory once public ownership is achieved—it is only the first stop. The long-term planning will be the important part of this Bill.
We must give passengers in North Devon, and many places like it, good reason to have faith in their railway. That will require more than a new flag painted on the side of a train. What does the Minister plan to do next to make rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line, ready for the 2030s?
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Railways Bill gives us the chance to deliver the biggest reset in a generation of how we run our railways. By bringing operators and infrastructure together under a single guiding mind, we will be able to make decisions faster, cut through duplication and finally deliver improvements at the pace that passengers expect. A unified system means clearer accountability, quicker upgrades and railways designed for the people who rely on them every day. Crucially, it means ticketing that people can actually understand: simple, consistent and truly passenger-focused. For communities like mine in South Norfolk, that matters enormously.
I greatly appreciate clause 18, on accessibility for all. I would not be doing my job properly as the MP for South Norfolk if I did not talk about Wymondham station and its accessibility. Colleagues may know that Wymondham’s station code is WMD. In South Norfolk, that stands not for “weapons of mass destruction”, but for “we must deliver”. In this case, we must deliver step-free access to platform 2. Wymondham has waited 180 years—since the station first opened—for step-free access to the southbound platform. That means that disabled people, those pushing buggies, or elderly passengers carrying heavy luggage simply cannot catch the southbound train. Instead, you must travel all the way north to Norwich, wait, turn around and come back again. That is half an hour wasted going in completely the wrong direction. A modern railway worthy of this country cannot leave passengers behind like that, so my first ask of the Minister today is to give the green light for step-free access improvements at Wymondham train station. With a single body overseeing both operators and track, there will finally be no excuse for this to be delayed any longer.
While I am speaking about rail in the East of England, I want to briefly highlight the long overdue upgrades to the Ely and Haughley junctions. Again, that is important in the context of the Bill, and I ask the Government to go further on freight. Those improvements have been talked about for decades and are essential. They would unlock nearly 3,000 additional freight paths from Felixstowe, take 98,000 HGVs off the roads, support 277,000 extra passenger journeys each year, reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes over 60 years and generate almost £5 for every £1 invested. Quite simply, this is infrastructure that pays for itself many times over, so my second ask to the Minister is to give the go-ahead for the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme and the Haughley junction upgrade. The economic, environmental and connectivity benefits are too significant to ignore.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, made an important point about heritage railways. Wymondham Abbey station is on the Mid-Norfolk Railway line, one of the longest heritage railway lines in the whole United Kingdom. I strongly ask the Minister to consider what we can do through the Bill to ensure that safety aspects are maintained on those lines.
This Bill is about creating a rail system that works—one that is accountable, accessible and built around the needs of passengers. It will deliver improvements more quickly, support regional growth and ensure that communities like mine are not left behind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate four-minute limit, I call Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I speak in my capacity as a constituency Member and also as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail, which submitted a response to the Secretary of State on the changes she is bringing forward.
Will the proposals deliver improved rail freight and passenger services in my constituency and, indeed, across the network? There are lots of “buts”. Restructuring any industry can cause confusion and increase costs, and the billions invested by private companies will now disappear and have to be made up by the taxpayer. If we look back to the years before privatisation, when for much of the time the industry was in decline and desperate for additional resources, we see a vision of the future.
If the Government are to achieve one of their key aims of economic growth, improved transport infrastructure and a rail network that provides for the needs of the freight sector must be a priority. Ministers will have noted that the Rail Freight Group has suggested that the rail freight growth target of 75% by 2050 be put into law and that discounts to encourage use of spare capacity be introduced. Clause 17 of the Bill states that the Secretary of State must set a target and keep it under review. Setting targets is easy; delivering is much more challenging. Businesses in my constituency stress the urgent need for a new east-west freight corridor, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that when he sums up.
Rail freight is important, of course, but equally important is passenger traffic. There is nothing more parochial than Transport question time, and now that the Minister is going to take on even more responsibility, that will become much more prevalent. In my constituency, I have been pressing for a direct rail service to be restored between Grimsby and Cleethorpes and King’s Cross since 2011. British Rail withdrew the service in 1992. Local industry and passenger groups are pushing for it. There have been endless possibilities. Grand Central put forward an application to the rail regulator in 2015, which would have been accepted had it stood alone, but it was linked to extending services into North Yorkshire, and that would have taken revenue away from what was then the main franchise holder.
We desperately need the service. It will link Habrough and Barnetby stations in my constituency, which serve both Humberside airport and the port of Immingham, and it will then pass through the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) at Market Rasen.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A direct train to London on this line is vital. Grimsby and Cleethorpes form a huge conurbation—probably much the biggest conurbation in the country not to be served by a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for this for so long, and I call on the Minister to just get moving with it. We do not need the Bill: we need action on a direct train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, through Market Rasen and Lincoln, to London, in order to revive the whole area.
Martin Vickers
I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. LNER operates five or six services to Lincoln, and it would be easy to extend those services the extra 30-odd miles to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. There is also the possibility of an open-access operator. Indeed, Grand Central Rail has made another application to provide a service from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and Doncaster to King’s Cross. However, judging by recent decisions, the open-access operators have cause for concern, as do those of us who want to see other lines improve as a result of competition. There is no doubt that the east coast main line has greatly benefited from competition, as was mentioned earlier, from Hull Trains and Grand Central Rail. They provide services to provincial towns that have been without a direct service for many years.
Returning to the demand from my own constituency, the Immingham area has two oil refineries, numerous power stations, petrochemical plants and logistics operations, and it is a vital hub for the renewable energy sector. The Minister must recognise that if we are to further develop the area, direct services to King’s Cross are a vital link. The proposals are supported by the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce and large businesses, such as Phillips 66. I can only urge the Minister to get on with it and to give it the okay. Under the new structure, he will be able to do that with just a signature; he should do so.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I welcome the clear ambition for our railways, and therefore for our nation, that the Railways Bill brings. Rail runs in my family’s blood: my late grandad worked on the railways, first for London and North Western Railway and then for British Rail in Crewe, one of the homes of rail and where I spent the early part of my childhood.
My constituency sits on the border between north Wales and England. Our train services are vital for many people across Wrexham, but for too long they have simply had to accept that cancellations, delays and poor value for their money are just part of the deal. It is right that this Labour Government are following the Welsh Labour Government and taking our train services back into public ownership. We must be honest that privatisation has failed its users. They should not have to put up any longer with a service that is too often substandard and with ever-increasing prices.
Regardless of who oversees our railways, it is important that that the passenger experience remains the No. 1 priority. Therefore it is right that this Bill brings forward a simplified and unified ticket system, as we have already heard, alongside the freezing of rail fares for the first time in 30 years, as recently announced. Likewise, the creation of a new passenger watchdog will ensure that Great British Railways will be held accountable in a way that private services never truly have been. A truly independent body and organisation that will ensure that standards are met, the passenger watchdog will be able to demand data and investigate and resolve disputes.
The changes to the decision-making process around track usage and infrastructure will move us away from a system that prioritises profits over passenger experience, with track access based on demand and social value, not just revenue and profits. Timetables will be designed in one place, so different operators will stop working at cross purposes. Investment and engineering work will be co-ordinated to minimise disruption. There will be clear accountability when services fail, putting a stop to cases where popular routes are routinely packed or where people are often unable to even board them.
My constituency of Wrexham is a clear case study in the complexity of the current system, sitting within the Mersey-Dee cross-border functional economy, where key rail assets for the rail network serving the local economy sit in both England and Wales. Chester station is the gateway to north Wales, sitting on the junction of the north Wales cost mainline and the Marches line. Chester is key for access from north Wales and Wrexham to places like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London and multiple airports, yet the Mersey-Dee economy is served by multiple Network Rail regions and train operators, all with competing interests.
The cross-party Growth Track 360 group campaigns for rail investment to improve economic growth and productivity, so we welcome the investment in the Padeswood sidings, which will enable direct services between Wrexham and Liverpool. Meanwhile, a new station at Deeside will improve access from Wrexham in north Wales to the many jobs on the Deeside industrial estate. That emphasis on integration and partnership working will help to simplify the system, improve accountability and improve the transparency of decision making.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a very interesting speech. In my constituency, Chalkwell station has been waiting an age for further Access for All works to take place, and they are now taking place. Both of my train lines are now in public ownership and working closely with Network Rail. Does he agree that that integration will make this work so much easier moving forward? It will be quicker, slicker and easier for these projects to get going, to the benefit of the commuters.
Andrew Ranger
I completely agree. That will be crucial to improving services for everybody.
We have a renewed deal for Welsh customers as well. The inclusion of a memorandum of understanding means that there will be a shared understanding and shared objectives across funding, access and track integration. Crucially for Wrexham, it also means that there will be an aligned cross-border framework for governance and funding, reflecting how crucial these services are to our local communities and economies and their ability to succeed.
Alongside that, I am delighted that there will be a dedicated business unit in Great British Railways both obligated and empowered to work with Transport for Wales to deliver the best possible offering. That shows that it does not need to be an either/or when it comes to working relationships with partners. With the right structures and the shared ambition we are already seeing in Wales, we have two thirds of journeys on brand-new trains, a 20% rise in passenger journeys and a plan for Network North Wales, delivering outcomes that genuinely put passengers first.
This legislation captures the full spirit of devolution. As we have heard, it recognises not only devolved Governments, but mayoral authorities. The duty to consult them on major decisions gives local leaders the ability to shape what they know works best for their areas. That builds on the success we have already seen through things such as the Bee Network, bus franchising in the midlands, and Merseytravel, moving us a step closer to a fully integrated transport system across the country.
Finally, I will reflect on the wider implications of what good rail means, particularly for our young people. It means opportunity to access experiences and chances to broaden horizons and career prospects which go on to make a huge difference in their lives and outcomes. I look forward to following the Bill as it progresses through the House and delivers for our constituents.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. In the 1800s, Britain’s railways unlocked growth and opportunity across the country. A huge network grew, until the Beeching cuts closed roughly a third of it in the 1960s. As a result, many rural communities lost their rail links, forcing reliance on buses and private cars and creating transport deserts.
My constituency is home to only two railway stations: Templecombe in the south and Castle Cary in the east. That means that many towns and villages are left unconnected to the two railway lines that run through the constituency. Langport had two railway stations, while Somerton had its own station until the Beeching cuts, but like many rural towns they have simply lost connectivity.
Glastonbury and Street, the two largest towns in the constituency, are both completely unconnected to the railway. There is not even a direct or integrated bus service available from Glastonbury to connect to the railway station.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about accessibility, and we cannot forget about disabled people in that. If I may, I will share a perverse peculiarity at Radley station near Oxford, which is considered a rural station. Disabled people can go northbound, but not southbound, because there is no step-free access. How ridiculous is that? Is this Bill not an opportunity to address some of those discrepancies?
Sarah Dyke
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely essential that there are lifts at train stations to provide that step-free access for people with mobility issues, pushchairs or luggage. Indeed, Castle Cary station is the official station of the Glastonbury festival, so people might also be carrying camping gear, tents, or wet weather gear—plenty of it, usually.
The Railways Bill must not just manage decline; it must also restore connectivity and patronage. That means auditing underserved communities and delivering integrated rail and public transport links where they have been lost. The Langport Transport Group has run a campaign to bring a railway station back to the area, and put a strategic business outline case to the Government in February 2022. That was met with Tory inaction for nearly three years, and then sadly, the Restoring Your Railway fund was dropped by this Government. The fund needed improving, not removing.
The Government have claimed that GBR will be
“responsive to both national and local ambitions”,
while the long-term rail strategy lists
“reducing regional and national inequality”
as one of its priorities. However, more than half of small towns in the south-west are now transport deserts, and research by the Campaign for Better Transport shows that in Somerset, 14 out of 23 towns no longer have adequate public transport. More and more planning applications are being approved in south Somerset, so it is essential that GBR can expand the rail network to accommodate future growth and ensure that rural communities are not left behind.
I am pleased that Liberal Democrat-run Somerset council has committed to developing further plans to make the case for a new station in the Somerton and Langport area, as well as improving access and integration with the existing network. However, the long-term rail strategy could include a network expansion plan that covers an increased extent of the network, and new and upgraded stations should align with local transport and growth plans. I also believe that the long-term rail strategy should focus on how to boost access to railway stations when local people cannot access them in their own town. The Government pledged to release their integrated national transport strategy this year, but there is still no sight of it. There is therefore an opportunity to link the strategy with GBR to deliver truly integrated and accessible transport for people in rural areas, because rural areas should not be excluded from this opportunity any more—there is absolutely no reason why they should be.
I also wanted to touch on soil moisture deficit, which has been a huge problem on some of the tracks in the west this year, but I will leave that for another time. I will wait to see how this legislation will deliver for my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton, who have been left unconnected for far too long by an unreliable and infrequent service. I also look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it progresses through the House—I am determined to ensure it delivers for my constituents.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Railways Bill will be vital to delivering on this Government’s promise to revive our country’s railways and redefine what passengers should expect from their rail services. It is beyond doubt that the privatisation of the rail network has completely failed, and it is now the task of this Labour Government to rebuild the confidence that has been lost. That is why I wholly welcome the coming establishment of Great British Railways, which will deliver coherence where there has been chaos and a sense of strategic direction where there has been lethargy. The best place for our country’s rail network is in the hands of the public. Alongside a strengthened passenger watchdog, a new access regime and an enhanced role for our devolved authorities, I believe GBR will show passengers that things no longer have to be the way they have been. It is on the final point—the role of mayoral strategic authorities—that I will focus my remarks.
The Bill is the obvious next step in advancing the devolution agenda led by this Government and elected mayors. I am proud of our accomplishments in this space in Greater Manchester, which has already brought buses back under local control and built the UK’s largest ever light rail network. The next step is for us to bring local rail services into the Bee network, where they belong. It is therefore crucial that the Bill is fully utilised and that we explicitly formalise ties between strategic authorities, national Government and GBR.
I believe that there are three areas in which we can and must give our strategic authorities more certainty through this landmark piece of legislation. First, we should consider the benefits of requiring GBR to go further than “consulting” our authorities. If we are truly to give local people and their transport authorities a key role in shaping their own rail networks, we must recognise the merits of establishing a clear statutory role for mayors in commissioning rail services too, and ensuring that those leading GBR are plugged into the needs of our regions. That means utilising the talents and knowledge of those who make up our local transport authorities. I express my sincere thanks to Laura Shoaf for her work across shadow Great British Railways in that regard, and I hope that her role is a sign that GBR will continue to draw on these exceptional regional leaders.
Secondly, we must address questions about funding certainty for our mayoral authorities and local transport authorities. We should ensure that GBR co-develops key functions, such as financial planning, in tandem with our mayoral authorities. I believe that by forging partnerships between GBR and our mayors on funding, we will see greater value for money in the long term, a return on investments, and a sustained increase in passengers’ confidence in the rail network. That could be done by agreeing statutory limits on mid-period funding reductions, and working to align enhancement pipelines, planning horizons and industry funding cycles.
Thirdly, I believe that the Bill must ensure that GBR has a duty to align its decision making with the priorities of local transport plans. Those plans, such as the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, have a statutory basis, and provide a long-term view of what it will take for rail to play a transformative and integrated role in our communities. I look forward to watching the Bill progress, and to further consideration being given to how GBR will work with our elected mayors and local transport authorities.
The Bill encapsulates the ambition of this Labour Government to undo a legacy of neglect that has left our rail network fractured and public trust eroded. Only the Labour party is serious about tackling the deep-rooted challenges facing track and train, and now the onus is on us to ensure that Great British Railways succeeds where successive Governments and arm’s length bodies have failed. To get this right, GBR must be aligned with the priorities of local people and those whom they elect to ensure that, once again, rail is a driver of opportunity rather than a cap on ambition.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Great British Railways is not an entirely new concept, but what the Government present as a “modernisation of our railways” is, when we strip away the glossy language, a centralising piece of legislation that advances Labour’s drive towards nationalisation. It risks creating a structure that is powerful, sprawling and unaccountable.
In Aldridge, in my constituency, we had secured funding to deliver a railway station under the former mayor, Andy Street, and residents were told, after decades of waiting, that the project would finally go ahead. However, the new Labour mayor chose to withdraw the funding in favour of his own pet projects. When questions are put to Ministers, every answer points back to the combined authority, with the vague suggestion that there would be funding “if the region chooses”. Well, Aldridge and the West Midlands Combined Authority did choose, and the funding was in place, but Labour removed it. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a unilateral political decision from being made again. It provides no guarantee of transparency, and no duty to consult affected communities.
As a former Rail Minister, I am very aware that we on this side of the House have long recognised that the old model needed updating. That is why, in government, we began the work for Great British Railways, through the Williams-Shapps plan. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we set out the case for bringing track and train closer together, improving accountability, and delivering a more unified, passenger-focused system. We recognised the need for renewal of our railways, grounded in practicality and not in politics. What we have before us today, however, is something very different. This Bill offers too little detail, too little accountability, and far too many unanswered questions. It replaces a pragmatic, balanced approach with an ideological blueprint for nationalisation. Passengers across the country deserve better.
The Bill promises integration, but it delivers centralisation. It speaks of clarity, yet it blurs responsibilities. Great British Railways will control timetables, fares, access decisions, infrastructure planning and data, a concentration of authority that should concern anyone who believes in genuine public accountability.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The east coast main line is a fantastic example of where privatisation has worked. Open access operators such as Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central are competing with the franchisee and keeping prices down and service levels up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill does nothing to protect open access operators, and that there is a real danger that this centralised, Soviet-style monolith will squeeze them out in due course?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is worse is that time after time I cannot get a straight answer out of Ministers as to whether they will support open access.
The Bill also weakens the independence of the ORR. When a body that runs services also shapes the rules against which those services are judged, the House should be deeply concerned. The Bill puts competition and innovation at risk, alongside the future of open access, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has highlighted, is incredibly uncertain. A railway that cannot accommodate competition is a railway that is destined to stagnate.
There is also the unresolved question of how GBR will interact with the Department for Transport. The Bill creates overlapping duties that risk friction and confusion. GBR will be required to consult, to produce strategies and to respond to ministerial direction, yet its operational independence is undefined. Will political priorities override operational judgment? Will GBR operate as an arm’s length body, or as an extension of the Department?
How will we, as elected Members, hold Great British Rail, Ministers and mayors to account? Local decision making will not be stronger under the Bill. Ministers may talk the talk about devolution, but the Bill provides little evidence of it. Requiring GBR merely to “have regard to” local transport plans is a notably weak obligation. The Bill does not require GBR to follow them, and offers no protection to communities, such as Aldridge, where projects risk simply being cast aside when the political wind changes. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local leaders, they must allow us, the elected Members, to hold them to account.
The House should not mistake this railway reorganisation for renewal—far from it. The Bill simply rearranges structures while failing to address the issues that matter most to passengers: cancelled trains, inconsistent performance, reduced competition and decisions made far away from the communities they affect. This is a Bill that gives Labour more control, not passengers better railways. It is not a credible plan for the future of our railways and the Government should think again.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
As a long-time supporter of our railways and rail workers, I am proud to speak on a key Labour Government manifesto commitment. The Bill is about putting passengers, workers and the national interest back at the heart of our railways. For too long, a fragmented model has left the public with a patchwork quilt of competing interests, with tracks separated from trains, timetables misaligned and confusing incentives. Great British Railways offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch the network back together, with a single, publicly owned guiding mind with a 30-year horizon, stability in planning and clarity in purpose.
In 2023 I organised the country’s biggest campaign of its type to save the ticket office at Stourbridge Junction, alongside local rail users and Stourbridge’s favourite feline: George, the station cat. I heard at first hand how much our communities value an accessible, staffed railway. Passengers are not abstractions; they are neighbours, carers, shift workers and pensioners. They expect and deserve service, safety and support.
The Bill’s promise will be realised only by the people who deliver it: our railway workers. Our drivers, guards, signallers, engineers, station teams and cleaners are not a cost to be cut; they are an asset to be invested in.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. There is currently no reference at all in the Bill to staffing. Who will be the staff’s employer? What will happen with their pensions? Will TUPE apply on transfer? Will their existing benefits apply? Will there be a mandate on the levels of staffing on stations and elsewhere? That is an agenda for constructive engagement with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister commits to that when he responds to the debate?
Cat Eccles
I thank my right hon. Friend for his valuable intervention. He makes the really important point that there is currently no mention of staff in the Bill. As I have said, there will be no Great British Railways without those staff and all the protections and assurances they need.
I welcome the move to bring track and train together, but we must also bring the workforce together with clear pathways on employment, pensions and facilities, as well as a strong voice for staff and their unions in governance. When passengers say they want confidence and care on the network, they are asking for people—present, trained and empowered. Let us ensure that the transition to GBR provides clarity and security for staff, underwrites safe staffing levels on trains and at stations, and ends the false economy of fragmented outsourcing that undermines both service quality and value for money.
Let us not forget that nothing moves without logistics. Rail freight is the green backbone of that system, moving goods predictably and efficiently with about three quarters fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than road. The Bill’s statutory freight growth target is the right signal, but that signal must be backed up with a firm plan. We need safeguards so that GBR’s capacity duty does not allow passenger services to squeeze freight off the network, and that means transparency, fair charging and protection of strategic freight corridors.
To unlock genuinely transformative growth, we must match governance with infrastructure. We need targeted electrification, including infill schemes on freight critical routes, which will cut costs, carbon and journey times. In some corridors, dozens of miles of electrification have already unlocked thousands of net tonne-kilometres of cleaner freight every single day, and each additional electrically-hauled train means congestion avoided, carbon reduced and reliability improved. Put simply, the freight target and electrification must work together.
For more than three decades, the leasing model has extracted hundreds of millions from the railways in dividends and charges, which is money that could and should be reinvested in the frontline. If we believe in long-term public stewardship, we should procure rolling stock directly where it delivers better value, using public finance to reduce lifetime costs, standardise fleets and support the UK supply chain. Let us be ambitious about green technologies. Electric traction is the gold standard, and battery and hydrogen can play targeted roles. GBR should set a whole-system rolling stock strategy that is modern, modular and interoperable, as well as cleaner, so that when we renew fleets, we do so with purpose rather than with piecemeal leasing at a premium. Open access has sometimes brought welcome competition, but it has also cherry-picked the most profitable flows, complicating timetables and undermining network planning. In an integrated system, capacity should be allocated to maximise public value, not private extraction.
To conclude, this Bill is about integration, not ideology; about service, not shareholder return. Backed by a long-term strategy, safeguards for freight, a workforce treated as an asset and a modern plan for electrification, we can build a railway that is cleaner, simpler, fairer and proudly public. If we do so, we will deliver a railway for Britain that we can rely on and be proud of for the next 30 years.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I am looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee, because this Bill is a long-awaited opportunity to reshape our rail network for the better. It is an opportunity to deliver real value, reliability and affordability for passengers across the whole of the country, but especially in underserved rural communities such as West Dorset. I welcome key provisions such as the commitment to a long-term strategy, a more integrated approach to track and train, the retention of the important regulatory role of the ORR, a strong focus on accessibility and the ambition to simplify a fragmented structure that, for too long and too often, has pushed infrastructure and operations in different directions.
My constituents repeatedly tell me that they want reliability and affordability above all, which is why we also welcome the freeze in rail fares—long campaigned for by the Liberal Democrats—that was announced in the Budget. West Dorset’s rural rail network, including the Salisbury to Exeter line, is crucial for our communities, yet its infrastructure remains outdated and fragile. The recommendations of the “Connecting South West England” report are clear: electrification, upgrading single track sections and additional passing points such as the much-needed Tisbury loop would dramatically improve reliability and capacity, and reduce the delays that plague the line today. Too often, rural lines are left with old, uncomfortable and unreliable trains.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for?
Edward Morello
I agree 100%. I very much hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to improve that level of service.
End-of-the-line stopping services should not be defined by graffiti, broken heating, limited seating and high fares. What we want are modern trains with reliable wi-fi, working toilets, clear visual and audio information systems for disabled passengers, and safe, well-lit stations.
If the Bill delivers anything, I hope it will deliver the return of the buffet trolley. On rail journeys lasting over an hour, a guaranteed minimum level of food and drink provision should be a basic expectation of modern public transport. Whether it is a parent travelling with children, an older passenger managing a long trip, commuters trying to work on the move, or maybe a Member of Parliament hoping for a gin and tonic on the way home, access to refreshments is important.
I would also like the Bill to support our climate commitments. That means accelerating electrification, expanding battery and hydrogen use where appropriate, and setting clear standards for freight and passenger emissions. A long-term rail strategy must be transparent, regularly reviewed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and designed with future climate pressures in mind, including the modelling of environmental impacts, such as the soil moisture deficit—already mentioned—that has severely disrupted services in Dorset.
There are elements of the Bill that cause concern. Many will rightly question whether Great British Railways, as currently proposed, risks becoming a rail version of NHS England: a large, centralised body with limited agility, limited parliamentary accountability, and simply an opportunity for ministerial micromanagement. If the Secretary of State wants more power, then accountability to Parliament must increase alongside it.
Passengers deserve clear, measurable outcomes on affordability, reliability and accessibility, not vague commitments that cannot be scrutinised. We need to be able to get answers and get change for our constituents if standards fall below acceptable levels, and not have to deal with arm’s length bodies.
Passengers must be protected from excessive charges and hidden fees. The GBR app and website should never add unnecessary booking fees or administrative costs. Instead, we should push for open-source fare systems that allow passengers easily to find the best deal. Expanding discount schemes, especially for young people through “rail miles” systems, would help people travel more and reduce costs for families.
Finally, the Bill must lead to a railway where back-office systems are rationalised, data is used to improve passenger experience, and long-term planning is not sacrificed for short-term crisis management. Passengers deserve honesty about upcoming delays, clarity on long-term upgrades, and confidence that today’s problems are not simply passed on to tomorrow’s Parliament.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a railway that works: for commuters, for rural communities, for disabled passengers, for young people seeking opportunity, and for the climate. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues from across the House to strengthen the Bill in Committee and deliver a railway worthy of the people we serve.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all their hard work in getting us to this point.
I recognise the thousands of rail staff who keep our network moving every single day. Their skill, dedication and professionalism were impossible to miss during the pandemic, and once again during the recent tragedy in Huntingdon, when workers ran towards danger to protect others. If we are serious about creating a world-class rail system, then those workers must be at the centre of it.
A unified, publicly owned railway will be simpler, safer and more efficient. It will reverse the legacy of privatisation, which carved up the industry and prioritised share dividends over people and service quality. The Bill is great, but I have some fundamental issues that need to be ironed out as the Bill makes its way through the House.
If Great British Railways is genuinely being built from dozens of separate organisations, then we need a clear description of its structure. We need clarity on who will actually employ all the people who keep our railways running.
More than 100,000 workers are employed by Network Rail and the train operating companies; tens of thousands more jobs are outsourced to security firms, cleaning contractors, catering companies and agencies supplying infrastructure labour. Many of those workers are on insecure, zero-hour terms. Altogether, well over 150,000 people form Britain’s rail workforce, yet sadly those workers cannot say who their future employer will be, what will happen to their pension, or how they might transfer into the new organisation. Although today is a great day, that uncertainty is not fair on them, and it undermines the stability and confidence that the new system needs from day one.
We need to see some detail on how workers and their unions will be given a voice. Other public transport bodies, such as Transport for London, Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, have built-in mechanisms for staff representation on their boards, but Great British Railways does not have any such route. If we want an organisation that benefits from the insights and expertise of the people who operate it, that has to be put in the Bill.
We must be honest that the pressures that fell on the workforce over 30 years of privatisation have left deep scars. We saw repeated attempts to hollow out staffing, driver-only operation, de-staffed stations, ticket office closures, aggressive outsourcing and the downgrading of essential roles. The Government’s “Getting Britain Moving” promised to turn the page, and to recognise staff as an asset, not a cost. It pledged to make GBR a single employer that people would be proud to join. That vision was right, but it cannot be delivered if we keep the workforce scattered across a maze of private providers.
If GBR is to inherit the contracts of Network Rail and the train operating companies, we should not simply carry forward decades of outsourcing. Cleaning, security, station staff, catering and maintenance are vital parts of the railway. Bringing them back in house is not radical; it is already happening across parts of Scotland and Wales, where insourcing has improved accountability and service quality. Removing the web of contracts would cut the cost of the work that was created by privatisation.
I would welcome the Secretary of State’s adopting, in a spirit of constructive partnership, the sensible and pragmatic proposals on such issues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. They would strengthen the Bill, and help to deliver the railway that we all want to see.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The arrival of the railway in Eastbourne in 1849 helped the seventh Duke of Devonshire to translate his plans for the town into reality. He was the architect of Eastbourne and helped build the town that became the resort that people across the country know and love—the sunniest town in the UK, with the largest marina in northern Europe.
Some may know that Eastbourne hosts one of the busiest level crossings in Europe: Hampden Park level crossing, in my home patch. Although I love my home patch to bits, the level crossing, at which the gates come down every four minutes, on average, so that trains can pass, is the bane of Hampden Parkers’ lives in so many respects—a bane that we hope will be addressed in part by the Bill. The railways made Eastbourne, but the level crossing in Hampden Park literally breaks Eastbourne. People cannot cross from one part of town to another for much of the day because of the crossing. In fact, local resident James Rea, a software engineer, has created a website specifically dedicated to the Hampden Park level crossing, arethegatesup.com, to help residents. I can see lots of hon. Members googling “arethegatesup.com” —or not listening to my speech. [Laughter.] That’s the one. We very much hope that the Bill, and the investment that it could bring to Eastbourne to address the issue with the level crossing, could preclude the need for James’s website altogether.
A slightly more serious issue is access. Hampden Park station has no step-free access from one platform to another. That affects folks who have mobility needs. Folks with buggies or luggage—not the wet weather luggage that my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) referred to, because it does not rain in Eastbourne, but the enormous parasols that people seek to take from platform one to platform two—could transport them much more easily if we had dedicated Access for All funding to invest in accessibility in our train station. The Bill does not go far enough. The passenger watchdog will be able to set certain regulations on accessibility, but there is no statutory requirement for accessibility, so the Bill needs to be strengthened in that respect.
I very much hope that the Bill will give passengers—whether commuters, tourists or others—the opportunity to have input into shaping the future of rail services. I am delighted to have led a campaign to restore the direct train from Eastbourne to London Bridge. That service launches next Monday, thanks to great folks like Christina Ewbank and Dave Cooper, the local businesses that got on board, and the many people who signed our petition. However, getting such an obvious service reinstated should not be like pulling teeth, so I hope that the Minister will ensure that the likes of Eastbourne can get back on track by giving people the opportunity to have input into the future of rail across the country.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I am surely the luckiest MP in this House, as I represent the charming, thriving border town of Shrewsbury. We are in a strategic location: we serve as a hub for Shropshire, we are on the edge of the industrial west midlands and we are the gateway to Wales. Our railway is a major transit point for Welsh services operated by Transport for Wales. With 2.2 million passengers, I am told that we are the second busiest station in Wales. There is also much latent demand for more services.
However, under privatisation, we have been on the edge of other people’s maps for too long. We are the last stop on the west midlands line, and the last major station from Wales. It has held back our investment and limited our inter-city services, such as the much missed direct train to London. While our railway station is a beautiful grade II listed building, with a fabulous team of staff, led by the wonderful, long-serving manager Shelley Hall, we need our station to be more than a museum piece. In order to increase services, we must first have our master plan for bringing together infrastructure upgrades.
The Railways Bill provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Shrewsbury station to fulfil its true potential under Great British Railways. We have such latent demand for additional services that when TFW upgraded our service to Birmingham to four carriages—it used to have two carriages, and 81 people standing—ticket sales went up by 18% overnight. Imagine how many more tickets we could sell to passengers at Shrewsbury when a nationalised service joins up routes and opens up opportunities for my residents. We may have 2.2 million passengers at Shrewsbury, but I am keen to support a new breed: the wannabe passengers, who want to make the modal shift away from cars and on to our rail network, and who need to travel for work, study or leisure, but for whom there are no seats or services yet. They need earlier, later and more frequent trains.
In Shropshire, we still dream of that direct train to London, which would reconnect us to the capital. Research shows that it would add £9 million a year to our local economy. It is not just me who thinks that rail investment in Shrewsbury could unlock bountiful economic growth. I was delighted yesterday to see the report published by Midlands Connect for DFT entitled “Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury: a corridor for growth”, showing that connectivity between the two centres will boost regional economy, benefit productivity and support employment sectors. This corridor supports major employers, such as the i54 enterprise zone, the Battlefield enterprise park and Shrewsbury business park, as well as future developments in Shifnal and Telford. Those sites alone support more than 4,000 jobs and require improved access to rail, bus and active travel infrastructure.
Enhancing that transport corridor will also deliver benefits for Wales because of the cross-border gateway and the freight connections between our two nations, and growth in this area aligns with priorities over the border. In the Budget, the Chancellor committed £445 million in investment over the next 10 years specifically to support transport infrastructure in Wales, highlighting the importance of major investment in cross-border rail activity. As the major border rail hub between an already nationalised Transport for Wales and a soon to be nationalised West Midlands Railway, Shrewsbury offers to be the strategic link that ensures the success of GBR. Only when our regions and devolved nations can co-deliver two nationalised rail systems seamlessly for passengers at hubs like mine will we have succeeded.
The Great British Railways Bill was written to improve services in places like Shrewsbury, and Shrewsbury has been waiting for Great British Railways—not least my wannabe passengers, who are still hoping that it will unlock employment and economic opportunity for them. Shrewsbury will become the beating heart of our reinvigorated railway.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The experience of my constituents in Esher and Walton, served by South Western Railway—the first of the train operators to be taken into public ownership—is not that nationalisation guarantees a better experience. This autumn feels as bad as the last. I feel it on my way—or not—into this place, and I have a sack load of constituent complaints about delays and cancellations.
At Esher station, 30% of trains were delayed last month. Only yesterday, a constituent told me that he was forced to spent £60 on taxis and two hours of extra childcare because of a train cancellation—something that is too frequently experienced by us in Esher and Walton. School children are missing hours of school because their trains are consistently delayed and they miss their connections. On 16, 17, 20 and 23 October, and on 7, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 24 November, the trains were delayed and 278 students were affected. I understand the under-investment, the lack of accountability and, frankly, the shameful mess that the Conservative Government left this Government to sort out, but I urge the Minister to go further and faster on reform to ensure that the Bill is not a continuation of this disappointment.
Today, on Second Reading, I wish to make the case for Hersham station, which is long overdue for improvement and another shameful example of the neglect of our railways and lack of accountability. Hersham sits on the south-west main line in my constituency, which contributes more to the Exchequer than any other outside London. People are using the station every day, commuting into London and creating the growth that our country needs. Despite being used over 600,000 times a year, Hersham station is an eyesore, ramshackle and rundown. There is nothing at the station that tells these communities to go and get growth as part of a national mission. There is nothing to suggest any ambition as a country, or that we are on the sharp end of innovation and technology, efficiency and delivery. The only message they get from the station is that the Government and train operator have neither the desire nor ambition to get them to work on time.
At Hersham, the stairs up to the platform are crumbling—visible holes expose the long drops below—and they shake underfoot. Needless to say, there is no step-free access. The roof is exposed corrugated iron. Both platforms were built in the 1960s, using materials meant for temporary use. When groups of schoolchildren step off the train and walk down the platform, shaking can be felt underfoot. Last year, someone put their foot straight through the platform, and it took the managing director of South Western Railway coming down to get the hole fixed. Should I give up hope on a complete refurbishment of the station for my constituents in Hersham, who have put up with this for too long?
Clauses 46 and 47 give us, for the first time in decades, a national centralised mechanism through which we can say, “This is not good enough, and it must be fixed.” However, the clauses do not go far enough. For decades, oversight was provided by the design panel of the British Railways Board; the Government used that to raise the standard of design across the British nationalised railway system from the 1950s. That system disappeared with privatisation. Since then, station design has been neglected, and passengers have paid the price in exactly the kind of decay that we see at Hersham station.
I would like to see clause 46 strengthened by amendments, so that minimum station standards must explicitly include design quality, accessibility, durability and engagement with the community. There must also be clear time limits for fixing safety and accessibility-related defects. I ask the Minister to look at the matter carefully, and to provide the funding, resource and ambition to give Hersham station what it so desperately needs.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I am delighted in particular to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). I will make some similar points, which I hope the Minister will address either in his closing speech or perhaps in Committee.
I am delighted that this Labour Government have placed the transformation of our railways, bringing track and train back together, at the forefront of their agenda for change. I will mention four points: workforce; rolling stock leasing companies; rail freight; and track capacity.
On the workforce, as colleagues have said, our railway workers are the backbone of the industry. They drive the trains, maintain the tracks and keep the stations and carriages clean. Some 150,000 rail workers keep the network running smoothly and safely every single day. Will my hon. Friend the Minister provide greater clarity on the intended structure of GBR and shed some light on why the Bill makes no reference to the employment of rail staff? That is causing great uncertainty among the workforce.
I refer to concerns raised by the Public and Commercial Services Union regarding 225 of its members at the Department for Transport, who are due to be transferred to the subsidiary company DFT Operator Ltd by 31 March 2026—coincidentally, the target date for departmental headcount reductions. In addition to the risk of job losses and the consequential loss of experience and expertise, which could hamper delivery of the rail reforms, those staff will lose their civil service status and may well face poorer terms and conditions. The funding arrangements for the new company are still unclear.
The transfer appears to run counter to Labour’s commitment to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. Insourcing, ensuring that workers are kept in-house and cutting out private sector profiteering is a great aim, and the Bill is a step towards that. I would like to see the Government look more closely in the Bill at how we can entirely cut out profiteering from the railways and at how we can procure our own rolling stock, making changes to end excessive profiteering by ROSCOs.
It would really be sensible for GBR to establish its own rolling stock company, ordering and owning its own rolling stock, taking advantage of low Government borrowing rates. That is what we should be striving for. In the short term, the RMT is calling for a profits levy on the ROSCOs. A 50% levy on pre-tax profits would raise £116 million a year in funds that could be used for much needed upgrades.
I want to highlight the enormous opportunity in rail freight, which often gets overlooked, particularly in my constituency at the port of Seaham, which is ideally placed to seek efficient, reliable routes to move goods in and out of the region. We have only one freight train a week coming in to Seaham. I therefore welcome that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a target for rail freight growth and place duties on GBR, Ministers and the ORR to promote it. A single dedicated rail freight business unit operating within GBR and working with rail freight businesses would, however, be an even more effective driver of long-term growth, integrated with, rather than competing with, the passenger railway. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine the benefits of such an approach.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Let me be clear from the outset that the Bill fails Wales. Last year, Wales voted decisively for change, and this is just another example of how that change will not be coming. The Bill fails my constituents, who rely on some of the most neglected rail lines anywhere in the United Kingdom.
For years, the people I represent have endured cancellations, painfully slow journeys, ageing trains and stations that would embarrass any modern transport system. The Marches line still runs on signalling technology that belongs in a museum. The Heart of Wales line—a lifeline for rural communities—has been crying out for meaningful investment for over a decade. What does the Bill do to fix any of that? Nothing. Instead, it centralises even more power here in Whitehall and offers Wales nothing more than a pat on the head and the promise of consultation. Consultation is what Wales has had plenty of for the last 30 years and look where it has got us.
Yet the real injustice is this: Scotland gets real power over its railways and Wales gets nothing. No power of direction, no power over infrastructure, no power over funding and not even a guarantee that Welsh needs will be taken seriously. This Government have gone out of their way to give Scotland the meaningful authority and yet Wales, a nation with its own Parliament and its own transport strategy, is told to make do with a memorandum of understanding—a document with no legal force, no accountability and no guarantee of action.
That inequality has real-world consequences. Independent experts told the Transport Committee that England will receive tens of billions in rail investment over the next decade, while Wales will receive only a few hundred million. That is a gap so vast that it can only be described as systemic neglect. Indeed, just this week, analysis by the Welsh Liberal Democrats showed that Wales is set to lose another £1 billion after Northern Powerhouse Rail was wrongly classified as an England and Wales project. That brings the total lost for Wales through that accounting trick to around £6 billion, while Scotland and Northern Ireland receive their fair share. Meanwhile, the Government expect Wales to be grateful for £445 million over 10 years. It does not take a maths genius to see that those of us in Wales are being short changed.
My constituents see the results every day: rural stations left behind, limited services, long commutes and opportunities missed. The rail network in Wales is not second-class by accident but is second-class by design, and the Bill entrenches that design. It hands the UK Secretary of State even more control over decisions that directly affect Wales, with no matching powers for Welsh Ministers to shape the services that our communities rely on.
Let me say this plainly. A modern railway for Wales cannot be built on scraps of power handed down from Westminster. Wales needs the same powers that Scotland already has, Wales needs fairness, not favours, and Wales needs the tools to build a railway network worthy of our own people. Wales deserves better than this Bill and as Welsh Liberal Democrats, we will not accept anything less than equality for our nation.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rail.
Rail is in Derby’s DNA. For decades, it has powered our community, moulded our economy and inspired generations of engineers and designers. I see the proof of that week in, week out, whether when meeting fantastic apprentices at Alstom, celebrating Railway 200 by bringing an incredible 40,000 people together in Derby for The Greatest Gathering or hearing how organisations such as Angel Trains, Loram, Porterbrook and many more drive forward innovation right across the sector from Derby.
As a proud Derby MP, I welcome the Bill. At its heart, it stands up Great British Rail and at the heart of Great British Rail is Derby. I was proud to campaign alongside so many others in our city who made the case for Derby to become GBR’s home. I am proud now to work alongside a Government that are committed to delivering GBR in Derby.
Despite our city’s proud rail heritage, manufacturing credentials and exciting future at the heart of UK rail, people travelling by train in Derby face the same challenges as any other commuters up and down the country. They know the frustration of paying through the nose for a train ticket only to find out that their train has been delayed or, even worse, cancelled. They navigate through confusing, fragmented ticketing systems, trying to work out if splitting a ticket will save them extra money or just end up causing havoc. I am pleased that through the Bill, our Labour Government are clearly saying that that is simply not good enough. GBR will put passengers first, whether that is through a new robust passenger watchdog with real standards and teeth or through simplifying and modernising fares with a common-sense, consistent approach.
I also strongly welcome the Bill’s requirement for the Transport Secretary to publish a long-term rail strategy. This will be good for the sector and especially good for Derby because, for far too long, rail has been in a feast and famine cycle, with boom and bust orders, factories standing idle and workers and their families left in limbo. Derby knows this story all too well, unfortunately. In recent years, we have had to fight for the future of Alstom, pulling together across our city and standing shoulder to shoulder with our fantastic trade unions to protect skilled jobs, but this uncertainty is no way to run an industry that thousands of jobs depend upon. We need stability, we need certainty and we need a long-term plan, and that is exactly what this strategy will provide, supporting our rail supply chain, protecting the thousands of jobs that depend on it and giving businesses the confidence to invest in the future. When Britain backs rail, Britain backs Derby and Derby delivers for Britain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Great Western Railway fares are 2.2 times higher than those of European operators for similar lengths. Rail users in my constituency will be all too familiar with this reality, regularly paying more than £100 for a return ticket to London. Since the Labour Government came into power, we have seen the power of the unions once again, with eye-watering salary increases but no expectations to improve productivity. This means that on the line down to Devon, contracts were not changed when salaries were increased. This would have cleared up the mess that is the lack of seven-day-a-week contracts. Try travelling to Westminster on a Sunday! The creation of Great British Railways is being held up as a panacea to any such issues with our railway. Having served the last year or so on the Transport Committee, where we have been tracking the progress of these plans, I remain unconvinced by the Bill.
I gave my maiden speech during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, the mechanism through which the renationalisation of the railway was enabled. What I said then about that Bill remains true as we debate this one. I said that it was
“a Bill that seems to indicate ideological time travel back to the nationalised railway system of the past and a mistaken belief that state-run institutions are the answer to all our woes. Our railway system needs to drive forward into the middle of the 21st century, not creep backwards to the 1970s.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 237.]
As a child of the ’80s, I remember the old British Rail. Aside from the excitement of travelling on a 125 between Plymouth and my grandparents in Somerset, I do not recall it being any better than the privatised system we have today.
In the development of Great British Railways, the Government must work with industry. There are real concerns that without a strong independent rail regulator, this Bill will squeeze out private investment. Great British Railways will become the second biggest employer in the country—hardly an agile organisation—and it will be calling the shots. As a result, the state-owned operator will be chosen over private sector rivals. The Office of Rail and Road will see its power significantly altered, and some might even say reduced, by this Bill. It is arguable that it will lose its teeth. I would simply urge the Government to keep passengers front and centre of the Bill, but I am not sure that the quango regulator that they are setting up will be in passengers’ best interests.
Private investment extends to rail freight, which is competing not only with state owned operators but with road haulage. The Rail Freight Group warns that the Bill risks driving the sector into decline, costing the UK economy up to £ 2.5 billion and adding 7 million additional HGV movements to the UK road network. While the Government have committed to introducing a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, supported by an overall growth target, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the duty will operate in practice and how it will ensure that GBR does not give preferential treatment to state-owned operators. Where the Bill places freight in the hierarchy of railway line use is critical, but it is not yet explicit on that, which is concerning.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is concerned, as I am, about how Ministers will square their responsibility to the trade unions—who, of course, fund the Labour party —with the producer interest, and whether she has any reflections on their past failure to get that balance right.
Rebecca Smith
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is that the very good conditions that private companies have been forced into by trade unions will end up TUPE-ed across to these state employees and, ultimately, the best conditions will be the ones that get delivered to the most, all in that huge new employer.
Many Members from across the House have highlighted the importance of connecting underserved areas, and nowhere in the country is that case more powerfully made than in the south-west. Before closing, I would like to highlight to the Minister two examples affecting my constituency. Both featured in my maiden speech, so I know he is familiar with them. I will continue to champion them, as well as the need to secure the railway line at Dawlish.
Many CrossCountry trains currently pass through Ivybridge station without stopping, because the platform is too short. That forces local people to travel by bus or car to Plymouth, Totnes or Tiverton, making rail travel far less convenient. I have secured with local stakeholders the funding for a feasibility study for the extension. That modest project would make a huge difference to our community and I hope it will not be hindered by the Bill.
I am also committed to securing a Plymouth metro, including plans for a station in Plympton in my constituency. Plympton’s 30,000 residents have been without a station for more than 60 years, and it would be transformative for that part of my patch. Both Plympton and Ivybridge have many residents working at Devonport naval base and at the growing defence hubs in Turnchapel and Langage. The Government have promised billions of pounds to the city as part of a defence deal, but if that deal does not include funding for transport, what is the point? I urge the Government to ensure a joined-up approach in delivering the railway that the city and surrounding communities need to deliver on the defence role that the Government want.
I support the efforts to improve our railways and to bring ticket prices down, but a simple return to a nationalised British Rail is not the answer. As Conservatives, we understand the importance of retaining a strong role for the public sector through open access, protecting rail freight, improving efficiency and providing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Many colleagues have been waiting for a while to speak. To enable me to get every colleague in, I need to drop the speaking limit to three minutes and encourage Members not to take interventions. The next person to speak will be Dr Scott Arthur with three minutes.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a wonderful surprise.
I am a huge fan of rail. Every week I travel to this place via rail, and on my usual train, I am able to get to London in just four hours and 20 minutes. Since I came to the Chamber today, I have had an email from LNER saying that that time will be decreased by 10 minutes, so already this Bill is delivering for people in my constituency. The journey is only slightly longer than the equivalent flight, though it uses 14 times less carbon dioxide and is 100 times more relaxing. Most of the time, the journey runs smoothly—LNER is publicly owned—but like everyone here and across the UK, I am familiar with the delays and cancellations that regularly disrupt our wider railway. That is why I welcome the reforms that the Railways Bill brings. It is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get our railway system back on track.
The creation of Great British Railways will put passengers before profits, simplify ticket purchasing and improve passenger accessibility across the network—something we have heard about already. The Bill also respects and preserves the devolution agreements concerning rail, giving Scottish Ministers the power of guidance and direction over GBR and ensuring that those changes directly benefit my constituents and the Scottish rail sector more widely. Importantly, the Bill will trigger the integration of track and train provision across the UK. That integration has been operating in Scotland for some years and does, for the most part, work well.
It is true that there are some points of concern around provision in Scotland, including regular cancellations and delays, but by and large the system works well. I have to say that the reason that rail is in public ownership in Scotland is due to years of campaigning by both the Labour party and our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. The relationship between Network Rail and ScotRail is one area where GBR could take note. It is an effective and joined-up relationship between track and train operators, and will be vital to a successful national rail service.
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a basis for Scottish and UK Ministers to work together and provide efficient cross-border services, and I look forward to seeing the memorandum of understanding, which will lay out exactly how that relationship will work. I look forward to supporting the Bill. I must say, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have asked for a lot of local improvements to be delivered via this Bill, yet they do not intend to support the Bill itself. They cannot have their cake and eat it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Talking of cake, I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My mission for my constituents is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Supporting and improving our train services is a vital part of delivering that.
On the changes that the Bill delivers for people across my constituency, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I will give an example of how much this means to them. Salesian school in my constituency takes in many children from the local and surrounding areas. They use the Chertsey to Addlestone branch line, which is one of South Western Railway’s worst-performing lines. As a result, they are very often late to school, and the school has to allocate teachers to the platforms for safety purposes, because the platforms become crowded when there are delays. That has serious material impacts on those children’s education. I am sure that that experience is replicated for schools across the local area.
The Chertsey-Addlestone loop is punished by level crossings, including in Addlestone and Egham. The Pooley Green level crossing has had downtimes of over 10 minutes, including just a couple of months ago. Constituents tell me that they do not go to the fish and chip shop and other businesses on the other side of the level crossing because of those downtimes. Whatever happens with the Bill, it is absolutely critical that there are improvements to the level crossings at Egham, Addlestone and across my constituency, so that we have data, such as from downtime monitors, to see the impact that the problem has on traffic.
We need timetabling that changes not in a click of the fingers but with proper consultation with residents about what is happening. That would mean proper train services for the children going to school in my constituency and the people who depend on commuting to get to work and to see their families. It would end the last-minute train cancellations that have seemed to be more frequent in the past few months. As a regular South Western Railways user—I live in Chertsey in my constituency—I see the impact that that is having on my constituents.
We also need improvements to accessibility. It is completely scandalous that the lift at Weybridge station is still out of service. Accessibility problems are not limited to lifts; they also affect stations themselves. Services need to be responsive to the needs of my constituents, but passengers are too often punished when engineering works take place on our tracks, causing traffic carnage for the weekend. Engineering works must be co-ordinated with local roads.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak today in this debate. I hope that the Bill marks the start of a new era for our rail system.
Bracknell’s rail links are its lifeblood, connecting us to jobs, friends, family and opportunities through lines to London and Reading, as well as to Gatwick airport from Crowthorne and Sandhurst. That is why I am so delighted that South Western Railway has now been brought back into public ownership, with Great Western Railway services to follow shortly. The renationalisation of our rail services will create more opportunities for growth, more opportunities for investment, and a rail service for the public good.
First, the Chancellor froze rail fares in the Budget, which means my constituents will save almost £300 on the cost of a season ticket into London, and now we are laying the foundations for a new, modern and joined-up railway system, owned by the public and run for the public. The new GBR livery revealed today, which proudly incorporates our Union flag in its design, is, I think, a powerful symbol of the national pride that we should feel in our railways, but which has, for many years, been undermined by high prices and low reliability.
Bracknell is already seeing the benefits of renationalisation, including the ongoing upgrade of the fleet on the Reading to Waterloo line. The new Arterio trains will provide 50% increased capacity compared with the outdated class 455 fleet, and will offer accessible toilets, air conditioning, charging points at every seat, real-time information screens, on-board wi-fi and walk-through carriages, meaning that more people can travel in better conditions every day. These trains were first purchased back in 2017 at a cost of £1 billion but have been stuck in the sidings. What greater symbol can there be for the failure of privatisation than that? I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me recently and for all his work to roll out this new stock.
I am also delighted that the Bill makes provision for GBR to take control of the timetable, as the current system has led to some inexplicable gaps in service. As the SWR timetable stands, after 9 pm there is only one service an hour from Bracknell to Reading. Trains from Reading to Bracknell are also reduced to an hourly service after 10 pm. Needless to say, that has a significant impact on the ability of Bracknell Forest residents to travel for work and leisure. Again, I call for that to be addressed.
The north downs line is deeply unreliable, and I know that Members across the House are concerned about the need to electrify it. The Minister knows that I care passionately about a rail connection to Heathrow airport as well, which is vital, and I know he cares passionately about delivering that along with private sector investment. On that, I will—
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I am proud to represent a railway town. Eastleigh has a long railway heritage. However, over the past year, my constituents have been subjected to lots of delays and cancellations, all while paying a premium for the privilege of travelling by train.
I agree that the current structure of the rail industry is too fragmented and in need of reform. A long-term strategy, clearer accountability and a coherent approach to infrastructure and operations are well overdue. However, one of the biggest tests of this Bill is whether it will improve services and increase accessibility and safety. I campaigned successfully to keep ticket offices at our local stations in Eastleigh open, because for many passengers, including disabled people, older travellers, the vulnerable and those with visual impairments, staffed stations are essential. Accessibility must be built into the system from the start, to ensure that people can travel with confidence. We need proper staffing arrangements, clear information, reliable lifts, step-free access and a design approach that works for all passengers, not just the most agile or those most familiar with the system.
Integrating rail infrastructure and operations under one public body is not inherently controversial. However, what the Government have designed here looks more like a top-down body answerable to Ministers, rather than a modern, customer-focused railway. We have seen what over-centralisation looks like in practice, and it rarely leads to better outcomes for passengers. How will the Minister ensure that Great British Railways is genuinely accountable to passengers, not just to central Government? To address the concerns of passengers, we need a much stronger and genuinely independent passenger voice in the system. People need to know there is someone who will stand up for them when services fall short.
I also hope the Minister will look at expanding discount schemes for young people. My constituency is lucky to have two fantastic colleges that draw students from across the region, with many travelling to Eastleigh by train. Keeping travel affordable is essential to allow them to access their education without the cost of the journey becoming an obstacle.
Eastleigh deserves a railway that is reliable, affordable and fit for the future. This Bill contains some welcome measures, but it needs to go further to bring about the transformation of Britain’s railways that our country needs and passengers deserve.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The desperately poor condition of our railway system is entirely symbolic of the wider decline in public services over the past 14 years. I regularly make the 10-hour round trip up to London from west Cornwall on trains that are often beset with delays, and a lack of water or heating. My constituents know and feel this all too well. Our one main railway line runs the length of Cornwall, from Penzance to cross the Tamar bridge at Saltash. It is a vital transport artery, connecting south-west England with Cornwall. As with many other pressures faced by remote coastal and rural communities, there are unique difficulties. Fewer trains stop at Hayle, for example, and bus services are generally suspended there at about 6 pm, cutting off communities to the west. To illustrate that point, due to a fault with the signalling system today, all trains from Penzance were cancelled.
Great Western Railway is currently operated by FirstGroup, but under this Labour Government’s rail reform programme, it will be brought back into public ownership and integrated into Great British Railways next year. This transition will ensure that decisions about Cornwall’s rail services are made in the public interest, not for private profit, and that passengers will see improvements in reliability, affordability and accountability. We need a railway that is better governed, and locally attuned and responsive to the people who depend on it, supporting growth in every region.
The revival of the railway system must be innovative and practical. I saw a great example of innovation a few weeks ago, when I attended the launch of a superfast wi-fi pilot on a GWR train. Advanced engineering and connectivity solutions, combined with leadership from transport authorities, will deliver a new benchmark and support a long-standing ambition to bring faster, more resilient wi-fi connectivity to Cornwall and south-west England.
In 2021, under the previous Government, a plan was published that included a recommendation for a new public body and a long-term strategy for rail, but the Conservatives failed to implement it. This Bill will remove friction and bureaucracy, which are endemic in the current system. We have an opportunity to sweep away duplication of roles and departments to produce substantial savings and a smooth service. We can free up resources, trusting rail staff to build a better system than the current bureaucratic, bloated and top-heavy organisational ecosystem, riddled with institutional incompetence.
This Labour Government will bring clarity where there was confusion, reliability where there was disruption, and affordability where costs were sky high. I very much look forward to supporting the Bill.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Green party welcomes the Bill. It is right in principle to end the failed, long experiment in surrendering public services to the private market.
We are pleased to see an extended role for the passenger watchdog set out in the Bill, and clear requirements for business plans and strategies to be published and consulted upon. I want the measures in the Bill to include deep scrutiny of those plans and strategies. Passengers, rail workers and locally elected representatives must use their voices to have more control over what Great British Railways offers, both in advance and during the development of these plans and strategies.
I am pleased that the duties laid out for Great British Railways include consideration for “potential passengers”. That will help to better include many people when they use the railways, such as disabled people, people with buggies, older people, people for whom toilet access is more than crucial and others for whom accessibility barriers are still too high on our railways. This and the public interest duty should help to create social benefits for people for whom the cost of rail travel is prohibitive, including young people, who need more connectivity and access to jobs and training.
However, the Bill still lacks on its face a specific duty to grow passenger numbers. We have an integrated transport strategy on the way, but the Bill contains a mode shift target for freight without including one for passengers. The Bill needs to say more about the need to plan for new capacity and services on the basis of creating maximum potential to reduce car dependency, to shift people away from the most polluting and socially unequal modes of transport, not just to respond to current demand or congestion on the railways.
Public ownership is popular with the vast majority of people. Before the last election, it was even backed by 60% of those who intended to vote Conservative. It is a strong desire for people in Brighton Pavilion, for whom the legacy of privatisation is too often one of expensive and unreliable services, with big gaps in accessibility. I believe strongly that local voices, such as those in Brighton, must be more in control of our public services. We need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services.
During the passage of the previous rail Bill, I argued that there should be public ownership of rolling stock companies. I understand that decisions are being made for future rolling stock not to be purchased through the evil twin of the private finance initiative. However, the fact remains that the current rolling stock is a scandal. Rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs—paid £275 million in dividends to shareholders in 2024-25, and those payments are up by 59% in five years. That is outrageous profiteering and a drain on public finances, so I urge the Government to cut that waste, find ways to bring our rolling stock into public hands and look at a windfall tax on the current ROSCOs to address this injustice.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I draw attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I rise to support the measures in the Railways Bill. I know that the measures will be supported by my constituents, who predominantly travel from the four train stations of Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Slade Green and Crayford, which are all located in my constituency. Three of those stations are solely served by Southeastern, with the benefits of nationalisation beginning to be seen on the service. For instance, in a new timetable that will take effect next week, the Bexleyheath line will see both additional evening services and increased capacity to Victoria at weekends. I appreciate that more remains to be done, and I will continue to campaign for improvements.
I have a long-standing interest in these matters, having served for four years as a member of the board of London TravelWatch—or, as it is technically known as and referred to in the Bill, the London Transport Users Committee. That experience lives with me, and it is the reason why I support the Bill. On far too many occasions at board meetings, I heard excuses from train operating companies and Network Rail blaming each other for issues relating to punctuality. That led to the lunacy of hundreds of staff being employed to establish who should cover the cost of delays.
Earlier this year, we saw the Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route unite under a single leadership team to form South Eastern Railway. The partnership is delivering improvements, with increased customer satisfaction and reduced cancellations. Initiatives include shared planning, daytime track access without service disruption, and trials of drone and AI technology.
I welcome the measures included in the Bill to help ensure that the railway is made more accessible for all. Hon. Members will have heard my tales of my experience using public transport as the parent of a wheelchair user and my requests for the introduction of a National Rail accessibility app. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State has named accessibility as one of the six key objectives for the railway.
Having one national operator, rather than competing operators, will improve the assistance offered and the simplification of ticketing for disabled passengers. Importantly, paragraph 49 in schedule 3 to the Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that the public sector equality duty applies to GBR. I welcome the Government’s road map to an accessible railway based around seven priority themes.
Finally, I welcome the establishment of an expanded passenger watchdog, having served on the board of London TravelWatch and having worked alongside Transport Focus on some aspects of joint working during that time. Those changes in London to the London Transport Users Committee include the expansion of the current role for my constituents, which will see a
“particular regard to the interests and needs”
of disabled people.
For the reasons I have outlined, I look forward to voting against the amendment this evening and voting in favour of the Bill on Second Reading.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Getting to grips with the railways by simplifying and integrating aspects such as freight, passenger services, ticketing and long-term planning is welcome. This Bill makes great sense for England. However, it does not work for Wales.
Currently, two Governments on either side of the M4 control different parts of what should be a single unified train and rail network in Wales. This bizarre split makes designing railways in the best interests of the people of Wales almost impossible. We can see that in the broken promise by Whitehall to fully electrify the south Wales mainline beyond Cardiff, or even to start work on the equivalent line in the north. This overlooking of Wales will only continue, as under the Bill Welsh Ministers can only request that Wales is consulted in long-term rail planning as part of an England and Wales strategy. The people of Wales do not want consultation; we deserve control.
Wales’s lack of control means that funding decisions from Westminster are made at our expense—an injustice that this Bill is silent on. With Welsh control over the rail track, Whitehall could no longer continue its perverse logic of designating English rail projects, such as HS2, Oxford-Cambridge Rail and now Northern Powerhouse Rail, as “England and Wales projects”. When combined, they deny £6 billion of funding to Wales. The absurdity of the situation would be laughable if it was not so serious. Not one of those projects has an inch of track in Wales.
While in opposition, the Secretary of State for Wales previously called for Wales to receive £4.6 billion in HS2 funding. She has U-turned on that and now celebrates only £350 million, which was announced at the spending review for Welsh rail over the next few years—just 5% of what we as a country are owed. While the money is welcome, it does not touch the sides when it comes to the decades and decades of underfunding that we have experienced.
It saddens me to say that this Government have decided to follow an age-old adage: “For Wales, just see England.” We are the only nation in Great Britain who do not have full control over our own rail network. Only last week, 11 Welsh Labour Members of the Senedd wrote a letter to the Prime Minister saying that expectations were raised by the Labour party in opposition that it would support the devolution of rail to Wales. Plaid Cymru is clear that Welsh rail should be in Welsh hands, and that it is time to devolve it to Wales.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In our part of the country, in Halesowen and the Black Country, we have a long history of building trains and railways. Indeed, in Stourbridge—just one stop down the line—Foster, Rastrick & Co. built the Stourbridge Lion, the very first steam locomotive to be exported to the Americas in 1829.
However, since the closure of passenger services at Halesowen train station in 1927, my constituents have had to travel to Cradley Heath, Old Hill or Rowley Regis to get on to the Birmingham-Worcester line that runs through Snow Hill. Sadly, the performance of that line is very poor—only 70% of West Midlands trains are on time, and 7% of them are cancelled. This means that my constituents are getting earlier trains so that they can ensure they catch their connection and get to their meetings on time. Frustratingly, that train route no longer goes into Birmingham New Street, so if my constituents need to travel to other parts of the country and make connections elsewhere, they have to walk for 10 minutes through the middle of Birmingham, from Moor Street to New Street.
In that context, I welcome the Bill, which puts Great British Railways on a statutory footing as the guiding mind of the system, giving us a single body that will be responsible for managing infrastructure, planning services and overseeing passenger operations. I also welcome the fact that franchising was abolished in November and that West Midlands trains will be brought back into public ownership in February 2026. Public ownership of Great British Railways gives us a chance to simplify objectives: run the trains on time, with enough seats and at a fair price.
I also want to highlight the midlands rail hub, which is a programme of improvements that will deliver real benefits for the people of Halesowen. Midlands Connect estimates that the scheme will deliver 300 extra trains a day in and out of Birmingham, with 20 million extra seats a year, providing many shorter and faster journeys on the Birmingham-Worcester line that my constituency runs on. It will mean more trains from Kidderminster and Worcester running through Stourbridge and past Rowley and Cradley Heath to Birmingham; more capacity at Moor Street, easing the pressure that ripples back down the line; and an opportunity for trains to run direct from my constituency into Birmingham New Street, so that people will be able to make their onward journeys up into the rest of the country.
The Black Country helped give our country and the world the railways, and my constituents are not asking for anything extravagant in return. They want a service that runs on time, with enough carriages, under a system in which someone is clearly in charge and accountable. They want the benefits of the midlands rail hub and rail nationalisation to deliver fewer cancellations, shorter journey times and a decent chance of getting a seat. If we get this right, not only will we honour our railways’ past, but we will finally give our constituents the modern railway they deserve.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with the things I welcome in the Bill and in what the Government are doing on railways. After increasing rail fares by almost 5% last year, it is very welcome that the Government have frozen fares—something that Liberal Democrats have been asking for for seven years. That is really positive, as is the Government’s investment in the new station at Wellington in my constituency—they deserve credit for that investment. It is important that the DFT is involved in that project, and I might write to the Minister after this debate to pursue this issue, because it is one of only a small number of new stations being built in the country, and it is really important that the project is seen through. There needs to be a recognition that the year of delay has increased costs.
I also want to say some words about the importance of open access rail providers. I am concerned about the provisions in the Bill that potentially make open access a lot more difficult. Go-op rail wants to open a route from Taunton through to Wiltshire, which would be very important. We also want to see opportunities for future investment in railways, including reopening lines. There is a heritage line from Taunton to Minehead that should ultimately be provided with a proper rail service. If it were, the West Somerset Railway would become an open access railway on the same line.
What is important to most of my constituents is not just seeing a new station like Wellington, but seeing a reduction in fares and an improvement in reliability. The number of services from Taunton has recently been cut in half, which means that people cannot get on the trains. What is needed is the form of investment that I have described, and moving the rail institutions over from the private to the public sector will not necessarily deliver the improvements that we need. I therefore remain to be convinced about the Bill.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak about a matter that is so important to my constituents. For too long, our railway has been held back by fragmentation, competing interests, and a lack of clear accountability. By bringing services back into public hands and creating Great British Railways, the Bill gives us the opportunity to plan, run and improve the railway as a single coherent system. For my constituents, a key priority is reliability. People want trains that turn up when they are meant to, connections that they can trust, and information on which they can rely. A unified, public operator, with responsibility for timetabling, infrastructure and service delivery, gives us the best chance of reducing disruption and building a network that works consistently, day in and day out.
A strengthened public railway also depends on the people who operate it. The workforce is essential to improving reliability and delivering a better experience to passengers. Staff deserve clarity about how, and if, the transition to GBR will affect their jobs. If we want a well-run railway, we must support the people who maintain the tracks, staff the stations and run the trains. I ask Ministers to continue the constructive dialogue with trade unions, in order to ensure that the employment conditions of their members are protected during the creation of GBR and into the future.
The need for a more co-ordinated railway has been brought into sharp focus in Durham recently. London North Eastern Railway’s proposed timetable changes would have removed important morning commuter services on which many local residents rely. I worked closely with local people to challenge those plans, and I welcome the progress that has been made, but the experience showed how vulnerable local connectivity can be when decisions are made in isolation, or via flawed consultation processes. Communities must have certainty that key links will be protected, strengthened, and not placed at risk.
The Bill gives us a chance to build a railway that is more reliable, better connected, and more focused on meeting public need. I support it strongly, and I look forward to working with Ministers to ensure that, as it progresses, it delivers the improvements that passengers in Durham expect, and the support that rail workers deserve—including my niece Kate, who has just started her training with Northern Rail. I look forward to her getting me to King’s Cross and back to Durham on time, and safely, in the future.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This summer, when I was travelling by train to a bus conference, I managed to lose my bag. I did what everyone in that circumstance would do and panicked slightly, because my purse and my keys were in it, along with my House of Commons pass. I thought, “Who on earth do I contact?”, because I was not entirely sure where I had left it. Had I left it on the train? Had I perhaps left it at the station when I was changing trains—and, indeed, which train might I have left it on?
All the station staff were very helpful. They all pointed me to different online forms, and I have to say that my faith in humanity was absolutely restored about two weeks later, when everything was found, all of it still in the bag. I received an email saying “Come and collect it.” I paid my ten quid and got it back. Then, about three weeks later, I received another email, this time from Transport for London—which I had also contacted—telling me that unfortunately my bag had not been found, and they had finished the search for it. That, I think, is just one illustration of the fact that we have a completely un-joined-up railway. I was struck by the five mentions of competition in the Bill and the absence of any mention of standardisation, which is what I think our passengers are really after.
I have a couple of other points on which the Minister might be able to provide a bit of commentary. As mentioned by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), clause 18 lacks a target for passenger growth. Although that might be missing, I very much welcome the inclusion of the phrase “potential users”, which feels very much like the idea of “prospective” passengers that I tried to get into the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill but did not.
I really welcome the five-year stability for infrastructure funding, but could we extend that to operations? I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on whether schedule 2 will allow Ministers to cut funding mid-period too easily. On devolution, I hope we will soon get guidance on how mayoral combined strategic authorities will be able to get the necessary powers. How will they get a devolved railway? There are many references in the Bill to mayoral strategic authorities, but perhaps the wording should sometimes be “mayor”, because it is important that we actually consult the democratically elected person. Finally, on data being open by default, will the Minister assure us that all ticket sellers will get exactly the same data that GBR gets? All in all, this is a fantastic Bill, so we are all on track—full steam ahead.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I must declare an interest: I have been a railway geek since childhood, travelling up and down the country, and I am a member of my local rail user group. I personally kept both Hornby and Bachmann train models alive for several years, and I now torment my son by taking him on the Severn valley railway far more than he would prefer. I also declare my membership of the ASLEF parliamentary group, and I am a regular commuter who did not recognise the railway utopia described by the shadow Minister.
Those interests, both personal and formal, only strengthen my belief that the Bill marks an important moment for our railway network and for the people who rely on a fit-for-purpose service. For too long, passengers have lived with the consequences of a fragmented railway system divided among multiple operators, with split responsibilities, inconsistent priorities and a lack of clear accountability. The result has been a network that too often fails to meet the needs of commuters in Redditch, who just last week faced every service being cancelled on the morning because of poor weather.
The Bill brings together track and train—Network Rail and the passenger operators—under one coherent structure. This is the most significant structural reform of our railways in a generation, and it restores the principle that the railway should operate as a single integrated system. Passengers understand this, and those who work on the railway understand it. Organisations such as my local railway user group and ASLEF have long campaigned for an integrated national system, and consistently argued that our railways simply work better when the parts work together.
The Bill delivers simplicity. Today’s railway involves a bewildering array of actors—there are 17 different organisations with overlapping responsibilities. This structure does not serve passengers, freight customers or the taxpayer. Great British Railways will bring clarity. There will be a single guiding mind, a single organisation responsible for the railway’s performance, and a single body accountable to Parliament and the public. That alone will improve the experience of millions of travellers.
The broad implications of the Bill are clear. It introduces long-term planning, strengthens freight, modernises ticketing systems and ensures that the railway is accountable to the public it serves. Too often, my constituents in Redditch have suffered from cancellations and poor service. On top of the investment in the midlands rail hub and the freezing of fares, the Bill lays the foundations for an integrated railway that works for passengers and the staff who keep the system running every day. It is an important and necessary step towards building a railway worthy of the future of this country.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government are simplifying a very complex system, so that we can take forward a railway that is fit for the future, and I really welcome the measures on timetabling, tickets and the merging of the 17 bodies. I also welcome the 30-year long-term rail strategy, which is a fantastic idea.
Rail is so vital in Cornwall, but the main line is slow and badly designed—sorry, Brunel, but it goes to the wrong places and is very poorly defended. We do, though, have successful and busy branch lines in St Ives and Falmouth, and we would like more of them. We have just had a pilot of wi-fi on trains. We may have very slow trains, but we would like very fast wi-fi. If that could be rolled out across the south-west, it would really help us on those 10-hour return journeys.
The staff, who are fantastic, will probably have a single employer, but it would be good to have that confirmed. There is also insourcing rather contracting out, particularly on cleaning and food—and my goodness, do I make a plea for the return of the buffet, so that we do not just have the trolley that goes up and down, but which people can never get to.
I want to focus most of my speech on how much I welcome the duty to promote the role of rail freight and set a growth target for rail freight. I want to set out a huge opportunity for the Minister and the Department for Transport. In Falmouth, we have a beautiful multi-use port; uses involve defence, repair crews, I hope floating offshore wind in the future, and exports. We also have the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in Cornwall, with a £50 million strategy from this Government. That will lead to a great requirement for freight transport, but each train would take 129 lorries off our narrow Cornish roads. We have the full support of our businesses, chamber of commerce and council, and we have an enterprise zone. As a next step, we need a feasibility study, but for a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, we could open up the 150 yards to Falmouth docks for rail freight. That would be a step for the future; critical minerals could come into or leave Cornwall, and we could grow our economy, as we would love to.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
One of the most special moments of my first year as an MP was singing ABBA on the Penistone line train with the wonderful We Can Survive Singers, while travelling through my beautiful constituency. This line is the spine connecting south and west Yorkshire, running between Huddersfield and Sheffield. It courses through eight constituencies, serves over half a million people, and connects six hospitals, four universities, several further education colleges, and hundreds of schools and GP surgeries. It laces together communities with rich histories, vibrant high streets and industry with huge potential.
When I was growing up, our south Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ broken promises resulted in an unacceptable north-south transport divide. On the day that the previous Conservative Government announced that the money for Network North was going to be spent on potholes in London, three out of the six Penistone line services were cancelled. What about Reform? The Reform Members have not even bothered to turn up to this debate. They do not care about rail, but this Government do.
I am thoroughly delighted to support this Bill to take back control through Great British Railways, to deliver improvements for customers, and to take long-term decisions in the national interest. Those at the Penistone Line Partnership are brilliant advocates for our local line, and their voices will be strengthened by the Bill’s introduction of a new passenger watchdog, which will set tough standards.
This Labour Government’s Bill—along with the work of our Labour mayor, Oliver Coppard, and local councils —provides the opportunity to restore the transport network, so that it is once again the envy of the world, including by delivering phases 1 and 2 of the Penistone line upgrades. Our Labour Government have already begun to power that change with our £48 million investment in phase 1, and phase 2 is much needed.
We must go further and fulfil the recommendation of Lord Blunkett’s Yorkshire plan for rail, which includes delivering two trains an hour. South and west Yorkshire deserve better than the once-an-hour service we currently have on this line. It is crucial that the second stage is covered in the next spending review to ensure that my constituents in Dodworth, Silkstone Common, Penistone, Chapeltown and all the places in between can get to college, university, hospital and employment. My constituency helped to build the prosperity of this great nation, and it needs this line’s second upgrade to ensure that it is once more the beating heart of rail.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
After years of falling standards under the Conservatives, this Labour Government are investing in our railways. Anyone who commutes from Lichfield to London, as I do every week, will have seen for themselves how sorely needed that is. We have all had trains cancelled and re-routed, and been crammed in with standing room only. The Bill, creating Great British Railways, is the biggest overhaul to our rail system in a generation. GBR will run our trains, set the timetable, and control the track, stations and depots. It is about putting our railways back squarely in taxpayers’ hands—a public service under public control.
GBR will be a step change compared to some of the difficulties that my constituents, in places such as Fradley, Handsacre and especially Streethay, have had with HS2—years of delay and disruption under the last Government. This Government are putting new management in place at HS2 to sort it out and I know my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be holding them to account, just as she will be holding GBR to account. It is really important that we get this right, because the failings of HS2 Ltd have been so significant for so long. Continuing with the way that the previous Government ran our railways is clearly not the way forward, especially when we look ahead and at the wonderful project that is the midlands rail hub.
GBR will give taxpayers control over the railways and projects such as the rail hub by investing record sums in upgrading the network. That project, almost £1 billion, will mean that the clogged Birmingham New Street will have its capacity significantly increased, allowing 300 more trains to run through the city each day. It will unlock huge increases in the number of services across the midlands and beyond. This is amazing news for people in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, especially those who use the cross city line, which links Lichfield to Birmingham and is the busiest commuter line outside London. Since covid, we have had only two trains an hour. The midlands rail hub will help us get that back to the four we need.
Beyond that, Labour believes in our railways, publicly owned and run for people, not profit. No longer should shareholders benefit while passengers suffer poor service. I really want to see every single pound from tickets reinvested in great services and further expanding our rail network.
In my area, the next stage of rebuilding our railways really does need to be getting a passenger service back on the line from Lichfield to Burton and Derby, and a new station at Alrewas for the National Memorial Arboretum. The arboretum is our national centre for remembrance, but public transport links to it are extremely limited. Opening that line up and reinvesting what we can from a publicly owned railway service will connect people to jobs and take pressure off our roads. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has heard me make the case BEFORE and she will hear it again. I will keep pushing the business case for that line under a new publicly owned railway service.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
And now we turn, at last, to a fundamental question which has perhaps gone unasked in this House for too long: what is the mass and acceleration of an average-sized peacock? The question does not spring from the pages of a script for “The Goon Show” or “Monty Python”. It is a real case that came before the rail industry’s Delay Attribution Board.
A delay caused by a collision between a train and a small bird is the responsibility of a private operator, which pays the cost of compensation, but if the unfortunate bird is deemed to be large, then taxpayers are on the hook. And so it came to be that one day expensive lawyers gathered to compare calculations and precedent, and argue out whether the unfortunate peacock was more akin to a goose than a duck. Few incidents better illustrate the costly absurdities of rail privatisation.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that the cost of privatisation is borne by all taxpayers, whether they use the railway or not. The railways received nearly £700 million in subsidy in 1990-91. By 2018-19, before the pandemic impaired the industry’s finances, the net subsidy requirement had increased to £4.3 billion—an increase after inflation of some 236%; more than doubling, even after passenger journey increases had been accounted for. To this day, subsidy is lower in Northern Ireland, where the railways remained in public hands.
Everywhere, the railway’s contingent parts are divided and separated by contractual barriers. For passengers, that can mean station staff who cannot even board a train to help someone with mobility issues, because they work for different companies. There is a multiplicity of such unnecessary contractual barriers, and public money and public confidence drains through each one.
We should not expect a complete change of services on day one of operations under GBR, as there was not on the Attlee Government’s vesting day for nationalisation in 1948, but change over time it will, and for the better, including for my constituents who travel from Longbridge, Northfield and Kings Norton. The Bill is the instrument of that transformation.
Tonight’s vote is on the principle of establishing Great British Railways. In the weeks ahead, there will be time for detailed line-by-line scrutiny, to which I look forward to contributing, including through the Transport Committee. But for tonight, I just want to say that there can be no doubt that this is the right policy and the right Bill. It has been a privilege to have had the occasional view of the development of this area of transport policy down the years. I look forward to voting for it tonight.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
As we mark 200 years of our railways, it is fitting that we are embarking on a new chapter in their history. They continue to be an integral part of the story of Britain, as I am reminded every time I visit London St Pancras, which helped Burton upon Trent to become a brewing powerhouse. Below platform, passengers walk where Burton beer barrels were once stacked high—a reminder of the importance of our railways in shaping the very fabric of Britain, and of course supplying punters with the very best beer.
Great British Railways will be the new guiding mind of our railways, joining up operations and putting passengers at the heart of the rail service. Particularly important is the Bill’s focus on disabled people, who must currently navigate a network of inaccessible stations and who constantly worry about whether accessibility services will be in place. Our railways are and must be for all.
My constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter borders what will be the new home of GBR, Derby. Putting aside our rivalries for a second, that will bring benefits to my area and the wider region, and build on 185 years of rail expertise. The long-term rail strategy will be the first of its kind in setting out strategic objectives over the next 30 years. Just as in defence, we are creating an always-on supply chain. I welcome that long-term approach, which means we can bring security to rail workers and prevent the cliff edge that has affected workers in Derby and Newton Aycliffe. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) would like to see the return of the InterCity swallow livery, but delivering improved passenger services must be the priority; that is what this Government will be judged on.
The Select Committee has heard concerns about rail freight, which have been addressed today, particularly in relation to clause 63. We also heard concerns about the operator appeal process as set out in clause 68, which is equivalent to a judicial review; some of the evidence we heard suggests that that is a very high threshold.
The Railways Bill is exactly the change that my Burton and Uttoxeter constituents want to see. With public ownership, we are taking a long-term approach to the railways, with investment through GBR putting passengers and railway workers back at the heart of their railway. In 2027, CrossCountry and East Midlands Railway will come into public ownership, and it will not be long until the people of Burton and Uttoxeter will see the benefit of a publicly owned railway. Right now, the reality is that people face unaffordable tickets, unreliable or cancelled services, inaccessible stations and overcrowded carriages. For many of my constituents, those are barriers to railway travel. The Bill is about changing that. It is how we keep the promise we made in the election to get our railways back on track.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This has been a very popular debate with a lot of contributions; I congratulate all those who managed to make their points in just three minutes. I will do my best to summarise the debate, starting by noting the excellent contributions from Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) brilliantly managed to discuss a Railways Bill by referring to ferries, but he did make the serious point that we want pragmatism, not ideology, to reform the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) made the good point that, through nationalisation, the taxpayer now has to replace private investment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made three important points: that the reforms simply advance the sprawling centralisation of powers; that, again, they involve practicality giving way to ideology; and that their drafting puts open access concessions at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who is a member of the Transport Committee, was concerned that this was ideological time travel that takes us back to the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that, post nationalisation, cancellations of South Western trains had increased on his Chertsey-Addlestone loop.
There were also many thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Democrats. It is telling that the Government’s insistence on nationalisation as the only answer has united the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is worth noting that we have heard nothing from Members of the fag packet party, who, I think, still support nationalisation. Then again, however, they would not recognise a transport policy if it slapped them in the face.
Then there was Labour, with speech after speech welcoming the nationalisation of the railways—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Bring it on. In speech after speech, they showed deep suspicion of the profit motive. The tone was set by the Transport Secretary, who said that the current system benefits companies over passenger services—as though the two things are mutually exclusive—and taken up by the hon. Members for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), with claims of profit prioritised over customer experience, large-scale profiteering on the railways and dividends prioritised over people. I could go on.
This is the authentic voice of Labour: the private sector is not good—not good in the way that the state is good. The private sector invests to make a return, not to create unionised jobs. It innovates to make a return, not to satisfy a Government productivity goal. It innovates to beat the competition and make a return, not to satisfy a ministerial target. However, it does invest, it does innovate and it does improve to compete. Nevertheless, Labour clings on to its ideological faith in the efficiency of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary—and there is evidence. After all, we have tried this experiment before.
Laurence Turner
When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes, will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again?
Jerome Mayhew
Let us wait to see if Labour actually nationalises it first; but the Conservatives are here to lead, not to follow.
There is plenty of evidence because we have tried the nationalisation experiment before. The railways were nationalised in 1948. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they might learn something. When the railways were nationalised in 1948, there were a billion passenger journeys a year. Thereafter, the impact of nationalisation was immediate: year after year, fewer customers chose to use the trains; year after year, they voted with their feet because the service did not give them what they wanted and was not focused on them and their needs. There was low investment because the railways were competing with schools and hospitals, followed by poor industrial relations with an organisation more focused on itself than its customers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), says from a sedentary position that it was because there were more cars—let us just hold that in our minds.
By the 1990s, just 735 million passenger journeys were taking place a year, instead of a billion. In 1993, the system was privatised by the Conservative Government. The unions hated it, and Labour therefore hated it, too. However, every year, more and more passengers were attracted to use the trains—not just a few more, but vastly more. By 2019, 1.75 billion people were using the railways each year—and there were many more cars. Labour cannot explain it; it should not have happened, but it did.
If the purpose of the railway is to carry passengers, any rational observer must conclude that privatisation beat nationalisation hands down. Why? Profit is made only by attracting customers. Train operating companies focused on new and more trains, more services, innovative ticketing and customer service, and people voted with their feet.
The railways are a complex system where capacity is limited and costs are high. It is absolutely crucial to drive efficiency, maximise the scarce resources of track access and drive value for money with dynamic management. Can hon. Members think of a nationalised organisation that is a byword for management dynamism and efficiency anywhere, in any country at any time? I cannot either. If poor railway management is the problem, nationalisation cannot be the solution. Why is it that socialists and the fag packet party are such bad learners?
Graham Stuart
The Minister responding to this debate represents Selby. One of the great successes of the open system has been Hull Trains, which provides a fantastic service from Hull, through Selby, down to London, and then back again. Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that open services such as Hull Trains will be crushed by Great British Railways and the Minister, despite whatever he may say?
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend is right. If Members read the Bill properly, they will see that it spells the death knell for open access.
It is true that the last few years have exposed serious weaknesses in the train franchise model. The separation of track and train created perverse incentives—I accept that. Too often a lack of effective competitive tension allowed there to be poor services. Changes to the DFT contract meant that franchises were encouraged to overbid, leaving them financially vulnerable to any downturn. This Bill was the golden opportunity to address those issues, but the Government have messed it up. Instead of keeping the best and fixing the rest, we have a damaging return to 1970s state control, with 1970s industrial action likely to follow.
The Government are already finding out that money does not grow on trees, that merely saying that they are in favour of growth does not make it happen, and that funds from hard-pressed taxpayers are not limitless. Their plan replaces private investment with taxpayers’ money, drawn away from schools and hospitals and Labour’s ever-growing welfare bill. Their plan replaces railway management teams with civil servants, increasingly micromanaging operations, who will have powers to direct GBR across all its functions.
Then there is that trademark socialist arrogance: gone is the independent economic regulator, for the gentleman from Whitehall knows best. GBR will mark its own homework, save for a toothless passenger council that has no enforcement powers. It will not just mark its own homework but decide whether to allow any competition against itself. It will decide how much to charge its competitors, limited only by how much it thinks they will be able to pay. GBR, on the other hand, will pay no charge at all. The right of appeal is not to be allowed on the merits of a decision, only on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
The Bill marks the end of competition on the GBR rail network, and it is such a shame. This could have been transformational. It could have solved the tensions between the operation of track and train. It could have refined concession and franchised contracts, removing the micromanagement of DFT officials. It could have solved the stop-start funding approach by National Rail and its dysfunctional control periods. It could have focused relentlessly on benefits to passengers and the taxpayer.
Instead, we are seeing a Government floundering at 14% in the polls, whose Back Benchers are in open revolt against their own leader, and whose union paymaster, Unite, is discussing disaffiliation in the press. This is a Government desperate to shore up their fading support. They are sacrificing the future of our railways on the altar of left-wing ideology. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members demonising profit as a motive for economic activity. Do they have any idea how the productive economy works? Ideology before practicality, state direction before dynamic management, and union demands before passenger demand—no, no, no.
I ask colleagues to support the reasoned amendment in my name and help put this bad Bill in the bin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate? My response is centred on a strong belief that if somebody takes the time to say what they think about our railway, for whom it should be run and in whose interests, they should be listened to, because it is going to make clear whose side they are really on. This Government’s loyalties are clear. We are proud to be creating through this Bill a united Great British railway run for and by the British people. Our ambitions are clear for all to see. We want to end the miserable era of Tory disruption and delay and make travelling on our railway simpler and fairer.
What reactions have we produced? What passions have we stirred? Many colleagues across the Chamber have spoken in support of the Bill’s provisions but asked meaningful and searching questions that it is our responsibility to answer.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?
Keir Mather
I carefully noted what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I will come to accountability, and if she thinks that I do not cover her point, she is welcome to come in again.
I will start with accessibility, which 11 hon. Members across the House raised, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. The Bill sets out a passenger and accessibility duty, ensuring that GBR promotes the interests of passengers, including in particular the needs of disabled persons. I have heard the calls from colleagues across the House about the importance of the Access for All scheme. In our published accessibility road map, we commit to continuing that programme; work has already been completed to roll out step-free routes to 270 stations so far.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) raised the important matter of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand the passenger experience through its research and investigation functions as well as its access to complaints and performance data. It will use that to advocate for passengers, set tough consumer standards for the railway and advise the Government and GBR.
Many hon. Members pointed to the critical importance of freight to UK growth. The Government are committed to supporting rail freight growth across the United Kingdom. Freight operators will benefit from a legal duty for GBR to promote freight. The sector will also be championed within GBR by a representative on its board with responsibility for freight. There is also a requirement for the Government to set a rail freight growth target for GBR, so insinuations and accusations from the Conservatives that freight does not sit at the heart of what GBR is designed to do are flatly wrong.
With Christmas coming, I am afraid that I need to turn to my naughty list. The Conservatives have painted a dystopian picture this afternoon: they have told us to imagine a railway where the needs of the passenger come last; one that is plagued by disruption and poor management, strikes and shutdowns. My answer could not be clearer: the British public do not need to imagine a rail service on its knees, because for 14 years they have been living with one.
Let me turn to the points raised by Opposition Members. First, on cost, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked whether we need to reduce the subsidy. Absolutely we do; hon. Members will not hear me say anything else. The way to do that is to ensure that somebody is finally in charge of running our railways in a cohesive and united nature, saving the £150 million that the public pay to private operators every single year. The cost of establishing GBR will account for just 1% to 2% of the operating budget for a single year. That, alongside the Government’s other rail reforms, could unlock up to £1 billion in efficiencies by the end of the decade, alongside the £600 million in savings for passengers in the fare freeze that is being introduced next year for the first time in 30 years.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the important point of open access services, and a Back-Bench contribution noted that I get Hull Trains every single week to Selby. I know how important open access is, and I want to reassure the House that it will have a role as part of the establishment of GBR. The Government are not opposed to open access, and the idea that GBR is bad for open access is simply false. We believe that, under the right circumstances, GBR can in fact create more opportunity for all towns and all operators by reviewing the network holistically with a view to how it might work better under our new, reformed system with open access playing its part.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that Hull Trains will be grateful for the passionate way in which the Minister made its case. Would he be open to amendments to the Bill that would look again at that balance? As the Bill is currently drafted, it looks as if GBR can just squeeze out the open operators—it has all the power and they have none.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member and I have a philosophical difference on the question of track access. It is critical, if we are establishing Great British Railways to manage access, that it has the full ability to do so. It will be regulated by the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that its access decisions are fair, but the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to make sure that open access can continue and continues to provide incredibly important support to communities such as mine.
I turn back to the point about accountability, which is incredibly important, to set out some of the ORR’s functions and to tackle some of the disinformation coming from Opposition Members. The ORR will continue to be the sector regulator and the Bill will enhance its monitoring role. It provides independent advice to the Secretary of State, it will enforce GBR’s licence, its industry obligations and its minimum standards, and it will work with the passenger watchdog to make sure that passengers are once again at the heart of our railways. The ORR’s accountability function is hardwired into the Bill.
Wendy Morton
To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?
Keir Mather
I have no doubt whatsoever that the right hon. Lady is perfectly capable of holding her elected mayor to account on rail infrastructure within her constituency, but she will also be able to do so through the passenger watchdog.
Time is short and I must address the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. It claims the Bill does not grow rail freight when in fact it contains two specific duties that require GBR to do so. It fails to engage with the reality that the Bill places the ORR at the centre of GBR’s functioning and allows open access to continue to play a vital role on our railway. The amendment is, frankly, as intellectually stunted as it is ideologically blinkered, and I urge Members across the House to reject it.
I am disappointed to say that we have received the news throughout this debate that the Conservative party will vote against Great British Railways and say no to its only chance to right the wrongs that it has committed. Let me therefore spell out to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that if they decide not to vote for the Bill tonight, they will be working against the interests of passengers across the country and their right to have the railway that they deserve. The Conservatives and their former coalition partners will have to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they want to continue the insanity, bureaucracy and waste of 17 different organisations running our railway instead of one united service; why they want to deny passengers a one-stop-shop app with timetables, tickets and accessibility support literally in the palm of their hand; and why they want to waste the opportunity of changing ticketing to take advantage of the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years.
Siân Berry
To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?
Keir Mather
That is critical. GBR will be set up as an organisation to facilitate as many people as possible to use our railway. Wanting to grow passenger numbers is inherent in what we are doing, but we do not want to do that in a way that overly congests the railway and is not strategic. That is something we will work on. Parties will also have to explain why they want to waste the opportunity to take this reform forward.
In sum, I ask everyone in this House to support the Bill, to seize the opportunities and to show the public whose side they are really on. This Government know who the Bill is for and who we are for: we are for passengers and not profit; we are for the commuters, the football fans, the hen parties, the grandparents and the rail enthusiasts; we are for everyone who gives our great British railway its distinctly British personality. If Members across the Chamber want to join us in that mission, I look forward to seeing them in the Aye Lobby tonight. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
The Chair
I remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the timetable and the time available, however, I hope to take those matters formally, without debate. Time Witness Until no later than 10.10 am Network Rail; Office for Rail and Road; DfT Operator Ltd Until no later than 10.35 am Keith Williams; Richard Brown Until no later than 11.25 am Transport Focus; Transport for All; Campaign for Better Transport; London Travel Watch Until no later than 2.40 pm First Rail; Rail Freight Group; ALLRAIL Until no later than 3.05 pm Trainline; Independent Rail Retailers Until no later than 3.30 pm Transport Scotland; Welsh Government Until no later than 4.10 pm Angel Trains; Railway Industry Association; Siemens Mobility UK Until no later than 5 pm Urban Transport Group; The Mayor of Greater Manchester; The Mayor of West Yorkshire Until no later than 5.20 pm Richard Bowker Until no later than 5.40 pm The Department for Transport
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 January;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 January;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 February;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 February;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 February;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 February;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 20 January in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clause 12; Schedule 2; Clauses 13 to 86; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clause 87; Schedule 3; Clauses 88 to 93; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 12 February.—(Keir Mather.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee
shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Keir Mather.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee
shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Keir Mather.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
The Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household (Nesil Caliskan)
As outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of the trade unions Unison and GMB.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As it says in my entry in the register, I am a member of the unions ASLEF, Unison and GMB.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
As it says in the register, I am a member of GMB, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Community union.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As outlined in my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of GMB and USDAW. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
As per my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
As per the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union and vice-chair of the APPG on rail.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am also a member of Unite the union.
Examination of Witnesses
Jeremy Westlake, John Larkinson and Alex Hynes gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jeremy Westlake: I am Jeremy Westlake, chief executive of Network Rail.
Alex Hynes: Good morning. I am Alex Hynes, chief executive of DfT Operator Ltd.
John Larkinson: I am John Larkinson, chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Q
John Larkinson: May I add one thing to that? When an appeal comes to us, there are various things that we can do. For any appeal, we can in effect send the decision back to Great British Railways and ask it to reconsider. In doing that, we could also in effect direct it to look at particular issues. That is the first thing that we could do. On our ability—I think this is probably what you are coming to—to substitute a decision, or in effect to require a different decision, that is extremely narrow indeed. That comes back to the judicial review principles.
In my mind, that is because the bar is set very high. It comes back to the broad intent of the Bill, which is to make GBR a directing mind and to give considerable power to GBR. Alongside that, the intent of the Bill is in effect to empower GBR to learn from its mistakes: things are put back to it and it gets a chance to reconsider. What the Bill does not want, however, is for someone else like us to say, “No, the decision should have been this.” It comes from the intent of the Bill, I think.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: A second look? We can look at whether GBR has followed its processes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Judicial review principles are things like irrationality and illegality—it is very, very narrow.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Absolutely, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: They are very narrow, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Using words like “strong” is quite difficult in the context of it being an appeals process that is designed to fit with the underlying model, which is a directing mind for GBR. Therefore, as you correctly say, our ability to override a GBR decision is very narrow indeed. I agree with your description—it is a very narrow role.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: That fits again with the idea that things go back to GBR to reconsider; it is all put back in GBR’s court. That is the fundamental design, as I understand it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Q
Jeremy Westlake: I will kick off by bringing us back to the duty that GBR, along with the Secretary of State and the ORR, will have to make best use of the network. Network capacity is constrained, so we have published an access and use consultation document setting out how this would work in practice. First, capacity allocation must be set out so that the market can see what capacity exists and what it might be used for, and to reserve capacity for those uses. Clause 63 then deals with how GBR will prioritise its services. The first duty is to allocate capacity for best use. Clause 63 kicks in later to define how GBR will actually do that. You define best use first.
Keir Mather
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, the Bill contains a provision for rail freight growth. That is set out already by Government, and I think the Transport Committee and the rail Minister have set out how that will still be a target. We will therefore have a duty to grow rail freight, and rail freight will then fit within the capacity allocation processes. We are actually doing a lot of work, as it stands today, to make sure that we are promoting rail freight growth, including how you might discount the charges for access to the network to encourage new freight flows, or invest in freight infrastructure and the like.
Keir Mather
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, I think it is well set out. When you look at how GBR will fulfil its functions, it will do that with regard to long-term strategies for rail, and I think those will set out various roles as well. Personally, I think the balance is about right; you actually want to have multiple consultations and checks and balances in the system, so I think it works.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Jeremy Westlake: On the first one, about being an effective system operator, in principle, yes. What the Bill intends GBR to have to do will also require it to grow its capabilities in these areas, particularly in how it does capacity allocation. So the Bill has the intent, but GBR will need to develop key capabilities to fulfil it.
Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that one of the benefits of the system envisaged by the Bill is that Great British Railways, the ORR and Ministers will work to a set of aligned duties. The creation of alignment across all industry parties is an important part of the Bill, and those duties are essentially the criteria that we will use to make decisions in the future. One of those key duties is to promote the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, and of course the interests of passengers include affordability—the price paid by passengers. I therefore think that we will see a more coherent decision-making process for the railway. The key policy intent here is the creation of a directing mind—under public ownership—for the railway, and the Bill sets out how we will do that.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Alex Hynes: Not from my perspective. Obviously, the sooner it gets Royal Assent, the sooner we can start creating Great British Railways and delivering the benefits of having a directing mind for the railway.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, we are very much looking forward to being headquartered in Derby. I have lived in Derby for 17 years and I think it is a wonderful place to have a centre for the rail industry; let me start with that. The work we are doing now is to define the internal organisation structure for Great British Railways, including its operating structures, divisions, integrated business units and network functions. That work needs to conclude before we can come back to you more clearly on the size of the HQ in Derby.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
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.
Rebecca Smith
Q
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.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge.
These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers.
Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.
Laurence Turner
Q
Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,
“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—
in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?
John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at.
Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: We have to progress it now, so it is not conditional on the Bill in the slightest—the target is set now. We are getting on with it. It will be different with GBR, because we are dealing with a different organisation, but that is some way into the future. I have probably two years of work to do on this before we get to that point.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: At a high level, they are largely non-comparable. The Northern Ireland railway is very small and has a very simple system. I remember the conversation I had with the people there when we first took on that role. Our regulation is proportionate to the size of the system. That means it does not cover safety: it is only an economic regulator. It is very narrow and focuses almost entirely on separation of accounts and issues like that. It really is not comparable.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: I think this is the thing: in theory, yes, but in practice there are very few issues that come to us as a result of that role in Northern Ireland.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: We have a very specific role there because, effectively, the safety management system has to be revalidated when that transfer is made. It has not been debated much by the board because it is all going extremely smoothly. We have done our role effectively on that: we have hit our deadlines and all has gone according to plan in terms of the transfer of safety responsibilities. I will be saying that again at the board next week.
Laurence Turner
Q
Alex Hynes: Shadow GBR continues to meet very frequently under Laura’s chairship, and it is really helping to drive alignment and convergence between the Department for Transport, DFTO and Network Rail in this pre-GBR state. Whether it is developing a leadership academy for Great British Railways, looking at where the Great British Railways headquarters is going to be, in Derby, or working with the mayoral strategic authorities on how GBR will work in partnership with said organisations, it is helping to drive the alignment of the industry in this pre-GBR state.
On 1 April, about 200 civil servants will TUPE transfer out of the Department for Transport and into DFTO. One of the things that Jeremy and I are doing is trying to get our organisations and teams—of course, there is lots of good will in this area—to work together as though we were GBR, so we can start capturing the benefits of a more integrated railway system in advance of GBR. That is going well. It is Jeremy and I working together that is enabling us, for example, to put integrated leaders in place.
You talked about the public ownership programme, which I agree is going well; I pay tribute to John’s colleagues, who work well on the safety aspects of the transfer. Jeremy and I are working—in fact, we are discussing it this week at shadow GBR—on whether and when we can put integrated leaders in place, once we have brought the businesses into public ownership, to make track and train work together and create a single point of accountability by having one person in charge for certain chunks of the railway.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
Alex Hynes: The answer to that question is yes. GBR will be required to take into account places’ local transport plans, and there is a process by which partnerships exist, particularly with mayoral strategic authorities—that obviously does not include everywhere, but does include some places. There is also a right to request mechanism, by which people can request further devolution from GBR to their area. There is very much a place-based focus on devolution, because the whole philosophy of GBR is that, other things being equal, decisions made closer to where rail services are delivered will be better than those made hundreds of miles away.
I also think that the combination of the creation of Great British Railways—a unified, publicly owned railway for the nation—with the Government’s intention to publish an integrated national transport strategy and the changes that are happening in the bus market will very much enable us to join up transport modes in places, so that we can deliver a better service to customers.
The Chair
This will probably be the final question; this session has to end by 10.10 am.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Alex Hynes: GBR must take into account local transport plans.
Jayne Kirkham
Regardless of the type of authority?
Alex Hynes: Correct. Essentially, GBR will have a legal duty to take into account certain things, such as the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, so GBR will be required by law to take into account what is in the best interests of passengers as it is running its business.
Jeremy Westlake: There are other mechanisms that we use to ensure local engagement, such as the local railway initiatives that we have done in Cornwall and Devon. In terms of engagement with local stakeholders, I will be going down to meet Luke Pollard MP in Plymouth next week. We actually have different mechanisms for different types of railway so that we can ensure that we have taken the accounts of users onboard.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
John Larkinson: I would probably go one step further back than that. I see us playing a very crucial role in establishing the plans in the first place. If GBR is setting up its integrated plan, covering track and train, I would expect there to be a process—indeed, we are already designing it—that builds on the processes today, when we focus very much on Network Rail’s business plans. Normally, there is engagement at a very early stage on the scope of the plans and how they fit with the Secretary of State’s objectives. We would expect, and indeed plan, to be involved in the plans at a further stage back than the monitoring of their delivery, on a forward-looking basis—that is, we will ask whether the plans are likely to be delivered, rather than waiting to see whether they have been delivered or not.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
John Larkinson: Yes.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First, I would say that friction is quite useful because it drives you to look at where you might want to invest to resolve some of the issues. The whole question of capacity allocation is actually driven by the fact that it is limited. The friction will lead us to develop better investment cases to satisfy demand. I do not see it as problematic, in fact; that process is supposed to drive us to make proposals to Government for investment.
The Chair
We have two minutes and 30 seconds left if anyone wants to creep in and get a response to any further questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Q
Alex Hynes: Yes is the short answer, because the current consumer landscape in rail is fragmented. Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and ORR each have a role. The Bill creates a single watchdog for passengers that has more power and resources. My understanding is that MPs will be able to refer matters to it. Essentially, it puts all the passenger-facing consumer obligations into one organisation and strengthens the accountability that Great British Railways will be subject to in the event that it delivers sub-standard service.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
John Larkinson: From our point of view, some of the things that we do now will transfer over to the passenger watchdog. That is a straight transfer. The Rail Ombudsman is a contract that we let. Effectively, in the future, that contract would move over to the passenger watchdog—that is very clear. When the passenger watchdog finds a problem and wants that problem resolved, and cannot resolve it with GBR, the enforcement role is with us. The Bill effectively aligns enforcement in a number of areas through us, through the licence. That will be done through the licence, so that provides a very clear role when the passenger watchdog wants to move something across. There will be a process to deliver that and we are working with the watchdog on how that will work in practice.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
John Larkinson: When it comes to some decisions that are on the way, there will still have to be a balance—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Keith Williams and Richard Brown gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Brown: My name is Richard Brown. I have 43 years’ experience in the industry, nearly half of which—19 years—was with British Rail before privatisation. I was a director of the InterCity business unit before privatisation. I set up and ran one of the train companies’ privatisation and National Express’s trains division, which had five franchises. I moved on to Eurostar as chief executive and then chairman. I have also been the Government’s special director on the board of Network Rail, and a member of the board of the Department for Transport itself. In 2012, I carried out a review of franchising for the Department.
Keith Williams: My name is Keith Williams. In September 2018, I was appointed independent chair of the Williams rail review. I was appointed largely because of the failure of the system in May 2018. As independent chair, I led the rail review from 2018 to 2023, effectively. It was then the Williams-Shapps review, which came out in 2023.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keith Williams: When we did the review, the real focus was on passengers, to be honest. I was asked a number of times: “Is it nationalisation or is it privatisation?” I left that to one side because from my perspective, it was the better running of the railway, which is the structure that is now in place. To some degree, during the course of the review, franchising had been seen to be failing, and that was one of the premises of the review at the beginning.
Of course, what happened in the intervening period was that covid came along, and that changed everything, so everything was de facto put back into public ownership. To a large degree, we were agnostic on that. However, if you look at the railway even today, parts of it are run in the private sector and parts of it are run in the public sector. As I see it, public ownership was accelerated through covid and through the end of the franchising, which in my period was due to end in 2029, so it was a long way off. Obviously, that was brought forward because of covid.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keith Williams: From the Government?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, from Government rather than GBR being the director.
Keith Williams: No, the way I see it is that, actually, there is a good segregation of functions within the system now that were not there previously. Again, if you look back to 2018, the failure of the system was in part brought because every decision went back to Government. The Secretary of State finished up having total responsibility for the timetable fiasco that happened in 2018. That is when we came to the review. One of the clear things we wanted to do was to get a segregation of functions, which I think the Bill successfully does. It holds good to the review in that respect.
Government are responsible for strategy—and hopefully longer-term strategy than we have seen in the past—then they hand the operation down to the people who can run it in the interests of passengers and customers, with strong regulation, safety and a public ability to react when things go wrong. I think that system is very good. I come from a business background and in some ways it echoes what I see in business: a board sets the strategy and then passes the management down to the CEO and the people who run the business. I am not concerned about backseat driving to that degree.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Brown: Do I think what, sorry?
Jerome Mayhew
Do you think they have the balance right here? How do we drive value for money for taxpayers given those very significant constraints on competition?
Richard Brown: Yes, I do. I think the balance is right. Putting everything together into GBR makes it the single directing mind. It will be up to GBR and its integrated business leaders to strike the balance and deliver better value for money. There is a lot of duplication and friction in the current system, which I think is one of the things that Keith Williams was highlighting in his review.
The accountabilities are very strong with this Bill. GBR is accountable to the Secretary of State, but is also regulated and overseen by the ORR and the passengers’ council, and has a responsibility to mayoral authorities. First and foremost—I think this featured in the previous discussion—the integrated business units and their CEOs, or whatever they are called, will be accountable to their local towns, communities and passengers. There are strong pressures and forces created with this Bill to actually deliver value for money for taxpayers, as well as for passengers.
Keith Williams: Can I add one thing, there? Even in my time on the review, one of the things that started was bringing track and train together again. That allowed cost simplification, but it also enabled GBR to get a full picture of the revenue and costs of running the railway, which previously did not exist. It was surprising to me, on the review, that getting the costs together was an enormous exercise and a bit of guesswork, because the costs were in so many different areas.
Keir Mather
Q
Keith Williams: It is a great question, because that, to me, was fundamental to the better running of an integrated transport system. I was listening to the earlier questions, and the advantages of bringing in the mayors and local authorities are twofold. First, there is deciding what the appropriate mechanism for running transport is in their area. I visited Manchester, where you have light rail, heavy rail and buses, so you need to make a decision as to which you are going to promote. In my opinion, that was better done at a mayoral level than a central level. That is one aspect.
The second aspect is integration. We looked at systems overseas and—guess what?—you find that the bus comes to the station, the train starts and then stops. That did not exist in the UK, and bringing the mayors and local authorities into that decision making was hugely important for running an integrated system.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Richard Brown: I think the Bill talks about a 30-year strategy and the Secretary of State having responsibility for producing that. There will be a degree of evolution, because when you are running an organisation, you need to be the person who is, if you like, giving birth to the strategy, in very close collaboration with your shareholder—if this was a business. The Secretary of State’s strategy will set the long-term objectives about what the Government wish to see the industry do, and then it will be up to GBR to produce the business plans, whether you call them business plans or more detailed strategies, about how it is going to deliver that. I am quite sure that, putting everything together, there are plenty of people in the industry who desperately want to produce a longer-term strategy for rolling stock procurement, electrification and reducing carbon impact, and they are frustrated that it is very difficult to do it now because of the range of parties involved.
Keith Williams: I come from the airline world, and the problem there is that you buy an aeroplane and it lasts for the next 30 years. Rail is very similar: you operate the rolling stock, and that is a long-term decision. I was surprised that decisions were set over five-year periods, because the decisions that you make today partially define the future for a much longer period than five years. Again, a problem of running an airline is that you order the aeroplanes and unfortunately the market declines because of economic factors, commercial factors or whatever. You are therefore taking long-term decisions—that is not wrong—but within those you sometimes have to change direction because of the situation that exists at the time. The classic example of that in rail is franchising: franchising worked while the railway was growing, but once it went ex-growth, franchising came under pressure, and then obviously more pressure when covid arrived.
Sarah Smith
Q
Richard Brown: Yes, I do. There are clear duties placed on the passengers’ council, for instance, to produce standards for accessibility. Those can then be enforced by the ORR or by persuasion with GBR. The improvement of accessibility is mentioned at several points in the Bill as a duty or responsibility or something that is important, and as something to be taken fully into account in planning and developing investment schemes. I think the Bill actually provides greater impetus on that score, but this is a long-term thing. There are railways with platforms and track such that you have to cross over the track to get from one platform to the other, and there has been a long-term programme of investment to try to improve accessibility with things like lifts. This needs to carry on, and ideally at a faster pace.
Keith Williams: One of the disappointing things for me, when I did the review, was that we did not really know what accessibility was. We actually had to do an audit to look at where we had accessibility to begin with, and I would encourage you to keep the pressure on that one. It is one thing to have an audit of what does and does not exist, but the next thing is to prioritise what really needs doing going forward. I think that is part of the longer-term strategy for the railway, which is in governmental hands.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Q
Richard Brown: Unless you have a long-term strategy, you will always be condemned to short-term decision making. If you are running a business, you might have a 10, 15, 20 or even 30-year strategy, and you will need to change and adapt that according to circumstances at the time.
What I think is very important—Mr Williams has highlighted it—is that the railway assets are long-life. The trains have 30, 35 or 40-year lives, and the signalling and track last even longer. If you do not have that long-term strategy for investment and the sorts of things that you are planning to buy, taking account of new technologies, you are condemned to short-term decision making, which, to an unfortunate extent, is too often where we have been.
Edward Argar
Q
Richard Brown: In terms of governance, they have to be accountable to the chief executive of GBR, who has to be accountable to the Secretary of State. You could say that one of the complexities of the Bill is that there are a number of accountabilities. If you are running a regional or local railway, such as Southeastern trains in Kent, particularly given GBR’s responsibility to consult with and take account of local transport plans, you cannot avoid developing a relationship with the towns, communities and mayoral authorities on your route, as well as the passenger groups. If you do not, GBR will move you on to another job, or even get rid of you.
I have run business units like that within British Rail and in privatisation, and I think the local focus is a really important feature. That is why I am really encouraged by what is happening: as each franchise comes to its end, where it can be merged with the local route management of Network Rail, it is being done very quickly. That can happen across the piece when GBR is fully up and running.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keith Williams: It is a great question. The issue, of course, is cross-border; for example, trains go from London into Wales, and similarly into Scotland. Giving total devolution was something that we looked at. There is so much cross-border traffic that you need to take that into account, so we left the devolved positions largely as they were.
Richard Brown: The Bill is pretty clear in setting out the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. In practice, these things will always need to be based on collaboration between the different organisations, which is the way you run a railway. There are inherent tensions between, for example, what the Welsh Government might want in terms of cross-border services and what might actually be affordable and in the interests of passengers, competition for capacity use, and so on. All of that will be within GBR to, not adjudicate, but work its way through, produce solutions and, where there are options, put those to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government, for instance.
Out of that will possibly come a compromise, because not everybody will get what they want from the railway. There are too many competing people wanting different things from the railway. The great news is that all of that responsibility to co-ordinate and produce a plan for the most effective use of capacity for the different users is put on one body rather than being split between the Department for Transport, ORR and Network Rail, as it is now.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Q
Keith Williams: I encourage you to work with your MD to put forward the best plan, which will then go into GBR’s overall plan and there will be a set of priorities. There are always going to be priorities. In a sense, in the past one of the failures was that that then went to the Secretary of State, who was making most of the decisions, because everyone else was avoiding making a decision, or absolving themselves of doing so, and sometimes the best decisions were not being made. I think there is a much greater likelihood that the priority list will be set by somebody who knows how to run track and train.
Edward Morello
Q
Keith Williams: They will still have to sign it off, but hopefully they will leave it to the people who know what needs doing to do it.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Keith Williams: I think it absolutely does. That was at the heart of the review. Customers’ main complaints were about punctuality and cancellation. Bringing track and train together ought to solve that issue.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Richard Brown: I did not actually say that franchising was broken; I said that it needed to be substantially improved. Frankly, having reread my review before this session, I think the complexity of the review proved too difficult for the Department to manage effectively, and I think it is past its time, so I do not think it is not relevant to the current discussion.
The Chair
Order. We have reached the end of our allocated time. I thank the witnesses for their time today.
Examination of Witnesses
Alex Robertson, Emma Vogelmann, Ben Plowden and Michael Roberts gave evidence.
The Chair
The next panel consists of representatives of Transport Focus, Transport for All, the Campaign for Better Transport and London TravelWatch. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? We will start with Emma, who is joining us by video link.
Emma Vogelmann: Morning, everyone. I am Emma Vogelmann, the co-CEO of the disabled persons organisation Transport for All.
Alex Robertson: I am Alex Robertson, the chief executive of Transport Focus.
Ben Plowden: Good morning. I am Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport.
Michael Roberts: Good morning. I am Michael Roberts, chief executive of London TravelWatch, the statutory watchdog for the travelling public in London. I should perhaps add that between 2008 and 2015, I was chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, otherwise known as ATOC. For the latter two years of that tenure, I was also director general of the Rail Delivery Group, which was an early attempt to bring track and train together.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
“to promote high standards of railway service performance”,
itself defined in clause 18(3):
“‘railway service performance’ includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services—
(a) reliability…and
(b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding.”
My question about that definition of service performance, which is very narrow, is for everyone, but I will start with you, Emma. Are you concerned that the focus is primarily on reliability and overcrowding? What about comfort, heating, wi-fi, food, frequency, cost and all the other good stuff—and disability access?
Emma Vogelmann: I completely agree that accessibility really needs to be explicit in the requirements set out in the Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes of the past in having accessibility not explicitly enforceable and not having it in the Bill as much as possible. Disabled passengers already experience accessibility being deprioritised in the name of efficiency and other considerations. We absolutely agree that it needs to be considered.
Ben Plowden: I certainly echo that point from Emma about accessibility. The broader point is that in the absence of any duty on GBR to grow passenger demand over time, which we might come back to, one can imagine a scenario in which, in meeting those two specific duties on passenger service standards, GBR might be incentivised to improve reliability on a route by reducing service frequency and then to deal with the crowding duty by pricing people off the network.
Jerome Mayhew
That would be rational.
Ben Plowden: It would be perfectly rational, and I understand from media reports that that may indeed be what is happening on the west coast main line. It seems to us that you either need to broaden the number of things that GBR must take into account in terms of passenger service standards and/or introduce a growth duty, which would help deal with some of the other issues.
Michael Roberts: I believe that the impulse should be to try to improve the passenger experience in the round, including all the things that you mentioned, such as accessibility, as Emma said. My personal view is that the place for that to be expressed in detail, potentially through targetry, is through a combination of the long-term rail strategy and the business plans over five years.
Jerome Mayhew
Neither of which we have seen.
Michael Roberts: Correct, and I think the Committee would want the reassurance of understanding what content covering this aspect will be in those documents, as it considers whether the Bill is appropriately written.
Alex Robertson: I agree with a lot of what has been said, particularly the point that accessibility must be a top priority of the railway in the future. How you achieve that is the question we are looking at now. As Michael said, the business plan, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s duty to consult us and others on those, and to do so transparently, are where you will make sure that the railway focuses on the things that are most important to passengers.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Plowden: The Government’s own documentation acknowledges the benefit that independent ticket retailers have brought to customers in terms of competition, ease of buying tickets and so on. The Government intend managerially to separate GBR’s ticketing and retail operation from its commercial and operational arm. It seems to us that if the Government are not willing to set up a stand-alone ticketing operation, as SNCF has done, it is important to hold GBR to the same standards as the independent operators in terms of how it does fares and ticketing. It will be required to comply with ORR guidance on ticket retailing, but that is simply about how it engages with the other retailers. Clearly, it should operate on the same terms as the independent retailers, and there should be independent regulatory oversight to make sure that GBR does not use its position as the core ticketing provider essentially to crowd out the other suppliers.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Plowden: We would. In particular, it should be subject to the code of practice on retailing that the ORR issues, rather than simply guidance on how it deals with its relationships with the other retailers.
Jerome Mayhew
Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion?
Michael Roberts indicated dissent.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
Alex Robertson: You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come.
Emma Vogelmann: An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions.
Ben Plowden: It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
Alex Robertson: Yes, definitely. We are already in dialogue with the ORR about its change in responsibilities and the transfer of functions from it to us. We will put in place an MOU to make sure that works in practice. We are comfortable with it. As you will have heard from the earlier panel, it aligns very well with our general consumer functions, which I think makes sense. Having one single enforcement body on the licence in the new system also makes sense.
Olly Glover
Q
Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.
Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.
Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.
On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.
Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.
Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.
Daniel Francis
Q
Alex Robertson: I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out. I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans.
You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done. We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that.
Michael Roberts: There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach. It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later.
Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world. We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role.
Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.
We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.
Joe Robertson
Q
Ben Plowden: As we heard in the previous panel, the provisions in the Bill for GBR to engage with and to take account of the strategies and interests of communities in the regions and localities are very important, because understanding of anomalies is likely to be much greater closer to where they occur.
Whether the Bill could require the list of people that GBR is required to engage with to be extended—for example, to ferry operators—to make sure that services, including the planning of timetabling and fares or ticketing, were more properly integrated, is an interesting question. I do not know how you would do that in the Bill, but certainly the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and local authorities in this process will help. It is an interesting question whether the Bill could make specific provision for the additional transport providers and operators that GBR would need to engage with to achieve that integration.
Emma Vogelmann: At Transport for All, we very much look at every journey as multimodal—exactly what you were describing. We have found through our research that interchanges, specifically those between modes of transport, are one of the most significant barriers that disabled people experience on any journey. Where in the Bill this could be dealt with is a really interesting question, but as well as integration with other transport modes, such as ferries and so on, we also need to look at the immediate surroundings of stations, where I do think this Bill could have some influence.
We know that disabled people may not use a particular station because, although it is step-free, there is no blue badge parking around the station, meaning that there is no way for them to get safely to it, or there no dropped kerb to allow them to use that station. If we are going to look at journeys as multimodal, we really need to see this as an opportunity, potentially in this Bill, to look at the areas surrounding railway stations themselves.
Alex Robertson: I do not know what could be changed within the scope of the Bill to directly address your issue. It is partly a question of how effectively local transport is integrated, and then how that integrates with national transport.
I did want to mention that we are passenger watchdog not just for rail, but for buses and the strategic road network, and we look at it through the lens that has already been talked about. Emma particularly highlighted that the perspective we would bring is to ensure that, when decisions are made and priorities are set, they are thought about in the round—how they affect people in their door-to-door journeys—and not narrowly in terms of rail.
Joe Robertson
Q
Alex Robertson: We do not.
Michael Roberts: Your question prompts a slightly different line of thought from me. I apologise, because my focus is very much on travel in and around the capital, rather than the Isle of Wight, as important as it is. I have a concern about the extent to which the provisions in the Bill about fair and open access to GBR’s assets—the future of its track and signalling systems, for example—may compromise the degree to which effective integration can happen in the capital. I say that because TfL runs a significant number of services over GBR assets today. The busiest line in the country—the Elizabeth line—is a GBR asset that is run by an operator that is mandated by TfL. The London Overground runs over GBR assets, and so do parts of the London underground; if you are a user of the District line or the Bakerloo line, you are using GBR assets.
The ability of TfL and the operators under its oversight to have fair and open access to those assets is extremely important to the travelling public, in whom I am particularly interested. I know that open access is a broader issue, rather than a London-specific one, but, for the Committee’s deliberations around that, I would flag that it is not immediately clear from a London perspective that the provisions are strong enough to give TfL, for example, the comfort that it will have the degree of access that it wants, to continue providing those services effectively.
Sarah Smith
Q
Ben Plowden: Clearly, in broad terms, GBR will be incentivised to increase passenger demand, not least because of the revenue that would flow from that, as well as its ability to deliver its other duties, such as the public interest duty. It seems odd to us that there is a difference between the way that incentive is expressed for passengers versus freights; there is a very clear requirement in the Bill to promote the use of the network for the carriage of goods and for the Secretary of State to separately set a freight growth target.
We think that, for consistency, and to give a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use alongside its commercial incentives, there should be an equivalent duty to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers, and a separate duty for the Secretary of State to set a growth target for passenger demand over time. The Secretary of State will obviously need to determine that growth target in the light of financial circumstances, network capacity and all the other things that will determine what could realistically be achieved. But, unless there is a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use over time, we think it may find itself perversely and unintentionally, or at least in terms of its other duties, reducing service frequency and crowding people off the network through fares, because of the specific requirements about passenger service standards that we discussed before. I think it would be very helpful in the drafting to provide an equivalence for GBR for passengers so that is like the freightduty.
Sarah Smith
Q
How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?
Ben Plowden: Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network.
Emma Vogelmann: In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements.
Alex Robertson: I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that.
We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business.
The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made.
Michael Roberts: I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Emma Vogelmann: Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it.
Alex Robertson: We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that.
There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that.
I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Ben Plowden: I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on.
One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Emma Vogelmann: From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation.
Alex Robertson: It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right.
There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Alex Robertson: Absolutely not. The ORR will have a role to play in highlighting progress against that. We would have a role in being consulted—we have to be consulted in the development of the business plan—and our duty to reflect the interests of disabled passengers would be at the forefront of our mind as that happens. Obviously, GBR will be accountable to the Secretary of State for how well that plan is delivered in practice. I have said before that a very important change that we will need to see through the creation of GBR is how GBR is held to account in public. Those targets will be public, and it will have to account for how well it is delivering against them.
Michael Roberts: I have a lot of sympathy with where Emma is coming from. When one thinks about the experiences of disabled travellers, which are regularly reported in the media, you can understand why there is a wish to have as much certainty and traction over whatever commitments are made. Having said that, I think that the arrangement that you have indicated could be made to work. I am mindful that in London, the mayor has a transport strategy. In that, he has set out targets that TfL are delivering against for improvements to the number of step-free tube stations. For example, the strategy includes a target to reduce the difference between the time a journey takes for somebody with reduced mobility and the time it takes for somebody who does not have those impairments.
It comes down to making sure that there are the resources to back up the targetry in the plans, that there is an energetic passenger watchdog ensuring that GBR and the industry more generally are doing what they are expected to under the plans, and that the ORR is ready to enforce if and when necessary.
Edward Argar
Q
The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do?
I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed?
Alex Robertson: That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it.
You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do.
Emma Vogelmann: From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is.
We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some.
I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure.
Ben Plowden: Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration,
Michael Roberts: You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public.
I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.
Laurence Turner
Q
Alex Robertson: I do not know—I mean, I really do not know. We never got as far as having the Railways Bill in Parliament; we are fundamentally redesigning the railway, and that creates a different framework and a different set of responsibilities. I do not know; I have struggled with that question a little.
Ben Plowden: The Government did say, in their response to the consultation, that there are two reasons why, having considered the possibility of a passenger growth target, they decided not to include one. One reason was that GBR would be sufficiently incentivised through a whole variety of other means to increase passenger demand. The second reason, which I think is less convincing, is that it might lead to infinite growth over time in principle. Clearly and logically, that is possible, but the point is that the Secretary of State would set a growth target that would seek to strike a balance between what is feasible and practical, and what could be afforded in terms of taxpayer investment. It seems to us that neither of those arguments necessarily stands up, and that logically you would want to include a passenger growth target alongside the freight one.
Laurence Turner
Q
Ben Plowden: I see.
Laurence Turner
A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not.
Alex Robertson: I do not think I have a particular problem with freight—we represent passengers, and we have looked at it from a passenger perspective. I am comfortable that passengers are sufficiently represented in the Bill as it currently stands. That is the easiest, most direct answer I can give you.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Emma Vogelmann: Hopefully. That is my one word answer.
Michael Roberts: Not by itself.
Ben Plowden: In principle, for sure. It is subject to various changes that we have discussed during the course of the session.
Alex Robertson: I agree with Ben.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Does anybody have anything to declare? No. We will now hear oral evidence from First Rail, Rail Freight Group and ALLRAIL. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
John Thomas: I am John Thomas, policy director of ALLRAIL.
Maggie Simpson: I am Maggie Simpson, director general of Rail Freight Group.
Steve Montgomery: I am Steve Montgomery, managing director of FirstGroup’s rail division.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Q
Maggie Simpson: We are really concerned about the scope and definition of the appeals function as proposed in the Bill. We know that Great British Railways wishes rail freight to succeed. There are positive provisions for rail freight at the beginning of the Bill, but GBR will be a vertically integrated, incredibly powerful monopoly that, quite rightly, will be very focused on its own trains. This legislation will last for a long time, and the behaviours and actions of people today may not be mirrored in future Administrations or at future times.
Our members—businesses across the country that rely on the railways for their supply chains—are really concerned about ensuring that, if things go wrong, they have an effective right of appeal. The provisions in the Bill set an incredibly high threshold—judicial review standards—for bringing an appeal. Even if it is met, the actions that can be taken are such a high bar that it is very unlikely that a decision would ever be overturned, and future Secretaries of State can by regulation, through the negative procedure, set out even more steps and fees. We are really concerned that that is weak. It is a backstop provision; we would only need to use it if things went wrong, but if it is not any use, it will deter people from investing.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Maggie Simpson: On capacity allocation in particular, as well as the points I have just made about the appeals function, we have a conflict between two clauses in the Bill. The capacity duty in clause 63 sets an incredibly powerful requirement in law for GBR to keep capacity for its own trains and any trains it wants to run in the future. We have sought assurance from the Department for Transport on how that duty and clause 60, on the infrastructure capacity plan, work together. The Department has told us that its intention is for the capacity duty to be subservient to the infrastructure capacity plan, where an assessment is made of the best use of the network, but that is not what the law says. We would like to see it clarified that the value-based assessment of what is the right use of capacity on the network is done first, and that GBR is then able to assure the capacity afterwards.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Thomas: First, I will say that the policy intent is quite clear. One of the DFT’s supporting documents to the Bill is quite clear that one of the definitions of a duty on GBR is for it to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. Network Rail’s recent access and use policy document also made it clear that GBR would have to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to suggest that.
It is really important that there is something on the face of the Bill to say that GBR needs to be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory in its decision making. I think that would be in the best interests of customers and communities, and it would give our members confidence to continue to invest, rather than just relying on the taxpayer to make investments.
The reason I say no is that there is no such provision on the face of the Bill. Going back to Maggie’s point about appeals, I think it would really help the appeals process if there were provision for GBR to be non-discriminatory in making decisions; otherwise, what are appeals going to be based on? They will be based on GBR’s own policies, and if it can discriminate against other services, what is there to appeal against?
In addition, the ORR will lose its ability to hear appeals on the basis of taking into account the benefits of competition for users. We think that is wrong. We think that an open access appeal could never be successful if that provision were taken away, so we advocate adding it back in. The ORR should have a duty to take account of the benefits of competition. Clearly, it has to take into account other matters, as it does currently, including the funds available to the Secretary of State, but if it does not have the ability to take account of the benefits of competition, how is an open access operator ever going to be successful in any appeal?
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Steve Montgomery: I agree with everything John and Maggie said. The challenge we see as a private sector operator is how you get anybody to invest in the industry with the lack of clarity in the Bill. As John alluded to, there is reference by the DFT in the memorandum of understanding on the Bill, but nothing in the Bill itself. That makes it very difficult to go to a board and say, “Look, we want to invest in these things.” What certainty do you have for the future?
An awful lot has been made of open access as we have gone through this process. It would take up 1% of overall capacity, but it is held out there, in the commentary, as one of the major plays in the Bill. We think that open access brings the opportunity for competition, which we seem to have lost with some of the wording in the Bill. How do we make sure that there are better services for customers? That is what we all want and what GBR is setting out to do, but how do we make sure that we all have a fair chance when bidding? We have talked about the access situation. GBR can decide not to give access, and the ORR has very limited powers to hear an appeal, so where is the confidence for the private sector investment that the industry continues to cry out for?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Q
Maggie Simpson: We have been very clear that we welcome those provisions. We are grateful to the Rail Minister and his team at the DFT, and to your own team, for their commitment to freight. That is really good but, with respect, I have been around a long time and I have seen circumstances in which Secretaries of State and Rail Ministers have not been as keen on freight, or perhaps have been more keen on road freight and less keen on rail freight. We have seen situations arise through different political times and economic circumstances.
When I am looking at the Bill, I am looking at whether it works today, with a Government who are supportive of and promoting freight, and at whether it would it work in the future, with a Government, of whatever colour, who have a different view. We have to look at it through that lens because we legislate for the long term. It is really difficult, because you are saying to people who are trying to help you, “Actually, I don’t like this.” That is an emotional tension—of course it is.
The duties and provisions in the Bill are great— I would not want to be going into GBR without them, and I think they will be powerful—but they are doing a lot of heavy lifting. We are going into a very different cultural environment. GBR will think about its own trains first; it has to for it to succeed—that is kind of the core. We are going into a very different access arrangement and a very different set of parameters, and it is entirely possible that they could go wrong and that we would need the recourse of the appeal function. They might not, but we need to know that it will work if they do. Having a strong appeal function will help it to work, because GBR will know that if things do go wrong we have that recourse in law.
Keir Mather
Q
It is important that we clarify that GBR has to set out what it means by “best use” before we get into questions of the capacity duty. It has to have due regard for freight in the network, open access in the network and the provision of passenger services before the capacity duty is triggered. That means that GBR has to deliver the services it has identified as being necessary to run the railway effectively, but the appeals process is enormously important. Do you think the fact that freight operators would be able to appeal GBR’s interpretation of “best use” in relation to its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of freight, provides a safeguard to ensure that freight is considered when GBR is deciding what constitutes best use of the railway overall?
Maggie Simpson: I think my children would use the phrase “gaslighting”. I have read the Bill many times, and I cannot see in law that the capacity duty is subservient to clause 60 on the infrastructure capacity plan. I understand that that is the intention—I have heard it from the Rail Minister, yourselves and Network Rail, and I get that; there is a lot of work to do on the access and use policy, and we are engaged on that and want it to work—but it is not what the Bill says, and therefore a future Minister or Secretary of State could interpret it very differently and say, “Look, GBR, we don’t like your infrastructure capacity plan, so we’re triggering clause 63—get those freight trains out my way.” I do not expect that from the current Administration, but we need to square off that hole in law, in my opinion. If that is the intention, let us say so.
On how that infrastructure evaluation—that capacity analysis—is taken forward, it is incredibly complex, and I appreciate that most of the detail will be in the access and use policy and not in the Bill. We do not have a problem with the way that clause 60 is worded. We will work with colleagues to try to make sure that that process is effective and those duties matter. Of course, those duties are not relevant in clause 63, because clause 18(4) turns them off. When looking at that capacity duty, a future Secretary of State would not have to have regard to freight, because the Bill explicitly turns it off. That would mean that if we went to an appeal, GBR would be in line with the law in not having thought about freight in using clause 63, because the law would not require it to. We would not be able to prove a judicial review threshold appeal, because the law would say that GBR was okay not to have thought about freight.
Keir Mather
Q
May I ask one final question to Mr Montgomery, as it relates to open access? We have an overall issue with capacity in this country. The Government’s view is that, by running a single, unified approach to the railways, GBR will be able to allocate capacity in a way that is more reasonable, makes more sense and balances those interests around best use. Can you set out briefly how that contrasts with the open access regime as we currently find it? How is capacity on the railways perhaps holding back competitive movements in the open access market as it stands?
Steve Montgomery: The situation with open access and capacity, under the Bill as it is written, is that GBR decides what capacity is available and what capacity it might hold back for future use or performance. As it stands, the railway is not funded in that way, so the opportunity for private sector investment gets lost because, given the way that the Bill is written, people can almost sit on their hands and say, “Well, we’re not going to do anything because we might do something in the future.”
It is for us, in making open access applications, to go and look at where we believe capacity is and then submit an application, as things stand via the regulator—hence our concerns for the future under GBR. If it can turn around and decide, “No, there’s no access” or “We may use that in the future,” why would any future open access application ever get through?
Keir Mather
We can set that out a little later, probably in the evidence that I give, but thank you all very much. I will let other Members ask questions.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Steve Montgomery: The system at the moment is independent. The regulator evaluates, takes all the different evidence from the applicant and from Network Rail on how much capacity is there. It takes all that evidence and does an abstraction test to make sure that an open access application is not abstracting revenue from the existing operators. That independence is there, and it allows the regulator to evaluate that and make its decision. In the last year, it has granted some applications and refused others.
The system works—maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but it does work and it is independent. Under GBR, it will be a huge public sector body with no real regulation. Looking at it at the moment, it is difficult to see where that independent regulation is, looking at the industry and holding GBR to account. Capacity is one of the areas we need to look at, and likewise access charges, where that comes into play.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Steve Montgomery: We can modify it, but we need that comfort that it will be evaluated fairly and not have the constraints of GBR putting everything in front of it, saying, “We might use those paths in the future again”. We cannot have that; we need certainty. As I said earlier, we need the opportunity to allow investment in the railway. If private sector investment is coming in while there are paths sitting there not being used, that means that we are not funding the industry up to the capacity that it may have.
John Thomas: There are no protections in the Bill for open access operators. As Keir said, freight is mentioned at least 100 times and there is a freight growth target that GBR must have regard to, but there is nothing on open access. There is an inherent conflict when you have a body that will be granting access to its competitors. We would rather see the Office of Rail and Road still making those decisions. We accept that that is unlikely, because that is not the direction of travel from the Government, so as a minimum we think that a fair and non-discriminatory provision in relation to GBR decisions will help.
We think, as I said earlier, that the provision for ORR to have regard to the benefits of competition in hearing appeals will help. It will not be as sufficient as today. This is not part of the Bill, but we think that the access and use policy ought to carry on with the not primarily abstractive tests. It is not just because of lack of capacity that decisions have been rejected in the past; as Steve said, it is the revenue abstraction test as well. There is nothing to stop GBR increasing test in terms of the level of abstraction that is allowed before not granting access to open access operators. There is a lot to be worked through in the access and use policy to protect open access operators but, as I say, there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to protect them at the moment.
Maggie Simpson: We recognise that the current system is not perfect, but my members want to understand two things: first, if they are running a train today that their supply chain relies on, that they can reasonably expect to be running that train in the future. Today, the ORR would have a presumption of continuity—forgive me, this is not in the Bill—so if we came to the end of an access contract they would let the trains go into the next one. The infrastructure capacity plan process is different: it throws everything up in the air. People are really worried that they will commit and invest against a service that their supply chain relies on, and then in future something else will be judged to be better value and they will be taken off the network.
Secondly, when people are looking at investments, whether that is a new port or a new terminal—a new interchange might be a £1 billion investment—they need to have a sense that the capacity for the trains coming out of that interchange will be there when they need to use it. The current system has more capacity for that. That is why clause 63 worries people, because they think that that capacity could be taken away from those trains.
John Thomas: Clause 71 is also a real concern for us, because it allows the Secretary of State to establish regulations to amend or even abolish access rights or access contracts. That seems quite a draconian power to us. We have been assured that that is not the intention, and that the intention is to use that power to amend contracts so that they are operable in the new structure. Our view is that the clause should be limited to enable contracts to be operable in the new structure, and not to give the Secretary of State unilateral powers to amend or abolish access contracts or access rights. Again, that will make private sector operators really nervous about future investment. I agree with Maggie: I get no impression that the current Administration would ever use that clause—but, if you are never going to use it, why have it in there?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Q
Maggie Simpson: My members and I are working collaboratively with Network Rail colleagues and DFT colleagues to try to ensure that those policies and plans are going to be written in the right way. It is fair to say there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly on capacity allocation. On track access charges we feel a little more comfortable with the Bill provisions and that we will get there, but on capacity allocation there is a huge amount of work yet to be done.
Some of that work is practical stuff around the interplay between capacity plans on different routes, regions and sections of network, which could be quite big or quite small, and how we wind a freight train through what could be 10 or 20 different infrastructure capacity plans. There is a lot of work to do. There are great people working on this, so let us hope that they get there.
In terms of how GBR is held to account, that is a macro question for this Committee across a lot of different aspects. There are lots of powers in the Bill that you will have seen going in both directions between GBR, the Secretary of State, the regulator and so on. Our focus is on that appeals function, which I have already spoken about.
Edward Argar
Q
Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions.
John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail.
As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Q
Maggie Simpson: It is not my business to talk about the passenger railway. We see two things as important in having a freight growth target: first, it is a statement of Government commitment to growth, which is hugely powerful; secondly, and importantly, the people who are going to be running GBR are going to spring out of bed every morning and say, “It’s my job to make my trains run on time,” and the freight growth target makes them say, over their Weetabix, “Yes, and I must make freight run on time as well.” It is the incentive effect of having a growth target.
We have seen that effect really powerfully with the freight growth target that the Scottish Government and Whitehall have set, in that it changes the dynamic and the culture. I think—perhaps you would say I am biased— that people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary—but in terms of other factors, I leave that to others.
John Thomas: May I add to that? I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.
Laurence Turner
Q
Maggie Simpson: There are two parts to that question. Certainly, the provisions in the Bill allow for a core contract to be longer, because it removes the cap in law today. For that contract to be meaningful, though, it needs to have some committed capacity in it, because there is no point having a contract to run if you have no paths. That comes back to the access and use policy, the capacity commitments and how they will work out through those capacity plans. We simply do not have the detail on that yet to know whether we will be able to get meaningful, long-term capacity commitments. That is an open point.
Laurence Turner
Q
Maggie Simpson: We very much welcome that clause; it is a broadening of the provision in the current law, which is quite tightly worded. There are some areas where we think it could be particularly powerful, such as incentivising a greater uptick in use of electric traction, where those units exist, and making sure that people are using them wherever they can. We have just seen the first fleet of digitally enabled wagons arrive in service. That is something that can help to reduce track damage, but it is expensive, so helping the introduction of more digital technology would be another area.
We are looking at novel markets for rail freight—moving new fuels, for example, and supporting green energy. Often, it is quite difficult to get new flows up and running in new markets, so incentivising growth through the uptick of those sectors would be another area.
Laurence Turner
Q
Steve Montgomery: Yes. We believe that the Bill does not give enough power to the Secretary of State to put out contracts and devolved parties—whether that is Greater Manchester, Liverpool, and so on—to give them out. The concession model is something that we have continued to support.
Laurence Turner
Q
Steve Montgomery: Yes, you can put it out.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
John Thomas: It is really difficult. As I said earlier, all we can glean is that, given the reduced powers that ORR will have, it will be a slimmed-down licence; ORR will not have the power that it currently has to enforce business performance. Until we see it, we cannot really comment on it.
I am a bit surprised that we have not seen a draft of the licence yet. We have seen the access and use policy discussion document, but not a draft of the licence. It has been a long time in the making, so I am surprised that we have not seen it yet. I was told that we might not see it for some time. It is a key part of the overall framework, so until we see it, we cannot really comment on that framework. We are having to—we are having to comment on the Bill—but until we see the licence it is difficult to determine what our position will be.
Joe Robertson
Q
John Thomas: As a minimum, we want to be consulted and to help to shape the licence. Our ability to do that will be affected by what will ultimately be in the Act, but we certainly want to be consulted and help to shape the licence.
The Chair
I am afraid that the next question will probably be the last to this set of witnesses. I call Sarah Smith.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Q
Maggie Simpson: The industry is unnerved by the provisions in the Bill—I have members writing letters across Government to set out their concerns—but business goes on. Keith Williams picked up his biro in 2018; you could have raised a child in the time since then, so of course business has to go on. People are making good investments and, as I said at the beginning of the panel, we are pleased with the support of this Government. What we are looking at in the Bill is whether we have a framework that will enable those investments to happen in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, under a different Administration with, potentially, a different mindset, which might be better or worse—we do not know.
That question has different layers. Are we unnerved now? Yes. Is that stopping investment now? Not everywhere, but possibly in some places; other factors are at play too, of course. Will it start to impact investment? Yes, it will. The first time that GBR says to somebody, “Take your freight train off my network because I want to run this service instead”, if we have no or very limited right to appeal, it will absolutely start to spook the market.
Steve Montgomery: I know your question was about freight, but private sector investment, particularly in passenger rolling stock, is an area you have to look at and ask, “Where’s that coming from?”. We have committed to spend £500 million between buying new trains and maintaining them, and that keeps the supply chain going.
We have potential future orders that we want to place, but we are again getting caught up in the mechanics of whether there will be open access, or whether we will lose our rights at any point under clause 71. All those different things are in play at this moment of time, so where do you get that confidence? The Bill is not strong enough in that area, particularly not for passenger service operators.
Sarah Smith
Q
John Thomas: I am fairly new to the role. We are a Brussels-based organisation and we do have lots of European members. I am not familiar with the Finland example, but the European Union is going in completely the opposite direction from us. They are continuing to liberalise, opening up their markets—in the United States, in Australia, in South America—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask questions, I am afraid. On behalf of the Committee, I thank witnesses for the evidence they have given this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
John Davies and Catriona Meehan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Trainline and Independent Rail Retailers. We have until 3.05 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Catriona Meehan: Good afternoon. My name is Catriona Meehan. I am the director of public affairs at Omio, here today representing Independent Rail Retailers.
John Davies: My name is John Davies, I am vice president of industry relations at Trainline. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
“important to give the right signals from the outset that TPRs will be competing on a level playing field with GBR—to encourage that competition and investment which will benefit passengers directly”.
That is what the CMA says. Mr Davies, do you agree with the position that the CMA has taken? If you do, do you think the Bill as currently drafted gives a level playing field between GBR and independent retailers? If not, why not, and what would you do to fix it?
John Davies: Yes, we agree with the view that the CMA has expressed on giving the right signals from the outset for how the reformed rail industry should work as far as retail is concerned. They also highlighted the risk of this structure giving rise to the actual or perceived risk that GBR will self-preference its own retail operation. There is relatively little about the structure of the reformed rail industry in the Bill, but I think the relevant point is that the creation of GBR will bring together online retailing in a single website and app. This creates a conflict of interest, because GBR will define and operate the future retail market, it will set its economic terms and it will also compete in it.
It is not just the CMA that has recognised these challenges and risks. The Government’s own Railways Bill impact assessment registered this point in terms of the competitiveness of the ticket retailing market—it could be questioned by potential investors who might be concerned that GBR will use its unique position to take actions that put its retail competitors at a disadvantage. However, I should also note that we are encouraged by some of the words of Lord Peter Hendy, who said in a December interview with Simon Calder that there ought to be a level playing field. We look forward to understanding more about how that will be provided, because we have not seen any of the detail on that just yet.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Davies: I think it can only be helpful. There is a need to be certain that the retail part of GBR will compete in the market in the same way as everybody else, that it will do so on equality of terms, and that there will be equality of market access on things like fares, features, products, data services and system access, as well as economic parity, so that there is certainty that GBR’s online retail activity will not be loss-making or cross-subsidised, and that there will be transparency of costs and revenues, so that the ORR can hold it to account.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I have in mind, for example, LNER currently being able to offer a full refund with one click on its website, and that service and facility not being made available to independent retailers even under the current system. Can you elaborate on quite how important that is for the independent sector? I would then like Catriona Meehan to come in with her views, too.
John Davies: When we talk about the need for the right kinds of protections for retailers, we are pointing at something that is not theoretical—these are risks that are with us today. You point at the example of delay repay, where independent retailers are prevented from supporting customers who have purchased their tickets through them by submitting their claims directly. It also occurs with things such as loyalty schemes, retailer inability to offer customers pay-as-you-go fares, and our ability to offer assisted travel. Independent retailers are not permitted to have access to a very significant amount of propositions around rail travel that are a very meaningful part of the market.
Catriona Meehan: I completely echo all of John’s points. For us, it is a concern that there would not be proper separation, which could lead to a degree of self-preferencing. You mentioned SNCF and the separation there, which is an example that we think works well. It is not perfect, of course; there are things that could be improved, but a colleague on the previous panel from ALLRAIL mentioned that EU markets are moving the other way: they are liberalising rather than nationalising.
It is interesting to look at why it has happened and why there is a need for it. FRAND principles were mentioned. We are also seeing that in other markets. Omio operates across 46 markets globally, so we have a lot of experience in other markets. Obviously, the UK is very important through our partnership with Uber trains, but we should also talk about the wider sector of independent rail retailers. Unless we have proper safeguards and assurances in place, we are not sure exactly how GBR will not self-preference. That is not exactly clear to us right now.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Yes, it would represent a streamlining of the system, but that is only true in so far as the GBR online retail function itself is subject to that code of practice equally. It is not clear to us that that is what is intended yet. That is something that we are working through with the Department and the ORR to set out exactly what that means. To the point that was made earlier about the parts of the customer proposition in the rail market that are not available to independent retailers currently, the surety of a code of practice would provide for what we characterise as parity of market access, which is not just fares— “Can we all sell the same fares?”—but features such as delay repay, services such as passenger assistance, and products such as loyalty. We should be able to have all those things on an equal basis across the industry: if they are good for one retailer to offer in support of rail travel, they should be good for everybody. In the work that we are contemplating on the code of practice, we aim to get to a place where no independent retailer or customer of an independent retailer is ever at a disadvantage in comparison with buying a ticket through what will be the future GBR online retail function.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: If we are dealing with the legal reality as the backstop to all this, there is a risk that somehow the reform process fails because if all that you are left with, in the way that a market is set up, structured and operates, is that the only protections that independent participants have—whether they are retailers, open access operators or freight operators—are legal ones, then that is ultimately unsatisfactory from a variety of perspectives, because the harm is done by the time you know that you have a potential claim against somebody.
An earlier question mentioned the European model. The German competition authorities found against Deutsche Bahn in 2022 about its conduct in relation to certain discriminatory practices. Tomorrow, there is a third appeal by the German railways against that finding, which was made four years ago. That end-to-end process of using legal tools to provide remedy against the impacts of a vertically integrated state monopolist is now the thick end of 10 years old. Would I say that there needs to be more in the reform process than merely restating legal assurances? Yes, I absolutely would.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Can I add that we would welcome the reassurance? I think that, in different forums at different times, Lord Peter Hendy talked about the assurance that has been provided to the freight sector. I can see, in some of the answers given today, that they do not always feel that assurance, but we would welcome the development of the code of practice as an opportunity to set out how the Government intend those kinds of protections to be provided for. That would be a useful and welcome step to give the kind of signals that the CMA has referred to.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Q
Catriona Meehan: You raise a really good point: having only one retailer offering certain things, such as accessibility information, is a problem. That is why we need several retailers, to have that competition and to work on those products and make better offerings. That is something we do in the third-party retail market.
John Davies: There is always more that can be done in this space, of course. Trainline has been in discussion with the Rail Delivery Group regarding access to its central system, which would enable us to offer passenger assistance to customers and to book the kind of assistance they need at stations or on board trains. That was what I was referring to earlier as one of the features that we have been unable to secure access to. Of course, giving the broadest possible access, in the right way, to customers with additional needs is an extremely important part of what we all do.
Daniel Francis
Q
John Davies: I think it is a bit like there being one central seat reservation system that every train operator uses. Every customer who books a ticket, via whichever operator, accesses the same seat reservation system—there is one definitive record. The same could be true of passenger assistance bookings.
Rail Delivery Group, or its successor, which will be part of the retail industry and management function in the future, could have a system—a definitive record—of all availability of assisted services on offer in the industry. That could be accessed by any retailer, so that customers can book assistance as they need it, for stations or on board trains, and the staff at those stations and on those trains know who to expect and the kind of assistance that is needed. It would all be aggregated in one place, but drawn upon by as many retailers as needed.
Laurence Turner
Q
One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: Potentially. There are already moves within the industry to restrict those data flows. Again, if it goes to the point that this is not entirely a theoretical risk, then yes, we would—
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: It does not. It comes from the Rail Delivery Group, through its provision of RAAS, which is the rail availability and reservation service.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: No I am not, because the benchmarking is done by Trainline’s board, consistent with the processes that it has published.
Laurence Turner
So that is privileged information.
John Davies: It is certainly information that I do not have access to.
The Chair
Thank you. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We move to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Bill Reeve and Peter McDonald gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Scotland and the Welsh Government. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Bill Reeve: Good afternoon. I am Bill Reeve, director of rail reform for Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.
Peter McDonald: Good afternoon. My name is Peter McDonald. I am director of transport for the Welsh Government.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: There has to be a balance, because we are trying to secure the ability of our Ministers to have a proper accountability mechanism and proper direction for implementation of our strategies and of our very substantial funding of the infrastructure. Equally, our network is not an island; clearly, if a direction in Scotland were to have a material impact on matters south of the border, which would not be the intention, that provision is there; I can understand that. There were constructive discussions between our Ministers and officials about how we strike that balance so, broadly, we are content with the arrangements, noting that an MOU is also required by the Bill to flesh out a little more how that will work in practice.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be. Since the Bill submission last year, that has clearly been a key priority for us. Again, we have had good constructive discussions, working through in detail, as we should. Thus far, we are pleased with those discussions.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: I do not imagine that the guidance will be used then. Ordinarily, I would imagine that we would start with the use of our strategies, our statement of objectives and our normal means of engagement. It is important to remember that, whereas currently we spend £1 billion a year on Network Rail in Scotland, and it is for the ORR to enforce its delivery obligations under the delivery plan to the current funding arrangement, that role is being removed from the ORR.
What you see reflected in the Bill is something to address what would otherwise be a complete accountability gap. We would welcome the fact that we will have stronger accountability mechanisms under these provisions than we have had hitherto, given the very substantial amount of funding that we fund the railway infrastructure in Scotland with.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: I think that would be a matter of convention and expectation. It is not the sort of thing you would rush to do when there are other ordinary means of engagement to be used first.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Peter McDonald: Yes I do, in terms of the legislation. However, I do not think we can come to a full judgment on this. This may also pre-judge your second question, because we do not have the full memorandum of understanding in front of us. It is only when we see that full package that we can make a judgment about whether the degree of consultation and partnership is sufficient for Wales.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Peter McDonald: In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December. We are now working closely with Department for Transport officials on the detail. We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March. It is important for us to do that, because, similar to the Scottish Government, we have a pre-election period ahead of the devolved elections, and we would not want that to lose momentum in this important process.
Keir Mather
Q
“the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 210.]
That is impressive, isn’t it? Do you have any reflections on how this process has been worked out in consultation with yourself and the Scottish Government and whether it might provide instructive lessons for how GBR might seek to engage on a four-nations basis once it is established?
Bill Reeve: It would be churlish of me to disagree with that quote, frankly. In all seriousness, the level of engagement both between officials, and between our Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister, has been, in my experience, the best I have ever known when it comes to inter-Government exchange. It has been a constructive discussion and a sometimes forthright debate, which is reflected in where we have come to agreement now.
You will be aware that it is the Scottish Government’s position to support the Bill as it goes through the legislative consent motion process in the Scottish Parliament—pending any amendments that might change that; I do not want to fetter the will of our parliamentarians. We have been encouraged by the level of constructive engagement.
Keir Mather
Q
My second question relates to the issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson about the publishing of documents, consultations and memorandums of understanding relating to this Bill. Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald, you are storeyed in your working on the railway and deal with these issues on a daily basis. What do you think the requisite trade-offs are when designing a railway fit to serve four nations and 67 million people through legislation that is hermetically sealed, as opposed to working in consultation to develop the documents over time, in an iterative process throughout the Bill's passage?
The Government have been in power for about 18 months now and are seeking to progress this work at pace. Is this usually how the process of engagement happens with railway stakeholders when you are trying to achieve macro change in a short amount of time?
Bill Reeve: If you will permit me to say this, without wanting to undermine any positivity it, of course, remains our preference that the railways in Scotland should be fully devolved. However, we understand and accept that that is not on the table at the minute. So we get to the complicated challenge of devising something that reflects the fact that in Scotland about 95% of all trains are run by Scottish Ministers—the services and passenger trains. We fund more than 90% of the costs of the infrastructure, but to date we have not had the level of accountability around that substantial expenditure in Scotland.
That takes us to the need to work out how to strike the right balance, in the absence of full devolution, that will allow us to run the railways in Scotland in accordance with our published strategies and with due accountability for the substantial funding we provide— while facilitating cross-border traffic, which is in the interests, of course, of all the nations.
Peter McDonald: I have been part of a large number of intergovernmental processes. The work that is happening, which could only really have begun once the Bill was published, is at the more intensive end of the intergovernmental spectrum, as opposed to the slower end. You want to get this right, but I think the early March deadline is important for the Welsh Government to maintain momentum.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Lord Hendy mentioned in his testimony to the Transport Committee that upcoming elections in Scotland and at the Senedd in May will focus minds as those discussions progress. I also think that is a very healthy basis on which to drive the conversation forward on these really important matters of detail. For the moment, I have no further questions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Peter McDonald: It certainly does not take us further away, if I can put it that way. In technical terms, I would say that the Bill is neutral for the devolution settlement. It does not adjust the fundamental constitutional arrangement in Wales, just as it does not change the fundamental constitutional arrangement of Scotland.
I think the Bill makes the current settlement more operable and better; I will not comment on the Scottish case—I will leave that for Bill. Certainly, the Welsh Government support track-train integration. I appreciate that I came at your question from a negative direction, but the Bill definitely advances us in terms of making the settlement more operable and efficient.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Peter McDonald: It is very reasonable for there to be a conditioning adjective in the clause, certainly for the purposes of primary legislation. In practice, hundreds of operational decisions will be happening every day that—certainly in the case of Wales and England—affect the border. I certainly would not want each of them to have to go through a duty to consult.
The Welsh Government view is that “significantly affect” is reasonable. It could be further codified and defined in a memorandum of understanding, which provides a more flexible, non-legislative route to get into when consultation matters and when this can be done at working level more informally, without legislative backing.
Bill Reeve: We would agree. I might have a professional interest in the signalling of the Newquay branch in Cornwall, but I am not sure I need to be consulted on it. We are a small team in proportion to the size of the network that we are responsible for: we would be overwhelmed if we had to be consulted about everything on a precautionary basis. As Peter said, the working of the MOU will be important and people’s behaviours will always matter. But the drafting is fine from our perspective.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Peter McDonald: The Welsh Government view is that the primary legislation is taking a reasonable approach. There are a couple of extra, non-legislative layers to reflect on. The first is the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, which I will keep coming back to. That is really important for cross-border partnership.
Then there is the culture of effective partnership. Currently, a large number of Transport for Wales and Network Rail officials and employees work together collaboratively; we want that to continue and think that can improve. We think there are lessons from the alliance model in Scotland.
This is almost leaving the constitution at the door; it is more about a proper culture of partnership between the two organisations. We think that can be best led by an empowered and distinct Wales and borders business unit. That is not necessarily a matter for primary legislation, but it is really important for how this will operate on the ground.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Bill Reeve: My Welsh colleague’s point about the importance of culture and behaviours and how that is given effect through the MOU will be the real test. As drafted the primary legislation seems fine, and there is indeed an obligation to consult on services that cross the border both ways. However, I have no doubt from my experience that how we put this into effect will matter more than the words.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses, Mr McDonald and Mr Reeve, for their evidence today. We move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Malcolm Brown, Darren Caplan and Rob Morris gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Malcolm Brown: I am Malcolm Brown, the CEO of Angel Trains.
Rob Morris: Good afternoon. I am Rob Morris, the joint CEO of Siemens Mobility, a manufacturer of trains and the supplier of rail systems here in the UK, for the UK.
Darren Caplan: I am Darren Caplan, chief executive of the Railway Industry Association, a trade association representing rail suppliers throughout the UK.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: Yes, by all means. Angel Trains is a ROSCO—a rolling stock operating company. We own circa 4,000 passenger vehicles in the UK, and we provide the bridge between private sector finance and the actual rail industry. In the last 10 years, we have invested about £1.9 billion in new rolling stock in the UK, and we invest about £80 million a year in refurbishing and maintaining trains across the network.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: As has been covered in other panel sessions, the Bill as it stands does not provide a long-term view. It relies on the building blocks that it refers to—we talked about this in other panel sessions—where you have a long-term rail strategy and there is also a promise of a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy. It is those documents that we would look to to provide a long-term view on what is coming up in the industry.
Our assets last circa 30 to 35 years, as does the infrastructure, and it is that long-term view that we require, not necessarily to give us certainty, but to give us a clear look-through that allows us to decide whether to invest and the level of investment we will make. In answer to your direct question, we will be looking to the railway strategy, which we presume will come first, and then to the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: As a general rule, a 10-year horizon is something that we can work with. With the nature of infrastructure—not just rail, actually, but other infrastructures too—for this type of asset, that, while it is not whole life, gives a clear look forward. When you extend that, clearly the level of accuracy, if not certainty, gets less. That is perfectly okay; we are used to dealing with that. That is how infrastructure actually works. We do not need to have 100% knowledge of something that is going to happen in 35 or 40 years, but what you want to have for look-through is, “Okay, we know what is going to happen in 10 years, and therefore, on a probability basis, this is what we will assume to do in 30, 35 or 40 years.”
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: No, I am not. I am suggesting that the strategy should give various date points—10 years, 15 years, 30 years. I do not think we should exclude it saying, “Here is a vision for what we wish our rail industry to look like in 30 years,” while accepting that that will actually change. It has to change; it has to morph and adapt to the market.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: I think the references to the building blocks of the long-term rail strategy and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy are key components that will actually help give greater colour to the Bill. At this point, a number of us are looking at this and trusting in the fact that they will come, and will come in a timely manner, and that that will allow us to get on and invest. This is not just investing for investing’s sake; this is taking Rob’s plant in Goole and actually pouring work in there that will employ people in the local area. It is that type of thing that will break the log jam that we have just now, and let us get on with things.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Certainty is very important. We have invested something like £340 million, and we are currently investing in a new Goole facility for rail and train manufacture and a train command and control systems R&D and manufacturing facility at Chippenham. To continue with investment not just in facilities, but in skills and rolling stock for the future, we need certainty about the financing or funding over the control periods. It is not just about renewals, which are currently included, and which are there to stop the infrastructure from falling over; it must also be about enhancements and rolling stock and the maintenance of that.
From our perspective, we would echo what Malcolm said about the 30-year long-term strategy. For all those elements I have talked about, we must recognise that strategies have to be reviewed. I would suggest that that be done every five years for all of those and that funding is made available on a five-year basis, so that the supply chain has absolute clarity on where it can invest and how it can support GBR. GBR spend will be 50%-plus, we expect, within the supply chain, so what it does not want is for the supply chain and the investors to fall over.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Absolutely. Although we are based in the UK, we are a global company. If there is uncertainty here in the UK, we will cut off investments because we are in competition with a global market.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: We represent rail suppliers in the UK—all around the country, large and small. They can be companies like Siemens and Angel, and they can be SMEs—60% of the supply chain are SMEs and they are our members. There are about 640,000 jobs in the UK rail industry, and about half of those work in the supply chain, so it is quite a lot of jobs.
Around £40 billion of GVA is rail, and half of that is from the supply sector. Around £14 billion of Treasury revenue comes in from our sector, and half of that is from the supply sector, so it is a really important sector, covering building, maintaining, reviewing, infrastructure, rolling stock, signalling and so on—it is the full gamut of the rail industry.
The point you picked up on, Mr Mayhew, is really important, and I am happy to expand on that. I have in front of me the Bill’s clauses and provisions. Schedule 2 is the one we are concerned about, and it is really significant. It says:
“The Secretary of State must provide the ORR and Great British Railways with a statement, in relation to a funding period, indicating the amount of financial assistance that the Secretary of State reasonably considers may be made available to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State…for the purpose of funding the activities of Great British Railways during the funding period.”
That period is five years. It says, “must provide”. Then, three pages later, on page 64, it says:
“If the Secretary of State proposes to vary the financial assistance to be provided…the Secretary of State must notify Great British Railways of the proposed variation…The Secretary of State must notify the ORR if…the Secretary of State considers that the proposed postponement, withdrawal or reduction is likely to have a material impact on the ability of Great British Railways to carry on the activities specified”.
That is “provide” versus “notified”. It says they must “provide” the budget for a five-year period, but later it says they just have to “notify” if they want to change what they do. That is hugely significant, because it means that you can set up a five-year budget and decide that you want to change it once in that control period, or every month if you want to. That is highly political, because a future Secretary of State can decide what they want to do coming into a new control period. The future is less certain under the Bill than it is currently. We have had control periods for the last 30 to 35 years— we are now in CP7. Under the Bill, the future version of funding assistance for rail will be less certain than it is now.
The Bill also only talks about postponing, withdrawing or reducing, and not increasing. At no point does it talk about funding going up; it is all about reducing it. For my fellow witnesses, when they are looking at where they are going to invest, they will say that there might be £45 billion invested over five years, but that could come down—if you do not know for certain, why should you do it?
My final point is that rail is a very certain industry: you know what you need to spend in five years—you know the renewals you need to do, and you know the rolling stock you need to get, maintain or refurbish—so why can you not commit to a five-year spending envelope? It is very simple.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Yes, absolutely—
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: That is absolutely correct.
Malcolm Brown: It is fundamental economics.
Keir Mather
Q
Duties for GBR also exist in the Bill. One of those duties is
“to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance”.
In a five-year business plan you may have fluctuations in spending to reflect fiscal reality, but would you say that through those building blocks, long-term certainty is offered to the industry, and GBR has to reflect industry needs and build a railway that is coherent in serving their interests over the long term?
Rob Morris: The short answer to that is yes, absolutely. The other elements that we have just discussed—on enhancements, and on rolling stock and the maintenance and funding thereof—are absolutely fundamental to that. I also think that the ambitions for the railway need to be included in that. Witnesses on previous panels have talked about freight and the target there. What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.
A good example of that is last week’s announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail, where rail and investment in it will create opportunity for increased productivity— I think £40 billion per annum was mentioned. It seems to me that there needs to be a connection in the Bill between what the Bill seeks to achieve, and generating that ambition, not just for freight growth, but for passenger growth.
Keir Mather
Q
Mr Brown, you point to those building blocks, which are really important. On the one hand, you have the obligation for the Government to provide industry with certainty, but on the other, there is the point about not being overly prescriptive or deterministic in driving the outcomes of the private competitive basis on which a lot of these services are procured. Do you think the Bill strikes the right balance between offering that certainty through the building blocks and not freezing in aspic any perceptions of the railway today that might be outdated in, say, 30 years’ time?
Malcolm Brown: It is very hard to comment on a building block that I have not seen, so forgive me for that. I can understand the concept of using these building blocks and I can see how it fits together. We keep referring to certainty in 30 years. If members of the panel can give me certainty in 30 years, I will take that bet. I do not think any of us can—that is a heck of an ask. What we are asking for is a vision or direction of travel—whichever buzzword you want to use—that says, to use Rob’s term, “This is our ambition for rail in 30 years, and setting out these stepping stones will get us to it.” That would give us the flex to deal with something like a pandemic, where we had to move and change.
There are new technologies and we are innovating all the time. As the private sector, we are always looking for what we can come up with that will actually improve things not just for the passengers but for the operation of the railway. I hate using the word “framework”, but if we have that framework, we can work within it as the private sector and develop ideas to bring to market. Some will work and some will not, but that is what we take on our shoulders. We can implement those for the greater good of the railway and the passengers.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: You had a lot of ifs in there, if you do not mind me saying—“if it aligns” or “if it does that.” Yes, if that were all to happen, I could understand that there is harmony there.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: My understanding is that the legal duty is to produce it, but not what is in it. I could have a legal duty to produce a strategy. I do not have a legal duty to say specifically what is in it. Forgive me for pointing that out. I understand your point that there are legal duties, which is good, but as yet, I do not know what is in that strategy.
Olly Glover
Q
Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.
This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.
Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.
The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.
Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.
Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.
Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years.
You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in.
Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user.
Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year.
I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges.
That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment.
I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—
The Chair
Order. Sorry, Mr Caplan, but props are not allowed.
Darren Caplan: My apologies. The charts show how uncertain the current situation is, and these measures would make it less certain. If we can have the positives for GBR going forward, and get these issues addressed, that will be better for the supply chain.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: To 2029.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Operations, maintenance and renewals.
Jerome Mayhew
I am going to put words into your mouth, but please correct me if I am being unfair. In each control period, you get a bell curve of activity. You start with a low level of activity, because people did not know that there was certainty of funding, and then in years 2 and 3 it gears up and you get peak activity in year 2.5, roughly. Then, as you get towards the end of the control period where the medium term funding dries up or is uncertain, you get a drawdown of activity. That is the point that you were trying to make—is that correct?
Darren Caplan: It can happen between control periods as well, but the basic point is that over those five years, that money is the same. It can vary a bit between years—you can carry some over—but in that time you spend that money. Our concern about schedule 2 is that you can reduce the amount of money in that period.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Absolutely. If you do the work that you need to do on rail when you need to do it, it is much cheaper than doing it at a later date. It is 30% cheaper to do a renewal when you are supposed to be doing it than at a later date. That is better for the taxpayer, because you can aggregate it. It is also better in terms of passenger experience, because the asset is being maintained when it needs to be.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: These guys can talk to that specifically, but I assume so, because you are planning out your workforces, your investment in partner machinery, your overall business plan, the apprentices you are going to take on and innovation—all these things can be planned in advance. If you know, you will get a better cost.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Yes—electrification and signalling are both part of the renewals process. The five-year cycle that we currently have—which is often referred to as the boom-and-bust cycle, because that is what it is like for us—adds, let us call it, a subjective cost increase of about 30%, as Darren mentioned.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: The overall figure is normally about £40 billion, in terms of renewals and operations maintenance.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Subjectively, yes. I think there will be more accurate figures around that, but it is an inefficient process.
Jerome Mayhew
That is amazing.
Rob Morris: One thing I would say to support the figures that Darren mentioned earlier is that we have had a particularly sluggish start to this control period, which is actually prolonging that and impacting on skills and capabilities in the industry, which might add additional costs to remobilise.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Your words are correct.
Darren Caplan: Yes.
Malcolm Brown: I am not in that space, so I could not comment.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I am going to move to Siemens now. Historically, during the period of privatisation, rolling stock improvements have been inextricably linked with franchise bids. As franchises have come up for renewal, different operating companies have been in a bidding process, through competition, to make the most attractive proposal to the Department for Transport. Some of that would be in cheques to the Treasury, but a lot of it has been in improving rolling stock infrastructure. My own operating company, Greater Anglia, entirely renewed its rolling stock right across its area as part of its franchise bid.
That impetus for improvement of rolling stock is being removed entirely and replaced by GBR, a nationalised bidder. It has various duties. I look at clause 18(3), which we discussed a little earlier, under which it has a duty to improve “railway service performance”, but that is defined as being, in the main, reliability and passenger overcrowding. There is no reference to improved customer experience, to quality of rolling stock and to improved services that would come with new rolling stock. For Siemens, are you concerned that moving to GBR will lead to a reduction in the pace of improvement in rolling stock?
Rob Morris: Again, it is about understanding what the ambition is specifically with rolling stock and the funding thereof. My belief is that there is a need for a passenger growth target, which would further fuel the need to make sure that there is a clear approach to modern, carbon-neutral, efficient rolling stock to match a similar infrastructure for the betterment of GBR.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Yes.
Malcolm Brown: If I may, there is a natural life cycle. There is a beat rate to replacing, renewing and then retiring rolling stock. It is lumpy, because you do not replace trains one at a time; it tends to be in fleets. There is not a great deal we can do about that. What would concern me is if we reverted to everything being planned and done by a central organisation. We have tried that before. I refer the Committee to the 2014 National Audit Office report on the DFT procuring IEP. It did not go well, the National Audit Office says. There is a natural tension there just now—the commercial tension of trying to improve rolling stock and always trying to have the next best thing.
You talk about Greater Anglia. Apologies, but it is Alstom’s trains that we bought in there. They are a step change that was there before, but we cannot keep replacing every single train every time. We need to refurbish trains. We invested £125 million in the Pendolino fleet on the west coast. That created 100 jobs at Widnes and its own infrastructure there. That was completed on time and on budget. Nobody ever really talks about that, but we can do it. We have given the passenger an environment that is as new. That is a lot more cost-effective than simply going, “We must buy a new train every time we feel like it.”
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: I cannot comment. I presume it is going to be in one of the building blocks. My concern is that we have a group of people who are trying to design trains for a hobby, when we have manufacturers such as Siemens in the UK, which have global platforms for trains. Yes, we adapt and customise them for the UK, but we get all the benefits of the manufacturing experience of a global manufacturer with the economies of scale that that provides as well. We do not need bespoke custom-built trains in the UK.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: To my mind, there is the potential there—there is no question of it—but without having visibility, at the risk of repeating my previous answers. You talk about consulting with the industry; there is a vast amount of experience in the UK rail industry. I am totally agnostic about whether that is in the private or public sector. I would compel GBR to use that experience to inform the decisions and the forward planning.
I have an organisation that is not as large as Siemens. It is about 170 people and I think about 60% of them are qualified engineers. We have more than 30 years’ experience of acquiring rolling stock and structuring it. I think we are reasonably good at it. I would say utilise the experience and expertise that is there. I am not saying private or public; I am saying use the experience that is there to, frankly, avoid reinventing the wheel.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: To add to that, there should be a duty on GBR to engage with the supply chain around its decisions and intentions, because essentially we will be more than 50% of the spend for GBR and it would be wholly inappropriate for decisions to be made that are outside the capability or the investment profiles of the supply chain. They need to work in harmony, rather than in silos.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: I think it needs to be explicit. The ultimate aim is to do the right thing by the passenger, the freight user and the taxpayer.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Thank you.
Darren Caplan: My final point, to wrap this up, is that the Competition and Markets Authority civil engineering market study was published just last month. It said:
“Funding settlements and infrastructure pipelines are often short-term and volatile, reducing the opportunities and incentives for public authorities and the supply chain to plan and invest.”
This is not public or private. For both GBR and our members to invest, we will need that longer-term certainty.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. Mr Caplan, if you would like to submit your props or diagrams, the Committee would be very grateful to receive them in written form.
Examination of Witnesses
Jason Prince, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Andy Burnham: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Andy Burnham. I have been the Mayor of Greater Manchester for coming up on nine years. I was previously the Member of Parliament for Leigh for 16 years.
Jason Prince: Good afternoon. My name is Jason Prince, and I am the director of the Urban Transport Group, which represents transport authorities and mayoral strategic authorities across the UK.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I will start with the Bee Network up in Greater Manchester, which you have organised on the basis of concessions let by you, the mayoralty. The benefit of that is that the fare box is kept locally and it is operated privately. It does not have to be; you could run those concessions through a wholly owned subsidiary. I accept that. That approach of keeping the fare box local does not work with GBR because the fare box stays with GBR. Even if you have a greater level of devolvement, it feels a bit like it is going to be GBR in Greater Manchester, just painted yellow. Is that what you wanted from the Bill, or did you have aspirations for a bit more control?
Andy Burnham: Thank you very much for the question. I agree with the way that you have presented it. There is a tension to be resolved, but I believe it can be resolved. It is really important that you have mentioned the Bee Network, because I am responsible for running the tram and bus systems, so the backbone of the public transport system is under our control. We have to move to a world where the railway emerges from its railway silo and sees the bigger picture—the integration of public transport across all modes. I would encourage the Committee to think about that, because that change is coming. You will know, Ms Barker, that Liverpool city region will also soon embark on putting buses under public control, and I think the model we are creating will become something of a norm around the country.
I think it is possible to go further, as you say, and my evidence for that is TfL Overground: an arrangement was reached between the Government, the railways and TfL on an integrated, fair offer. I believe that is entirely achievable in Greater Manchester, where the railways come into the capped system. Actually, the rest of the Bee Network adds value to the railway, because no longer will it be the case that you buy a ticket in somewhere like Buxton or Glossop and your travel runs out at Manchester Piccadilly; in a capped system, people can have their onward travel all included under that daily cap. That is what operates in London, and I see no reason why it cannot operate in Greater Manchester—indeed, we will insist that we get the same.
Isn’t it all about revenue sharing, hopefully in relation to passenger growth? We have a plan to bring eight rail lines into the Bee Network, starting with two this year, and it is a plan that has been agreed with the rail industry. This is potentially a win-win for everybody, because the arrival of the capped Bee Network system gives people more reason to use the railways, so we think that we can increase patronage on those rail lines.
It has to be a real partnership with the railway, which is why we are encouraging the Committee to go beyond the idea that we are just consultees who can be listened to or not. Meaningful partnership is what will build the right railway and the right public transport solution in our city. It is much more than painting the trains yellow, although I do want to see yellow trains all over Greater Manchester with bees on them.
Jerome Mayhew
Welcome to the Committee, Ms Brabin; I am sorry that we started before you managed to get in.
Tracy Brabin: My apologies for being late.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Andy Burnham: I do not think it can be justified any more that there is one transport arrangement for London, but that arrangement is not available to everywhere else—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you so much. It is an absolute privilege and a pleasure to be in front of this Committee on something as important as the Railways Bill. In West Yorkshire, we are a region of 2.4 million people, with seven universities and hundreds of thousands of businesses, but, as part of my local growth plan, transport is the key, so it is really important that we get this right. Thank you for the invitation.
The Chair
Thank you. The shadow Minister is whipping at present, so for the time being, until he rejoins us, I will move on to the Minister, Keir Mather.
Keir Mather
Q
I want to start with a more thematic question about the overall purpose of the Bill, and the DFT’s approach to transport more broadly. We unashamedly stand behind the view that our transport network is not just something to get people from A to B; it is an important catalyst for this Government’s missions, particularly around economic growth and delivering the housing that people need to live in dignity and flourish as individuals.
On that basis, the Railways Bill lets us take on lots of devolved work with mayoral strategic authorities, because we believe that is the right size of unit of devolved power and economic focus to drive those priorities. I know, Mayor Brabin and Mayor Burnham, that those priorities are also crucial to your local plans, so how do you feel they marry up, using this Bill as a catalyst to achieve some of those shared ambitions?
Tracy Brabin: I mentioned our local growth and local transport plans. The Bill is timely because of the changes that we see across the country through devolution. As the Prime Minister says, it is the devolution revolution. The opportunity with the statutory responsibilities for mayors to be at the heart of that decision making is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. I value this chance to feed back, because it is important that GBR is an agile body working closely with mayors who are seen as partners, not just stakeholders to be included when and where. We have skin in this game: I see myself as the passenger-in-chief for the public of West Yorkshire.
Like in Greater Manchester, with the work that has been led brilliantly by Andy on the Bee Network, in West Yorkshire the Weaver network will encompass bus, rail, tram, and electric bikes and active travel. We will not be able to deliver that potential for growth in our communities unless we have a meaningful relationship with GBR. It is not just about West Yorkshire, because we are a region at the heart of the UK. A lot of traffic goes through our region. It is not self-contained; we have opportunities—for example, Ilkley to Leeds or the five towns—would definitively be part of our Weaver network.
While we have ambitions to bring the network into the Weaver umbrella, it is also about integrated ticketing. That is important because while we have the MCard, one of the most sophisticated multimodal ticketing apps outside of London, we want the ability that I heard Mayor Burnham talking about when I arrived, to travel across the whole of Yorkshire—from Leeds to Sheffield and Leeds to York—with that integrated ticketing opportunity. Both mayors, and mayors across the country, share the ambitions of the Mayor of London. Frankly, if it is good for London, it is good for all of us.
Enabling mayors to have greater powers to support decision making around services is important. This is my final point. Let me bring it alive with an example: we want to build a station for Leeds Bradford airport. We want to invest and we have an appetite for risk, but if we do not get any revenue—or do not have some ability to get revenue as part of that agreement—what is the point? That is also true if we do not have any opportunity to help decide services. We can build a station, but if we have no responsibility or skin in the game for services, how can we make the economic case for jobs, growth and investment in our region?
Keir Mather
Q
Tracy Brabin: And what a great choice for them.
Keir Mather
Indeed, and many of them have similar aspirations around connectivity and growth. Mayor Burnham, was there anything you wanted to add before I hand back to Jerome?
Andy Burnham: A little, thank you. I echo everything that Tracy said. I strongly welcome this Government’s rail reform journey; it is going in a positive direction. Anything we say today is just making it that little bit better—or perfection. This is really positive from our point of view.
We are beginning to invest in rail from our own resources in Greater Manchester, with £210 million over the next four years. As rail comes into the Bee Network, we are going to be improving stations, working with the rail industry. Under the plans, there is the possibility that we may start putting local revenue into new rail services, with additional services where there is capacity to take them. We would both say that real partnership is what we want. It goes back to the shadow Minister’s point at the start. Making us more than consultees is what we are asking for.
In relation to wider investment, perhaps the Bill could require GBR to align rail investment with local transport plans, and to consider integrated transport all the time. How does somebody get off a train and easily on to a tram? There could be a joined-up approach to thinking about place-making, with wider housing investment. That is why the partnership matters. Railways serve places. With our councils, we are responsible for those places. The more that it is all thought through, the better the future for the railways, because they will be easier and more attractive to use, and housing regeneration will follow because the railway is in the right place, with the right levels of accessibility.
I think that the question of accessibility to the railway for all our residents is one that I ask the Committee to address. Some of the funding, as I have mentioned, is to be spent on making our stations step free in terms of access, and the idea that we are going to carry on with a railway that basically excludes our disabled and older residents is just not tenable. What we can do is accelerate that change, working through closer partnership. As we have been told at the Rail North Committee, which I chair, if things carry on at the same pace, we will have step-free access stations across the north by 2080. That, honestly, is not good enough, so let us get in closer partnership, accelerate those changes, and bring in investment to the railway from wider planning developments. That all points to a closer, deeper and more meaningful partnership between combined authorities and GBR.
Tracy Brabin: To bring Access for All alive, 65% of stations in West Yorkshire are not accessible, and we were allocated not a penny in the last round of Access for All, because there was an assumption that the TransPennine upgrade covered it. It does not. There are MPs across all of West Yorkshire who are desperate for that investment. I want to do it, but Access for All has to help us. If we do not have responsibility for that money, we are back to the begging-bowl culture that I know this Government want to move away from.
Keir Mather
Thank you both. I hope you feel that GBR having a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, especially those with disabilities, is a signal that we want accessibility to be hardwired into the Bill, and not something that comes after the operational decisions about the railway have been taken. I have more questions, but I am conscious that we should hand over to the shadow Minister.
The Chair
Before I bring the shadow Minister back in, I make colleagues aware that the session will run until 5.15 pm.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
It was rather frustrating, Mr Burnham —the Division bell went when you were about to deliver a hammer blow against the Government on your disappointment about what is not in the Bill and what should be in it. You used to say that you wanted more autonomy for the Bee Network. I have heard your answers—it is clear that your position on that has not changed. You want to have more autonomy, but the Bill does not provide it at the moment. You have a duty to consult, which is okay so far as it goes, from GBR, and then thereafter, once it has consulted with the mayoralties, it only has a duty to have regard to what it is that you have said or requested. In your combined evidence, what would be a better form of words more accurately to reflect the relationship that you think should exist between the national and the regional? Mr Burnham, because we were halfway through a conversation, perhaps we could start with you, then move on to Tracy.
Andy Burnham: Thank you. I do not know about coming back, but what I do know is that in my 16 years here, there were enough Tory MPs around that there was no double-jobbing, I do not think, from my memory. We will move on.
I think that it is about a meaningful role. I do not think autonomy is actually what we are asking for here today, any of us.
Tracy Brabin: No.
Andy Burnham: What we are saying is that we want a meaningful partnership, which is about more than just being consulted and then ignored—which, if we are honest, does happen to us as mayors with the rail industry. Even though I am chair of the Rail North Committee, we sometimes have to work very hard to make the railways listen to what democratically elected mayors and leaders say. It is a different relationship, and I would say that I strongly feel the railways need culture change. We need to get back to a railway that serves people and places, not a quite adversarial section of transactional arrangements that can be very complex. It feels to us sometimes that the railways have lost sight of that.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Andy Burnham: Yes, I think if you end up with a very top-down railway, it is a bit like the phrase I used to hear in the Department of Health: “You can hit the target and miss the point.” Is that not that the risk with the railways, if they become too much like monolithic structures? It has to be a bit of both. If you go back to the old British Rail days, I remember a thing called Regional Railways, which was very separate to InterCity, so that split has always been there in the railways.
What we are arguing for in front of the Committee today is to think of the railways in a more place-based context. Railways serve growth in local areas, and there are things that we can bring to the table to support the health and growth of the railways in the future. It points to a different partnership, but it is a partnership. We want the right to specify timetables, as it is legitimate for us to make those requests, and we want a stronger role over station access. Actually, we think there should be a presumption in favour of devolution. Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse, which presumes that it should be devolved, if that is possible, but there is still a callback if it cannot be devolved.
There is a relevant recent example: the Access for All funding. The Rail North Committee has asked the Department to devolve the Access for All funding, so we do not get the situation that Tracy described a moment ago. Currently, that is not being supported by the Department. We submit lists of stations to the Department as part of our Access for All bid on a regular basis, but we have often had the experience that it comes back with a different prioritisation to the one we sent in. This is really granular, local stuff, and it is mind-boggling to us that you have an infrastructure programme for the railways, and then an Access for All programme at the highest level that is dealing with very local schemes at stations. It is a meaningful partnership, and we are calling for a devolved role, where there can be one.
Tracy Brabin: I totally agree with what Andy has said; it is about accountability. I do not think you could expect the Secretary of State to be accountable for the whole of the network. How on earth would they understand the challenges? At Denby Dale, all they need is a ramp, and those sorts of decisions should be made locally.
We are building three stations in the next year. Why are they so expensive? In Germany, I think it is £5 million a station, but here they are £50 million. In the ’80s, it was £500,000 a station in today’s money. Surely, if we are working together as a collective for the good of the nation, we could find a way that makes it easier—one where we are more agile in building stations, and where we are part of that conversation around services. Also, it is about where we get then get the revenue from, so that we have a circular pound—the one that goes into the washing machine and comes back out again on the other side—and can build more accessibility on more stations.
Keir Mather
Q
Keir Mather
No, mine did not either—it is important that we also get to hear your perspective, Jason. One of the things I want to hit on is accountability. One of the benefits of the Bill that Lord Hendy stressed in his evidence to the Transport Committee is that by having a unified, guiding mind for the railway, you will have hard-working people at GBR who will wake up every day and know that they are responsible for making sure that the railway runs in the interests of the British public, in partnership with people like yourselves. Could you take us through the current challenges in engaging with an array of different private sector operators and DFTO-managed train companies? What does it look like for the people you represent who are trying to navigate this bewildering system, and for you guys who are trying to drive high standards, passenger satisfaction and, ultimately, better economic opportunity for your local areas?
Tracy Brabin: It has been very difficult to navigate who is responsible for what. There is a lot of finger pointing with, “It’s them,” or “It’s them,” and trying to get a decision about who actually owns a project has been difficult. That is why I really welcome the leadership that Lord Hendy has shown in bringing together track and train and having that simplicity.
In West Yorkshire, the partnership piece of work was published last week. We have been seen as an exemplar in our strategic place partnership, where we brought together Network Rail, DFT, the TOCs, the shadow GBR, ourselves and all the partners to identify how we can cut through roadblocks. It has been incredibly effective. When the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire and I were working with David Blunkett on the White Rose rail plan, it was helpful to look together at how we could phase the delivery of the plan, how we could make it affordable and what was the structure of delivery. You can do that only when you are all in the room and all have skin in the game, and you are not blaming each other. I want to reflect on the relationship held locally by our organisations and myself. I think that is the way forward.
We also need resources, and I speak for other mayoral strategic authorities as well. I am blessed to have some very talented people—some of them are sat behind me—who help me with our rail plan, but not every MSA has that talent. Although people might be waking up to deliver better outcomes, they are not all sat in the regions. Having people with timetabling and infrastructure experience actually in the regions would also be a huge benefit.
Andy Burnham: The job of getting the railway to be more accountable has been the devil’s own job in my time as mayor. I am not talking so much about recent times, but certainly in the early days when we had the 2018 timetable collapse. It was only Transport for the North and the Rail North Committee that got underneath what was going on inside Northern and TransPennine. If we had not been there, I do not think the travelling public would have seen the change.
We were the ones who challenged Northern, when it was run by Arriva, to keep guards on the trains. We were the ones who fought to keep ticket offices open—the railway would have closed them if it had not heard our voice. We had to challenge Avanti West Coast when it was collapsing and cutting the timetable between Manchester and London—two major cities in this country—damaging our growth. It just took that decision without any reference to us. Recently, the Office of Rail and Road has done something relating to a ghost train. We constantly have to challenge these things. Without us, I do not think we would have a railway that has moved towards more public ownership and more accountability.
I think major culture change is needed. I come back to this point. My observation is that it is still not responsive enough to what local areas need. As people may know, I support Everton. I go to Everton’s new ground on a regular basis. So many more people are travelling there by train, but to the railways, it is like it has not happened. It is as though they are oblivious to it. They are not in the place with us, managing it and putting extra people on. The railway seems to be too dislocated from what happens on the ground. For example, Sunday services are not put on during the Manchester Christmas markets. That is the thing: you need a railway that is knitted in to supporting growth.
Finally, look at the evidence where we have more locally accountable railways. Transport for Wales is a strong operator, in my experience—it serves Greater Manchester as well. Merseyrail is accountable to the Mayor of Liverpool. It has higher levels of performance, I believe, although all railways have their issues. That is evidence that if you have more local accountability, you generally have a higher performing railway that is more responsive to what people are saying.
Tracy Brabin: Andy and the Rail North Committee have been holding operators’ feet to the fire not just for northern transport but also for the east coast main line where it goes through other mayoralties. So on accountability, I think coming from a mayoral strategic authority or a mayoral combined authority where all mayors across the country can hold rail to account—you are doing a brilliant job, Andy, but currently where else in the country is there that group that will hold operators to account? At the moment, it is only the Rail North Committee, but surely that has to be across the whole country.
Keir Mather
Q
Jason Prince: I will probably approach this session from more of a technical point of view than a thematic one. Fundamentally, the Bill is strong as it is written and I think we have to acknowledge that. The journey to GBR started under the last Government and it is good that we have got to a position where we are on the precipice of something where there is a once in a generation change.
On the accountability point, it is great to have the aspiration of accountability, but the only way you will embed it is if you build GBR on the back of strong mayoral partnerships. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening around how you ensure that GBR reflects what is happening at the local level. How do you ensure that rather than having regard to—which pulls on the shadow Minister’s point—you have a stronger recognition of what happens at a local level, which the mayors are responsible for in terms of local transport plans and local growth plans? It is one thing to say, “Accountability—the good people go into GBR every day and that will be their focus,” but for my members, who are transport authorities, thousands of people are going in every day to design transport networks that shine. In this Bill there is a once in a generation opportunity to make rail shine as part of a bigger place-based offer. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening so that accountability is built in through the legislation, rather than just accepting that GBR will act in such a way.
Keir Mather
Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.
Olly Glover
Q
Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.
From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.
Olly Glover
Q
Andy Burnham: This is a really important point. Giving city regions the ability, either individually or together, to manage events better with the railways, and a role over that, is really important. The Everton stadium example is probably most relevant with rugby league, where England played Australia. There was just an utter meltdown of the TransPennine timetable, and chaos at stations. That affects the country’s reputation when it is a major event.
We have the Euros coming in 2028. Manchester and Liverpool will be hosting games. You just want to have a grip on the system. At the moment, we do not feel that we have that with rail, but we do with trams and buses. We have a control room for Transport for Greater Manchester. We manage these things really closely. Oasis played in the summer—you may have noticed that—and we handled major numbers coming through the city on five consecutive nights really well. Obviously, there were some issues, but really well.
The railway does not quite live in that world with us, and that is an issue. It is reputational for the country. The railway has been living in its own world a bit too much. That has got to change. I realise some of that is culture change rather than the structures that we lay out in the Bill, but the railway does have to come through this re-emerging as a public service again—people putting a bit more into the railway than they are required to, because they care, and we all care about the reputation of our places and our country.
It feels to me like that has been lost, as I look at where the railway has got to in recent times. We need to use this Bill to get it back. It is not a trivial point to say that the bee on the side of trains creates a sense of civic pride again. This is about us and the places where we live. It is a softer point perhaps, but it should not be missed.
Tracy Brabin: On events, we have seen a 10% uplift in passenger numbers on rail. There is still a feeling post covid that rail passengers are in decline, because of the change in the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday and so on. Actually, we are seeing an uplift in passenger numbers. Particularly Sundays are rammed.
I can give one example of the lack of connectivity. I was a participant in the Abbey Dash in Leeds. There were thousands of people coming into Leeds, then there was a signal failure and the whole of Leeds station closed down. On Trainline on your phone, the app was suggesting the trains were all running. I enquired and they said, “Well, that is a private company. They are not connected to us, so they don’t know.” People were coming to the station assuming that the trains were still running. We have to have that local accountability and the connected nature of the ebbs and flows of the network.
If you build it, they will come. If we have more carriages—more than two on CrossCountry—you will get more passengers because people will enjoy the journey and feel it is value for money, rather than being rammed in like cattle. Standing at London Bridge station, you see Southern trains with 13 carriages. I dream about 13 carriages. We have trains that are two and three carriages that are absolutely rammed because we have such an uplift in footfall.
Olly Glover
You may enjoy a ten-minute rule Bill speech that I am making tomorrow.
Tracy Brabin: I shall set my timer to make sure I watch it.
The Chair
I have a lot of colleagues indicating that they want to speak and I do not believe we will get everyone in. If we could have shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers, to try and get as many people as possible in, that would be really helpful.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
How do we make sure that GBR is able to be as responsive as possible to those very local, very small-scale but otherwise very important improvements to stations and the wider rail infrastructure?
Andy Burnham: If we think about it this way, mayoral combined authorities and the transport authorities that Tracy and I lead will be able to add value to the railway by bringing resource to invest in our stations and adding more passengers to the railway, because the Bee Network cap covering all modes will encourage more people to travel by train. We have something to add to the railway to make it serve people and places better, and to make access improvements more quickly, so that passengers do not walk away from the railways because they see a problem that never gets fixed. That is the way to look at it.
However, if we are going to put our own resources and effort into improving the railway, we have to be a meaningful partner. We cannot have rail as a silo that may or may not listen to us—that would not be the right arrangement. We should have a Bill that really cements the partnership and requires joint decision making, as opposed to us being consulted but maybe not listened to. It is possible to do that.
We like everything that is here, the direction of travel is right and we support what the Government are trying to achieve, but if we always have in our heads that railways serve places rather than themselves, it follows that a properly balanced partnership between the two is needed. Sometimes it feels like the railway just serves its own purposes, and does not have enough regard for places. The Bill should leave no doubt that railways are there to serve places and the people who live in them.
Tracy Brabin: I concur with Andy. It is about accountability, and it is also about revenue, so that if you have built this great station and the toilets are not working, you have skin in the game, because you want it to work. Who actually owns that responsibility: Network Rail, GBR, or the mayor who knows the need and can get on and deliver?
Joe Robertson
Q
Andy Burnham: It is important to say that we are doing that without the Bill at the moment. Again, we thank the Department for coming with us on the Bee Network journey. We will bring the first two rail lines into that this year; and over the next three years, eight rail lines will come into the Bee Network system. It is complex, because some of the lines begin outside of our borders, such as in Glossop and Buxton in Derbyshire, or in Southport in the Liverpool city region, but because those lines are GM commuter lines, so are not going to Liverpool, it is right for them to be in the Bee Network. We have made that argument and the Government have supported us.
We have already created an integrated ticketing system for tram and bus travel in Greater Manchester: you can tap in on both now, and there is a London-style cap. We want to add rail to that as soon as possible. When the first lines come into the Bee Network in December, people will be able to buy a paper ticket that covers tram, train and bus, but in time we want that to be integrated.
There is absolutely no reason at all why you could not have that over train and ferry travel—I know that the Mayor of Liverpool wants Mersey Ferries to be a part of his integrated system. It is complicated, but it is absolutely possible. The Department has already shown a willingness to do it, and is putting the technology into the rail industry to support that.
Joe Robertson
Q
Andy Burnham: I think there should be a presumption in favour of integration; you are absolutely right. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have had that as their guiding star, but we went down a fragmentation route in public transport, and have suffered as a country as a result. Integration is the way to think. People are not just loyal to one mode; they want to use transport in as convenient a way as possible. The railways have not had an imperative to think that way for a long time, but you are absolutely right to think of integration as the watchword.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Tracy Brabin: As Andy says, we are already doing it. We are sharing with the bus operators in our integrated Weaver network, where we have, for example, brought in the “mayor’s fare”. I think it is the only one in the country, and it is a day saver. It is capped and can be used on any bus, anywhere, for any number of journeys and on any operator. We work with the operators to divvy up the checks and balances of the passengers. I think you can see that it is possible.
To the previous point, devolution means that every region is different, so you do not always have to have one size fits all; you can have whatever works for you and your community. There are definitely ways to do it. Certainly, if it is done in London, that should give you comfort that it can be done elsewhere.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Tracy Brabin: I will say timetabling, because I have witnessed a bus arriving as the train is pulling away. Having that localised regional mind that considers what the public and businesses need, and where the buses need to go to deliver the passengers to the trains, is challenging, but are you not going to get a mayor soon?
Jayne Kirkham
Oh, there is a fraught question. I think anyone in the rest of the country who you ask will be having issues about devolution.
Tracy Brabin: Fair enough. But it is about that oversight of the buses feeding the train timetable.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
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.
Rebecca Smith
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.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: Jointly.
Rebecca Smith
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.
Sarah Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: We have no plans to annex you yet, but I will let you know if that changes!
Sarah Smith
The Reform county council is trying to delay our progression towards a mayor, which is deeply frustrating because of all of the things you have outlined, and much broader things as well, about the benefits of devolution. What benefits might Hyndburn get, without being part of a mayoral authority, as the Bill currently stands? What more might we be able to do to benefit areas that are dependent on that progress before they can be talking in the way that you are today, Tracy and Andy?
Andy Burnham: Obviously, from Hyndburn, people will travel to Manchester, but also to Liverpool, Preston and other places. Once you see the emergence of more integrated systems in which Hyndburn is included, travel will become more convenient and cheaper. In effect, there will come a point where your constituents, Sarah, will be able to tap into the Bee Network cap and come into Manchester and then use our trams and buses at a much lower cost than might otherwise have been the case. I think that is the way to think about it: as this spreads out, in the end, it will make travel more convenient and more affordable for people everywhere. It is really just within the city region boundaries at the moment, but it will grow beyond that, and I believe that your constituents will feel the benefit in three to five years, possibly, but maybe not as immediately as others.
Jason Prince: We also have to remember that the reason we are here now is that the railway system did not work. What GBR will do, through the legislation that the Government have brought forward, is bring a much stronger focus. We will have a structure and a body that, almost as a minimum, seeks to deliver a good passenger journey and good access, whether that is for freight or whatever.
We are starting from a stronger base and probably with greater clarity, but we have to acknowledge that different areas, such as Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, have been given powers and funding, and with that comes greater responsibility. They are all prepared to take that on and, conversely, with that they should have greater strengthening and probably deeper partnerships. I think that needs to be written into the Bill, to better define it. There are 20,000 words in the Bill, and the addition of probably only 500—about 2% of the overall text of the Bill—would make that relationship much stronger. I know that is quite geeky and very technical, but that is broadly where I think we need to land in terms of strengthening. GBR will set a framework that we have not had before, which should benefit every part of the country. I think that is what the Bill will do.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for giving evidence this afternoon. I am sorry to colleagues who were unable to ask questions.
Examination of Witness
Richard Bowker gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Bowker: I am Richard Bowker. I am the former chair of the Strategic Rail Authority. I now co-present a podcast about the railways called “Green Signals”.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I am going to focus on a couple of things. On access and capacity, we have heard a lot of evidence today; I do not know how much you have heard, but it has replicated, in essence, what was put before the Transport Committee a few weeks ago. There is a huge amount of concern in the sector about whether the Bill provides a level playing field between GBR and open access, freight and the like, coupled with a very weak—those are my words—appeals process, which is so narrowly constrained that it only deals with errors of law as opposed to disagreements on the merits. Is it right that there is a real problem with the future of competition in our railways? If you agree with that broad statement, perhaps you could expand on your reasons why.
Richard Bowker: I will probably say more about certainty and confidence for investors than competition per se. If I think about my experience at the Strategic Rail Authority, it was a significant frustration that elements of planning in terms of timetable and service were split apart in the way that they were. I think the Government are right to want to create a directing mind—I say directing mind rather than guiding mind. We have a capacity-constrained railway. In places, that is very severe, and someone needs to say, “Right. This is how we think we should allocate capacity.”
Having said that, there is a possibility that the pendulum has swung a little far. Probably the biggest issue with that would be rail freight. If you are a rail freight operator, at the moment you have certainty; if you are unhappy with the way that you are treated, you can go to the ORR. As an independent regulator, the ORR can make the final access decision.
What is contemplated is a perfectly logical process, starting with an access and use policy, capacity plans and capacity decisions. The problem is that railway timetables are not really like that; they are more dynamic. These things change. We looked at doing exactly this at the SRA, and it is very difficult to do. It changes constantly, so it has to be very agile. Under the Bill as drafted, while the process could work perfectly adequately, the capacity duty in clause 63—and potentially clause 18(4)—seems to say, to me at least, “Yes, GBR has all these duties, but they are subject to the capacity duty.” I can see why that causes tension and concern among freight operators, for example. I am not saying that it cannot work, but until we actually see it work, there is a risk that third-party operators will be concerned.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: The ’93 Act was not set up that way; it was set up so that the Strategic Rail Authority was responsible for setting an overall strategic plan for the railways and for managing the award and management of franchises, but Railtrack plc, and then Network Rail, was under the regulation of an independent economic regulator. The two worlds were apart. Whereas the regulator had to have regard to our strategies, it did not have to comply with them, so we always had that tension. It was not really for me to change it. That is why I think that, overall, this is a good approach.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: It is not for me to say whether she is overreacting, but I absolutely understand the concern, because rail freight in particular involves a lot of private capital. You have to have a degree of confidence and assurance that if you have access rights, you will be able to maintain them, so I understand that. I think the Government are right to create a directing mind. We have seen too many examples of timetabling processes that have gone wrong for precisely that reason—it is about balance.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: On the first point, yes, I recognise the concern. Secondly, personally I would look at clause 18(4) and ask whether we really need to have the capacity duty able to override other duties. As far as the appeals process is concerned, I can see why being able to look at a case on the merits rather than on a strictly legal basis would help enormously. If GBR believes that its access and use policy, its capacity planning and its final decisions constitute a good process, it should not fear that.
Keir Mather
Q
I was pleased to hear that you agree with the concept of a guiding mind for the railway—a unified body able to direct services in the interests of passengers. I want to point to the specific provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to passenger experience. One of GBR’s duties is to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, including those with disabilities, and clause 18(3) talks about having reliable services, and the avoidance and mitigation of passenger overcrowding. Does what is contained within the legally binding duties on GBR reflect the overall aspiration to have a unified railway with the passenger at its heart?
Richard Bowker: Yes, I think it does. There is a danger in being overly prescriptive about how you do those things, but the duties are fairly widely drafted, and they probably do do that. Much of this will depend not so much on what the Bill says GBR’s duties are; they are pretty clear and comprehensive. It is about how it is then structured to go on and do these things. Previous panel members talked about culture and behaviour, and those are really important. So, yes, I think the duties are broadly fine.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: No, I think there is a danger of being too prescriptive. Having a long-term rail strategy is an extremely good thing, but there is a danger, to take that as an example, of being too prescriptive. In terms of it being 10, 15 or 20 years, I was running the Strategic Rail Authority 20 years ago. We had no social media; it did not exist—I am jolly glad it did not, in terms of decision making—and AI was also not a concept. So there is a serious danger of being overly prescriptive in these things.
Setting out a clear strategy, and having clear policy and direction, is exactly what the railway needs more than anything else. It does not need to be tied down in too much of a straitjacket. What is absolutely crucial in all this is the relationship between the Department for Transport and GBR, and with mayoral combined authorities and local authorities as well, as we heard from previous panel members. That relationship between the DFT—between how Government sets their policy—and how GBR then delivers will be one of the most defining things in terms of whether these proposals will be a success. If we get it right, this could be transformational; if we get it wrong, it could be yet more micromanaging and meddling, which would be a disaster.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: I have two answers to that. First, I do not think we should judge what has happened in the last few years too harshly. So much of the way train companies have been able to behave has been highly prescribed by the national rail contracts they have with the DFT. Many, many rail leaders are looking forward to being liberated and empowered to serve customers better as a result of the end of that process. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that there has to be a balance, and I genuinely think the Bill has got it broadly right. If I were the chair of GBR, I would take very seriously a duty to have regard to a mayor’s transport plan. That is not a thing to be trifled with. You do not go, “I am just going to ignore that”—you do not. The problem we have, if you take the west coast main line in Manchester, is that the corridor between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport and then further south is used by an awful lot of freight operators, intercity services and west coast—all the services Mayor Burnham is keen to see grow. Capacity is constrained and limited, so in the end somebody has to be able to say, “I’ve listened to everybody. My duties are to take account of everything, weigh it all up and work in partnership,” which is crucial. It is important that somebody has to be able to make a decision.
Olly Glover
Q
Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.
I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Richard Bowker: Well, there is a target of 75% growth by 2050, and there is a duty to take it into account and to support the carriage of goods and services by rail. That is all great stuff. The rail freight businesses are in the private sector, and they are commercial and very agile. They will follow business. If business is there to be brought on to rail, I genuinely believe they are out looking for it all the time, and if they can make it happen, they will. I do not think GBR will necessarily have to try to find freight flows; the freight operators are extremely able at doing that. GBR has to make sure there are no blockages to being able to get those flows on.
The discounting process for track access is a very good thing in the Bill, and I think that will really help. The most important thing is that the freight team inside GBR is able to have its appropriate share of voice inside GBR when it comes to the passenger business as well. If GBR genuinely takes account of all its duties, I think it will work, because the freight companies will go and find the business. GBR just has to enable it to happen.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for this witness. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you, Mr Bowker, for giving evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Keir Mather and Lilian Greenwood gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Department for Transport. We have until 5.55 pm for this panel. Ministers, you have both participated in today’s sitting, but could you please briefly introduce yourselves for the record?
Keir Mather: My name is Keir Mather. I am the Minister for Maritime, Aviation and Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport and the lead Minister for the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood: My name is Lillian Greenwood. I am the Minister for Local Transport, and I am assisting as a Minister on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
We have heard lots of evidence, and some clear, consistent themes have risen out of it. If you have read the Transport Committee’s report on this issue from a few weeks ago, as I am sure you have, you will know that the sector is giving the Government a few messages very loud and clear. We will discuss those a little bit, but the secret question is: So what? What are you going to do about it? That is what I hope you will come back to.
A level playing field is fair and without discrimination. There is a structural conflict of interest between GBR as the holder of the ring and GBR as an operator—for example, in the relationship with open access, with freight and with independent retailers. Each one of those—they are sectors, not individual organisations—has profound concerns about a structural conflict of interest that has been deliberately built into the Bill.
Combined with that, there is an appeals process that is not worthy of the name. We can say that it is robust, but we all know that it is not. It is very, very tightly defined. It relates only to areas of law; there is no appeal on the merits at all. GBR is judge, jury and gamekeeper, as well as participant—that is a slightly mixed metaphor, but you get the point.
With the defenestration of the Office of Rail and Road as an economic regulator, the independent arbiter of the relationship with GBR is now gone. You have heard the evidence. What are you going to do about it?
Keir Mather: It is a very good question, Mr Mayhew. It goes to the core of the differing ideological perspectives that underlie the debate we have had today on the Bill. Although you see the state seeking to take too much control and giving itself an unfair advantage, our perspective on why this legislation is so important is that passengers—who are ultimately both people who pay for services on the railway and taxpayers who end up funding those services more often than not under this broken rail system, and will do once GBR is established—deserve a good service. We believe that having a unified service with a single guiding mind to bring track and train, passenger services and infrastructure together under one roof, with one point of accountability, is the best way to achieve those aims.
You asked me what we are going to do about the concerns raised today. It is my obligation as a Government Minister to address them, to explore ways in which we can allay them further and to progress the work the Department is already taking on through its stakeholder engagement, whether that be on the freight target or the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, to make sure that stakeholder concerns are heard.
On the principle of fairness and transparency as it relates to ticketing and third-party access, it is worth making the point that GBR is, by public law principles, obligated to have regard to fair and transparent processes as part of how the system works. On access and appeals, that is a real point of contention, which we will explore throughout Committee, but I heard the concerns raised by freight stakeholders and others.
I want to take this opportunity to be really clear that the Department’s very firm view is that clauses 60 and 63 are not in contention with each other and that Great British Rail has the ability to decide what constitutes best use of the railway, in a way that not only meets its duties, but balances opportunities for GBR services, rail freight and open access alongside one another. The clauses provide an opportunity to appeal on the basis of whether that has been followed, through the ORR, but also a robust process, once that allocation has been determined, to figure out whether GBR has been compliant with the law, as of course we always expect it will be.
Overall, this is a point of ideological difference that exists between our two parties. Labour believes fundamentally that you need one point of accountability and that the Government need to take a more proactive role in fixing this broken rail system. I am really pleased that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve what I think are very noble aspirations.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
The Bill has designed in a structural conflict of interest, as we have heard many times from all sorts of different people. Given that the Government have taken that decision, my question has nothing to do with ideology—it is practicality. What are the Government planning to do to reassure that 60% that they will not be steamrollered by a GBR that says, “We are the masters now. We can do what we like and there’s no effective right of appeal, so suck it up.”?
Keir Mather: I would point to the extremely robust suite of accountability measures that sit within the Bill as it stands. If you look at the legally binding duties GBR has in how it undertakes its work, one of those, which came out in our discussion with the ROSCOs, is to ensure that those who provide railway services can plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance. GBR is bound to meet a freight target set by the Secretary of State; it is legally bound to meet its duty to promote the interests of freight and, in clause 60, through the design of the best use of the railway as GBR sees it, it must give equal regard to users of the railway. Open access operators and freight are included as part of that mix.
However, we also need to think about what this legislation does in the future and how that contrasts with the situation now. The ORR had to turn down a number of open access applications on the west coast because we had insufficient capacity in our rail network. I do not understand how that constitutes fairness or competitive advantage for open access operators—it means that they are locked out of providing services and turning a profit by a rail system that is failing.
GBR having the capacity to manage, within one centralised function, capacity on the railway overall allows us to unlock those benefits, in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, but with a robust set of accountability measures to ensure that it is compliant with the law, compliant with its duties, and compliant with the aspirations of the Secretary of State, irrespective of their ideological predilections. Hopefully, that is an adequate answer to your question.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keir Mather: Absolutely. It is fundamental that that investment continues, both on the—[Interruption.] Sorry— I will just say this very briefly and then let you come back. On the rail freight point, where we have a target in place allowing us to boost the amount of goods moved by train, it might create more capacity for open access to work on the network, but the infrastructure delivery and the long-term rolling stock strategy that accompany this legislative piece of work also offer the private sector a real opportunity to play in the future of our railway, as I see it.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Whether it is the access in use concerns, the failure of the appeals process to be anything worthy of the name, or the fact that the proposed powers for the Secretary of State to change without notice access in use, taken in combination, the evidence from multiple witnesses today was that the Bill does not make it easier. Are you going to listen to them, or are the Government going to pursue their dogged insistence that everyone else is wrong and they are right?
Keir Mather: If you take something like the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the consultations are undertaken in close partnership with the private sector. If you are asking me whether it is going to be easier in the long term, with GBR created, for private sector operators to engage with a level playing field, I think that it will be. I think that it creates a very clear structure of accountability measures, clear metrics by which decisions are taken and robust accountability, if GBR does not meet its obligations under the access regime, to make sure that it does things correctly, especially on the matter of access.
I think it is important that we dig into this further, because it came out consistently with the freight operators. GBR has to decide how it meets its capacity duty once it has decided what best use of the railway constitutes. That is a really important safeguard that is built into the Bill. The Secretary of State gives GBR its funding envelope through the business plan, and needs to ensure that GBR will deliver the services that it has said it will. It is therefore very important to have that capacity duty in place, but that is after GBR has made a determination, while balancing its existing duties and its need to promote freight and service providers on the railway, on whether or not those services stack up.
I think that the accountability process and appeals process are very clear, and give private operators multiple points to raise concerns, and robust enforcement measures for the ORR to substitute decisions and ask GBR to think again. The point about thinking again is very important, because we want GBR to improve as an organisation, and to become more agile and more responsive to the needs of the private sector, and the appeals process facilitates that.
Olly Glover
Q
Keir Mather: That is a really important point. I hope that you feel that the human side of the equation, in terms of furthering the interests of passengers through the duties, is embedded in clause 18, but I take your point about the funding envelope, and the way that passenger services are funded via the spending review period set by the Secretary of State, as opposed to infrastructure more broadly. The reason for that in the immediate term is that the procurement and delivery of passenger services is a far more complex and changeable process to work through than the delivery of long-term infrastructure, or other functions that sit under GBR.
In the future, we can certainly get into a debate about whether passenger services should be funded in a similar way to other aspects of GBR’s operation, but for the moment, and after GBR is stood up, which let us remember is in quite short order after the passage of the Bill, in around 12 months’ time, the Secretary of State needs to be able to determine that passenger services offer value for money. It is therefore right that she retains more control over the funding envelope for those services at that stage. We can certainly take the debate on how that should change in the future forward as part of this Committee. I would be very keen to explore it further.
Laurence Turner
Q
I want to raise devolution, and specifically clause 5. There is a lot of history to the clause, and a line of continuity with the old section 20 of Barbara Castle’s Transport Act 1968. A lot of great things were accomplished under that legislation, including the creation of a cross-city line in Birmingham, but then privatisation came along. There was an attempt to do something similar under section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, which frankly did not work; there was never a single agreement signed. What lessons have been learned about what went right in the past and what went wrong with the 2005 legislation, when it comes to clause 5 of the Bill?
Keir Mather: I suppose that, in the 2005 Act, section 13 was not only really narrow in scope, in that it covered only franchised services, but represented a significant watering down of relationships between the rail industry and passenger transport executives. The difference with clause 5 of the Bill is that it is significantly wider in scope, to ensure that partnerships under GBR cover the full rail offer, rather than focusing only on services.
There is an important point around corporate structure. It is right that the corporate structure is not laid out in the Bill—no piece of rail legislation in 113 years has done that—but what has come out quite consistently in the testimony of the mayors, and in the broader points made around devolution, is that, whether it be on the MCA basis or on the local authority basis more generally, people want GBR’s structure to be flat, and responsive to dynamic changes both in demographics around housing and your ability to get to Everton stadium when the rugby league is on, which is of personal interest to me.
I think the point is very well made, and it is certainly taken by me as the Minister, that democratic accountability means that the operational reality of GBR should be diffuse wherever possible. People do not want to see a replication of a centralised model of the past.
Laurence Turner
Q
Keir Mather: I think we have been really clear, and the provisions in the Bill support this, that GBR needs to be organised locally so that it can work really collaboratively with local leaders, and it is through the business units that it has to devolve that responsibility to as close to decision-makers as possible. MCAs are the right level, in terms of being a catalyst for economic and housing growth, but you are right that the challenges around rail infrastructure and service provision, even though the solution to a lot of them may be set by MCAs, are inherently cross-border. I would expect GBR to be able to fulfil a role in facilitating the ironing out of those differences, for the good of everyone, on a cross-border basis.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: Yes.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: We think there are benefits from consolidation in terms of building a more efficient railway, which we are confident will be able to build a more efficient system for passengers. We hope that that will reduce costs. The Secretary of State also has power through the Bill to set guardrails on fares, which are a really important part of the system. Unfortunately, I have not brought my crystal ball with me today on the exact time when fares may increase or decrease.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: It is my understanding that GBR’s functions and operational work when it comes to ticketing will be subject to the code of practice, yes.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keir Mather: The Bill requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers before they issue a direction that directly affects passenger services. That means that there is a robust ability for the devolved Administrations to play their role in thinking about how we have joined-up services. In Wrexham and across north Wales that is incredibly important, as we go through into north-west England.
It is also important that GBR is able to carry out work across the four nations that does not conflict with the aspirations of the devolved Administrations to pursue their own rail ambitions. For example, the Scottish Government have stated very clearly that they want to pursue a vertically integrated railway. GBR needs to complement the aspirations of the devolved Administrations and create close bases on which we work.
I am really pleased to say that it seems that, from a Scottish Government perspective, they are happy with the balances and accountability measures in the Bill. They think—I would not want to put words in their mouth, but they can correct me if I am wrong—that it forms a strong bedrock upon which we can start to take these conversations forward.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keir Mather: That is a very good question. The answer eludes me at this moment, but I am happy to either let you know or inform the Committee in writing.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Ministers for their evidence. Apologies to colleagues who did not get in, but there will be lots more opportunities for colleagues to ask questions of the Ministers.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—but I hope you have plenty of water. We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first; other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendments in the group, which includes grouped new clauses, that will be at the Chair’s discretion.
My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses, following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful, but you may seek advice when we are not sitting.
Clause 1
Great British Railways
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(2) A body corporate may be designated under this section only if—
(a) it is limited by shares, and
(b) it is wholly owned by the Crown.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable.
(4) The designation of a body corporate terminates—
(a) if the body corporate ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown, or
(b) if the Secretary of State revokes the designation.
(5) Any notice of revocation under subsection (4)(b)—
(a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.
(6) For the purposes of this section a body corporate is wholly owned by the Crown if each share in the body corporate is held by—
(a) a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown, or
(c) a nominee of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(7) Great British Railways is exempt from the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to the use of ‘limited’ as part of its name.
(8) In this section—
‘company’ means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Great British Railways Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to,
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
New clause 38—Ministerial statements on functioning of Great British Railways—
“(1) Once every three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make a written ministerial statement in each House of Parliament summarising progress towards Great British Railways becoming fully operational.
(2) Should any day on which the Secretary of State must make a written statement be on a day when either House of Parliament is not sitting, the Secretary of State must publish a statement in similar terms.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament quarterly on progress in establishing Great British Railways.
Laurence Turner
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the outset, I wish to declare that I am a member of Unite.
It is a privilege to speak at the start of these proceedings. I do so as a believer in public ownership of the railways not as an end, but as the best means of realising greater economies for taxpayers and improvements for all those who rely on the railways for livelihood and leisure. I am conscious that the Committee has much work ahead of it, so I will keep my explanation of the amendment brief.
Public ownership is the ballast of the Bill, but its clauses make only limited reference to ownership, although the drafting logic for that may be good—the Bill must, after all, be read alongside the previous enabling legislation passed by Parliament, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 and the now much amended Railways Act 1993. In 2024, Parliament’s decision and intent were clear: passenger services are to come under public ownership as franchises expire. I must admit, however, that I start our proceedings under the shadow of a doubt. On my reading, there is a risk that the requirements of public ownership that sit outside this Bill may be time-bound, designed for the specific circumstances of transition, and dependent on definitions in statutory instruments that are themselves at risk of amendment or repeal without full parliamentary scrutiny.
I freely acknowledge that some members of the Committee may take a different view of the merits of the ownership question, and I am sure that we will have good and respectful debate on the Bill’s provisions in the weeks ahead, but surely we can all agree on one point: such an important decision as public or private ownership should be taken only through primary legislation. To put it another way, were a future Government to seek to return to a privatised model, they should be obliged to seek majority consent in the full House. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The amendment would require Great British Railways to be a wholly and nationally owned public sector entity. Indeed, it would cease to be GBR if it were sold in whole or in part. The amendment would also, I think, prevent a future Secretary of State from taking the extremely perverse step of removing GBR’s designation as a public sector body and transferring it to a private or semi-private entity.
If the wording of the amendment seems familiar to hon. Members, it will be because they have been paying close attention to other legislation. Clause 1 of the Bill is effectively identical to section 1(1) of the Great British Energy Act 2025. The amendment is a near carbon copy—I am sorry to all members of the Committee, but we are only at the start of our descent; I cannot promise that the puns will improve as we go on—of the subsections that follow in section 1 of that Act. I note that in the equivalent Committee debate for that Act, the sponsoring Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), said:
“The clause protects the principle of public ownership by making explicit that the company would terminate if it ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 10 October 2024; c. 91.]
I accept that we are seeking to build on a complex body of legislation; the railways are the accumulation of two centuries of history, and so are the laws that govern them. If—I emphasise that word—a drafting issue has been identified, we also need to identify the right solution for this specific legislation. I am grateful to the Minister in the Commons and to the Minister of State, the noble Lord Hendy, for their thoughtful conversations on this matter. I am also grateful to the officials who have worked hard to prepare this commendable Bill. My motivation in tabling the amendment is to establish beyond doubt that the Bill will achieve its aim: that Great British Railways will be run by and for the nation. If we can assure ourselves of that, I believe that this legislation will set out a permanent way for reform. I will listen carefully when the Minister responds.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is very nice to have you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I think this a conversation among Labour Members, and I do not want to get in the way of a private dispute. I might just sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak in favour of new clause 24, which I will press to a vote when the time comes, because, as I have said in other forums where the Minister has been present, one of the Liberal Democrats’ big concerns is the Secretary of State’s power over GBR as specified in the Bill. I have given many examples previously of past poor state-led decisions, and fear I will do so again during the Committee’s discussions. Of course, there are lots of problems with private sector railways, but there have also been lots of public sector problems, too, whether with fares, rolling stock or infrastructure.
Our proposal would increase the transparency and accountability of the Secretary of State’s decisions. It would not prevent any of those decisions, but it would create a vehicle for them to be properly discussed. We propose creating a Great British Railways board. If the Secretary of State went against the advice of that board, the reasons for that would need to be communicated. The people serving on the board would represent GBR, but also other key stakeholders in the running of the railway: open access passenger operators, freight operators, the Office of Rail and Road, the passengers’ council and organisations that represent passengers with accessibility requirements. The board would comprise at least six members. To make sure that there is a voice for the other stakeholders that GBR needs to work with and serve, no more than half the board’s membership would be employed by, or otherwise represent, GBR.
It would be for GBR to determine the frequency of board meetings in any year. Any decision or direction from the Secretary of State concerning GBR would be notified to the board prior to being made, and should be made only if a majority of the GBR board approved it. The board would need to publish any decision or direction it considered, and whether it had approved any such decision or direction. If the board did not agree with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would be free to go ahead with whatever they decided to do against the views of the GBR board, which we hope would be made up of experts from both GBR and elsewhere, but would need to publish a statement setting out their reasons for that.
That is a summary of our proposal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew
I do. I apologise to the Committee; I erroneously thought that we were dealing with amendment 257 in isolation.
There is huge interest in this Bill, which will directly affect lots of people. It will affect the employees, of course, as well as Network Rail, the train operating companies, the remaining franchisees and those already in the public sector, freight and open access operators, the mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London, High Speed 1, the huge supply sector, the trade unions and many others—and that is before we even start to consider passengers. This is a generational change in the organisation of the railways, and it is crucial that the Government do not mess it up.
One of the key themes that will run through a lot of our conversations over the coming four weeks is accountability, and new clause 38 would address just one small part of that issue by requiring a ministerial statement, once a quarter, on the progress of the setting up of GBR and its becoming fully operational. There is huge public interest in the Bill, which must be successful, so it would be sensible for the Minister to come to the House and make a statement. That would increase transparency, maintain focus and prevent drift.
Mrs Hobhouse, can you give me some guidance? Are we going to talk about the clause more widely later, or should I deal with that now?
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you.
We have this generational change in the organisation of the railways; the Government, with their majority, have taken a political decision to nationalise the sector. We know that nationalisation of the railways has been tried before. They were nationalised in 1950 or 1951—
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. From 1950, we had the high point of post-war passenger numbers on the railways—about 1 billion passengers. From that period of nationalisation, the number of passengers choosing—I use that word advisedly—to use the railways started a long and seemingly unstoppable decline. It went from 1 billion in the early 1950s all the way down to about 735 million in the period of privatisation—1993. It seemed like that was due to the public changing the way in which they chose to live their lives. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South, suggested from her seat on Second Reading that it was obvious that people did not want to use the train so much, even during a period of increasing population, because they were increasingly affluent and they bought more cars. That is a possible explanation.
But then something very odd happened. In 1993, the then Conservative Government legislated to privatise the railways. Now, we can debate—and I am sure we will multiple times over the coming days—whether that was a good or a bad thing in principle and whether the way the privatisation was done, through the Railways Act 1993, and subsequently amended was perfect or whether it could have been improved upon, but if we consider that the primary objective of a railway—leaving freight to one side for a moment—is to carry passengers, the data shows that the privatisation of the railways in the United Kingdom was an unqualified success. The seemingly inevitable decline in passenger numbers changed direction immediately. It was not just a slow bottoming out; that long-term decline immediately turned in the other direction, and then continued to grow until covid meant that all bets were off from 2019. Those numbers did not just grow to recover all the lost work of the previous 40 years—they did not go back up to 1 billion customers; they increased to 1.75 billion. That was a period of increased affluence, when the number of cars available to passengers increased enormously. The only explanation for the absolute reversal in passenger numbers is the decisions taken through privatisation—the profit motive and the incentive to focus on passengers rather than on the organisation.
The Chair
I advise Members that any clauses or amendments that I announce in a grouping are debated at that point, although some of the decisions—that is, the votes—might come not at that point, but later. We will decide on amendment 257 and clause 1 after this debate; we are also discussing new clauses 24 and 38, but the decisions on those will come later. I hope that that is helpful and that it will help Members with other groupings we debate.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already addressed clause 1 in broad terms, so I do not propose to repeat what he said, other than to express my agreement with his concerns about the unintended consequences and potential impact of nationalisation on passengers. I recognise that that is the Government’s decision and that, with their majority, they will be able to carry it—unless they have a huge rebellion on a scale we have not seen before, which is highly unlikely.
Let me address my hon. Friend’s new clause 38. As a Government Minister, I saw that the easy bit was coming up with a strategy and pushing some legislation through the House; the hard bit—and the bit that makes the difference as to whether something works for our electorate and for the great British public—is the implementation and delivery of the intent behind the strategy or legislation. There can be no doubt that this legislation is complex and represents a significant change to a service and industry that is relied on by many, day by day, up and down this country.
The Minister knows I have a lot of respect for him. He has risen up through the ranks rapidly but justifiably through his abilities and talents. I have seen in the past his willingness to listen and reflect on different perspectives, so I gently encourage him to look at new clause 38 with an approving eye. It is not onerous. It is a written ministerial statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham proposes, which is not a challenging thing to produce in a Government Department and then lay before the House. Although on occasions such scrutiny might test the Minister’s patience, I have to say with the benefit of hindsight that the scrutiny that comes through that publication and having to go through the process of summarising where we have got to in implementing a policy can often lead to that policy being kept on track and to course corrections as it is implemented, and can genuinely improve outcomes and delivery for the public.
I conclude by gently commending my hon. Friend’s proposed new clause to the Minister. I hope he will look at it with an approving eye or at least an open mind.
The Chair
We now look forward to the Minister responding on amendment 257, and on new clauses 24 and 38, although he might be relieved to hear that he does not have to make a decision on those today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. May I begin by saying how much I look forward to working with all members of the Committee as we advance the priorities in the Bill and hopefully have a robust debate as we do so?
First, I turn to amendment 257 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I also want to reciprocate his warm words about the conversations he has been able to have with me and the Rail Minister Lord Hendy on this provision. Let me reassure him that public ownership of our railways is what the Government are delivering, as set out in our manifesto, and that we are steadfast in our commitment to it. We are already seeing the benefits of bringing train operators into public ownership, with passengers being put back at the heart of the rail network. Passengers can now use their tickets on another public sector operator at no extra cost during disruption.
Through working with Network Rail, Southeastern increased capacity to popular seaside spots in the summer months. Since moving into public ownership, South Western Railway has more than quadrupled the number of new Arterio trains in service, directly benefiting passengers. Public ownership sits at the heart of the Bill, as my hon. Friend notes is the case in other legislation passed by this Government, to ensure that we gradually take our railways back into public ownership in the interests of passengers. However, I take his point that it is important to safeguard the legacy of these essential reforms for generations to come. I will take that thought away. In the meantime I encourage him to withdraw his amendment.
New clause 24 would require the Secretary of State to appoint a Great British Railways board to advise the Secretary of State on decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways, with representation from various industry groups. I feel that is unnecessary and would distort the clear accountability framework established in the Bill. To be clear, a highly skilled board that can hold to account the executive of Great British Railways will be crucial to delivering an improved railway. The GBR board will be made up of experienced people with diverse backgrounds who can be the voice of railway users. Where the Secretary of State is concerned about the performance of GBR, she will be able to raise these matters with the chair of the board. The chair will be able to advise both the Secretary of State and GBR’s chief executive officer on options for resolution and will be expected to ensure they are acted on, all without the need for a direction.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I recognise that improvements are needed for the drafting of the board were it to go ahead. He makes reference, however, to the board of GBR and that it will have a number of directors on it. In normal circumstances that would include a number of non-executive directors outside the main organisation. Will the Minister confirm that that is the intention for this board? If it is the case that external non-executive directors are anticipated for that board, could he go down the list in new clause 24(2)(a) to (f) and describe whether those are the kinds of organisations that might be represented in a non-executive capacity on the GBR board?
Keir Mather
It is my understanding that the process of appointing non-executive directors on GBR’s board will be followed in the normal way. I expect departmental processes to find a range of candidates with experience of both the private sector and public institutions, to ensure that GBR is an agile organisation that provides value for money for those who fund the railway and, most importantly, accountability through the Secretary of State, as well as having a mind to furthering the interests of both open access operators and the freight sector within the operation of GBR.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse.
I completely appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, I suppose that the outstanding question is this: how will the general public come to understand what GBR is going to mean for them if it is not going to be established for 12 months and if there is not a fixed timetable for reporting back to MPs on how it is going? There has already been a fanfare about delivery; I am sure that there is going to be another fanfare from the Government once the Bill is passed. However, if we are going to take passengers on this journey, so to speak, we must ensure that there is an opportunity for us, as Members of Parliament, to be able to report back, even if it on an issue relating to our own constituency. I think the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is actually quite sensible.
Keir Mather
May I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the fact that so far I have not made a single rail pun in the course of this debate—and I intend to keep it that way?
The hon. Member made a really important point about both parliamentary accountability and the general public being able to understand more about how GBR works and what it constitutes. Throughout the establishment of GBR, there are concurrent process that will allow the Secretary to State to outline more properly the long-term future of the railway and GBR’s role in it, including the long-term rail strategy, as well as work that we are already advancing on the accessibility road map and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
Existing parliamentary structures in our Westminster democracy provide ample room for us to hold Government Ministers and the Secretary of State to account on the establishment of GBR. We have oral questions for Transport, as well as the ability to ask urgent questions on GBR’s establishment. Through both Lord Hendy in the other place and Ministers in this House, we have a real ambition to explain GBR’s provisions and ways of working to the general public, because we are confident in its ability to revolutionise how the railway runs on behalf of passengers, but I take the hon. Lady’s point.
Establishing GBR is the primary purpose of the Bill, and clause 1 provides the Secretary of State with the power, by regulations, to designate a body corporate as GBR. The clause enables wider provisions in the Bill relating to GBR to apply to a body corporate, such as the statutory functions and general duties set out in it. Following Royal Assent, a company will be designated as GBR, and it will consolidate Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, DfT Operator, train operators and parts of the Rail Delivery Group into one organisation to ensure that GBR can be mobilised as quickly as is practicable.
The clause is essential for the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to reform the railways by establishing GBR as the directing mind, bringing track and train together. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Laurence Turner
I must start by slightly disagreeing with the Minister on his approach to railway puns. The shadow Minister referred to the discussion on amendment 257 as a dispute; I reassure him that this is not a case of pistons at dawn—[Laughter.] It is going to get so much worse. Before I come to the Minister’s substantive response, I will briefly respond to a few other comments that have been made in the debate.
The shadow Minister spoke about changes in passenger numbers over the years, which is a good illustration of why it is important to look across a whole time series, and to bear in mind the old maxim that correlation is not causation. After all, passenger numbers were already falling by the time that we got to vesting day in 1948. The railways were exhausted after years of war—indeed, passenger numbers halved between 1920 and 1947. In fact, the actual nadir in passenger numbers was not in the early 1990s but in 1983. I thought that Opposition Members might have wanted to take pride in the successful sectorisation experiment under the Thatcher Government, perhaps aided by some benign neglect from that Administration, which was sadly not repeated by the subsequent Major Administration.
We have some good explanations for why exactly passenger numbers rose so dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. For a long time, I think we could have all substituted our political explanations for why that happened. However, in 2018, a very good study, led by eminent modellers and academics, was published by the Independent Transport Commission on precisely that question. It found that passenger growth was overwhelmingly driven by changes in the job market—the types of roles being created and the areas of the country in which they were being created. It was also aided by changes to tax incentives for company cars in the early 2000s, which led to an additional increase in rail traffic.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. For my constituents, in the period since the railways were privatised they have twice needed to be brought back under public ownership: once in 2003, when Connex failed, and again in 2021, when Southeastern failed. However, on both occasions, there was no impact on passenger numbers; rather, the factors that my hon. Friend is describing correlated and led to those passenger numbers. Does he agree that over the last 30 years, whether the service has been under national or private ownership has had no impact on the passenger numbers on trains in my constituency?
Laurence Turner
I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory.
I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Crown status etc
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) This section is not to be read as preventing the exercise of functions by Great British Railways on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers under arrangements made by the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers may enter into agency agreements for the performance of functions on their behalf. For example, this may be required to assist with winding up of ongoing franchises, as they transition to GBR.
Keir Mather
Amendment 164 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint GBR as an agent to undertake certain activities on her behalf—for example, to manage outstanding contractual arrangements associated with the winding down of the franchising regime while the industry transitions to the new arrangements. It may be appropriate for GBR to do that if transfers of staff from the Department into GBR have already happened, for example. It would also ensure that GBR can effectively co-ordinate the winding down of franchises alongside its new management of services. This is a technical measure that supports a seamless transition of work and resources into GBR.
The amendment also clarifies that Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers can delegate their functions to GBR under clause 4, or enter into agency agreements with GBR if desired. That is already the Bill’s intention, but the amendment ensures that the Bill is clear and readable.
Clause 2 sets out GBR’s relationship to the Crown and the civil service, establishing it as an independent body. It will not be part of the Crown or act as the Crown’s agent or servant and its employees will not be civil servants. Additionally, the clause confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers will not be considered shadow directors for the purposes of the Companies Acts.
The clause is essential in setting up GBR and laying out how it will operate. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I enjoyed listening to the Minister read out the explanatory notes; we are all under no illusion as to what clause 2 stands for. The Opposition think it is eminently sensible—in fact, it lifted directly from the structure proposed by the previous Conservative Government for the draft Rail Reform Bill. Government amendment 164 appears to be a clarifying amendment to help with the dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s and we have no objection.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his constructive engagement on the amendment and the clause.
Amendment 164 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Functions
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, after “sale” insert—
“by promoting a thriving competitive market in the retail ticketing market”.
This amendment makes Great British Railways’ duty to promote a competitive retail market explicit and aligns the Bill with the Government’s stated aim of delivering a system where competition drives better outcomes for passengers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 131, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”
This amendment is related to NC9 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.
Amendment 117, in schedule 1, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”
This would ensure the Code of Practice to explicitly include a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.
New clause 9—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—
“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).
(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to —
(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,
(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,
(c) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,
(d) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,
(e) introducing a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,
(f) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,
(g) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and
(h) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—
(i) multiple rail services, or
(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.
(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”
This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.
New clause 3—Great British Railways retail requirements—
“(1) Great British Railways Retail is subject to the same conditions, standards and transparency requirements as all other accredited retailers.
(2) Conditions, standards and transparency requirements as set out in subsection (1) include equal access to—
(a) fares,
(b) products,
(c) technical systems, and
(d) data feeds.”
This new clause clarifies that Great British Railways Retail is subject to the same conditions, standards and transparency requirements as all other accredited retailers, including equal access to fares, products, technical systems and data feeds.
Amendment 132, in clause 92, page 54, line 5, at end insert—
“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”
This amendment is related to NC9 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.
Jerome Mayhew
This is where things liven up a bit. We have had the preliminaries; now we are going to get into the meat of the debate.
Clause 3 is where the Government set out the proposed functions of GBR—the list of activities that GBR will be expected to undertake to fulfil its purpose. I use the word “purpose” with some hesitation, because of course no purpose for the organisation is set out in the Bill. The Opposition will seek to address that in a new clause. What is contained within those functions, as well as what is not there, tells us a lot about the Government’s priorities. This is going to be quite illuminating.
The Chair
Order. We will debate clause 3 later. We are currently considering amendments 131 and 117, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Will the hon. Member direct his remarks to those amendments, please?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that direction, Mrs Hobhouse, but it is quite hard to talk about amendments if we have not considered what is in the clause. I fully accept and follow your guidance that the decision and debate on clause 3 as a whole comes later, but to address amendments to a clause I have to discuss the clause as a whole.
The Chair
I can only advise the hon. Gentleman on how we are going to take the debate forward, but I hear what he says. It would be helpful if he could allude to the amendments we are discussing.
Olly Glover
On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. I seek clarification for my own understanding. The lead amendment in the group is Opposition amendment 2; is it correct that we are also speaking to amendment 117 and new clause 3?
Jerome Mayhew
In which case, I will speak first to amendment 2, as that is first in the grouping, and then proceed to the others.
Amendment 2 would make explicit the duty of Great British Railways to promote a thriving, competitive retail market, and align the Bill with the Government’s stated aim of delivering a system in which competition drives better outcomes for passengers. The retail market in the UK is currently one of thriving competition, as we can all recognise, and shows UK tech at its best. Trainline is—I think I am right in saying—a FTSE 250 company, and a tech growth story for the United Kingdom, being Europe’s leading train and coach app. The amendment is therefore key to ensuring that the landscape continues to thrive and that we do not drive Trainline and its competitors out of the country.
Members will remember that in written evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline asked that Committee
“to recommend that the Bill be amended to require structural separation of GBR online retail from the rest of the GBR organisation and to publish information that enables the ORR, CMA and other regulators to assess compliance with competition law, subsidy control rules and non-discrimination duties. This should not be left to the Code of Practice alone”—
and, by the way, we have not seen the code of practice.
Trainline also said:
“We ask that the Committee recommend that the Bill include a statutory duty that all retail market participants—including GBR online retail—are treated fairly, equally and non-discriminatorily, and that GBR online retail be subject to the same Code of Practice as all other retailers…We ask the Committee to recommend that these economic parity safeguards, including structural separation of GBR’s online retail business, be written into the legislation and the forthcoming Code of Practice…We therefore ask that the Committee recommends…An explicit ORR power to impose binding orders or financial sanctions if GBR breaches its licence or the Code. ORR’s competition duty should explicitly apply in respect of these functions and GBR’s licence…Provision for an appeal body (for example the CMA or the Competition Appeal Tribunal) to hear merits of disputes…The Code development process must be led by ORR, independent of DfT and GBR. It must ensure full stakeholder consultation, clear timetable, transparent publication of decisions and mechanisms for future amendment.”
Members may say, “Well, they’ve got skin in the game, haven’t they? They’re a commercial organisation trying to compete with the future GBR, so it will be in their interest to try to fix the corporate structure in a way that gives them an unfair advantage.” But if we look at what Trainline is asking for, we see it is not seeking to gain an unfair advantage. It is merely asking GBR to create a level playing field. Trainline is not the only organisation making that argument; it is joined by others.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Trainline and other online retailers are not seeking to make ill use of their market position, but the Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Trainline to amend its adverts, and the ORR ordered it to amend its practice of not showing booking fees at the start of the booking process. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline accepted that its market share was significantly above the 25% test that the Competition and Markets Authority applies for a potential monopoly position. Does that concern the hon. Gentleman at all?
Jerome Mayhew
That demonstrates that the current system is working to hold Trainline to account, and that where there are abuses—if what the hon. Gentleman outlined amounted to abuses—effective systems are in position and they have been corrected.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention did not speak to the overriding point: what do the Government want when they are applying this new structure to retail? Do they want a level playing field? Is that their intention, or do they want a systemically biased system in which GBR retail is given an unfair advantage over independent competition? Both answers are credible—it is possible for the Government to form one decision—but they should not pay lip service to a level playing field but, in design, achieve the opposite, which appears to be the case at the moment.
In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, essentially agreed with Trainline’s position. He said:
“We think that because the independent retail market has produced significant benefits for customers in the time that it has been in existence. It is heavily used by rail passengers. The critical question in relation to the Bill, and the other mechanisms that will be in place once the Bill has been passed, is how we ensure that there is genuine fair and open competition between GBR ticket retailing and the independent retailers currently or potentially in the market.”
This is a key point: the Government need to stop and think about what their intention is. If it is to have a fair market, the evidence, and all the feedback they are getting from the sector, is that they have not yet achieved that objective. They need to put their money where their mouth is and decide what their objective is. I hope the Minister will be clear in his response as to the Government’s thinking on that.
A second concern is that the sector is nervous about the apparent lack of hierarchy and detail in the functions. GBR is assigned multiple duties under the clause, but with no hierarchy, so it paves the way for potential confusion—or, worse, it gives GBR the ability to pick and choose which function it thinks is important in relation to any decision. It can quietly demote the importance of others so that it can serve itself and thereby reduce the power of the clause.
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said in oral evidence to the Transport Committee:
“To lead from your further question: with the very broad powers for the Secretary of State and a certain lack of specificity on what will happen, what we are looking for is more key performance indicators, like in business. I realise it is a governmental entity, but the quantitative KPIs are not really there.”
I would go further than that: they are not there at all.
As well as amendment 2, which I have spoken to, we have also tabled new clause 3, which sets out GBR retail requirements. As I have said previously, this is a critical issue given the evidence that the Select Committee received, and the oral evidence that we heard on Tuesday, that the Government have built a structural conflict of interest into the Bill as currently drafted.
We also heard on Tuesday about international examples where a similar concern has been addressed in a different manner. SNCF is a state-owned railway in France that has unification of track and train. It also has a retail function, through which is competes with the wider market. SNCF, or, I presume, the French Government—I do not want to claim greater in-depth knowledge that I actually possess—have taken the decision to have a structural separation between SNCF retail and SNCF operations, the equivalent to GBR. The very obvious reason why they did that was for fairness and to have a level playing field. We are not talking about SNCF, but an improvement on the current position, which I fully accept is not perfect.
The Chair
Can I reassure the shadow Minister and all members of this Committee that it is not my intention to confuse you? I interrupted on the advice of the Clerks. The groupings have been agreed on; I do not want to stifle debate and there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the whole of clause 3 later on, in group 7.
Olly Glover
I stand to speak in favour of amendment 131 and new clause 9, and we will push new clause 9 to a vote if you are willing, Mrs Hobhouse. The amendments are intended to encourage GBR to think deeply and creatively about fares and ticketing, reflecting the fact that until recently—more on which anon—rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases for much of the past 20 to 30 years.
Many passengers feel that they are not getting good value for money and that the current fares and ticketing system requires a PhD in British railways ticketing systems, even for a nerd like me. I recently got caught out because GWR’s peak hour restrictions are utterly baffling and incomprehensible. I do not wish to speak too highly of myself—it is not my style—but if I, someone with the generally not particularly character-enhancing reputation in this place of being a railway nerd, got caught out, it does suggest that the system is too hard to process and needs to change. Given that the car is the default mode of transport for so many people, an overly complicated ticketing system creates a further barrier for people using it. That is why we have tabled amendment 131 and new clause 9.
Our amendments would require Great British Railways to prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its ticketing functions under section 3 of the Act. Our measures set out various proposals that we would like GBR to consider and which we feel would significantly improve the value for money of the fares system and its accessibility and comprehensibility to everyone using the railway, and help it to draw on best practice from elsewhere—both domestically and in other countries—to improve the current situation.
The report that we are asking for would need to include the following information. To give credit to the Government, they recently embraced a long-standing Lib Dem campaign for a rail fares freeze, for which we are grateful and praise them, but it should not just be a one-off that Department for Transport Ministers somehow managed to achieve the miracle of persuading the Treasury to do it. It is something that we need to think about for the future. On this side of the House we are not so fiscally irresponsible—
Jerome Mayhew
I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow, but there is a wider point there. The hon. Member is right to mention that the Government have frozen fares, but they have not reduced the cost of providing railway services. All they have done is frozen fares on the one hand and increased taxation on the other—and the taxpayer is having to pick up the difference. Does he agree that what the Government have done is put money into one pocket, but taken it out of the pocket of passengers who are, presumably, taxpayers?
Olly Glover
Of course, taxpayers pay for a wide range of services, public or otherwise. Too often, the railway has been viewed almost uniquely, with the high expectation that it covers its own costs. The key challenge with a rail fares freeze is that it needs to be fiscally responsible. While the one-off gesture is welcome, and relieves some of the pressure that has built up over the last few years during the cost of living crisis, our measure for the future is, we believe, more fiscally responsible. A cap on fare increases that does not exceed the rate of inflation should become the default, and should be reviewed as part of each five-year funding settlement.
We also advocate for extending, where not currently provided for, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 to address the anomaly of fare rates for young people aged 16 to 18. We want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing that is consistent across the countries of England, Wales and Scotland.
Edward Argar
May I ask, on a factual point, what assessment the hon. Gentleman has made of what the cost of that 50% discount would be?
Olly Glover
I have not made an assessment of it at this moment. But that is not unique: at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, the right hon. Member will find that a number of the Conservative proposals that are debated in this place have not yet been fully costed—
Rebecca Smith
I beg to differ: they are all costed, because we are the official Opposition.
Olly Glover
I look forward to hearing all the figures. The point is that it is not always about coming up with the exact cost for absolutely every measure. There are plenty of things that are the right thing to do, and that can earn a return on investment. The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training is a significant barrier to economic growth. This measure, by making it easier for young people to use the train to access jobs, is likely to earn a significant return by getting more people into employment and paying taxes.
Before I accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that we want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland. If that sounds absurd, the Netherlands has it at this exact moment—and there is much that we can learn from that example. We want a guarantee to be issued that whatever ticket passengers purchase, via any means, is the best value fare. There should be no inequality in fare for the same ticket purchased via different means, which can be the case now because of the proliferation of ticketing platforms.
We want a national railcard to be introduced across the country. Many other countries, including Germany and Switzerland, offer national discount cards, but it is a bit of a postcode lottery here, with the network railcard in the London and south-east England area and a number of other regional or local railcards. We want open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rate databases for third-party retailers. That would build on the useful example demonstrated by Network Rail about 15 years ago, when it made the data feeds for its performance and train running systems available for the public to use. That created a wonderful ecosystem of useful train running and disruption apps that were much better than the official ones provided by train operators.
We also want to see greater collaboration with local and regional transport authorities, so that we see much more multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks. That would help us to get the integrated transport system we need to deal with the first and last-mile issues that are often a barrier to people deciding to take public transport over the car. Where a single journey involves travel on multiple rail services, or at least one rail service and another form of public transport, we want steps to be taken to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel.
We believe that our new clause makes a number of proposals that would put our fares and ticketing system on a much better footing. It would deliver value to the taxpayer as well as reduce cost, because it would stimulate many more people to use our railway and therefore increase revenue. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect.
Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage.
The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities.
The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?
Edward Morello
At one point, going through all the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill, I concluded that accepting them all would mean that the only people who would pay for a full-price ticket would probably be working-age men aged 35 to 45—they would have to single-handedly fund the entire rail network. I am not sure that that is a desirable long-term system, but a simplified system is ideal. I accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s intervention: the regionalised or localised railcards have their own benefit. But invariably we are just creating more and more carve-outs, and a simplified national system may be fairer and easier to sustain over the long term.
A move towards a national tap-in, tap-out system would modernise the network and make it far more user-friendly. In West Dorset, passengers too often step off a train only to have to wait 45 minutes for a bus, because timetables are poorly aligned. Enabling multimodal ticketing would allow rail, bus and other services to work together, making journeys smoother for residents and visitors.
New clause 9 would require Great British Railways to report on and plan for fair fares, modern ticketing, innovation through an open-source system and integration across all transport nodes. Like new clause 8, it would allow us to advocate for passengers, which should be the central theme of the Bill.
Keir Mather
I thank all the hon. Members for the amendments, which relate to GBR’s ticket retailing functions. I will turn first to amendments 2 and 117 and new clause 3. The amendments and new clause seek to amend GBR’s retail function and code of practice to promote a level playing field for third-party retailers, with parity of access to fares, products, systems and data.
Once GBR is established, it will have a retail function, as provided for by clause 3. Crucially, that function will be accessible via all channels—at station ticket offices, ticket vending machines, onboard trains and online—ensuring that it serves passengers however they buy their tickets. GBR’s future online retailer—its website and app—will operate in a fair, open and competitive market.
The Government have consistently recognised the significant value of independent retailers, as they help to innovate and drive up standards for passengers. Therefore, I recognise and agree with the motivation behind amendment 2. Nevertheless, the Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Significant safeguards have already been announced to ensure that our shared vision for the future of the rail retail market is realised—not least a code of practice, which will be owned and enforced by the Office of Rail and Road.
The provisions in the code of practice will ensure that GBR cannot abuse its position or self-prefer as it also operates vital cross-industry functions that independent retailers rely on. The incentives to comply could not be stronger: if GBR fails to adhere to the code of practice, that constitutes a breach of its licence, and the ORR will take enforcement action. It is as simple as that.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the clarity on the code of practice, which has also been echoed in some written answers I recently received from him. While we are talking about open access, what thoughts have the Minister and the Department given to working with independent retailers who have probably spent billions of pounds developing an app and a website that do a particularly good job? What work will they do collaboratively with those organisations, rather than viewing themselves as competition?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are certain areas where GBR will operationally have to work with third-party retailers to ensure that they have the information that they need to continue to discharge their service.
However, another important point is that there are lessons to be learned about existing functions—where they work and where they do not work—in providing value for money for passengers and ease of access to the railway network. That is certainly something that we can take forward as part of the discussion on the Bill. I know that the Rail Minister consistently meets with stakeholders across the breadth of the railway industry, and it should be incumbent on us all to ensure that competitive measures, where they serve the interests of passengers, are incorporated into the way GBR works.
Rebecca Smith
The point I want to come back to is about value for money for the taxpayer. I want some reassurance that GBR will not go right back to the beginning of the journey of creating a ticketing app and website, which would effectively cost the general public an inordinate amount of money, when we already have a lot of platforms that could be brought in-house rather than having to be separate businesses.
On the value for money point, call me a cynic, but my understanding of computer programming is that it is not very cheap. I assume that that is something that GBR will have to factor in. Perhaps using some of the existing independent retailers might be a better value for money option.
Keir Mather
Of course, those independent retailers can continue to operate. GBR also has, as part of its duties—the things that it is required to follow by law—an interest in promoting the efficient use of public funds. We also think that there are significant economic benefits that can be realised through consolidation when it comes to aspects of ticketing.
As has been so ably pointed out, taxpayers and railway passengers are the same people. To that extent, people being taken in different directions by a vast variety of ticketing apps, not being able to realise the potential savings that are in place, does them a disservice economically. We believe that consolidation can offer them a smoother experience of ticketing and, hopefully, access to benefits that otherwise they might not be able to realise.
To return to the code of practice, it will be fully consulted on before its introduction, so it would not be appropriate for the Bill to pre-empt the specific provisions that it will contain. However, I can confirm to the Committee that the principles I have set out today, which I believe are consistent with some of the concerns that amendments 2 and 117 and new clause 3 seek to address, will very much guide ongoing work in this area.
On that point, I turn back to one of the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson about his concern regarding the setting of fares. I would like to make clear to him that it is not for the Secretary of State to interfere in day-to-day fare decisions. The Secretary of State will be limited to setting high-level strategic parameters to ensure that fares remain affordable for passengers and sustainable for taxpayers. GBR will make all of the operational decisions within those parameters and changes to those parameters would occur only to reflect GBR’s financial settlement, or in exceptional circumstances. That is, in my view, a necessary and proportionate safeguard to protect passengers, taxpayers and Government money. Therefore, as we are already taking significant and sufficient steps to deliver what the amendment envisages, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
I turn now to new clause 9 an amendments 131 and 132, which are dependent on it. New clause 9 would mandate the publication of a report covering various elements of GBR’s fares, ticketing and retail functions. Many of the items that this report would be required to cover relate to affordable and accessible rail travel—causes to which the Government are steadfastly committed. Affordability for passengers will be a key consideration when the Secretary of State sets strategic parameters and guardrails for GBR to follow on fares. As the Committee is by now aware, the Bill ensures continued statutory protection for concessionary discounts for young, older and disabled passengers.
Elsewhere, new clause 9 covers matters such as tap-in, tap-out payment and integrated ticketing, as well as third-party retailers’ access to systems and products. On integrated ticketing, we are already working with local authorities to integrate rail with local transport modes—and to trial or expand pay-as-you-go travel where appropriate. We are also progressing evaluations of how different pay-as-you-go schemes impact passengers, and the final reports will be published in due course. This work, which has not required additional legislation, is consistent with the ambition set out in various parts of new clause 9.
In summary, a legislative requirement to publish the envisaged report is not needed to deliver the outcomes that we want to see going forward. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will agree not to press new clause 9 to a vote. Amendments 131 and 132 are dependent on new clause 9 and, for the reasons set out, the Government do not believe the report that new clause 9 would require is necessary, so I hope that the hon. Member will also agree not to press these amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
I have great respect for the Minister and I hear with interest what he said, but I am not convinced that the sector will receive sufficient reassurance from that, so I intend to push the amendment to a vote. Perhaps others, subsequently, as well, but we will deal with those later.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 241, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “including,” insert
“acting in a fair and non-discriminatory manner”.
This amendment would require equal treatment between GBR and non-GBR services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, after “services” insert
“managed by Great British Railways”.
These amendments would clarify that the research, advice and standards being published by Great British Railways are related to aspects to part of the railway and railway services which are managed by Great British Railways.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, after “services” insert
“managed by Great British Railways”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(a) includes making strategic plans as to the future provision of railways infrastructure in Great Britain and implementing those plans.
(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office for Rail and Road.”
This amendment aims to ensure that the Office for Rail and Road continues to make decisions about access.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
New clause 15—Great British Railways electrification programme—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to publish and adhere to a programme of rail electrification.
(2) The programme must seek to—
(a) reduce cost, and
(b) improve timely delivery of
construction and delivery of infrastructure associated with rail electrification.
(3) The programme must cover a period of five financial years, beginning with the financial year following the financial year in which the programme is first published.
(4) The programme must be published each financial year thereafter, covering the period of the following five financial years.”
This new clause would require Great British Railways to commit to a rolling programme of line electrification.
New clause 20—Great British Railways: environmental targets—
“In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to takes steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.
Jerome Mayhew
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Sir Alec. Amendment 241, in my name, is important, as so many of these amendments are. We heard in both oral and written evidence that lots of people are concerned about the need for this amendment, which addresses the concerns of many in the non-Great British Railways sector, whether Trainline, open access operators, freight operators or the whole supply chain.
The amendment seeks to require GBR expressly to act in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. We had some discussion about that before lunch, but I reiterate the argument that I made. I will seek to press the amendment to a Division if the occasion demands it, but it would send a terrible message to investors in the independent sector if the Government voted down an amendment that merely asks GBR to operate in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Amendments 3 and 4 clarify that the research, advice and standards published by Great British Railways are related to aspects of the parts of the railway and railway services that are managed by Great British Railways. Many independent entities, such as freight, open access and the supply chain, as well as other networks, are not managed by or part of GBR. Those entities need to be free to publish their own standards and manage their own innovation and research. The current drafting of the clause is a clear overreach. I suspect that that may be unintentional, so I ask the Minister or his officials to have a think about that.
Additionally, other cross-sector and national standards, such as those managed by the Rail Safety and Standards Board or the British Standards Institution, may be directly legally applicable to GBR itself under, for example, the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 and the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006. To avoid conflicts of interest, those cannot be published or managed by GBR itself, so the Minister needs to explain how clause 3 does not involve a conflict of interest. Has he—or, it is probably gentler and kinder to ask, his team—researched those apparent contradictions? If he or they have, perhaps he could set out how those conflicts are addressed in the current wording.
Amendment 5 would leave out clause 3(2) and insert in its place:
“(2) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(a) includes making strategic plans as to the future provision of railways infrastructure in Great Britain and implementing those plans.
(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office for Rail and Road.”
This would be quite a big change, because it would address head on the structural conflict of interest that has been identified by very many commentators. The role of the Office of Rail and Road is a key concern for the non-GBR part of the industry, which is, after all, 60% of it. By “the role of the ORR”, I do not mean its safety role, which remains almost entirely unchanged; I mean its economic regulator role.
This is not an issue of ideology. Some play has been made about base views on whether nationalisation or privatisation are better or worse than one other, but let us leave that to one side—we have had our fun for the moment. This is a fundamental issue of fairness of procedure, which is necessary irrespective of the ownership structure of the organisation. We all know that Great British Railways will be the dominant operator. That position brings it structural advantages in any event, but it will now be the referee on access as well. That is a direct and obvious conflict of interest, and it is a very odd approach because it is so clearly unfair.
The alternative is to use an independent structure. We would use the ORR because it already exists and does not have to be created, it already has a reputation for independence, and its remit and direction are set by the Secretary of State, so it cannot be a loose cannon.
I accept in part the arguments put forward by the Minister in response to questioning on Tuesday. I recognise that the Government own the infrastructure and the taxpayer has invested many billions of pounds in the railway over time, and I accept that they should decide how those funds are best used. The issue is how the Government look after taxpayers’ money. Is it via a player-referee—GBR—or is it via the Office of Rail and Road, which is itself a governmental organisation, has its remit set by the Secretary of State and is given direction? It is not as though we would be handing the keys to a stranger; we would just be demonstrating the application of a fair and non-discriminatory process by an overtly independent organisation that is itself an arm of the state.
Amendment 5 aims to ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continues to make decisions about access. It is a common theme of the Opposition amendments throughout that we want to ensure that the Bill does not create a GBR with that structural conflict of interest that acts as referee and player. I intend to press the amendment to a Division, should the opportunity arise.
Finally, I turn to amendment 6, which would leave out clause 3(3). Subsection (3) is a very broad regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to confer further functions on GBR. It is unrestricted. It reads:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on Great British Railways such other functions relating to railways or railway services as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Could it be any more widely framed? I do not think so. As long as it is something to do with railways, it takes power away from primary legislation and gives it to the Secretary of State to do as he or she will. It is a blank cheque for the Government and, by extension, for GBR. There are no details given as to why it is needed, and no reason why the powers have not already been considered.
We know that the Government have gone off half-cocked with this legislation. By Tuesday’s count, 19 serious documents relating to how GBR will work in practice have yet to emerge. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for subsection (3). Why are the Government so keen to give such overarching powers to the Secretary of State?
Sir Alec, are we also going to deal with new clauses 15 and 20 tabled by the Liberal Democrats?
Jerome Mayhew
That is just as well, because I am going to leave those to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I will be happy to support new clause 15 should he be minded to press it to a vote.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish to speak to new clause 15. In doing so, I must ask the Minister for his assistance with either a medical or a political problem—I am not entirely sure which it is, because I cannot get a GP appointment in Didcot as we do not have a GP surgery on Great Western Park, but that is an issue for another time. In the absence of a GP appointment, I really hope that the Minister will be able to save me from sullying my reputation. In speaking to this new clause, I find myself at risk of having to say something positive about the Thatcher Government, which is obviously somewhat politically embarrassing.
New clause 15 proposes adding a rolling programme of electrification to the Bill. The reason that I may need to say something nice about the Thatcher Government is that according to figures that I have looked at, nearly 3,000 km of railway was electrified under that Government during the 1980s, to which the just 170 km electrified under the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government compares very unfavourably. That perhaps comes as quite a surprise, given that there was significant economic growth during that later period, at least compared with today—[Interruption.]
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I think we just heard an Opposition Member ask, “What were they doing?” in respect of the 1997 to 2010 Government. The answer, of course, is that capital investment had to be directed to safety in the aftermath of Hatfield and other disasters. When we look at where exactly that money was spent, it was on the safety improvements necessitated by some of the disasters caused by privatisation. I am a strong supporter of electrification, as I know the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is, but I thought it was important to place that on record.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will say two things in response. First, I hope that his Government and the Minister will support the new clause, because, given the strong state of railway safety today, there should not be the same limits on electrification expenditure that he suggests. Secondly, the problem with his point is that very few electrification schemes were authorised between 1997 and 2000, the period before the Hatfield rail disaster, which led to the period of safety recovery that he quite rightly highlighted.
The direction that the Government are taking is a big concern. They have yet again cancelled the midland main line electrification, a scheme that would have happened 40 years ago in any other European country. Our stop-start progress on electrification compares very unfavourably with other countries in Europe. Germany has delivered a steady 200 km a year, or thereabouts, on average for many decades, and in so doing delivers significantly lower unit costs than our boom and bust approach to electrification. It is not just Germany. We often hear excuses about how electrification is too difficult for us because of our limited gauge clearance or our scenery, but that does not explain the fact that the entire Swiss rail network is electrified, including railways in UNESCO world heritage sites and more than 3,000 metres above sea level.
With the exception of the trans-Pennine route upgrade and a couple of other very small schemes, nothing is committed at the moment. That is a real shame, because the benefits of electrification are significant. I feel that we have perhaps lost our way in this country. We have become very focused on electrification as a means of decarbonising our railways, but that is a small part of the enormous benefits of electrification. Electrification delivers more reliable, lighter trains that have far less impact on the track and are also cheaper, because pure electric multiple units are the standard off-the-shelf product across the European rolling stock market. What wouldn’t any other sector—whether it is shipping, which I know the Minister has a keen interest in, aviation or the car industry—give for the ability to provide constant electrical power to get the amazing power-to-weight ratio that electrification delivers?
We constantly talk about the lack of freight on our rail network. A big part of that is that rail freight tends to be diesel hauled, which has far worse acceleration and consumes far more track capacity. On a recent journey across Germany and other parts of Europe, I did not see a single diesel-hauled freight train; they were all electric. That enables so much more to be squeezed on to the network, and would support private sector investment. For example, GB Railfreight has invested in a fleet of locomotives that can haul both diesel and electric. Having visited its Peterborough headquarters a few months ago, I know that it would like to run under electricity far more than it is currently able to because of our electrification rate. We are in a very poor state, and not just compared with western European countries; Poland and India have significantly higher percentages of electrified railways than we do. At the moment, I see no hope of that changing.
Our new clause 15, requiring a rolling programme of electrification, would also significantly reduce unit costs, because the supply chain would get used to doing it, we would become experienced at structures clearance, and so on. That is not my opinion; that is what Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and now chair of DfT Operator, said before the Transport Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection of Sir Andrew Haines’s oral evidence is that he gave an example of the experience not just on continental Europe, but in Scotland, where a steady-state period of electrification resulted in significant reduction of the cost per mile when compared with the stop-start approach in England. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Olly Glover
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government.
I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead.
New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use.
Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank hon. Members for the amendments and new clauses in the group. Before I turn to amendments 3 and 4, however, I will pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon earlier about people across the country having an understanding of GBR and its functions, and knowing how it will impact the railway and their lives. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has consistently given the statistic that 60% of functions on the railway will still be done by the private sector, once GBR is established—
Jerome Mayhew
To clarify, that figure is about not just the private sector, but rail services in Scotland and Wales not being part of GBR. It is the non-GBR parts of the greater rail world: about 60% are nothing to do with GBR.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification. I want only to add, as a further clarification, that in the future GBR will account for about two thirds of passenger services in Britain, and GBR infrastructure will make up 90% of station stops. It is quite important to give that level of context, so that people can better understand the impact that these changes in the railway will have on their lives.
Amendments 3 and 4 would limit GBR’s research, advice and standards development functions to only the railway and services managed by GBR. I reassure the shadow Minister that the vast majority of research and innovation carried out by GBR will relate specifically to the services that it provides and the operation and maintenance of its network.
However, research, development and innovation tend to be general in nature and application. It is critical that GBR’s research, development and innovation should be able to support the wider rail network, not just the elements that GBR manages itself. Collaboration between the independent parts of the sector on learning and innovation is, we argue, crucial for the rail network to operate as an integrated whole, and limiting this function could arbitrarily restrain wider adoption of best practice. Various organisations, including Network Rail and train operating companies, currently publish standards adopted on the railway, so this is not a unique or abnormal practice. However, these amendments could arbitrarily constrain it and might even hinder GBR from supporting research that might bring benefits to parts of the network, or services, not managed by GBR.
Amendment 5 seeks to return responsibility for taking access decisions to the ORR. That is one of the fundamental questions sitting at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The amendment is contrary to the Government’s manifesto commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind for the railways. It would reintroduce the fragmentation and conflicting accountabilities that exist in today’s system. At present, there is no single body in charge of taking a whole-system approach to making access work. That leads to conflicting opinions about what services can fit where and when. Differences in view between Network Rail and the ORR cause delays in producing the timetable, hindering efforts to tackle congestion, disruption, cancellations and overcrowding. The current system is not fit for purpose: it lets passengers down every day, and taxpayers are not getting value for money.
In the current system, the absence of a single directing mind, with a single set of objectives, leaves us with ridiculous situations such as the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. I do not understand how hon. Members can think that continuing the current system benefits anyone, least of all passengers.
The Government have been clear that for GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions consistent with the best use of the network, the ORR’s current role must change. GBR must be the decision maker on access; it must have authority and full accountability for what happens on the tracks. The ORR will play a key role as a robust appeals body that ensures that GBR’s decisions are fair. Without one body in charge of taking access decisions, we cannot deliver the performance improvements that we have promised passengers and the public.
Amendment 6 would remove the delegated power for the Secretary of State to confer further statutory functions on GBR in the future. Although clause 3 has been drafted to cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake, it is responsible to legislate with proportionate flexibility. For example, in the future there may be new technologies or other responsibilities relating to the railways that GBR would need to take on. We heard in oral evidence on Tuesday that the advent of artificial intelligence and wi-fi are two examples of that type of change, and that witnesses understood the need for this type of flexibility for GBR.
There is precedent for this type of power in legislation. For example, the National Health Service Act 2006 includes a power to add functions to special health authorities specified in regulations. That power is already limited to adding new functions that relate to the railways; any regulations conferring new functions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 241 seeks to require GBR to act
“in a fair and non-discriminatory manner”
when carrying out its statutory function in clause 3 —specifically, when GBR is providing back-of-house functions to facilitate railway services run by operators other than GBR, such as a journey planner. The amendment is not needed, because the duties set out in the Bill will govern GBR’s behaviours when carrying out its statutory functions. I assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the duties will require GBR to act in the interests of the public, taxpayers and passengers. GBR will act fairly and in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions.
In addition, competition law will apply in full to GBR. This requires GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. Both the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority will regulate GBR’s behaviour against its competition law obligations, so I hope that hon. Members will be assured that GBR must always treat all private operators with fairness and in a non-discriminatory manner. Given those safeguards, the addition proposed would be duplicative.
I turn to new clause 15, which seeks to implement a statutory electrification programme. Living near Selby station, I know better than most that rail electrification is important, including to realise the Government’s wider goals of decarbonisation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage ably set out the fact that decarbonisation is not the sole efficiency and aspiration that can be realised through electrification. We fully realise the need to reduce the cost of electrification and accelerate the delivery of committed schemes in comparison with past experiences.
We are currently developing a long-term strategy for rolling stock and associated infrastructure. That will be published in the summer and will consider the future approach to electrification. That being said, a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is not the right way to deliver these important upgrades. In the effort towards net zero, electrification may not always be the right solution—although the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage made a well-reasoned case as to how, in many cases, it is. Other opportunities, such as trains powered by batteries, may be more appropriate. It is also hard to predict the pace at which battery technology and other alternative technologies will progress over the next 20 or 30 years, and what that means for the extent of electrification that will be needed as we move towards net zero.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s points. How does he see the drive towards electrification, for all the good reasons he has set out, sitting with building a degree of resilience into the rail network? The hon. Member for Nottingham South, the other Minister, may have experienced the problem that I had last weekend, when, due to attempted overhead cable theft, a load of trains through the east midlands were cancelled. That happened because there is no back-up mechanism to move those trains if the electrical supply is not there. How do we square that circle of making sure that a bit of resilience is built in?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member makes an important point about resilience on the railway; it complements the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the fact that we live in a changing climate. That creates pressing resilience challenges across the breadth of the railway. The right hon. Member makes a good point about not being over-reliant on one technological mode. That being said, I hope that, through an overall transition towards decarbonised rail transport, alongside the other decarbonisation measures that the DFT is taking across the piece, we will be sufficiently resourced, capable and in pursuit of innovative solutions to make sure that electrification can play a prominent part in the future of the railway.
We believe that the way to achieve that is to have something more flexible to future direction and opportunities, such as GBR’s business plan, which is already provided for in the Bill. Of course, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy might be more appropriate as a way to set out GBR’s plans for electrification rather than their being in the Bill.
We move to new clause 20, which would require GBR to work towards climate change targets. I assure the Committee that the environment will form an important part of GBR’s considerations through various mechanisms already included in the Bill. One of the strategic objectives for the long-term rail strategy will be environmental sustainability. GBR will have a duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy and a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, which includes environmental considerations, when developing its business plan. Finally, it is important to point out that Network Rail is not currently directly obligated to deliver on those targets, but has still published “The Greener Railway Strategy”, which includes targets on net zero, climate adaptation, air quality, biodiversity and other environmental areas.
To conclude, we remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges faced not only by rail, which is already a comparatively green way to travel, but across all transport modes, and GBR will be an important partner in that work. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured and will consider withdrawing their amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
It is always a pleasure to hear the Minister explain the Government’s positions, but I remain unconvinced in relation to amendment 241, which I believe is the only one that can be put to a Division at this stage. I would like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Passengers’ Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;
(b) targets for reliability of services;
(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—
(i) seat design,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,
(iii) provision of power outlets,
(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;
(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;
(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out the what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.
Olly Glover
Amendment 130 and new clause 8 constitute a Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a 21st century update to passenger charters. I shall seek to be concise; in the unlikely event that hon. Members would like to hear more, I should say that I gave a ten-minute rule Bill speech on the subject in the House of Commons yesterday.
For context, given above-inflation fare increases over many decades, which I alluded to earlier, the modern rail passenger rightly expects more than they often get. On-board amenities are generally not subject to any form of compensation provision should they not be available. Indeed, passenger charters generally make good noises about having such amenities, but they do not get the same guarantees for them as they do for delays.
The issue is not necessarily about moving to this tomorrow; there are many older trains on our network that require either upgrading or replacement with modern amenities, but where the amenities exist they should be provided. It should no longer be considered a luxury to have functioning wi-fi or a mobile phone signal so that people can be productive on the train. Toilets should be reliable, a seat should not be considered a luxury—a standard class ticket does not entitle one to a seat—and there should be adequate space for luggage, pushchairs, bicycles and so on. In so doing, we will make the rail offer more attractive to the travelling public and ensure that people do not have bad experiences, as did my friend Jen from Wallingford who, after a particularly terrible journey between London and Glasgow on Avanti West Coast, has now returned to driving, even though the distance is—off the top of my head—some 350 miles.
Our proposal would require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter before Parliament within six months of the Act’s being passed. That updated charter would look at providing value-for-money guarantees not just for delays, but for provision of other amenities, with reasonable waivers such as for journeys under 30 minutes, which can be subject to commuter-heavy loading at peak times.
The whole principle of delay repay should be protected. I keep hearing rumours—I have no idea whether they are true; perhaps the Minister could give us assurances that there will not be any attacks on delay repay. We should be proud of it, as it is a much more generous compensation provision than in any other European country and it should not be diluted or reduced to save costs. Instead, we should focus on preventing delays and managing delays better so that we do not need to pay so much delay repay. That compensation provision should be extended to other onboard amenities, so that there is an incentive to create a 21st century onboard environment that enables us to retain our existing passenger base and attract far more people to our railway.
Edward Argar
I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.
I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.
The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage’s passenger charter. I recommend that any Member who was otherwise engaged to go and listen to his ten-minute rule Bill, which outlined it in far greater detail than I will today.
Edward Morello
It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.
Edward Morello
I could not possibly comment, Minister—I was going to say tea. But there are basic human rights that we should be respecting here—and a gin and tonic might be one of them.
On rail journeys lasting more than two hours, access to food and drink is a basic expectation. As anyone who has done the trip to Exeter or Dorchester South from London will know, numerous stations on that line do not have a café on the platform, or even one close by. I hope we are also going to achieve a reduction in the number of delays on that line, but once someone is on it they are on it; their options for access to anything are incredibly low. Whether for a parent travelling with children, older passengers on long journeys or commuters trying to work on the move, access to basic amenities—reliable wi-fi and food and drink—should be mandatory.
New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to introduce a passenger charter as a core function of GBR. It would set out clear expectations for passengers, and clear accountability for operators. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage laid out in his ten-minute rule Bill, it would include guarantees on value for money, service quality, adequate seating for journeys over 30 minutes, and improved accessibility across trains.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
If my constituents travelled from London Bridge this evening and caught the 5.34 to Barnehurst or the 6.50 to Bexleyheath, in zone 5, those journeys would take 31 minutes, so do you actually believe that, under your guarantee, my constituents—many of whom, you would expect, would rather just get on a train and expect to stand for some of the journey—would get compensation if they did not have a seat for that commuter journey home of an evening?
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that I do not believe one way or the other; please talk through me, not to me.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Sir Alec, for the clarification, and I thank the hon. Member for his question. I understand the premise of the point: whichever number we put in, there is a risk that someone could come up with such an example. I think the point is that, for journeys over 30 minutes, for older passengers, for example, the guarantee of a seat may be an issue of whether they want to travel or not, so we must find a line to draw in the sand; I hope that able-bodied Members would stand up for the elderly, but it is not always the case. I would like us to move to a system where we do not have to stand on trains and where there is an expectation of seating—not least so that the drinks trolley can get through and get a cup of tea to me when I need one.
The charter would also set targets for reliability and a clear timetable for improving passenger accommodation, including seat design, reliable wi-fi and mobile signals, power outlets—I honestly cannot believe we are still questioning whether or not we should have power outlets on trains—luggage and bicycle storage, clean and accessible toilets, and onboard catering for journeys of more than two hours. We must focus much of our innovation on the passenger experience and not just the journey time, whether that is wi-fi for commuting workers or accessible toilets for everyone. Crucially, it would also extend delay repay principles to cover failures in onboard amenities and move towards automatic digital compensation that does not place the burden on passengers to fight for refunds—hopefully that speaks to the teeth that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned.
Those are not luxuries. Almost every rail user has stood despite booking a seat, lost their signal mid-journey, missed a connection because of a delay, struggled to find a clean toilet—or a working one—or found nowhere to store a bag, yet too often there is no meaningful redress for those inconveniences. That undermines confidence in the railway.
The data is stark. Only 32% of passengers believe that the rail network meets their needs, and just 59% are satisfied with value for money or onboard internet. Last year, there were more than 62,000 complaints about punctuality, nearly 40,000 about overcrowding, and more than 24,000 about onboard facilities. All those things act as a drag. They are why people do not want to travel on the trains and why they are choosing car journeys instead. If we want people to choose rail for economic, environmental and social reasons, we have to deal with these frustrations as well. New clause 8 puts passengers back at the heart of the system, where they belong.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very supportive of the intent behind this new clause. Where the Government have taken the political decision to put all their eggs in the nationalisation basket, it becomes even more important that we add as many clauses to the Bill as possible to force them to focus on the passenger experience.
Nationalisation has been tried before, not just in the railways but in a number of other organisations, and not a single one of them is a byword for individual customer choice, so if experience is anything to go by—and if we are, as seems likely, going to be forced to have a nationalised approach to the railways—the legislation needs to bend over backwards to keep reinforcing the point that the passenger experience is the central element that the organisation should be aiming for.
At the moment, the Government are woefully unambitious in their definition of railway services. If you look at clause 18(3)—which I am sure you have already, Sir Alec—you will see that the definition for railway service performance
“includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services”.
I was expecting a long list of all the good things that customers travelling on the railway should expect, but what do we get? We get “reliability, (including punctuality),” and
“the avoidance…of passenger overcrowding”,
and that is it. What poverty of aspiration. It really is very striking.
It may be that the wording of new clause 8 could be improved—I am sure that the Government have the drafting firepower to do exactly that—but what is listed in subsection (2)(c)(i) to (vi) is a good starting point, and certainly much better than what the Government managed to come up with in clause 18. I support it.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for new clause 8 and amendment 130, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have offered contributions in support of the notion of seeking to require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as zealous as he is in pursuing not only the rights of passengers, but their ability to have happy, fulfilled experiences on the railway—whether through a G&T, a cup of tea or whatever else.
Although I fully endorse the aim of raising passenger standards, I do not agree that a statutory passenger charter is the best approach. Great British Railways, not Government, needs to be in charge of the passenger offer, and it is being set up to be an expert-led directing mind, not a Government-led directive mind. There would be little value in reforming the system, only for the Government to continue to micromanage the railway, down to the level of specific seat designs.
Edward Morello
During my conversations with the sector, one of the challenges that came up about returning, for example, the buffet trolley or other services to trains is that services have already been sold on station platforms. There is direct and inherent competition between any service that someone might receive on the train and something that might be provided, and has already been sold, leased or franchised out, on the platform itself. How can the Government put passengers’ interests at the core of service delivery when they will have an inherent business or profitability conflict with some of the services that are already in existence?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member can intervene again if I have misunderstood his point, but I think there is a lot of utility in the fact that GBR, by being able to direct passenger services as well as having responsibility for long-term infrastructure such as stations, provides a coherent basis on which to tailor the passenger experience across the multitude of ways in which passengers engage with the railway and its infrastructure. From my perspective, it actually removes issues in cases in which competition may not be what is best for the passenger—where there is an offer in the catering car on their service down to London, but also a small business running a café from the station. We will have more of an opportunity to offer a holistic service for the passenger.
It is also important to me that we do not want to fix the passenger offer in statute. We want GBR to be able to adapt to passengers’ needs as they change over time. For example, I cannot imagine that many were thinking about wi-fi when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but we know how fundamental it is to social and economic connectivity for passengers on the railway today.
To ensure that GBR does a good job of managing the passenger offer, the Bill will also establish the passenger watchdog, which will have strong powers to act in passengers’ interests. The Government and GBR will have to consult the watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer, and GBR will be expected to take account of the watchdog’s advice. The watchdog will also set minimum consumer standards, covering areas such as accessibility and passenger information.
The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy.
Edward Argar
The Minister has just said that the watchdog will have strong powers, but then uses words like “consultation” and “taking account of”. I have taken Bills through this place, and there are other words, like “should”, “could” or “must have regard to”—in fact, Bills rarely say, “must”; they normally say, “should pay attention to” or “should heed”. What actual powers will the watchdog have to compel GBR or the Secretary of State to take a particular course of action?
Keir Mather
That is a very important point. I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. The passenger watchdog will have the ability to make sure that GBR is compliant with minimum consumer standards on accessibility and information—this will be an independent power to directly monitor the passenger experience—as well as investigation powers, including to demand information by a deadline. It will be fully established within 12 months of Royal Assent of the Bill, so it will be stood up quickly to provide the oversight that it needs to provide.
The Secretary of State will also have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy, as well as her statement of objectives, which must be addressed by GBR in its business plan, which itself must be signed off by the Secretary of State under the new funding process. It would therefore be inefficient and duplicative to create yet another document to achieve the same aims.
Let me turn briefly to delay repay. The passenger watchdog can set standards that relate to delay repay. It is namechecked as an example in clause 46, and delay repay will still be available under GBR. The Opposition spokesperson—
Keir Mather
Forgive me. The shadow Minister points to the fact that we have, in his view, a dearth of ambition when it comes to what we have set out in clause 18. I would actually argue the inverse—the standards set out in clause 18 relating to reliability of services, avoiding overcrowding and promoting the passenger experience are fundamental to creating the turn-up-and-go railway with a single directing mind that GBR seeks to achieve.
At the heart of it, these are the fundamental building blocks of the passenger experience. Layer on top of that the ways in which GBR will be nimble and dynamic enough under this legislation to lay out the passenger offer over time, and that creates a suite of measures that allow us to enhance, in the whole, the passenger experience. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the amendment.
Olly Glover
If you will indulge me, Sir Alec, I will briefly respond to the points that have been made. I thank the Minister for his comments. He will know from our past interactions on this that I very much agree with him that we definitely do not want the micromanagement and overprescription of GBR. That would be absolutely inimical to what I want to see happening, but there is a distinction to be made between setting the overall standards and the implementation of the work needed to meet those standards.
I do not read the rest of the Bill as quite saying, “We’re just going to let GBR crack on and define everything from scratch for itself”. Given the Minister’s comments about micromanaging, which I find encouraging, I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the later amendments that are designed to dilute the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere. Hopefully, given his comments, he might be minded to give them a fair hearing, but we shall see when the time comes.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston makes the good point that these things need to have teeth, and that is the intention of clause 8(2)(e), which would extend the delay repay principle to onboard amenities. Work would clearly need to be done to establish a sensible framework for the evidence requirement for people submitting claims—that would need to be thought through further—but that has not been prescribed here precisely because that would be a matter for GBR.
We also want to add teeth with subsection (2)(f), which is all about making it easier for people to claim compensation and allowing them to do so digitally rather than just on paper. In fairness, a lot of that has improved, and we hope it will continue to improve. I also want to address the very fair point made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The challenge with these things is always where to define the cut-off, but it should not be inevitable that commuters in south-east London, Greater Manchester or anywhere else should have to stand by default.
Rolling stock cuts without replacements on some routes—maybe not the hon. Gentleman’s, but elsewhere—have partly added to some of those problems. That includes the premature withdrawal of British Rail class 455 trains on Southern without a replacement and class 365 trains on the Great Northern network. A lot of these poor decisions were made following the pandemic to save cost in the short term, which has added to some of the overcrowding problems—many of which are preventable. We have included a 30-minute minimum duration in new clause 8 to try to be reasonable and to recognise that things are not always perfect.
In conclusion, we are putting a passengers’ charter forward because we feel that there is value in improving the onboard offer and making it consistent. There are things in the charter that would support other elements of the Bill by strengthening accessibility provision. For catering, my temptation would have been to go even further and wax lyrical about restaurant cars on Swiss railways or Austrian railways, which—if anybody has not enjoyed them—should be very welcome.
In Switzerland, even inter-city trains of just two hours always have a restaurant car, and they have a separate division for on-train catering, which is in-house—they take it very seriously. I have been on 55-minute journeys across Switzerland and have been attended to straight away. It is inexpensive and very good. I have decided not to be too prescriptive and to just talk about onboard catering. It is then for GBR, or whoever, to decide if they wish to embrace that particular bit of Swiss excellence, as well as electrification, as I mentioned earlier.
I think I have said more than enough, Sir Alec. I said earlier that we want to press new clause 8 to a vote. I expect I have to take guidance from the Clerk as to whether a vote on that or on amendment 130 would be most helpful—either is good with us.
The Chair
New clauses will be moved at the end.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.
(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 248, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, achieve targets for—
(a) growth in in passenger traffic on railways, and
(b) growth in the overall share of passenger journeys taken by rail for the purposes of—
(i) work,
(ii) leisure, and
(iii) accessing goods and services,
relative to other modes of transport.
(4B) Targets under subsection (4A) must—
(a) be set by Great British Railways, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, and
(b) take into account, and be published alongside, each Rail Strategy under section 16 of this Act.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways, when exercising its statutory functions, to meet a target for overall growth in the number and relative proportion of passengers using railways.
Amendment 35, in clause 18, page 10, line 17, at end insert
“and to increase the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to carry out its functions so as to increase the number of passenger journeys.
Amendment 249, in clause 18, page 10, line 23, at end insert—
“(g) so as to achieve an increase in—
(i) the number of passenger journeys undertaken by railway, and
(ii) the proportion of passenger journeys undertaken by rail relative to other modes of transport.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 248.
New clause 42—Passenger growth target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.
(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—
(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and
(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.
Olly Glover
The length and complexity of this amendment mean that hopefully I will be able to relieve hon. Members by making a very concise speech. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to a freight growth target as part of GBR. It is good that we have greater ambitions for the carriage of rail freight on our rail network, which tends to lag behind most European competitors in modal share. However, we think that the Bill has missed an opportunity by not including a comparable target for passenger growth. I have heard the argument made in front of the Select Committee and other forums that that could compromise or undermine the freight growth. I disagree with that premise. As so often in life, it is not either/or; it is both/and. Railways are useful for both passengers and freight.
Freight is arguably neglected on our network and the economic and environmental benefits are absolutely enormous, especially if electrically hauled. One freight train is able to convey many containers or aggregate wagons and take dozens of lorries off the road. We therefore very much support the freight growth target, but feel that there should also be a passenger growth target. Many of our roads are plagued by congestion and many people opt to take the car who, in other circumstances, would like to take the train, but have either had negative experience of overcrowding or fear that they could be subject to overcrowding and a bad experience. Amendment 133 would require GBR to set a target for increasing passenger traffic and publish progress in relation to how it will achieve that. I think that I have said more than enough and am very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew
The official Opposition, strongly support this amendment because it seeks to increase passenger traffic on the railways, in addition to the welcomed inclusion of an objective to increase freight. We agree with it so strongly because it is almost identical to our amendment 35, which I shall also speak to. Amendment 35 would add a specific requirement to subsection (2) paragraph (b) of clause 18—the duties clause—for GBR Ministers and the Office of Rail and Road,
“to increase the number of passenger journeys”.
This directly addresses the concern raised by the Campaign for Better Transport in the evidence received by the Committee. It is an essential amendment to ensure that GBR has a key focus and aim to increase passenger numbers—something that is essential for a railway. It would ensure that the dominant culture of GBR is not one where passengers are seen as creators of damage to infrastructure.
That is not a loose accusation that I have made; I have been listening to the industry for over a year now. The core structure of GBR is Network Rail. I know that I am bound to be corrected if I get this even a couple out, but I believe that Network Rail has about 41,000 members of staff. Network Rail is the central body to which train operating companies have been added at a rate of about one every six weeks or two months over the last period. An oft-repeated criticism of the culture of Network Rail has been that it sees passengers as a necessary irritation in the correct functioning of the railway. Sir Alec, if your organisation is engineer focused, the condition of the infrastructure is what is most important to you. Passengers demand lots and lots of trains, but lots and lots of trains damage the infrastructure. There is a concern in the wider sector— I am merely passing it on—that the culture of Network Rail has historically been one in which it wants to limit the number of trains to what it considers to be acceptable, so that it has a nice steady state of repair of the infrastructure. If that is the dominant culture that pervades GBR, now that it is bringing everything together, that will be a disaster for passenger services, because there would not be an automatic incentive to focus on an increase in passenger journeys, which is why amendments 133 and 35 are so important.
New clause 42—to go into the detail a little—would require the Secretary of State to set, publish and keep under review a passenger growth target. It would also require GBR to have regard to that target when exercising its statutory functions. In oral evidence to this Committee, Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:
“It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 24, Q49.]
That organisation was not alone, because John Thomas from ALLRAIL said:
“I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 47, Q78.]
Finally, we heard from Rob Morris of Siemens. He said:
“What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 64, Q122.]
It is unclear to me why, if the Bill can require a target to increase use of the railway network for freight, the same obligation is not applied to passenger services. The inconsistency suggests a deliberate choice not to mandate passenger growth. And why would GBR care about passenger growth? After all, if it will be dominated by Network Rail, there is at least a risk that its culture will be one of avoiding damage to infrastructure, in excess of looking after growing the number of passengers.
In written evidence to the Transport Committee, Rail Forum said:
“From Rail Forum’s perspective there is nothing specific in the Bill that will guarantee improved travel for passengers. Improvement is predicated on the goodwill of GBR and others driving things in the ‘right direction’. In our view the key to improvement is culture change within those organisations coming together to form GBR. Creating GBR from Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd…will not signal the need for change and creates a risk that the current Network Rail culture will be seen as the norm and hence the status quo will prevail.”
These are not arguments made up by a cunning Opposition to wrongfoot the Government. This is the Opposition doing our job properly and reflecting the concerns of the wider sector—not just from one organisation but from multiple organisations, right across the sector. They identify the drafting as a problem and the culture as potentially a problem unless the legislation makes it clear that it is a duty of GBR to increase passenger numbers.
Laurence Turner
As in this morning’s sitting, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I did not intend to speak in this particular debate, but I wish to respond briefly to some of the things that have been said and to mount a perhaps limited defence of Network Rail and the importance of engineering in such organisations. The comparator, of course, was Railtrack, which outsourced its engineering functions, had only a single engineer on its board of directors and had only one non-executive director from an engineering background, with deadly consequences, which are well understood and do not need repeating. If there is sometimes caution in the organisation, I suggest that the long shadow cast by the events of the late 1990s and early 2000s is why.
There is good and sound logic behind not running too many trains across congested track. The real reason why we do not run as many trains as is theoretically possible is that lack of capacity on the network. Birmingham New Street, for example, will be exhausted once the Camp Hill services start in the spring—any more services simply cannot be safely got in or out on the network. When path allocators have to make decisions on which services to prioritise, freight tends to be squeezed out. That is a long-standing problem.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is right partially to defend Network Rail. It is an issue of balance and of the culture going forward. He also talked about capacity—this is not a party political point—but that is determined by not just the number of trains, but the length of trains, which makes an enormous difference. Just increasing carriage numbers—in particular on the Northern rail network where the majority of trains are just two carriages—by a couple of extra carriages does not require significantly increased capacity on the line, but it does increase capacity enormously for passengers. That would allow a target for increased passenger numbers to be fulfilled, without an increase in line capacity.
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive spirit of his intervention. Indeed, in the days of cross-party consensus on High Speed 2, I worked with members of his party exactly to address some of the capacity challenges on the network. I just say to him that the two are linked. As he was alluding to, the length of the trains is related to the signalling blocks and the safe distance between trains, so that they can be run together. If he is right, we should be looking to put on more carriages. When waiting for a CrossCountry train, I can certainly remember the collective groan on the platform when another short formation appeared. There is a hard limit, however, to what can be applied without providing more caps on the network. That is where the passenger versus freight dilemma comes in, because sometimes hard choices just have to be made. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not always either/or, but sometimes it is. Sometimes one has to be prioritised over the other, and freight has historically been the loser.
Olly Glover
I am trying not to make too many interventions or to be tedious, but I cannot resist the temptation of that. Where the choice is either/or, does that not suggest that that particular route line requires an upgrade to provide sufficient capacity for both?
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the same Select Committee and we tend to agree on most things, and I think that I agree with him again. In the here and now, however, and in the circumstances in which the Bill will start to apply, I share the fear that if the freight growth target is accompanied by an equivalent passenger growth target, in effect the freight growth target is neutralised; it is no longer the essential correction to the tendencies that have sometimes seen freight services being squeezed off the network. I say to the shadow Minister that the previous Government put in place a freight growth target and not a passenger one at the same time, presumably for exactly the same reason: at times when the two are in tension, freight can suffer the detriment. I thought it was important to put that concern on the record.
Edward Argar
I regularly find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for West Dorset—possibly to the detriment of us both—on a whole range of things, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson again on this occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight that amendments 133 and 35 are not dissimilar in their intent and in what they seek to achieve. It is important, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield says, that while we do recognise the desire and the need to drive up an increase in the use of railways for transporting freight, at the moment we risk disproportionately focusing on that to the detriment of traveling passengers. If there was any tension there, I would posit that freight may win out.
Yet in the Bill, it is the traveling passengers who will be not only paying for their tickets but essentially, as taxpayers, paying to subsidise or backfill any additional funding needed for the railways as a nationalised industry. Given that, it is vital that the passenger is front and centre of the thinking behind the Bill and how GBR comes into being. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham rightly highlighted the importance of the culture of the organisation. It may inherit DNA from predecessor organisations, but GBR will be a new organisation, and that gives the Minister and the Secretary of State an opportunity to help shape that culture.
I have a genuine concern that in what is being done, the power of the passenger—of the paying public or the market—is diluted by virtue of creating what is essentially a state monopoly in GBR. What the amendments proposed by both my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage seek to do is to put the passenger back into the mix in some way, and require that their voice has to be heard alongside that desire to drive up usage for freight. If there is a target or an obligation on GBR to drive up passenger numbers, it will have to be responsive to what passengers want, what they see and the experiences they have on the railways, which will drive them to use those railways more often.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, who knows of what he speaks. But at the moment, with the perfectly reasonable desire to increase the use of railways for freight, we risk that being unbalanced to the detriment of the passenger and their voice not being heard. For that reason, I am supportive of both amendments in seeking to make sure that the passenger remains front and centre of how GBR operates.
Keir Mather
I genuinely thank the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and Members from across the House for their considered and meaningful contributions on this matter. It shows the strength of feeling that we all have about making sure that the passenger experience sits at the heart of the way that our railways function. On the detail about the length of trains, which I agree is an interesting point that has been teased out in this debate, the rolling stock strategy that the DFT is bringing forward will have specific regard to the issue of train length. That will hopefully assuage some concerns.
The shadow Minister also pointed to the potential deficiencies in Network Rail caused by having an operational focus on the maintenance of infrastructure as opposed to promoting the needs of passengers. I would contrast that with the point that a lot of the issues that come with accessibility on the railway and sufficient provision of passenger services arise as much from the access regime and diffuse accountability as they do from cultural or institutional failings in Network Rail. In the current system, access is ultimately decided by the ORR and timetabling by National Rail, and we can end up with a situation where there is a 7 o’clock train from Manchester Piccadilly to London with no passengers on it. The existing system cannot put passengers at its heart, because its decision making process is too disjointed to be able to look at the railway in a holistic way. That is what the Bill is seeking to change.
As all amendments in the group relate directly to the notion of passenger numbers and increasing the number of passenger journeys, I will respond to them as a whole. As a commercial organisation, we believe that GBR will be naturally incentivised to drive up revenue through growing its passenger base and attracting more people to use the railway. GBR must also have the flexibility to determine how it can deliver on that ambition without adverse incentives, for example to congest the network at the expense of passenger experience, being established.
The Bill already includes a duty for sector bodies, including GBR, to promote the interests of users and potential users. That will require GBR to consider during decision making how to encourage new users on to the railway. That is a natural incentive to grow passenger numbers to enable them to realise the benefits of rail travel. That might include working towards encouraging modal shift, extending the network to areas with poorer connectivity or making informed choices to grow different types of services, such as leisure journeys.
In discharging its full remit of duties, including in particular its public interest and making efficient use of public money duties, GBR should make sensible, rounded decisions on where to target passenger growth across the network. It should do that in a sustainable way, and not to meet a passenger target frozen in aspic that might not be appropriate for the needs of the railway at the time. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not doubt that his intentions are genuine and that he would like to see the Bill and GBR lead to greater passenger numbers, but I gently suggest that that cannot necessarily be taken as read. In periods in the past—arguably to a smaller extent since the pandemic, but to a much greater extent going back to the 1980s and before—there was an approach called managed decline. That was a Trojan horse for closing a line of route; intentional efforts were made to reduce passenger numbers. I do not think it can be taken as read that there will always be a desire to grow the network.
Keir Mather
May I test something from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective? The Secretary of State has a lot of oversight over how GBR functions under this new regime. One of her duties, and a duty for GBR, will be to ensure efficient use of public money. Do you not think that that creates a strong incentive for her to drive up passenger use on the railway to ensure that we have a balance of service? Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield about the importance of freight, do you not think that the point about the essential correction for freight is important in a way that does not apply to passenger services?
Olly Glover
Thank you, Sir Alec. I say to the Minister that there but for the grace of God go I. I totally understand what he is saying, but it is perhaps slightly paradoxical: if there are all these reasons why it is almost inevitable that the Secretary of State will want to do this anyway, what is the harm of having a provision in the Bill?
The Minister made some very good points about nuance and needing to have the right targets for the right part of the country, but amendment 133 to clause 3 does not preclude that. Critically, proposed new subsection (4B) says that GBR must set and publish “targets”. It does not suggest that there should be one big monolithic target for the entire nation that everything would need to be attuned to.
It would be perfectly sensible for targets to be set by a business unit, or whatever it is going to be—it is currently Network Rail routes and Network Rail regions. There is plenty of room for nuance. This is simply about the principle that GBR should have increasing passenger numbers as a statutory function. I would therefore like to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Purpose of Great British Railways—
“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—
(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,
(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,
(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,
(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,
(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,
(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,
(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,
(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,
(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,
(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,
(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,
(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and
(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.
(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
New clause 2—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).
(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—
(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,
(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and
(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.
(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.
New clause 5—Great British Railways: reporting requirement—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish an annual report.
(2) The annual report must include Great British Railways’ performance against its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].
(3) Great British Railways must publish quarterly updates on its performance against its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This new clause would require Great British Railways to report annually and quarterly against its key performance indicators.
Keir Mather
I will first address clause 3, and then listen to Members’ comments on the new clauses before responding to them in full.
Clause 3 is fundamental to establishing Great British Railways as the integrated rail body that this country needs. It sets out GBR’s statutory functions, which provide a list of things that GBR is here to do, fulfilling ministerial commitments to set out GBR’s purpose in the Bill. This is not just a technical provision; it is the foundation for a simpler, more accountable railway system.
Currently, responsibilities for managing infrastructure, operating services, setting fares and driving innovation are fragmented across the sector. That fragmentation has led to inefficiencies, duplication, and a lack of clear accountability. The clause addresses that by providing GBR with the statutory basis for bringing those functions together under one roof. It empowers GBR to act as the directing mind for the railway.
GBR will look after railway infrastructure, which includes maintaining it, operating it and making decisions on who can access it. It will provide railway passenger services, set and manage fares, sell tickets or secure that tickets are available for sale. It will provide services that help to run the railway and make it easier for customers to use, even when those railway services are provided by other operators. It will carry out research and development, support innovation, and publish advice and standards to improve the railways. Those functions do not limit GBR, however. The clause also clarifies that GBR can exercise company powers under existing law, so that it can act as a fully commercial organisation, and it provides GBR with appropriate operational flexibility by enabling the statutory functions to be exercised by its subsidiaries.
In short, the clause sets the statutory foundation for a railway that works as one system and is simpler, more efficient and more accountable. Without the clause, it would not be clear to GBR, or to anyone else, what GBR is here to do. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I do not propose to divide the Committee on clause 3. If the Bill is going to progress, then some version of the clause needs to be in it. We are doing our best to improve it; we have not been successful so far, but I have not given up hope—there is more to come.
New clause 1 is a purpose clause. One of the very obvious gaps in the Bill is that there is no clause setting out its purpose. It is based on a number of objectives, which are set out in subsection (1)(a) to (m)—13 paragraphs. Paragraph (a) sets out the mission that the priority in decision making should be the needs of GBR passengers. That builds nicely on the discussion we have just had.
With a nationalised organisation, we need to go the extra mile to clarify exactly what its focus should be, because it is, by design, a top-down command structure of the state. In a functioning—I stress “functioning”—competitive market, the market will force operators to focus on their passengers, because the passengers are also their customers and that is how they grow their profits. When we take the deliberate decision to move away from market competition, something has to replace it, and the only thing that can replace it is the legislative process. That is why the new clause is so necessary. The priority in decision making needs to be GBR passengers; although we can infer this from statements by the Government, enshrining the mission statement would ensure that it remained a beacon for the organisation to follow.
Paragraph (b) states the objective of
“delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services”.
I do not think that that is controversial for any of us. Paragraph (c) sets the aim of
“providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices”.
With a state service, the public expect value for money to be the driver, to ensure continued investment and reinvestment in our rail network. At the moment, fares remain a key concern of passengers and taxpayers. The affordability of fares must be one of the primary objectives.
Paragraph (d) points to increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network. We do not want to see what happened during the nationalisation era, when service quality fell and people consequently turned to other modes of transport when reliability decreased. Keeping people adopting the railways, as we have seen explode under privatisation, is very important. That links nicely with paragraph (e), which would ensure that the network is continually expanded and improved, with constant analysis of service and connectivity improvements as well as restoring and adding routes.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph (e) and some of the other provisions will support what I am particularly keen to see: the growth of the entire railway, not just the areas that happen to have a mayor or are part of Scotland or Wales?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. One of the stand-out moments from Tuesday’s oral evidence was that given by the mayors, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin. What it highlighted, apart from their articulate defence of their regions’ interests, was how different things will be, under the current proposals, in mayoral combined authorities: there will be the right to ask or be consulted on the devolution of aspects of rail to those authorities. That is great as far as it goes—they said that it did not go far enough, but it goes some distance in that direction.
However, what if an area is not a mayoral combined authority? I believe that is the point that my hon. Friend is making: without the direct relationship that the Government are anticipating for mayoral combined authorities, at the expense of other parts of the country, the “purpose” clause becomes more important. That is another reason why paragraphs (e) and (f) and others are helpful.
Many Members and constituents across the country were enthused by the restoring your railway fund and the new stations fund, which have unfortunately now been scrapped by this Government. They were set up in the last Parliament and led to a renaissance of interest in local railway investment and a focus on modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency and passenger experience.
Working practices are not really spoken about in the Bill as it is currently drafted. This is not a new start-up—we have to be quite clear about that: it is building a new organisation out of some very old organisations, including Network Rail. The aim of modernisation is to do more for less. That is a good thing because it means that there is more money left over for further investment in improving infrastructure and improving or increasing passenger services and more left in the kitty to reduce subsidies—the taxpayer support—and by extension reduce the tax burden on our hard-pressed constituents. Doing more for less by modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity efficiency is an unalloyed good. It should be very important and at the heart of any organisation—yet the Bill is silent on it.
Although I can hear the subtext, but the new clause is not intended to be a union-bashing measure. It is intended to make a dynamic organisation that has its passengers—its users—at the heart of its interests and that there is a focus on ensuring that GBR continues to have growth as part of its objectives. That aligns with the Government’s decision to put growth at the heart of their mission.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member particularly mentioned workforce productivity.
Laurence Turner
Okay, perhaps we will come back to that. However, the hon. Member also mentioned the restoring the your railway fund, which he talked about as a success. When the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, appeared before the Transport Committee he said, of that programme, that
“The challenge was that a lot of people had their expectations dashed. A lot of business cases were, “Let’s move it to this stage so we can keep the dream alive.” That just wastes money and expertise because you know that scheme is not going to get a return. I have mixed feelings on it as a result.”
Does the hon. Gentleman share some sympathy with that perspective?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, I do, but then democracy is really messy, isn’t it? If we listen to passengers and our constituents, we hear all sorts of desires that may not be sufficiently persuasive to obtain Government funding, but the process of asking people for their views should not be shied away from. It sounds as though, in the experience of our former colleague Huw Merriman, some rather weak political decisions—or decisions of expediency—were taken. That does not mean that we should move away from the democratic process; we should listen to people. I do not say that the restoring your railway fund was a failure, because we listened and we heard.
I will pick up on the other point because I was sitting down when I barracked the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield: modernisation is not just about working practice. I want to make that really clear: modernising is about productivity enhancement of at-times-sclerotic organisations. I am a former entrepreneur. I ran a business for well over a decade on a much smaller scale than this. At the end, I employed about 1,000 people; I took it from start-up to about that stage.
Even a fast-growth, highly entrepreneurial and—in the views of other people—highly dynamic business such as the one that I was lucky enough to lead had all sorts of internal inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and needed to focus relentlessly on improving working processes and practices. That was right at the sharp end of the private sector. If it was true for my organisation then, think how true it is for a very large organisation such as Network Rail, which has 40,000-plus staff, and will be much bigger still when it becomes Great British Railways.
Paragraph (h) of new clause 1 states the need to improve and consider
“the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers”.
Key terminus stations have good systems in place but that could be expanded with investment such as in the cross-party Access for All fund, which did huge work to improve disabled access in stations.
Paragraphs (i) and (j) are on a key theme that we have explored throughout our consideration of the Bill: open access and freight. They would ensure
“fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators”
At times it feels like we speak too much about open access in relation to this Bill. If we look at the capacity—the number of passengers covered by open access operators—we see that in percentage terms it is very small.
Jerome Mayhew
I was going to say 1.5%, but maybe it is 2%. Let us call it approximately 2%; I leave rail freight in a separate category. But open access operators have a disproportionate impact on driving competitive challenge.
One of the very significant concerns of the sector, which I share, is that if the very dominant GBR is created and the operator and open access operators are not supported, even though they represent just 2% of passenger transit what will be lost is the competitive comparator for what good operating processes and customer-focused activities for train operations look like. It is disproportionately important that GBR should be held to account practically by the operations of open access operators, so such operators must receive fair and transparent treatment. That is what paragraphs (i) and (j) set out. They would ensure that the system is transparent where we believe that the legislation as drafted is currently vague.
Paragraph (j) enshrines the growth freight targets that we all agree on and that the Government have outlined. Paragraph (k) states the need to strengthen
“the financial sustainability of the railways”
to reduce reliance on subsidy. That should be an objective, and a purpose, of GBR. The taxpayer has lots of things that his or her money needs to be spent on. If we can reduce, over time, the need for subsidy on the railways, that money is freed up either for tax cuts, which make everyone richer, or to be spent on other important priorities of Government.
Meanwhile, paragraphs (l) and (m) speak to another key aim—integration, both of track and train, and of the mayors, with their local transport integration beyond rail, which are important to have. The lack of explicit inclusion in the Bill feels like an oversight that we are more than happy to shed light on for the Government.
Sir Alec, you will be pleased to know that that is it as far as new clause 1 is concerned, but I do have new clause 2 to entertain you with, which is about key performance indicators. The Government have been asked multiple times over the last few months to provide, even in draft, the KPIs that they intend Great British Rail to operate under. This clause is a first attempt to fill the gap that the Government have left by refusing time and again even to discuss what the KPIs will be, other than to say, using their go-to phrase, that they will be “robust”. What does that mean? We do not know.
The new clause would set a statutory key performance indicator framework, which must include targets for a number of areas, such as reliability, safety, cleanliness, affordability, passenger growth, financial efficiency, freight and others. It is necessary because of the failure of the Government. I would be delighted to withdraw it if the Minister were to stand up and say, “These are the KPIs that the Government have in mind—let’s debate them.”
At the moment, we have draft legislation in front of us—we are a scrutinising Committee and we are here for a month to go line-by-line through the Bill to improve it and understand how GBR will be operated—and yet we have no idea what the Government are even thinking on KPIs, which are a central set of objectives. This new clause seeks not to bind GBR or the Secretary of State to rigid targets, but instead to provide an overall remit for where the Secretary of State and GBR must report within.
Accountability is at the core of public trust in nationally run services, and setting targets in statute ensures there is a positive feedback loop for officials—very importantly—and GBR agents to work against. It helps frame discussions and engagement between the Departments and GBR, and allows a number of different datasets and parameters to be considered. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish these indicators and lay them before Parliament.
The KPIs work as a strong starting position by which GBR can judge itself, and how it in turn can be judged by passengers and the public. Again, the Opposition are having to do the Government’s work for them. We should not be in that position. The Government should have brought forward this Bill with the accompanying documentation, which, as we have heard, is missing— 19 important documents and counting.
Finally, I turn to new clause 5. You will be pleased to hear that it is much shorter, Sir Alec. The new clause would give reporting requirements to GBR, continuing the theme of accountability, which new clauses 1 and 2 also have at their core. The layout of the new clause is self-explanatory. Subsections (2) and (3) link to new clause 2 on key performance indicators, and the clause would enhance accountability further, not just by having targets in place, but by having a clear reporting criterion.
In the same way that a Secretary of State is expected to appear in front of Parliament on a rotating basis in urgent questions, in Committees and through written ministerial questions, it is reasonable to expect that GBR should publish an annual report in which it reports on the targets set by the Secretary of State. Given the eminently sensible and logical outcome of the new clauses, I urge the Government to consider seriously on what basis it would not want to create greater transparency.
Rebecca Smith
I will briefly make a few comments about each of the new clauses, though obviously I have already intervened on my hon. Friend. I support wholeheartedly what we have proposed in new clause 1, which is no surprise given that I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I want to pick up on what he said about the restoring your railway fund as an additional way of explaining why the lack of regional devolution, apart from mayors, is going to be so important for a lot of our constituents.
I represent a constituency in the south-west that had some really great promises made under the restoring your railway fund, and was going to be able to make progress on a new station and railway line between Tavistock and Plymouth. That is really important if the Government want to see economic growth in the south-west, which they do, because they are investing enormous amounts of money in defence. But if we do not build in at this early stage the ability to see growth for regions that do not have a mayor, and are not likely to have a mayor for some considerable time, I remain unconvinced that the Bill is reassuring enough to say, “Don’t worry, these far-flung parts of the country will get a look-in.”
Keir Mather
Let me first pick up on the points made by the hon. Lady as they relate to devolution, which is incredibly important. We will cover it in more extensive detail later, but it has a material impact on the new clauses we are considering. She is right to point to the fact that mayoral strategic authorities are the lens through which GBR intends to play out its devolution work under statute. That is because we believe that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right lens through which to use the transport network—the rail network in particular—as a catalyst for economic and housing growth. That is due to the powers that devolved mayors have in that space.
I also wish to reassure the hon. Lady that GBR’s ability to engage with local authorities will go far beyond just mayoral strategic authorities. That plays into an important consideration about the structure of GBR as an organisation, which we want to be a lot more flat and a lot more concentrated on ensuring that it can make an important regional difference in every part of the United Kingdom. Through the business units of GBR, we will be able to facilitate that work.
What we do not want to do, however—given any future Government aspiration for more places to have mayors—is to freeze a patchwork programme of devolution into legislation in a way that does not allow us to work closely with a range of devolved areas in future. GBR will be able to engage in that work comprehensively with local authorities, irrespective of whether they have a mayor.
On new clause 1, which seeks to add a purpose to the Bill, I am pleased to say that it largely mirrors provisions that already exist. I confirm that the Bill already makes that clear through the combination of GBR’s statutory functions, which set out what we expect GBR to do, and the shared general duties in clause 18, which set out what we expect it to consider and achieve. Taken together, the functions and duties already set out GBR’s fundamental purpose.
In addition, the duties in clause 18 can already cover the breadth of the outcomes that the proposed new clause is driving at. For example, sector bodies including GBR, and the Secretary of State, will be required to make decisions in the public interest, which includes social and economic benefits. The duties in the Bill are those that will endure and should be at the core of any railway. Instead of setting out a clear purpose, new clause 1 would duplicate many of the provisions already in the Bill and actually make GBR’s purpose significantly less clear.
New clauses 2 and 5 would set key performance indicators for GBR and introduce a requirement for GBR to publish an annual report on them. I can certainly support the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that GBR should have a comprehensive set of performance objectives against which it is robustly held to account. I disagree with him, however, on where and how those indicators should be implemented. The right place for GBR’s KPIs is in its integrated business plan, alongside the detail of what activity GBR will be carrying out over the five-year funding period.
There are three main reasons for that, and I also point to the fact that the arrangement is mirrored in other public organisations, such as National Highways, set up by the previous Conservative Government in 2015—its KPIs are not included in primary legislation. First, the indicators should be realistic and measurable, meaning they also need to be grounded in GBR’s specific proposals for delivery. Therefore, it is appropriate that the indicators are developed as part of the business plan, rather than in legislation.
Secondly, key performance indicators need to be able to evolve over time as the railway network and customer needs change. The way an indicator is set out can influence how an organisation behaves, and we should be able to refine the indicators over the course of several funding periods to get GBR to deliver in the way it needs to. Therefore, a more flexible process, such as that used for developing the business plan, works much better than fixing the indicators in legislation.
Finally, it is important that the ORR, in its role of scrutinising GBR’s proposed plans and monitoring GBR’s delivery, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious but also realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR should have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s key performance indicators. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is ensured by legislation. Unlike legislation, the integrated business plan will also be updated, likely on an annual basis, and it can only be updated following scrutiny from the ORR and the new passenger watchdog, which in my view provides additional flexibility and accountability.
I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can agree that GBR’s business plan is the right place to develop and set GBR’s performance indicators. Given my explanation, I encourage him not to press his new clauses to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his defence of the Bill. The problem with his argument is that, because the Government have gone off half-cocked, the Committee is not in a position to assess whether he is right or wrong on the nature of the KPIs, or even on where they should be, because we have not been furnished with any draft copies of the documents to which he refers. In those circumstances, I feel obliged to press the two new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It may help Members to know that we debate new clauses where convenient in the Bill. We will vote on whether to agree to the new clauses when we get to the end of the Bill.
Clause 4
Exercise of functions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 30—Rail devolution: Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—
(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;
(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;
(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;
(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and
(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.
(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.
(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
Keir Mather
Clause 4 enables Scottish and Welsh Ministers to delegate their railway functions to Great British Railways, a subsidiary of Great British Railways, or a company jointly owned by Scottish or Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways. That means that, if they wish, those Ministers will be able to take advantage of the benefits of GBR’s joined-up approach of bringing track and train together.
Scottish and Welsh Ministers must consult GBR and the Secretary of State before entering into any delegation arrangement with GBR, and transparently publish the terms of the arrangement. The clause confirms that when GBR delivers functions for Scottish or Welsh Ministers, it continues to comply with its own obligations under the Bill, such as its duties.
The clause provides flexibility and choice for Scottish and Welsh Ministers in how rail services are delivered in Scotland and Wales. It allows for innovative options, such as vertically integrated joint ventures, which can deliver the full cost efficiencies and performance improvements that track and train integration will bring to England, with opportunity for those benefits to extend to Scotland and Wales as well. This approach is in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver the benefits of rail reform to the whole of Great Britain and has the full support of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I thank the Minister for his brief explanation of the clause. Under clause 3, the Committee was able to discuss the principles of the future structure of GBR, but clause 4 is the first instance of one of the open wounds that the Bill might create.
The devolutionary functions of the Bill seemingly reopen aspects of the West Lothian question by failing to provide clear lines of power between the devolved nations, regions and Whitehall. The elephant in the room is the future surrounding England and Wales projects. We know from the evidence we heard that the Welsh railway is very different from, for example, the Scottish railway; 80% of all rail travel in Wales is cross-border, so it includes elements of English travel, as we can tell by Labour’s recent announcement that East West Rail and the Hull to Liverpool lines are being classified as England and Wales projects. Some members of the Minister’s party in Wales might think that is a bit of a stretch at the very least.
The Government’s position has consistently been based on the fact that infrastructure is not subsequent to Barnett consequentials in Wales, and therefore should not be allocated to Cardiff Bay. However, the Minister’s own Labour party colleague in the Senedd, Cabinet Secretary for Economy Rebecca Evans MS, said:
“Wales will have missed out...as a result of the incorrect classification of HS2 as an England-and-Wales project.”
That was Labour’s position when it sat on the Opposition Benches, and it is seemingly still the position of the Labour Government in Cardiff. Is it still the position of the Minister and of Labour?
Clause 4 allows the Scottish and Welsh Governments to maintain their nationalised railway structures within ScotRail and Transport for Wales. It is prudent that the Government maintain their and GBR’s final say in these matters, as set out in subsection (2). However, much of the relationship is predicated on the memorandum of understanding, which is missing in action and is not explicitly established in the clause. It is important to ensure that the Government are thinking clearly about the nature of the relationship they wish to maintain with the devolved nations, as this framework will exist within the future memorandum of understanding—which none of us has seen. That will be particularly important should the Wales Act 2017 be amended at some stage, given that Welsh devolved powers are a live political issue. Will the Minister explain Government’s approach to future transport devolution in Wales, given his party’s comments on rail funding?
Olly Glover
I wish to speak in favour of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. His new clause seeks to remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and to require the UK Government to transfer responsibility for rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers in the Senedd within two years. In practical terms, that would mean responsibility for rail infrastructure, investment decisions and long-term strategy in Wales sitting with the Welsh Government, rather than being controlled by the UK Secretary of State or Great British Railways. It would put Wales on the same constitutional footing as Scotland, which already has those powers.
The reason this matters is that, under the current arrangements, Wales has consistently lost out. Because rail is not devolved, Wales has no protection when England-only rail projects are classified in ways that deny Wales consequential funding. That has resulted in Wales missing out on billions of pounds of investment from projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, while the Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding to spend on their own rail projects.
The new clause would align responsibility and accountability, and ensure that decisions affecting Welsh rail are made in Wales. I believe that this was a campaign backed by Welsh Labour MPs prior to the general election, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will start by addressing new clause 30, which would require the full devolution of responsibility for rail services and infrastructure in Wales.
The Bill is designed to bring strategic direction, accountability and oversight of the rail system into a single coherent framework, reflecting the fact that railways operate as an integrated cross-border network. Reserved powers play an important part in maintaining that integration. Retaining responsibility for rail infrastructure at UK level supports coherent strategic planning, consistent standards and efficient operation across England and Wales, including on routes that serve communities on both sides of the border.
The new clause would introduce new statutory boundaries into a network when we most need to simplify governance and reduce fragmentation. By reopening the devolution settlement and mandating the transfer of responsibilities that are already being addressed through strengthened partnership working, it risks diverting attention from implementation and delivery. The Bill already enhances joint working.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
The debate around the devolution of rail in Wales is absolutely worthy of further consideration, but I am not convinced that it would be right to do so as part of this Bill, which surely has to reflect the current situation, as the Minister is rightly pointing out. We heard evidence from a Transport for Wales official that they really welcomed the partnership working between the UK Government, the Welsh Government and TfW, as well as future collaboration and the work that has been done on the heads of terms for the memorandum of understanding. They felt that the progress made is moving us towards a different scenario, but we need to work with the situation as it stands now.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend echoes a theme that we have heard throughout this debate: that those who live closest to the railway and the service it provides know best about its operation, and that includes on a devolved basis. He also rightly points to a number of themes that were brought to light during oral evidence by the representative from Wales, who pointed out that developing operational understandings, as we are with the Scottish and Welsh Governments through the MOU, is an iterative process done on an operational level, and freezing it in aspic is therefore not to be advised. The heads of terms already exist for Members to scrutinise.
The Bill already enhances joint working, improves accountability and safeguards the benefits of an integrated cross border railway. The approach in the Bill will be supported by the memorandum of understanding between UK and Welsh Ministers, which will set out arrangements for co-operation on matters such as cross border services and infrastructure interfaces. This provides a clear and structured basis for engagement with Welsh Ministers without requiring the statutory transfer of reserved rail functions or creating additional legislative complexity and uncertainty.
The new clause would require a separate statement on funding for the Welsh consolidated fund. That is not necessary, as information on funding for Wales is already published through established mechanisms, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s fiscal documents on spending reviews and block grant transparency publications, which provide clear and routine transparency without creating a rail specific statutory process.
The new clause risks undermining the integrated approach set out in the Bill by requiring changes to reserved matters that could weaken the coherence of the rail network. The Bill as drafted has the full support of the Welsh Government and preserves the existing devolution settlement. I therefore urge hon. Members not to move the new clause and commend clause 4 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Co-operation with relevant local government bodies
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 232, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary under section 67.”
This amendment is designed to give Mayors the right to appeal GBR decisions to alter passenger services in their area to the ORR in the event of no partnership existing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 214, in clause 5, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(d) a county council, district council or unitary authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”
This amendment ensures that non-mayoral local authorities are included in GBR’s duties to share information and coordinate rail and transport planning.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you very much, Sir Alec. We are making progress—it may not feel like it, but we are. Courage! We’re getting there.
Clause 5 deals with co-operation with relevant local government bodies. It is not going to be a bestseller, but it is important, just like every clause in the Bill. It delves further into the devolution of powers. It is hard to quantify the clause while the Government’s devolution Bill continues its progress through the House, which creates an awkward chicken and egg scenario. The challenge with the clause, about the nature of the devolution of powers across local government, really ends up bleeding into clause 6. I am concerned that the Government and, by extension, GBR will end up picking and choosing who they wish to accept consultation decisions from.
Clause 5(1) specifically uses the word “may” when referring to arrangements between GBR and local government. It states:
“Great British Railways may enter into arrangements with a relevant local government body about the exercise by Great British Railways of its statutory functions in relation to railways and railway services in the body’s area.”
There is no clear obligation to provide any functions to mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities, passenger transport executives or integrated transport areas. Can the Minister help me and the Committee by clarifying what functions he has in mind in relation to this clause? How would it work in practice? Will there be guidance on it, and when will we have it? Has that work been done yet? If it has, why has it not been shared with the Committee, with its obvious corollaries? If it has not been done, why not?
That leads me to amendment 232 in my name, which would create a new subsection (2A) of clause 5 as follows:
“Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary under section 67.”
To bring the amendment to life, we need to refer back to the evidence from Mayors Brabin and Burnham on Tuesday. The amendment would give mayors and other regional leaders the right to appeal GBR decisions to alter passenger services in their area. They would be able to appeal to the ORR, because it would be an independent appeals process, in the event that there was no partnership in existence. In their evidence, Mayors Burnham and Brabin were clear that they expected—in fact, I think Mayor Burnham said he would insist on—greater powers to influence rail in their regions. The amendment would help to achieve that through a continued role for the trusted and impartial Office of Rail and Road.
At this stage, I should make it clear that while the power to appeal is set out in clause 67, the governance—what that appeal can look like—is set out in clause 68. I think I am right in saying that it was described as not being worth the paper it is written on as it is drafted, because it limits appeals to judicial review proceedings in the High Court where there is an error of law. There is strong evidence before the Committee to suggest that that clause should be amended to allow an appeal on the merits, and amendment 232 needs to be taken in conjunction with future amendments that we will put before the Committee to do exactly that. It is intended to include in the Bill the provision for an appeal on the merits to the independent ORR, in order to give succour to mayors and other leaders of regional transport authorities where GBR chooses to run roughshod over their local plans.
Olly Glover
The Lib Dems think that clause 5 is along the right lines, and it is good that the Government are proposing to enshrine the principle of local consultation and dialogue into the Bill, because that is important for getting our railways and transport on a better footing. With the greatest respect to all Members present, too much in our country is dictated from Whitehall. We need more devolution; we need to listen more to local voices, and that applies as much to railways and transport as it does to anything else. I do, however, see merit in Conservative amendment 232, which is intended to strengthen some of the provisions of clause 5.
I will briefly say a little about Liberal Democrat amendment 214, which we see as a very simple and uncontroversial amendment. If the Minister does not intend to support it, I would genuinely be interested in why. It is simply based on the principle that clause 5 focuses on mayoral strategic authorities, but, because of the ongoing state of flux that local government reorganisation is in—I will not use any stronger words than that—we do not yet know exactly what the final structure will be; we do not know whether everyone is going to get a mayoral strategic authority. I am not an expert on the south-west of England—the hon. Member for South West Devon, sat next to me, is—but I keep hearing, for example, that Cornwall may not be part of a mayoral authority. Surely, it is not the intention of clause 5 to say that GBR would not have to engage with whatever local or regional authority there ends up being in Cornwall, if not a mayoral strategic authority.
Jerome Mayhew
This Committee has been a good example of the hon. Gentleman’s party and mine working collaboratively to improve the Bill. While he knows that I agree with the direction of travel that his amendment has in mind, I question its extension to an organisation as small as a district council. Given that district councils are a feature of two-tier local government—there will be a county council above them—can he explain why he thinks it is sensible to include them in the amendment?
Olly Glover
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to get too carried away by the points on which we have agreed so far, because there will be plenty on which that is not the case. I also encourage Government Members not to get too excited, because I have agreed with them on plenty of things as well. Hopefully that shows that our politics can be more serious and less juvenile and we can all find things on which we agree. Before I make myself feel even more sick, I shall carry on.
I understand what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham was saying. The intention of the amendment is not to suggest that GBR should be engaging with district-level authorities by default. Once local government reorganisation is complete and coherent, there will not be any district councils, so that bit will be rendered null and void. The aim is simply to cover all our bases, because we do not know where local government reorganisation will take us. Until we get there, it is important that whatever the voices are in a given part of the country, they are heard.
Local government is so complicated. It is different in so many bits of the country—even places right next to each other. My constituency covers South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, which have district and county, and then next door in West Berkshire it is unitary. Even there, even in parts of the country that used to be part of the same county—I hope the Campaign for Historic Counties is listening; I do sometimes engage with its Facebook comments—
Rebecca Smith
Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment:
“authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”
We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.
Edward Argar
I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities.
I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities.
To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects.
The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?
Rebecca Smith
I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act. I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that.
I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power.
We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a
“Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.”
Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think.
How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours? They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.
Keir Mather
I turn first to the definition of “may”, which feels as philosophically profound a point as it does a political one. I interpret “may” differently to the hon. Lady. Mayoral strategic authorities, and other local government organisations across the piece, have incredibly divergent aspirations, ambitions and existing structures through which they may want to realise their local transport opportunities and overcome challenges. Using “may” gives them the opportunity to explore the full range of them in a way that is not over-prescriptive. If we combine that with the role that mayors can have in the system to exercise accountability, that provides sufficient safeguards for the mayoral piece of the puzzle.
More broadly, building on the point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about what the reality could look like, it goes back to the operational reality that we do not want GBR to be set up as a highly consolidated, top-down organisation that does not have a presence in local people’s communities. On the other hand, GBR’s integrated business units will provide closeness both to the people who maintain assets that are directly related to the railway, and to local government representatives, who will have a very refined view of how the system meets passengers’ needs.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s point speaks directly to something else I am concerned about: how the business units relate to local government areas. His explanation still uses language that makes it sound like the authorities will be much smaller, granulated local authorities rather than larger strategic ones. Can the Minister help me to understand how the business unit will work in an area that does not have a mayoralty—that top level of devolution—in place?
I do not want to be parochial, but two railway companies currently provide services in the south-west, and there are three in the far south-west, if we look at some of the other routes down from London to there. If there is a business unit, what is it controlling? Is it controlling the entire south-west? Is it controlling the railway company providing that service? Does it have to be linked to a level of devolution, or will it exist anyway, meaning that local councils, such as the one in my area, would still refer to them?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady will have to forgive me, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive, and that is for two reasons. The first is that, as she outlines, there are very different cases in different local areas, and I want integrated business units that are set up as part of GBR to be responsive to those particularities. Those matters are part of operational design, which necessarily does not sit in the Bill, because we do not want GBR to be frozen in aspic through legislation. We want its operational workings to be future-focused and agile, as we would want any private organisation to be, which the shadow Minister has outlined.
Secondly, however—this relates to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments—I do not want to create phantom clauses in the Bill and build in accountability structures for council systems that may be replaced by mayoral strategic authorities. We talk a lot about Christmas tree Bills in this place, but I envisage this as more of a bonsai Bill, with each part perfectly formed and maintained, so I do not want to put provisions into statute that quickly become irrelevant.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 232, which would create an appeals process for relevant local authorities when a GBR decision affected rail services in their area. The Government support a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, and that is why GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary because clauses 81 to 84 require GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and receive advice from relevant local authorities. Those are the proposed mechanisms through which mayoral authorities will be engaged when one of GBR’s decisions could have a significant impact on the local area. At that point, GBR can receive advice from relevant local authorities and will co-operate with them to find a workable solution. It does not make sense to require a statutory appeals process for something that engagement via other routes can easily solve. I also point to the fact that mayors can appeal the capacity plan or appeal against access decisions if they are aggrieved by them. They can also go to the ORR if GBR ignores the transport strategy, under the existing legislation.
The shadow Minister raised a really important point about the partnership practitioner guide, which was published earlier this month to set out how those partnership models might work. He asked me to point to which functions we have in mind through those models. It could be mayors agreeing local fare packages with GBR as they relate to passenger services, such as through the Bee Network. Hopefully that provides him with a little more detail, but if he has subsequent questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Amendment 214 would enable GBR to enter into arrangements with all tiers of local government, rather than just mayoral strategic authorities. As I have mentioned, the provisions in clause 5 are pitched at that level to reflect the growth of MSAs across England and the role that mayors can play in convening local partners and tackling regional challenges. That level of authority also represents the appropriate scale and capability for integrating rail with wider public transport, and the provision on the intersection with buses is obviously of great importance to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the further detail that he has provided. A lot of these regions feed into London and the big cities. If local councils are holding their local business units to account, how does that connect with services going from those regions to big cities such as London or Birmingham?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady’s comments speak to the advantage of an integrated railway with a single point of accountability—whether that be at the local level, or through an integrated business unit or GBR’s HQ functions in Derby. The reason for having integration is that accountability is not diffuse, as one single point of contact at the local level can radiate through the system to ensure that local residents get what they need. Beyond that, there are the duties that underpin GBR’s need to promote the interests of passengers as being both a national consideration and something that local businesses should have regard to.
Clause 5 also enables GBR to co-operate with relevant local government bodies, such as MCAs, by entering into formal partnership arrangements with them or by sharing information. The clause does not detail what the co-operation arrangements should be, as every local area is different, but arrangements could include local authorities funding GBR for additional services or enhancements beyond the national baseline. The information-sharing provisions can also allow for more integrated transport planning, for example, so that new bus stations can be located alongside new train stations. This provision enables GBR to co-operate with local authorities, allowing local areas the opportunity to genuinely shape the railway and have greater influence over services.
I have heard from many mayors and MPs that this is how the railway should work, and I know that a lot of members of the Committee have local priorities that the clause can help to deliver. In the future, GBR will be accountable for every part of the railway, and it should be able to do sensible business with every Member of Parliament to get the right outcomes for everyone. I commend clause 5 to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I listened carefully to the Minister’s explanation as to why, in his view, amendment 232 should be withdrawn. He said that GBR will agree to co-operation with mayoral combined authorities. He also said that other parts of the Bill contain a duty to consult and a requirement to receive advice from mayors, but there is no requirement to listen to that advice. As a result, the decision-making power remains with GBR, not the regional area that is most affected by the decisions, which the Minister, on a number of occasions today, has already said is best placed to decide the needs for its local community. That is fine—if the Minister wishes to keep the word “may”, it is, of course, his right to do so. However, if the less powerful of the two people in the relationship disagrees with GBR’s decisions, they need to have some form of recourse to an appeal. For that reason, I believe that the appeal process set out in amendment 232 remains important and that the amendment should be put to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 15, after “with” insert “Secretary of State and”.
This amendment maintains the Secretary of State’s statutory co-operation duty with Transport for London to keep the position in line with other mayoralties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 6 deals with co-operation between GBR and Transport for London. The clause seems to exist in direct juxtaposition to clause 5, and, interestingly, to the general spirit of the Bill expressed in other clauses. While many aspects of the Bill bring powers back to the Department for Transport, GBR and the Secretary of State’s office, the clause is unusual in being one of few examples where those on the Treasury Bench do not seem to want to be involved. That is out of character. Through the clause, the Government seek to remove the Secretary of State’s position in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and replace that responsibility with a similar one for Great British Railways. That is not based on enhancing accountability or strengthening value for the taxpayer, which should be core principles of the Bill.
The clause presents special status for Transport for London that is not enjoyed by other mayoral combined authorities; that relates to a point that Committee members will recall Andy Burnham making during our oral evidence session on Tuesday. He expressly referenced the difference in how the Greater Manchester mayoral combined authority is treated on transport matters compared with how TfL is treated. We need to ask why that is. Mayor Burnham’s evidence highlighted that difference, yet the Government have given no effective answer about the rationale behind treating large, regional mayoral combined authorities differently from Transport for London.
The amendments in this group seek to correct that, proposing that, until such a time when the other mayoralties require their own special dispensation, which clause 5 of the Bill actively prohibits, clause 6 should be amended to maintain reference to the Secretary of State, and include the Secretary of State and GBR side by side, so that the relevant subsections of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 refer to both “the Secretary of State” and “Great British Railways”. That would ensure that the Secretary of State continues to have a duty of co-operation with TfL, alongside GBR.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, and as a former member of the London TravelWatch board who understands some of the passenger watchdog issues in London, it is incumbent on me to speak to some of the clauses.
Of course, the GLA Act 1999 originally gave the liaison power to the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Secretary of State, and it was the Railways Act 2005 that amended the words “Strategic Rail Authority” to “Secretary of State”. Clause 6 will in fact put back the relationship that was there in the original 1999 Act, so that the actual rail operator, rather than the Secretary of State, has that liaison right with Transport for London.
Look at how the passenger interacts with some of those services. Some people living in the very northern part of my constituency—I have a very small part of Abbey Wood in my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency—use Abbey Wood station, where rail usage has trebled since before the pandemic. During that time, we have seen the introduction of the Elizabeth line and the nationalisation of Southeastern, and the station has been transferred from Southeastern’s operation to Transport for London’s. Yet there are three different railway services serving that station: the nationalised Southeastern, the privatised Thameslink and the Elizabeth line, which is operated by Transport for London. There therefore absolutely has to be liaison by the operator, not the Secretary of State. Under this arrangement, Southeastern and Thameslink would come under one ownership, under Great British Railways, and with Transport for London.
Also, if my constituents catch the Bexleyheath or Barnehurst service to London Victoria, or to Denmark Hill, if they are using King’s College hospital, they will use a service that is currently operated by Thameslink but on a line that also has Southern and Southeastern services on it, as well as TFL services on the Windrush line. The liaison power should therefore be with the operators, not the Secretary of State. If we went down the Opposition’s route, we would be saying that that liaison should be between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London. However, it should rightly be between the rail operators, given that stations such as Denmark Hill or Abbey Wood have Transport for London services, and there will be some stations operated by Transport for London, but some stations, such as Denmark Hill, will be operated by Great British Railways. That is where the liaison powers should lie, and as I say, that will bring us back to the original arrangement under the 1999 Act. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments and support clause 6.
Keir Mather
Let me begin by addressing the point made by the shadow Minister about the discrepancies in the system in Greater Manchester as it applies to London. It is not wholly correct to say that we are treating these two things inherently differently. The co-operation clause, which applies to all MCAs including Manchester, is new, but for TfL it is also set out in the GLA Act. To make this work for TfL, we have therefore to tweak the legislative system.
I thank the shadow Minister for his amendments 7 to 10, which together propose including the Secretary of State, alongside Great British Railways, in the clause requiring co-operation with TfL. Clause 6 requires that GBR and TfL co-operate on railway matters. That includes co-ordinating TfL and GBR passenger services and sharing relevant information. It will also enable GBR to work collaboratively with Transport for London to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.
The railway responsibilities included in the clause, such as the co-ordination of passenger services, will be GBR’s, not the Secretary of State’s. Including the Secretary of State here would risk undermining the principle that GBR is the railway’s directing mind, and would widen the scope of the Secretary of State’s role under the new regime.
The shadow Minister will have heard the Government make clear commitments that this will not be a railway run by politicians. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not need to be involved in GBR’s relationship with Transport for London or in its passenger service responsibilities. Those relationships are operational ones and do not need political interference. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for giving his lived experience of the TfL area. I am partially convinced. I will not press this amendment to a Division, so I think we can move on.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 165, in clause 6, page 4, line 25, after “functions” insert
“(within the meaning of the Railways Act 2026)”.
This amendment defines GBR’s statutory functions in the substituted section 175(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 156 and 157.
Keir Mather
The Government are committed to creating a more locally focused railway under GBR. Provisions in the Bill and ongoing engagement with local government partners demonstrate the strength of that commitment.
These amendments are primarily technical in nature, but they will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. Amendments 156 and 157 bring freight into the scope of clause 6, which requires GBR to co-operate with Transport for London on railway matters.
Clause 6 amends section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which requires the Secretary of State and TfL to co-operate with each other on passenger services. I have already spoken about why we are transferring this duty to co-operate from the Secretary of State to GBR. However, since GBR will be the directing mind of the railway, an operator of passenger services and the manager of its network, it is now appropriate for this duty to include both freight and passenger services.
This Government recognise the importance of freight and intend to ensure that freight is promoted within the Bill, as well as in future engagement between GBR and TfL. It was always this Government’s intention that GBR and TfL should work effectively together in the reformed railway. These amendments ensure that that can happen in a holistic way.
Amendment 165 is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that when people read the Greater London Authority Act 1999, they know to refer to this Bill to find out what GBR’s statutory functions are.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with the Minister’s characterisation that these are largely technical or tidy-up amendments. It is right to include freight in the duty to cooperate with TfL. I am glad that the Government have tabled these three amendments and we have no objection to them.
Amendment 165 agreed to.
Amendments made: 156, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, after “passenger” insert “and goods”.
This amendment and amendment 157 add GBR’s statutory functions in relation to freight services to the functions in relation to which GBR must co-operate with Transport for London.
Amendment 157, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(7) In subsection (3A)—
(a) after ‘passenger’ insert ‘or goods’, and
(b) after ‘passengers’, in both places it occurs, insert ‘or goods’.”—(Keir Mather.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 156.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Mather
Clause 6 amends the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by updating section 175. This will update the current statutory basis for TfL’s co-operation on railway matters by replacing references to “the Secretary of State” with references to “Great British Railways”. This includes co-ordination regarding TfL and GBR services, and requirements to share relevant information. It also enables GBR to work collaboratively with TfL to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.
These arrangements may include financial contributions from TfL to GBR for additional services or enhancements beyond the national baseline. For example, TfL could commission GBR to increase train frequencies on suburban routes, or to improve station facilities to align with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Information-sharing will also enable integrated planning, improving co-ordination between GBR services and TfL’s multi-modal network.
That approach reflects the Government’s commitment to empowering local leaders through statutory roles and supporting integrated transport solutions. This collaborative working will help to deliver better outcomes for passengers and communities by aligning rail services with London’s priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has set out his views on this clause clearly. We have already explored the difference of opinion about whether or not it should be the Secretary of State and GBR that collaborate with TfL. However, the direction of the clause is an eminently sensible one and we do not wish to stand in its way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection and grouping list shows the way in which amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments or new clauses will take place in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper—I remind Members, after Thursday afternoon’s confusion, that new clauses will be voted on at the end of proceedings.
Clause 7
Directions by Secretary of State
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, after “functions” insert—
“where the Office for Rail and Road, in carrying out its functions under section 69A of the Railways Act 1993 (as inserted by section 74 of this Act), has deemed Great British Railways to be in breach of its statutory functions.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions to Great British Railways to circumstances where the Office for Rail and Road has deemed Great British Railways in breach of its statutory functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to say that Great British Railways can only exercise unspecified functions after consulting the Secretary of State or with the Secretary of State’s consent.
Amendment 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, after “publish” insert “and lay before Parliament”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay any directions given to Great British Railways before Parliament.
Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 5, line 11, at end insert—
“(5A) If the Secretary of State uses the powers in this section to give a direction to Great British Railways about the general level and structure of fares for travel on railway passengers services designated under section 25 or 26, then the Secretary of State must publish the assumptions, criteria, and objectives underpinning any direction.”
This amendment puts a duty on the Secretary of State to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives used when giving any direction about the level or structure of fares, so decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability.
Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State enforcing failure to comply with a direction through civil proceedings.
Amendment 17, in clause 8, page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove Scottish Ministers’ ability to say that Great British Railways can only exercise unspecified functions after consulting them or with their consent.
Amendment 18, in clause 8, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would prevent Scottish Ministers enforcing failure to comply with a direction through civil proceedings.
Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The document set out in subsection (1) must ensure that Great British Railways is focussed on meeting the key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to be geared to enabling Great British Railways to meet its key performance indicators.
New clause 4—Secretary of State: power to dismiss the executive head of Great British Railways—
“(1) The Secretary of State may dismiss the executive head of Great British Railways.
(2) The Secretary of State shall only exercise the power in subsection (1) if—
(a) Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in this Act,
(b) Great British Railways has failed to act on guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 9 of this Act.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the executive head of Great British Railways if the organisation is failing to perform against its statutory duties.
Jerome Mayhew
It is just as pleasurable to have you in the Chair today as it was last week, Sir Alec.
I remind hon. Members that clause 7 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue and publish directions to Great British Railways relating to its railway activities. It also outlines how the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Welsh and Scottish Ministers before giving directions relating to their devolved services, except where powers are used in relation to the access regime. The clause further outlines how GBR will be required to comply with directions, which are mandatory and binding, and intended to be used as a so-called
“responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR,”
or, as further clarified in the explanatory notes, as “a last resort”.
Interestingly, although the explanatory notes state that a direction by the Secretary of State is a mechanism of last resort, the clause itself gives no indication to substantiate that. Instead, it suggests that the Secretary of State can act independently of their Welsh and Scottish counterparts’ views, especially as there is a reliance on non-legislative measures. My first question to the Minister is, therefore: why is this supposed last-resort requirement not on the face of the Bill?
When dealing with matters relating in particular to the interpretation of devolution, the risk is that any decision taken by the Secretary of State may be disputed by the devolved nations and end up as a political football, which only increases lawyers’ profits. Would it not therefore be prudent to set out in the legislation exactly what is meant? Without a clear breakdown of the procedures and directions, surely we run the risk of granting the Secretary of State a large degree of power with very limited oversight.
The clause gives the Secretary of State unrestricted power, other than for operations in Scotland and Wales, to intervene in the running of GBR. That is a step too far. While it is justifiable for the democratically elected Government of the day to set and agree GBR’s strategic objectives, key performance indicators and business plans, after those are set out, the Government’s role should be to hold GBR to account for the delivery of the targets, objectives and strategies, and not to tell it how to do so on a day-to-day basis.
A question arises on clause 8(4), and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on the oversight system outlined in clauses 7 and 8. Subsection (4) states:
“Before giving, varying or revoking a direction under this section the Scottish Ministers must consult the Secretary of State.”
Presently, GBR must decide whether a decision directly affects devolved services, but the Bill provides no statutory test, which leaves a delivery body making politically sensitive judgments, further increasing the risk of challenge by devolved nations. Clarity for Members, especially those from the devolved nations, will be extremely helpful, so I would be grateful if the Minister would address that directly.
Under subsection (5) of both clauses 7 and 8, directions must be published, but there is no requirement for them to be laid before and scrutinised by Parliament—the old trap of creating transparency without consequence. A reporting or laying requirement, perhaps through the Select Committee, would turn publication into genuine accountability. However, I am interested to hear what rationale the Minister has not to allow greater scrutiny of GBR in Parliament. Again, perhaps he will address that directly in his response. That is the rationale behind our suggested amendments to require the Secretary of State to lay directions before Parliament, in order to allow us to scrutinise the decisions in greater detail.
There is a fundamental question about leadership and who is the key decision maker. We are told repeatedly by the Minister and others that GBR is the directing mind, but will that really be the case if the clause goes through unamended? If GBR really is the directing mind, what is the necessity for the clause? It is a recipe for decision paralysis, with GBR, given the decision-making structures, undermined by guidance—we will come on to that when we discuss clause 9—and by directions from the Department for Transport in the name of the Secretary of State.
Clause 7 really does risk creating the worst of both worlds. We will have the cost of GBR and its oversight structures—we are told in the recently published job application for the part-time chair that GBR will have more than 100,000 employees; it will be an enormous organisation, with its own senior management team—and then we will have the same again, with an overactive Department for Transport second-guessing GBR’s day-to-day working and being able to give guidance and directions as a result of clauses 7 and 8.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As my hon. Friend describes the growing size of the Department for Transport and Great British Railways, I am slightly reminded of the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England. The Government talk of doubling up and so are winding back by abolishing NHS England, but here they are doubling up in the Department for Transport over Great British Railways. I wonder whether he has any reflections on that analogy.
Jerome Mayhew
It is not a perfect analogy, because GBR is at least intended to be more akin to a business—a nationalised business—but my hon. Friend is entirely right that where we have two organisations in competition, each one thinking that it runs the railways, that is a recipe for confusion at the least, and disaster at the worst.
This is not an idle concern, because it has happened before. We all remember the Virgin West Coast franchise debacle in 2012, when the slightly arm’s length process of franchising did not go well, causing a communal panic in the Department for Transport. The phrase, “Something must be done to prevent this from ever happening again,” was no doubt repeated many times. The result was that more and more micromanaging took place by the Department for Transport in the setting of franchises. The Department no longer talked only about outcomes that needed to be achieved, leaving how companies went about that entirely up to them, which is the appropriate way to draft a franchise agreement. Instead, that devolved into mechanisms of how a franchise should be operated.
We had that mission creep, and I fear that under the Bill we might get exactly the same approach with GBR. It will be set up with the best of intentions, and perhaps in the first two or three years all will run smoothly and the directing mind in practice might well be GBR, but then something will happen, because something always does happen in the real world, with lots of people doing their best but sometimes making mistakes, and there will be a collective gasp from the Department of Transport, because it will feel like it is on the hook, so “Something must be done to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.” We have designed into this mechanism a structure that allows the removal of GBR’s operational independence, and it does so without any reference to actions of last resort by the Government—the Bill is silent on that.
We talk about the Secretary of State, but we all know that officials in the Department for Transport will be advising the Secretary of State on what he or she should be doing in a particular circumstance, and there will be a power grab. Without amendment, the clause will absolutely allow for that. We should be alive to the real-world experience that we all have and take this opportunity to strengthen its wording in order to design out that issue and ensure that there is proper accountability—with GBR accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament—and that operational independence stays with what will be a nationalised business, rather than creating a railway version of NHS England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned a moment ago.
I have tabled two amendments to address this issue. Amendment 12 would limit directions to circumstances in which the Office of Rail and Road assesses GBR to be in breach of its statutory functions. It could be argued that the Secretary of State should have an emergency lever; that is fair enough, because bad things happen. One of our great complaints before the election, although I am beginning to hear it from Labour Ministers as well, was, “We pull the levers but they’re not attached to anything—we have no power.” When we form the Government after the next election, we will want to have levers that are attached to something, and I accept that it is necessary to have an emergency lever to pull should a significant unforeseen event occur—another pandemic, perhaps—and an intervention be required.
However, amendment 12 would still allow the Secretary of State to intervene in emergency scenarios, as the ORR would deem that such events make it impossible for GBR to conform to its business plan targets. Clause 74 sets out the ORR’s power to monitor GBR’s performance. Elsewhere in the Bill, we shall argue that the ORR needs more teeth to hold GBR to account, and this provision limiting the potential for the Secretary of State to intervene until such time that an independent regulatory body has recognised that GBR has not been able to fulfil its functions will be an important safeguard.
Amendment 11 would put the words “last resort” on the face of the Bill, and would provide that a direction may be made only after the removal of GBR’s chief executive officer. The intention behind the amendment is to treat GBR as a business, which I think we all agree is what it is intended to be—albeit a nationalised one. Where there is a board of non-executive directors, they can question the executive team, and they can challenge decisions and require the chief executive to explain and defend the direction of the company. However, when push comes to shove, and the decision is made that the organisation is moving in the wrong direction, the weapon available to the chairman is the removal of the chief executive officer.
If GBR is operating on a day-to-day basis with oversight from the Department for Transport—the Secretary of State—and concerns arise as to its direction or performance, the sequence of severity of the response should not start with guidance from the Secretary of State and then mandatory directions. They might be the final requirement, because we all need those levers, but surely they should come only after the chief executive has been challenged and then removed, just as in the private sector with an arm’s length majority investment.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I certainly see what the hon. Member is trying to do with these amendments, and the Liberal Democrats share some of his concerns about the balance between holding GBR to account and GBR’s autonomy. However, does he not feel that amendment 11 may go a little too far? Laudable though the KPIs that he has set out are, I am not sure that any railway in this country has ever achieved them all at once, and if the amendment were made we may very well go through a revolving door of chief executives before the Secretary of State can give any direction.
Jerome Mayhew
That is a perfectly fair challenge, but amendment 11 would not require the CEO’s removal by the Secretary of State if those KPIs are not met; it would be a necessary first step to demonstrate that the KPIs are not being met, and then there would be a discretion. I suppose the hon. Member is really arguing that my safeguard is not quite as strong as it could be. Nevertheless, it would be a step in the right direction, and it would not require the removal of the chief executive.
New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the CEO of GBR on the grounds that a KPI has not been met and—this is an important bit, which the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage might recognise gives the new clause some weight—GBR has failed to act on guidance that has been issued by the Secretary of State under clause 9. It is sequential. First, the chief executive is given guidance from the Secretary of State. Most chief executives worth their salt would take notice of official guidance given by their 100% shareholder, but if for some reason they fail to act on the guidance and they are still missing their KPI, then the power to dismiss would be exercisable. In my submission, that is a good approach.
Clause 7(2)—the “interference clause”—anticipates minor direction changes, which is exactly the kind of direction that should not be issued and is contrary to the explanatory notes. We are told that the powers in the clause will be used only as a last resort, but subsection (2) states:
“A direction under this section may provide, in particular, that a function is only to be exercised—
(a) after consulting the Secretary of State, or
(b) with the Secretary of State’s consent.”
The clause is not an emergency lever. It is quite clear from the drafting that the circumstances in subsection (2) cannot apply to a last-resort emergency lever. It is saying, “You can carry on doing things, but we need to have oversight in the nitty-gritty.” It is truly an interference clause.
Is it the Government’s intention that directions issued under clause 7 will be, as described in the explanatory notes, used as a “last resort” emergency brake, or do they intend—this is the case as the Bill is drafted—that the Secretary of State will give himself or herself the power to intervene in day-to-day management, even down to the level that individual decisions will not be taken until there has been consultation with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State has consented to them?
Clause 7(5) needs improvement. It requires publication by the Secretary of State, but anticipates no role for Parliament in that oversight. The organisation Rail Forum said:
“We agree that this is desirable to ensure GBR remains arm’s length and is allowed to manage its own affairs.”
That is important. The industry itself is saying that GBR needs to be operationally independent and to manage its own affairs. Amendment 14 would correct that issue. It would require the Secretary of State to lay any decision before Parliament—the right place for primary scrutiny. Rail Forum supports the amendment. It says:
“This is essential to ensure that normal Parliamentary process is not bypassed.”
Amendment 16 would mean that decisions on fares imposed on GBR by the Secretary of State can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. Such a direction would have a huge impact on the financial position of GBR, because decisions on fares and passenger growth and affordability are central to revenue. It is crucial that decisions are made on proper evidence and in line with the objects of GBR.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I do not want to stop my hon. Friend’s flow, as I believe he is probably coming to the end of his remarks. On listening to his eloquent speech, it strikes me that these amendments point directly to the fact that if Parliament had more of a role under the Bill, we would not even get to such places. Ultimately, if there is scrutiny throughout the process and an ability for Parliament, once GBR exists, to hold the Secretary of State and GBR to account, we should avoid the need for a civil proceeding, because a lot of the issues could be nipped in the bud before getting to that stage.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That will be a theme of our comments on and challenges to the Bill throughout the progress of our scrutiny: accountability without responsibility is no accountability at all. Time and again, we see an unwillingness from those who drafted the Bill to trust the role of parliamentarians as scrutineers.
As a former businessman, I know—I have not made this one up; it is not unique thinking—that, in any organisation, you get what you measure. That will have been the case in any organisation that hon. and right hon. Members may have worked in in the private or public sector: the NHS has targets because it gets what it measures. At the moment, the Bill measures very little on GBR’s performance, and where it does, that disappears off to the Department for Transport and is reported to other civil servants.
As parliamentarians, we know our value in holding not only GBR to account but the Government of the day, which will not always be a Labour one. That is our important role, which is done through the Select Committee process and more widely. As parliamentarians, we should seek to improve the Bill. I recognise that we will have a number of Divisions during this process and I am unlikely to win a single one, but I urge the Government to listen—perhaps to the private comments of its own Committee members; they do not have to tell me about it—because these are genuine areas of improvement that we as parliamentarians should be encouraging the Government to add to the Bill. On that note, I will stop.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for this group of amendments, which are primarily about the direction powers in the Bill.
Amendments 11 and 12 would each limit the use of the Secretary of State’s direction power, requiring that the power can be used only as a last resort, after dismissing the head of GBR and if GBR has breached its functions. I understand the intention here, which is to ensure that these direction powers are used proportionately. I assure the hon. Member that the Government agree with that aim—we absolutely must empower GBR to be the directing mind of the railway—and I agree that the railway will not work if Ministers are forced to keep meddling in it in the way that they do today. That said, this power is not the problem that he thinks it is.
The new direction power is common in relationships between the Secretary of State and arm’s length bodies. Other examples in the transport sector that are not limited to last resort use include the power in the Infrastructure Act 2015 for the Transport Secretary to direct National Highways. Hon. Members will note that these types of powers are not frequently used. These amendments would create restrictions that undermine the principle that the Secretary of State should retain the ability to respond to persistent, urgent or unforeseen issues where rapid intervention is required.
Jerome Mayhew
Where is the reference to persistent, urgent and unforeseen incidents in the Bill?
Keir Mather
The Government have made it clear what the provisions within these clauses are designed to implement. I ask the shadow Minister to look at legislation passed under his own Government that contain direction powers that are remarkably consistent with those found in the Bill, and at the directions provided in other pieces of legislation. Does he feel that they represent mission creep when it comes to Secretary of State responsibilities? He will note that these type of powers are not used frequently. We believe that these amendments would create restrictions that undermine the principle that the Secretary of State should retain the ability to respond as required.
Critically, a direction should come before there has been a serious impact. The removal of an executive or the ORR deeming GBR to be in breach of its statutory functions would suggest that a serious failure has already occurred. In the latter case, it is unclear in what situation the hon. Member would consider a breach of a statutory function to have occurred, which would introduce ambiguity into the system.
Restricting the direction powers by limiting their use to only the most serious of instances would mean that any directions were more likely to be more prescriptive and severe. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not wish to see the public or industry seriously impacted before the Secretary of State acted. The new powers also recognise the GBR board as the railway’s directing mind while enabling Ministers to intervene to support GBR to deliver or correct course.
Amendments 13 and 17 would remove the ability for the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers, respectively, to say that GBR can exercise unspecified functions only after consultation or with their consent. I do not think that these amendments are helpful. They would effectively remove the clarity on the directions power, but would not restrict the legal scope of it. They would simply lessen the legal transparency around the use of the direction.
There are circumstances where requiring GBR to consult the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers before taking a specific action would be entirely reasonable, and maybe even desirable for GBR. For example, where GBR needs to address a specific risk or situation as part of a wider national co-ordination or cross-industry response, the Secretary of State may need to ensure that actions are in line with national responses. The ability to revoke a direction allows Ministers to ensure that they operate in a proportionate and rational way in response to time-sensitive issues.
Amendments 15 and 18 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers, respectively, from enforcing GBR’s failure to comply with a direction through the civil courts. The Government need to retain the right to independent enforcement with fixed remedies that compel GBR to act across a range of mechanisms, to ensure a pathway to protecting taxpayers’ money and the delivery of the Government’s objectives. I hope the hon. Member would agree that it is completely undesirable to remove any ability for Ministers to hold the executive to account.
I also politely say that the hon. Member cannot have it both ways: either GBR is an organisation that could exercise mission creep and is too independent of scrutiny, whether from Parliament or anywhere else, or the powers in the Bill place too many strictures on it from the perspective of Government. That point of clarity is required in the Opposition’s overall perspective on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
As I have set out in my series of amendments, the appropriate oversight and control is to remove the chief executive. The Minister must accept that, if the Secretary of State thinks that the organisation is going in the wrong direction, is not listening to guidance or has gone rogue in some way, they have the unfettered power to remove the chief executive officer at any stage. If he does not think that is the case, he should say so now, because if the Secretary of State has the power to remove the chief executive officer and put in place someone who will do his bidding, then none of this is needed, is it?
Keir Mather
I will turn in a moment to the specific points that the shadow Minister raises around the chief executive, but I think I share his views on the importance of GBR’s compliance with its fundamental functions and with the law. That is why amendments 15 and 18 are peculiar—they do not recognise GBR needing to be able to have enforcement through that particular route.
Amendments 14 and 16 both relate to the transparency of directions. Amendment 14 would require directions to be laid before Parliament, but we believe that is unnecessary as provisions in the Bill already require directions issued under this power to be published, and Parliament has the power to call the Secretary of State to account should it take the view that more information is required.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. The Minister is quite eloquently setting out why some of these amendments are not needed. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, set out earlier why they were needed, but also referred to problems that may happen in the future. It is difficult to write a Bill while trying to tackle problems that may or may not happen in the future.
The fact remains that rail reform failed to happen during 14 years of Conservative Government. The previous Rail Minister admitted that the Government failed to bring in the necessary reform. We had 10 Rail Ministers, I think—correct me if I am wrong—in 14 years. That was not just a failure to bring in a Bill; it failed passengers, railways and our workers who support the railways. Is it not time that we crack on, pass the Bill and deliver the improvements that this industry so greatly needs?
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short and punchy. If Members would like to make a longer intervention they have the opportunity to catch my eye.
Keir Mather
I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment that it is unwise to hypothesise about what potential eventualities could befall GBR in specific instances, as the shadow Minister encourages me to do. What is important—my hon. Friend made an important point around consistency, both in our legislative work and the work of the Government more broadly—is to ensure that the bedrock upon which GBR sits is legally sound, and that all eventualities that may arise are catered for through provisions within the legislation that offer sufficient breadth. That is why amendments 15 and 18 do not serve the legal accountability purposes that the shadow Minister seems to want to stress.
Keir Mather
I will give way one final time and then I want to make some progress.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful that the Minister is being very generous. In my opening remarks, I asked him to give me some real-world examples of when injunctive relief might be required. Could he not forget to provide those?
Keir Mather
I had not forgotten the shadow Minister’s request for me to provide specific examples. In a sense, though, I do not believe that it would be wise to do so. I do not think that the purpose of this Committee is to speculate about what GBR may or may not do in future; it is important that we develop a suite of measures that create the accountability that is required.
Keir Mather
I will give way one final time, and then I really do want to make some progress.
Laurence Turner
I will not test the wisdom of speculating about future legal circumstances, but is it not the case that when Railtrack was in a state of advanced collapse, that particular case did end up in court?
Keir Mather
I defer to my hon. Friend’s expertise on that particular matter, but my overall point is that, rather than create events in our heads about when this enforcement power may be required, it is important that we give GBR, and the Secretary of State in exercising accountability in relation to it, a full suite of measures to ensure that it remains compliant with the law. Actually, specific duties outlined in the Bill encourage GBR not only to be compliant with the law but to deliver for passengers, including those with disabilities, and to make sure that we have a long-term infrastructure strategy for the railway and unify it in a way that serves the interests of passengers.
Amendment 16 would require the publication of the assumptions, criteria and objectives used when giving directions about fares. The Government have been clear that GBR will have a greater level of autonomy and flexibility over fare setting than train operating companies do today; however, given the need to balance passenger and taxpayer contributions to funding the railway, that freedom will be within strategic parameters and guardrails set by the Secretary of State.
While it is possible that the directions power could be used to set strategic parameters and guardrails for fares, there are alternative routes, most notably the ability for public service contracts awarded to GBR to contain fare parameters and guardrails. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, the Government are committed to interacting with GBR clearly and transparently, and the refreshed role of the Secretary of State on fares is no exception.
Finally, I turn to two additional amendments, which relate not to directions but generally to the accountability of GBR. Amendment 24 would require the long-term rail strategy to be geared towards enabling GBR to meet the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. New clause 4 would allow the Secretary of State to dismiss the head of GBR were it not meeting the key performance indicators proposed in new clause 2. We have already discussed new clause 2, so I will not repeat my arguments, but in relation to amendment 24, the long-term rail strategy is clearly meant to be just that—long term. The amendment would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term performance indicators, which could change much more frequently.
Rebecca Smith
I would argue that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has tabled a key amendment, which relates to something that came up in the scrutiny of the Bill in the Transport Committee; indeed, I asked a question of the noble Lord Hendy about it when I quizzed him on how we as MPs are supposed to hold the Government to account for the delivery of the long-term rail strategy. I appreciate that it is long term, but we have to get from the short term to the long term, and if nothing is set out in the Bill about what delivery is supposed to look like on the route to the long-term delivery, we effectively cannot do our job. The Minister in the other place rightly said, “It’s going to be an amazing railway system. It’s going to be perfect,” but he could not answer me on how we hold people to account on getting from A to B. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that if he is not prepared to accept amendment 24.
Keir Mather
It puzzles me that with all the other transport bodies that have been set up—National Highways is an interesting example—I do not recall a series of concerns having been outlined that one of the most robust systems of parliamentary democracy in the world was in some way, shape or form incapable of—
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister, though I remind him that we do have 14 sessions; we are not cantering to the last fence. He prays in aid National Highways. We are all constituency MPs. We all know how frustrating it is trying to deal with National Highways. I do not want to make a headline unnecessarily, but my personal view, as a constituency MP, is that trying to deal with National Highways in the interests of my constituents is almost impossible. Why would he choose that as the example to follow when designing accountability for GBR?
Keir Mather
In a spirit of cross-party contrition, I agree with the shadow Minister’s point; it is a fair one, and perhaps that was a poor example.
In the setting out of the long-term rail strategy, through the Secretary of State, there are myriad means of Parliamentary accountability to ensure that process is done in a way that reflects the long-term interests of the railway and of passengers. There are robust means of scrutiny through this House and other means of which Parliamentarians can avail themselves of, and of which the hon. Member for South West Devon has availed herself multiple times through the passage of this Bill.
I would like to conclude on this grouping and so I want to speak to new clause 4. As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be aware, with bodies of this nature the Government’s long-standing policy is that the Secretary of State of the sponsoring Department has responsibility for appointing the non-executive chair of the board. The executive team is then accountable in the first instance to the organisation’s non-executive board, and it is right that trust is given to the expertise and experience of the executive and that there is appropriate distance between the Secretary of States and those tasked with the day-to-day operational management of the organisation. That is one of the benefits of the GBR model.
Legislating to dictate a process whereby the chief executive is dismissed directly by the Secretary of State for failure to meet a single KPI is not appropriate and it cuts across all guidance and understanding of effective partnership between Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies. For those reasons, I cannot accept these amendments and urge the hon. Members to withdraw them.
Jerome Mayhew
I am wholly unconvinced by the explanation the Minister has given. On many of the clauses and amendments I have put forward, and those put forward in the names of other Members, one can see both sides of the argument; on this one, I think the Government are entirely wrong. They are setting up a structure using another arm’s length non-governmental body, National Highways, that is a byword among us constituency MPs for a lack of accountability and for being a frustrating body to deal with. That is not the right direction for the Government to be going in and I will push the amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out
“operation of a GBR-provided Scottish service”
and insert
“exercise by Great British Railways of functions—
(i) on behalf of the Scottish Ministers in accordance with arrangements made under section 4, or
(ii) under a contract awarded under section 31(3)(b)”.
This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers, where giving directions to GBR.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 167 and 168.
Clause stand part.
Clause 8 stand part.
Keir Mather
The amendments will improve clarity and ensure that the Railways Bill works as intended. Clauses 7 and 9, as drafted, set out that the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Scottish or Welsh Ministers when issuing a direction and guidance to GBR
“in a manner that directly affects the operation of”
a GBR-provided Scottish or Welsh service. That definition could unintentionally exclude scenarios where Great British Railways is exercising functions delegated by Scottish or Welsh Ministers that do not directly affect operation of railway passenger service functions, such as in relation to branding. The amendments provide a clearer and more precise approach. Consent will now be required whenever GBR is acting on behalf of Scottish or Welsh Ministers under formal arrangements enabled by clause 4, or contracts awarded under clause 31. That is a better way of defining where consent is needed as it reflects the responsibilities devolved to Scottish and Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
The amendments remove ambiguity from the Bill without changing its core purpose. They ensure that devolved Governments have a clear and consistent role in decisions affecting services devolved to them, while maintaining the Secretary of State’s ability to protect the network as a whole. That approach has the support of both Scottish and Welsh Ministers because it provides certainty and transparency. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendments.
Clause 7, to which the amendments apply, provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue legally binding directions to Great British Railways. Clause 8 replicates that power for Scottish Ministers when GBR is exercising functions relating to Scottish railway services in Scotland. Such powers are common in relationships between Government and arm’s length bodies and used only when absolutely justified and in a proportionate way. For example, the Oil and Gas Authority has received only one ministerial direction in its 10-year history.
Clause 7 is a normal, standard accountability provision that follows established precedent. It is a type of power that is always used sparingly. It is not a new and extraordinary means of interfering with the railway that the Government are trying to decentralise to GBR. The powers are necessary to reflect the overall democratic accountability of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers for the performance of GBR within the areas of the country that they are responsible for and fund.
To protect GBR’s day-to-day operational independence as the directing mind, the powers will be used only where there is strong justification, in consultation with the ORR and after agreed processes have been followed. For Scotland, those processes include following a series of procedures and controls that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers that is required under clause 23 of the Bill. They also include consulting the Secretary of State before using the power.
To ensure appropriate transparency, the clauses require that the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers must publish any issued directions, including when they are amended or revoked. As GBR may also provide services on behalf of Scottish or Welsh Ministers, clause 7 requires the Secretary of State to secure the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers to issue directions to GBR relating to areas that fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scotland or Wales.
Finally, to avoid a scenario where GBR receives contradictory directions from Ministers or where directions issued by Scottish Ministers appear to go beyond their responsibilities, clause 8 provides the power for the Secretary of State to revoke Scottish Ministers’ directions. We have agreed with Scottish Ministers that that provision is necessary to protect the overall network as a whole.
The clauses are essential to provide a clear and proportionate route for intervention while still enabling GBR to deliver as the directing mind in the interests of its customers, taxpayers and the public. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
The Committee will be pleased to hear that I am not going to reheat my arguments on clause 7, but we have not yet discussed clause 8. The arguments inevitably mirror each other to a degree, because clause 8 in the main seeks to extend the provisions of clause 7 to Scottish Ministers.
Clause 8 will grant Ministers in Scotland the power to issue and publish directions to GBR—so far, so similar—and GBR will be required to comply with those directions. However, the Secretary of State has ensured that they will have the ability to remove a direction of Scottish Ministers where it is inconsistent with her directions. The clause requires the Secretary of State to consult Ministers in Scotland before revoking and must publish any revocations.
The clause suffers from the same issues as clause 7, as I have already intimated: granting the Secretary of State, and then by extension Scottish Ministers, the ability to direct GBR, which is meant to be operationally independent. That is the first confusion. I will not rehash the arguments, but hon. Members should take it as read that I repeat them here.
As the Minister just mentioned, clause 8(7) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke a direction given by Scottish Ministers under that clause. That is confusion No. 2. We anticipate circumstances in which GBR has a direction of travel—that is not meant to be a rail pun—with which the Scottish Minister disagrees; the Scottish Minister issues a direction for GBR to go in a different direction, and then the Secretary of State disagrees with that direction and issues a revocation. What a recipe for confusion, delay and poor governance that creates!
Who is really in charge of the railways in Britain? It is certainly does not sound as though it is GBR, which is being second-guessed on the one hand by the Scottish Ministers and on the other by the Secretary of State. It does not sound as though Scottish Ministers are in charge even in Scotland, because they can suffer a revocation from the Secretary of State. Yet the consultation document tells us, as the Government have told us time and again, that
“GBR will be operationally independent, staffed by experts and professionals from the rail sector…who will be empowered to deliver for passengers and freight customers without government interference in day-to-day decision-making.”
When did that change? Perhaps the Minister can let us in to the secret. Clause 8 not only prevents GBR from being independent—as clause 7 does—but prevents devolved Ministers from acting within their own devolved settlements without being second-guessed by the Secretary of State.
I accept that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop MSP, when speaking about clause 8 during the Transport Committee evidence session, seemed not to oppose that oversight, as she recognised that certain aspects, such as access and freight, remain reserved. It seems that Scottish Ministers are content to accept the clause as drafted because a further memorandum of understanding will create firebreaks between non-devolved powers, in which the Secretary of State may intervene, and devolved powers. That could be okay, but we as a Committee do not know, because we have not seen the memorandum of understanding, even in draft.
We are going to come back to this issue again and again. There are a plethora of documents designed to support the operation of GBR—to support this skeleton Bill—and yet we have not seen them. How can this Committee do our job of scrutinising this Bill line by line, seeking to improve it and to ensure that it achieves the objectives that the Government say it does, when 19 documents and counting—documents that are crucial to the actual running of the railway both in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole—are absent, even in draft?
Bill Reeve, the director of rail reform for Transport Scotland, when invited to add further to the remarks from the Cabinet Secretary, said:
“An awful lot will rely on the memorandum of understanding to flesh that out and give examples.”
There is a question for the Minister surrounding this memorandum of understanding for Scottish and Welsh Ministers. A lot of the powers in the Bill seemingly rely on a document that is not part of the Bill. Will the Minister provide details of the memorandum of understanding prior to the passage of this Bill? If not, why does he refuse to let us know what the memorandum of understanding is likely to stay? Why does he believe that Parliament should approve a working arrangement between the devolved Governments on which no consultation has been undertaken?
I will speak further in detail on the memorandum of understanding when we reach clauses 23 and 24, but it is important that Ministers note that the current framework of the Bill relies on a document that has little oversight or clearly defined objectives, and which we have not seen.
Keir Mather
On memorandums of understanding, I point the shadow Minister to the fact that the heads of terms for the memorandum of understanding with the Welsh Government have already been published. On the overall principle on the development of memorandums of understanding, the stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee were very clear that the process is being carried out in close consultation with devolved Governments and that it is very common for such operational documents to be developed in consultation in this way.
We are creating an operational framework by which GBR can function as an organisation. It is very important that that platform exists before the devolved settlements that will dictate the operational reality of how the railway works are layered on top.
On the shadow Minister’s point about direction powers, these are the same direction powers that exist, almost like for like, with Great British Energy, Great British Nuclear and the North Sea Transition Authority. They are there to respond to urgent and pressing matters. His points on overreach should have applied to the creation of those organisations as much as to the creation of GBR.
The factual reality of how the direction power has been used in the case of oil is that only one direction has been issued in 10 years. It is the Government’s intent—we have been very clear in saying so—that this direction power must operate in a similar way and only respond to urgent, pressing and persistent matters.
On the issue of direction from Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State cannot revoke a direction if it pertains purely to a devolved matter, but Scottish Ministers did agree that revocation powers are necessary when there are conflicts in directions. Speaking from my perspective on how this Bill puts the devolved settlement at the centre of how the railway functions, there are sufficient methods to create accountability, mutual working and shared recognition of priorities and ambitions across devolved Governments, the UK Government and GBR, so that I do not envisage a revocation of a direction being used regularly. It is only there to ensure the smooth function of the railway.
Amendment 166 agreed to.
Amendment made: 167, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out
“operation of a GBR-provided Welsh service”
and insert—
“exercise by Great British Railways of functions—
(i) on behalf of the Welsh Ministers in accordance with arrangements made under section 4, or
(ii) under a contract awarded under section 31(4)(b).”.—(Keir Mather.)
This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers, where giving directions to GBR.
Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, after “publish” insert “and lay before Parliament”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay any directions given to Great British Railways before Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 9, page 6, line 30, after “statutory functions” insert
“, but only in respect of strategic or financial matters where such guidance is necessary and does not interfere with the operational exercise of those functions.”
This amendment limits the guidance that the Secretary of State can give to Great British Railways.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 9, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railway’s attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC2.
Amendment 20, in clause 9, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“(5A) If the Secretary of State uses the powers in this section to give guidance to Great British Railways about the general level and structure of fares for travel on railway passengers services designated under section 25 or 26, then the Secretary of State must publish the assumptions, criteria, and objectives underpinning any guidance.”
This amendment puts a duty on the Secretary of State to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives used when giving any guidance about the level or structure of fares, so decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability.
Amendment 21, in clause 10, page 7, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC2.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. This amendment relates to some of the clauses in the Bill that will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance, as opposed to direction, to GBR. Amendment 143 is, in my humble opinion, a very modest and reasonable attempt to simply clarify some of the clear intentions that the Minister has expressed for the Bill. Our amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could only provide guidance to GBR on its statutory functions in respect of strategic or financial matters, where such guidance is necessary and does not interfere with the operational exercise of those functions.
The reason for tabling this amendment alludes to things I have said previously in this Committee room, and in other locations—there have been many examples in the past of the Secretary of State as proxy for the Department for Transport, getting involved in far too much of the fine detail of the running of our railways, whether that is the intricacies of timetable specification, whether certain types of rolling stock are upgraded or not, and whether they are equipped with wi-fi and tables, or not. There are many other examples that I could give and I have given before. The amendment is intended to strengthen the Government’s clear intent that the direction and guidance given by the Secretary of State should be strategic and high level. The guidance should be about providing a clear overview of what the Government of the day wishes the railway to achieve and deliver, and about empowering GBR—with appropriate regulation to hold it to account, as we have been debating—to get on with it.
I hope the Minister will view the amendment rather more favourably than he has others, although my powers of clairvoyance feel particularly strong this morning, and I suspect that will not be the case, in which case we will wish to press it to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I will deal briefly with amendment 143 and develop some arguments on the other amendments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on tabling amendment 143, which pushes in exactly the same direction that I have been pushing today, and also last Thursday, in developing the concern about increasing micromanagement by Department for Transport officials in the name of the Secretary of State, which will undermine the independence of GBR as a tactical organisation.
The culture is already there: the Department has been micromanaging the railways to an increasing extent since 2012 at the latest. This Bill needs to change culture. It is not a steady-state Bill; it is a once in a generation opportunity to change the culture not just of GBR, moving it away from Network Rail, but of the Department for Transport, which is as necessary as the other cultural change. If this Bill is to achieve what it is meant to, the Department’s relationship with the railways should properly be changing. Amendment 143 is a modest but important proposal that would go some way to facilitating that.
Dealing with the group as a whole, and continuing the theme of the exercise of functions and guidance by the Department, the Opposition once again note the contrast between the supposed independence of GBR and the various mechanisms that the Department and the Secretary of State have managed to wheedle into the Bill to grant themselves extra powers, whether as a last resort or, as I fear, to create a micromanaging charter, and where that last resort, as it has been described, has no qualifying criteria—although as we have heard from the Minister, that is seemingly of little consequence.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to “issue and publish guidance”, with notable devolved exceptions, which will allow the Secretary of State to
“clarify policy intentions to GBR.”
The explanatory notes acknowledge that
“in most cases requiring course correction, guidance would be used before directions,”
although I note that it is not required. The Government anticipate that they could move straight to directions if they wish to. However, subsections (1) and (2) are very clear:
“The Secretary of State may give guidance…or revoke guidance”
without any qualifying criteria at all.
What is guidance? It is a steer short of direction, and an application for an injunction against GBR—which we have just voted in favour of—destroys the myth of GBR operational independence. It will be taking orders from the Department for Transport, because that is the status quo ante. Without strengthening this clause and some others, we will confine the relationship between the Department for Transport and the newly created GBR to “more of the same”. That is the fear that we should collectively be fighting against.
The guidance will be not just on the strategic direction or the business case, but on delivery decisions, at the whim of the Department. We can say, “Well, it’s the Secretary of State. This will be done under advisement,” but we all know that in practice it will mean officials micromanaging GBR in the name of the Secretary of State, who will provide the rubber stamp. I fully expect the Minister to reassure me that that would never happen, and that the provision is only for course corrections. Now, if I was in the passenger seat of a vehicle and kept telling someone how to drive, I suppose I would call that a course correction, but they might call it backseat driving. That is the problem: the Bill is designed for backseat driving by the Department for Transport. Will the Minister explain how the clause is nothing short of backseat driving?
I obviously wish GBR the best of luck, and I hope the Minister’s enthusiasm and optimism is fully justified, but I fear that the disastrous consequence of forcing it to walk on eggshells will be constant second-guessing. I have been involved in an organisation in which there was second-guessing—no one was sure who had the decision-making power—and it was a disaster. If there is second-guessing, the organisation as a whole does not know when a decision has been taken. Does the power lie with the board? Does the board have to get clearance from a second board in a wholly different organisation, which might have a different view? Should people in GBR wait for the nod from the Department for Transport before taking action within the organisation, particularly if it is a decision with which its sub-department may not agree?
Rebecca Smith
My hon. Friend’s argument highlights the challenge that a lot of the independent retailers, open access users and, potentially, freight users will face if the Bill remains as drafted. Ultimately, they are the people outside the walls of the castle who will struggle to understand who is making what decision and which decision is final. It is a bit like a child going to one parent, getting an answer they do not like, and going to the other parent to get a different answer. Should there be more clarity in the Bill specifically for that reason?
Jerome Mayhew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. When one’s children come and ask for something, the wise answer is always to ask first, “What did your mother say?” If we were able to apply that common sense to this situation, I would not be so concerned. What we have instead is stakeholder management culture seeping into the core aspects of GBR functions.
Laurence Turner
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that progress has been made on the cultural issues and the micro-management that he describes? I note in passing that he dates that culture from 2012 onwards, which was, of course, entirely under the Government of which he was part. In the Transport Committee, we heard that until the election, Network Rail had to seek Treasury permission to do as much as put up a passenger footbridge. Is it not welcome that that has now come to an end?
Jerome Mayhew
It is certainly welcome, but we are still in the position in which an improvement to a line—something as small as the Haughley junction improvement, which costs roughly £15 million to £20 million—still needs ministerial sign-off from the Treasury before it can be authorised. The Government have some way to go to improve the situation.
This will leave us with a stakeholder management culture. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is entirely right that many organisations in the 60% of the railway that is not being nationalised as part of GBR will be intimately and hugely impacted by GBR’s decisions—or will they? Will they, too, have to wait for the all clear from the Department for Transport? If GBR gets on the wrong side of Ministers or the Department, its course is going to be corrected to all manner of different ports.
The combination of clauses 7 and 9 removes almost any semblance of operational independence from GBR. Clause 9(5) states that GBR
“must have regard to guidance given under this section.”
That sounds soft, but in practice it creates a standing expectation of compliance and makes it impossible for GBR to make dynamic tactical decisions that are free from day-to-day second guessing by departmental and ministerial intervention.
That brings me to amendments 19 and 21, which would help defend the operational independence of GBR. If the Secretary of State is concerned about an aspect of GBR’s performance, they may instead issue guidance to inform GBR of its failure to meet the key performance indicators. Additionally, under clause 10, the Secretary of State may give guidance only if
“Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator…and…Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
As a result, the amendments would apply to GBR in both England and Scotland.
Finally, amendment 20 repeats the argument made about directions or guidance given by the Secretary of State on the general level and structure of fares, and it would introduce new subsection (5A), which states:
“If the Secretary of State uses the powers in this section to give guidance to Great British Railways about the general level and structure of fares for travel on railway passengers services designated under section 25 or 26, then the Secretary of State must publish the assumptions, criteria, and objectives underpinning any guidance.”
That is self-evidently sensible, and I look forward to the Minister agreeing with me.
Keir Mather
May I begin by addressing the point about backseat driving? Following the shadow Minister’s remarks, I identified that this is something that we want to avoid not only in future but because it is the existing scenario that we inherited. Right now, under the old system, the Secretary of State is the only person who is really accountable for driving the system forward, and private operators spent more time employing people to decide who was to blame for failures on the railway than ensuring that the railway actually ran in the interest of passengers.
Interference in access and timetabling is another issue that has been raised. The reason why we have diffuse responsibility and muddled accountability in that space is because Network Rail and the ORR, which are two separate organisations, both have responsibility there but they cannot do it in a unified way, and therefore they cannot serve the interests of passengers. That is exactly what the creation of GBR as a directing mind for the railway seeks to avoid, and guidance within that system plays a very important role in removing one of the shadow Minister’s key concerns: an overbearing Secretary of State issuing direction to GBR. Guidance has been designed to create an iterative process by which GBR can enter into a dialogue with the Secretary of State to talk through and deal with common challenges.
The amendments seek to limit the ability of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to issue guidance to GBR under clauses 9 and 10. I am clear that the new system established by the Bill does not intend to involve the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers in ongoing or individual operational decisions. That is for GBR’s board and the thousands of employees working on the railway. Instead, the guidance power provides a mechanism through which Ministers can respond to overarching issues that might emerge. For example, if the ORR identified persistent failures in GBR’s performance against its business plan, it may suggest guidance from the Secretary of State that could help to support GBR to course correct, and to clarify the desired outcome without requiring more stringent action, such as a direction.
Further, it is not all one-directional guidance. Guidance will be a flexible tool designed to support Great British Railways. For example, there may be instances where guidance is requested by GBR and is issued in a collaborative manner to provide clarity on the policy direction or shared objectives. I also remind members of the Committee that GBR must have regard to the guidance—in other words, it must consider the guidance and weigh it against its other duties and obligations. It is not required to blindly follow the guidance in all cases.
Let me turn to the specifics of each amendment. Amendment 143 would limit the issuing of guidance to solely financial or strategic matters. In seeking to establish a hard line between types of decision making, the amendment would create a false dichotomy. Strategic and financial decisions are likely to have operational implications. The amendment could therefore inadvertently prevent the Secretary of State from being able to issue guidance where there is any operational impact at all, which is clearly disproportionate, given the potentially collaborative and helpful nature of the guidance.
Similarly, amendments 19 and 21 seek to prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing guidance unless GBR is not meeting a key performance indicator under the Opposition’s proposed new clause 2. I have already explained why that proposed new clause is nonsensical. I reiterate that KPIs would be better designed and included as part of GBR’s business plan.
Jerome Mayhew
You are kind to call me to speak again, Sir Alec; I realise that I did not speak to clause 10 earlier. Briefly, I recognise that clause 10 mirrors clause 9, which we have debated substantially, but it is important to note that Scottish Ministers are given a guidance function, whereas Welsh Ministers are not. That reflects the devolution settlement, whereby Scotland funds and controls its rail system in its entirety, whereas Welsh responsibilities are substantially limited to the core valley lines. I repeat our previous arguments about the express need for operational independence for GBR, without constant second-guessing by Department for Transport officials, which my amendment 21 addresses, and about fares, which I discussed in relation to amendment 20. I will press a selection of the amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
Clause 9 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue non-binding guidance to Great British Railways, which GBR must have regard to. Clause 10 provides Scottish Ministers, as funders of the railways, with the same power.
Guidance provides the Secretary of State with a proactive lever to hold GBR to account, while preserving its operational independence as the directing mind. Scottish Ministers will be able to issue guidance to GBR on the exercise of its statutory functions in Scotland, in so far as they relate to Scottish railway activities.
These powers will be used by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to help to develop a better common understanding of an area or to encourage a strategic focus on a specific issue to support GBR in carrying out its functions in the interests of its customers, taxpayers and the public.
To ensure appropriate transparency, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will be required to publish any issued guidance, as well as any amendments or revocations. Further, where the guidance relates to functions that Scottish or Welsh Ministers have delegated to GBR or to services that they have contracted GBR to provide, the Secretary of State must secure their consent before the guidance is issued, reflecting devolved accountability for those services.
This is a sensible and proportionate provision that allows for direct and unambiguous communication between Ministers and GBR, and is intended to support the proper management of the railway.
Jerome Mayhew
We have debated these two clauses. We have made clear our concerns about the current drafting and have tried our best to improve the Bill through a number of very sensible amendments, the majority of which were supported by the Liberal Democrats. We in our turn have supported some sensible amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I recognise that to vote against the clauses would potentially put a difficult hole in the armoury of the Secretary of State for GBR, so it is with a heavy heart that I do not oppose these two clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Licensing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Mather
On a point of order, Sir Alec. Before turning to the clause, I would like to correct the record. My Department’s commitment has always been to publish the draft GBR licence during the Bill’s passage, rather than before the Bill leaves the Commons, as I had said in oral evidence on 20 January. Before publication in draft, my Department will undertake engagement with stakeholders to inform the draft. That engagement will start before the Bill leaves the Commons, and I will ensure that hon. Members are involved in it if they would find that beneficial.––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 97, Q180.]
Keir Mather
Clause 11 introduces schedule 1, which will amend part I of the Railways Act 1993 to set out GBR’s licensing regime in a way that broadly mirrors the existing licence provisions in the 1993 Act. I will deal with schedule 1 in more detail later, but for now I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I do not think I said this earlier, because I was merely intervening, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
I appreciate what the Minister just set out in correcting the record from last week, because a lot of what I was going to say had to do with the lack of the licence. In spite of what he said, I still think that it is a problem for us to be debating clause 11, and later schedule 1, without that detail in front of us. It is very generous of him to say that we can be part of the consultation process, but given that we are encumbered with being here for 10 hours a week, I am not quite sure when would be able to do that. With all due respect, I still want to put on record how disappointing it is that we do not yet have the licence. Ultimately, Great British Railways is entirely premised on that licence: it does not operate without it, cannot deliver its functions without it, and will not create this supposedly amazing utopia of perfection for passengers and infrastructure deliverers alike without it.
Debating the clause without that context feels like a completely wasted opportunity—indeed, I fear that this debate will be incredibly short. This is something that I have seen happen with other Bills. The Minister will say that this is what the Opposition would also have done, but we were not in the position to set up Great British Railways, which—next to the NHS—will be the biggest Government-funded and backed body in this country. Without the scrutiny of hon. Members this morning, we cannot do our job properly.
Such scrutiny is in the interest of all the stakeholders—the public, the staff who work for all the railway companies that are to be brought into Great British Railways, and all the other stakeholders that provide services through open access or freight. Whether it is the coffee shop in a station or the trolley service on the train, all these people need this information, and I am disappointed that we cannot provide that scrutiny at this stage in the debate. I would welcome the opportunity to see the draft as soon as it is out, but it is disappointing that has not come in time for debate in Committee. No doubt similar comments will be made on Report and, hopefully, in the other place.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. When I asked the question and he, with alacrity, answered, I did catch the expression on one of his official’s faces; I have to say that I have, on occasion, found myself in that position in the past, so I sensed what might have been coming.
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed. Although it is important that stakeholders are engaged, this legislation has been some time in the making. The licence is at the heart of how GBR will operate, so the fact that not even a skeleton draft will be made available to hon. and right hon. Members as the Bill continues its passage through this House is deeply concerning. I will speak at greater length when we get to schedule 1, but we are effectively being asked to give the Government a blank cheque, based on assurances of intent, without actually seeing the detail of the legislation.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken at length and I agree with them, but I will add just a couple of short points to place my disappointment on the record that not even a draft of the licence has been presented.
It is good that the Minister has clarified that it will be coming forward sooner than he suggested previously, but the reality is that it is already too late, as we heard from stakeholders last week during evidence. I urge him not to delay any further. Even an outline draft of the licence as soon as possible, rather than a more detailed one, would be clearly better than nothing. He should also bring forward the other 19 documents identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon—again, in draft form as appropriate—as soon as possible. As I say, it is already too late for this Committee today, as we debate this very clause and schedule. I wish to place that on the record.
Jerome Mayhew
I echo all the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I also thank the Minister for facing up to it with a point of order. It was obvious last week that a point of order was on its way. None of us on the Opposition Benches will hold him to his initial, rather quick, response—no doubt I will do something similar during the passage of the Bill—but that does not let the Government off the hook.
This is not business as usual for a Department bringing through a Bill of this nature. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, an experienced former Minister, gave two examples of primary legislation that also relied on secondary documentation. In those circumstances, the departmental teams did provide skeleton outlines for Parliament, which is what we are, to consider and do our job properly. I do not want the Minister to rush out a quick affirmative like last week, so I ask him to take time to consider, perhaps discuss with his officials, and reply later today on whether he and his officials are able to commit to some form of briefing—some skeleton outline—on the nature of the licence, at a time when we can collectively discuss and debate it, and see whether it points in the right direction.
Clause 11 simply enables GBR’s licensing to be set out in schedule 1, which we will come on to in a moment. That schedule amends part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 and sets out the detailed process by which the GBR licence will be issued and maintained. Both the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road will retain the ability to grant licences to railway bodies other than GBR—for example, open access operators, freight operators and other infrastructure managers such as the core valley lines in Wales. I know we will discuss the contents of schedule 1 and the detail of the licence extensively.
Keir Mather
Although we have had an opportunity to discuss some of the provisions regarding the creation of the licence—it being enforced by the ORR with powers that include giving GBR directions to escalate issues to its board, requiring GBR to create and publish improvement plans and issuing enforcement orders— I have heard Opposition Members’ points that they would like an opportunity to discuss those matters more closely and in further detail.
We believe that developing the licence in this way will ensure that what is published for statutory consultation is informed by the development of a stable legislative framework in which to scrutinise the licence—as we are doing now—and can be meaningfully refined and enhanced by a wide range of views. However, I take the point that the shadow Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members have made, and I am sure that we can have further discussions today. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Licensing of Great British Railways
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 1, page 55, line 10, leave out from “may,” to “grant” and insert—
“at the recommendation of the Office of the Rail and Road in relation to matters related to safety and standards and, after consultation with the Passengers’ Council,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to get a formal recommendation from the Office of the Rail and Road that the GBR licence adequately ensures that licence obligations related to safety and standards are not compromised or undermined.
Schedule 1 contains the meat of what we have been talking about. It amends part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 to set out how GBR will be licensed. Paragraph 2 confirms that GBR should never be exempt from holding a licence, and paragraph 3 inserts new section 7B, which will enable the Secretary of State, following consultation, to grant GBR a written licence to operate specified railway assets. The licence must be in writing and will remain in force unless revoked or surrendered. Surrendering the licence will require the Secretary of State’s consent.
Paragraph 3 also sets out the process for granting licences to persons other than GBR. The Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road will continue to be able to grant licences to persons other than GBR to operate railway assets. The ORR may grant such licences only with the Secretary of State’s consent or under a general authority issued by the Secretary of State. Licences must be in writing and will remain in force unless revoked or surrendered. Surrendering the licence will require the ORR’s consent, much in the same way as it previously required the Secretary of State’s consent.
Proposed new section 8A sets out the requirements for the granting of licences by the Secretary of State or the ORR. It provides that a notice must be published outlining the intention to grant a licence, the reasons for doing so, and allowing at least 28 days from the date of publication for interested parties to make representations or objections. There is a duty to consider representations or objections made within the period specified in the notice.
Proposed new section 8B gives the Secretary of State the power to set rules for how licence applications must be made. Among other things, that includes the format of the application, the fee payable—different fees may apply—and the requirements for publishing the application. Before making any regulations, the Secretary of State must consult the ORR. Any fees collected by either the Secretary of State or the ORR in connection with licence applications must be paid to the consolidated fund.
Paragraph 4 clarifies that a licence granted to GBR may specify when the authorisation it provides takes effect. It allows the licence to include a start date or a mechanism for determining it. Paragraph 5 provides that the licence granted to GBR may include a condition requiring it to comply with the provisions set out in separate document that is prepared by the ORR and approved by the Secretary of State. It might be something such as a code of practice—one of these operating documents that we have been talking about so much—and it may relate to the sale of tickets by GBR or third parties, or to services that GBR provides to the rail industry to facilitate railway operations that are of particular interest to the independent retail sector. The paragraph makes it clear that an approved document may be used to regulate GBR’s behaviour in relation to the sale of tickets by parties other than GBR, in the independent retail sector.
Paragraph 6 provides that, before making modifications to a GBR licence, the Secretary of State must publish a notice explaining the proposed modifications and the reasons for them, and must allow the usual period of 28 days for interested parties to make representations. There is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider representations or objections to the notice made within the period specified.
Paragraph 7 clarifies that the ORR must consult the passengers’ council before making any amendments to passenger or station licences that relate to functions of the council. The ORR must also send a copy of the modifications to the council as soon as practicable. Paragraph 9 clarifies that any licence under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 that was in force immediately before the changes made by the schedule come into force will remain so, per the conditions and periods set out in the licence, unless it is revoked or surrendered.
Here is the mystery of the missing licence: where is it? We have explored this at some length, and the Minister is going to go away and see what he can rustle up in the Department’s cupboard to point us in the right direction, or at least to give us the direction of travel of the missing licence. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, chief executive officer of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:
“I think the licence will be critical. There are various references in the documents that the Government published to a ‘streamlined licence’, so I would be quite interested to see what that means relative to the current licence that applies to Network Rail. I think the Government are going to consult on the draft licence, so we will all have a chance to look at it.
The other point I would make is one I made earlier, which is that the licence will be one of many documents the Government will produce in the next year to 18 months. There is the long-term rail strategy and GBR will produce its business plan. There will be the access and use policy; the new periodic review process; and MOUs with Ministers in Scotland and Wales. There will be guidance on partnerships with mayoral combined authorities, and guidance on the right to request full rail devolution. There is a huge amount still to come.
Understanding how the licence intersects with those other documents and processes is going to be critical, because between them they will add up to the set of arrangements that determine whether GBR is successful or not for passengers. We have to see the licence in the context of all the other things that will be guiding, directing and shaping what GBR does, how it invests, and what it does operationally.”
That is the experts in the industry repeating what the Opposition have been arguing repeatedly today and last week. More accurately, it is the other way around: we have been listening to the industry in a way that the Government have not, and have been expressing the deep concerns in the sector that the current proposals are half cocked. Huge chunks of the direction, guidance and memorandums are simply missing, including the licence that the schedule is designed to address.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister spoke earlier about the consultation. It is worth restating that it is not the final draft but a consultation on the draft that is going to happen. We will have sight of the final version of the licence way down the road of the Bill’s progress, and ultimately the final licence may not be ready before scrutiny of the Bill is complete. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is something that we need to address? Hopefully the Minister will reassure us.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made that point as forcefully as we can. I trust the Minister when he says that he will take it away and do his best with his ministerial and departmental colleagues, but it is not just a matter of saying, “We kind of understand that licences already exist. Licences have been issued by the Office of Rail and Road. It will not be some kind of copy and paste, but taken from what already exists and we are going to get something similar here.” As Ben Plowden said, there are various references in the documents that the Government have published to something very different: a streamlined licence. That begs all sorts of questions about what is anticipated to be removed from the licence. The Department for Transport has got as far as saying it is going to be smaller, perhaps significantly smaller because it is streamlined, but this is critical.
The licence of ORR is a mission-critical document that anyone who works in the industry would acknowledge, yet we are told it is streamlined, and therefore elements of what is traditionally considered to be a licence under the current system are anticipated to be removed. Is the Minister able to tell us what parts are likely to be removed? What is it? Because the Government documents refer to a streamlined licence, he can tell the Committee what that means. The Department says it is going to be streamlined, but what does it intend to remove to justify that description? It must be somewhere within the Department; otherwise those words would not have been used in the supporting documentation. There is no excuse for the Minister not to describe the definition of a streamlined licence and what is anticipated.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon made the point that the Minister has corrected the record on when the draft licence will be provided during the passage of the Bill through both Houses, but in the next breath he said there will be consultation on that document, which has not yet started. How can that consultation be anything other than a paper exercise? The Minister seems confident that he can go through a consultation process that has not yet started, that the Department can then properly consider the contributions and come to a considered view and redraft the licence, taking into account all the comments, good, bad and ugly, that the consultation came up with, and then produce the draft licence in the two or three months that the Bill has to run through both Houses. That is an extraordinary position. It suggests either that the Minister will have to come and make a second point of order in a couple of months’ time, or that the consultation to which he refers is an absolute farce, because the Government have already decided what they want to do. They are going through the performance of a consultation, but they have already made up their mind. Perhaps the Minister will tell us which one it is.
Amendment 109 would constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to modify GBR’s licence without first seeking consent from the ORR and the passengers’ council. It is part of a series of amendments including amendments 110, 112 to 116 and 233, to which I will speak later. The Government strategy is that the Bill will be the legislative shell for the creation of GBR. Crucial matters of detail, such as the licence under which GBR will operate and important long-term strategies, business plans, targets and so on are separate and, at this stage, missing. Such details matter and deserve proper scrutiny.
We know that other plans and targets are unlikely to be set until after the Bill is enacted, so it is important to include strong checks and balances. That is the purpose of amendment 109. At present, the Bill merely requires the Secretary of State to consult the Office of Rail and Road. Legally, that is weak; after consultation, the Secretary of State may simply ignore whatever the ORR comes up with. The amendment and those linked to it would require the Secretary of State to obtain the Office of Rail and Road’s agreement for the licence to be issued. Subsequent amendments would require the Office of Rail and Road’s agreement for the licence to be modified.
Modification of the licence requires consent from the new passenger watchdog. If the passenger watchdog is to be as powerful in championing the interests of passengers as the Government claim they want it to be, it requires proper powers that go beyond an invitation to be consulted. For that reason, I propose that we put amendment 109 to the vote.
The Chair
I note that debate on amendment 109 has included discussion of schedule 1 more generally. In order to use the Committee’s time more efficiently and if the Committee is content, we could debate schedule 1 more broadly now. That would mean that group 20 is not debated; there would just be a formal decision on schedule 1 and debate on group 19 would be unchanged. As that is the will of the Committee, we will take that approach.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment, which is intended to prevent the Secretary of State from granting a licence to GBR unless the ORR gives a formal recommendation that licence obligations related to safety and standards are not compromised or undermined. The amendment does not specify what the ORR’s recommendations would need to contain or how it would operate in practice. The Government recognise the importance of effective regulation in the rail sector, particularly in relation to safety. The safety of our railways is a priority, and we will ensure that it is central to GBR, so that our railways continue to rank among the safest globally. The Bill makes no changes to the existing safety regime, which has proved to be exemplary.
In practice, amendment 109 would give an approval role to the ORR on matters relating to safety and standards ahead of the GBR licence being granted by the Secretary of State. It would confuse the clear accountabilities that the Bill establishes, which place responsibility for drafting, consulting on and granting the GBR licence with the Secretary of State, with the ORR then enforcing against its provisions. That aligns with the Government’s approach to regulation: Ministers set policy and strategy, and regulators provide validation and reassurance to the industry.
The Bill already requires a consultation on the contents of the GBR licence and specifies that the ORR and the passenger watchdog must be consulted as part of that. That will ensure that any concerns about safety and standards can be raised and considered appropriately ahead of the GBR licence being granted. The amendment would confuse accountabilities and add additional processes where they are not needed. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for Minister’s explanation, but I am not persuaded by it and seek to put amendment 109 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The House divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch any electronic devices off or to silent, please, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings—there should be ample water at your Benches. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments or new clauses take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper, of which you should all have a copy.
Schedule 1
Licensing of Great British Railways
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 233, in schedule 1, page 55, line 10, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s powers to set GBR’s licence unilaterally.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 110, in schedule 1, page 55, line 25, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 111 and 112, would limit the Secretary of State’s ability to unilaterally set GBR’s licence and require instead agreement from the ORR and the Passenger’s Council.
Amendment 111, in schedule 1, page 55, line 30, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 110.
Amendment 112, in schedule 1, page 55, line 34, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 110.
Amendment 118, in schedule 1, page 56, leave out line 6.
This amendment would strengthen the ORR’s right to grant a license to a non-GBR operator.
Amendment 113, in schedule 1, page 57, line 20, leave out “consult” and insert “obtain the agreement of”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 114 to 116, would require the Secretary of State to gain the consent of the ORR for making regulations about GBR’s licence.
Amendment 114, in schedule 1, page 58, line 20, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
Amendment 115, in schedule 1, page 58, line 21, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
Amendment 116, in schedule 1, page 58, line 23, leave out “consultation” and insert “agreement”.
Amendment 126, in schedule 2, page 62, line 17, leave out “advice” and insert “agreement”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the ORR’s agreement for GBR’s business plan instead of seeking its advice.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mr Western, and for agreeing to be in the Chair this afternoon. We are part-way through consideration of the schedule, with a degree of overlap: amendment 109 was selected in a separate group to this one, although its wording is intricately linked to that of amendments 110 to 116. I shall try to minimise the degree of repetition for all concerned.
The amendments in this group seek to constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to modify the licence of Great British Railways without first seeking consent from the Office of Rail and Road and the passengers’ council. The Government’s strategy is for the Bill to be the legislative shell for the creation of GBR. Crucial matters of detail, such as the licence under which GBR will operate, together with important long-term strategies, business plans, targets and so on, which we have mentioned more than once in our deliberations so far, are separate from the Bill.
That detail matters and deserves proper scrutiny by this Committee and elsewhere in the Houses of Parliament. When the Rail Minister and his officials appeared before the Transport Committee on 7 January, Members took several attempts to secure an assurance that the draft licence would be published before Parliament completes scrutiny of the Bill, albeit without a specific date set. It is therefore important to include in the Bill stronger checks and balances than exist now, and that is the purpose of amendments 110 to 115.
At present, the Bill merely requires the Secretary of State to consult the ORR. Legally, that is of course very weak and, after such consultation, the Secretary of State may simply ignore whatever it is that the ORR comes up with. Amendments 110 to 112 therefore require the Secretary of State to obtain the Office of Rail and Road’s agreement for the licence to be issued, and amendments 113 to 115 require the Office of Rail and Road’s agreement for the licence to be modified.
In addition, modification of the licence requirements would need consent from the new passenger watchdog. If the passenger watchdog is to be as powerful in championing the interests of passengers as the Government claim they want it to be, it requires proper powers that go beyond an invitation to be consulted. That leads me to amendment 118, which would leave out line 6 on page 56 of the Bill and would strengthen the right of the ORR to grant a licence to a non-GBR operator.
The schedule contains important powers for the Office of Rail and Road to issue licences to operators other than GBR to operate services on the network. However, proposed new section 8(5)(a) in paragraph 3 of the schedule gives the trump card to the Secretary of State, who must consent to the granting of such a licence. Why is that power of veto required? Perhaps the Minister will explain when he responds.
If the Government wish to reduce their involvement in the day-to-day running of the railways and the Office of Rail and Road deems that an application from a non-GBR operator meets all the requirements and conditions set out in the Bill, why do the Government think it necessary to have that overriding power? It does not appear to make sense. Amendment 118 would remove that power of veto. The group of amendments, together, would require the Secretary of State to obtain a formal recommendation from the Office of Rail and Road, and would require that the GBR licence adequately ensures that licence obligations relating to safety and standards are not compromised or undermined. The amendments would ensure that, as GBR is granted new responsibilities by the licence, it continues to be subject to safety standards obligations that are in the licence issued by the Office of Rail and Road to the current infrastructure manager, Network Rail.
Such licence obligations go beyond obligations under the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006—which are called ROGS for obvious reasons—and would require Great British Railways to participate in the industry’s collaborative structures around collective decision making, managed by the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and comply with safety and interoperability standards set collectively by the sector, including for freight and supply chain.
For those reasons, this group of amendments, taken as a whole, would provide important strengthening of the role of the ORR. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
May I begin, Mr Western, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship? I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling this group of amendments. I shall discuss amendment 233 with amendments 110 to 112, which I believe all share the same intent. Provisions to require the agreement of the ORR and the passenger watchdog before the Secretary of State issues the GBR licence would add an additional and unnecessary level of bureaucracy. If the amendments intend to ensure that the ORR and the passenger watchdog can constructively input into the licence, I assure the hon. Member that the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult the ORR and the passenger watchdog, and to invite representations more widely, before the licence is issued. If the amendments were accepted, it would no longer be clear who had the right to determine the terms of the licence. It is only appropriate that, following full consultation, the Secretary of State, as the licensing authority, has the sole final sign-off of the licence. The ORR will then, of course, enforce that licence. That is consistent with the clear accountabilities that the Bill establishes. We therefore cannot support the amendments.
On amendments 113 to 116, GBR will not need to apply for a licence, therefore the amendments’ provisions would apply only in relation to non-GBR licences. In any case, the amendments would add unnecessary complexity to the process for making licence application regulations. The amendments also intend to give an approval role to the ORR and the passenger watchdog in relation to modifications of GBR’s licence. The Bill already requires those bodies to be consulted before the Secretary of State modifies GBR’s licence. Again, requiring approval rather than consultation would risk confusing the clear accountabilities that the Bill establishes.
Amendment 118 seeks to strengthen the ORR’s ability to grant non-GBR licences. Under the Railways Act 1993, all licences are granted by the ORR with the consent of the Secretary of State. In practice, that consent is normally given in advance through a general authority, avoiding the need for case-by-case approval. The Bill does not change that aspect of the licensing regime. Removing the provision for specific Secretary of State consent, as the amendment intends, would not meaningfully strengthen the ORR’s ability to grant non-GBR licences. Non-GBR licences could still only be granted within the scope of a general authority approved by the Secretary of State.
In fact, the amendment would remove a useful route that enables the ORR to issue a licence outside the scope of a general authority or in circumstances where amending a general authority would not be practical. Far from strengthening the ORR’s ability to issue non-GBR licences, the amendment would instead likely weaken it.
Finally, amendment 126 would require the ORR to agree to GBR’s business plan before it is approved. I agree that the ORR provides invaluable input as an expert, independent regulator and it must have a robust role in the determination of GBR’s business plans. That is why the Bill gives it an explicit role to run the funding process, provide advice on the business plan and validate the costs within it, and independently publish its advice, whether that advice is supportive or critical of GBR.
However, it is not appropriate for the ORR, an unelected body, to decide how public money is allocated to the railway. Public spending decisions at this level should sit with elected Ministers who are responsible for funding the railway. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can see this Government’s commitment to a robust and independent role for the ORR, but it is clear that the ORR can fulfil its role assuring the business plan without needing to be a funding approver to do so.
Further, the ORR will have an expanded monitoring role though the powers in the Bill, being able to monitor all GBR’s activities against its business plan. If GBR does not deliver on its plans, the ORR will be able to publish its findings, as well as escalating the matter to the Secretary of State. The ORR will be a trusted expert adviser to the Secretary of State, combining the strengths of an expert regulator with the need for the Government to control taxpayer money.
I encourage the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw the amendment, and not to press the others in this group to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I listened with interest to the explanation the Minister gave and his request that the amendment be withdrawn. I was particularly interested to hear him describe the role of the ORR as a “trusted expert adviser”. In my submission, when we have GBR as the player and referee in many of the areas it will be active in, with a designed-in conflict of interest, we need more than a trusted expert adviser to hold the Government and GBR to account; we need an independent regulator. That is exactly what the ORR currently is.
I intend to press amendment 233 to a vote and, dependent on the outcome, I will not proceed to press amendments 110, 111, 112, 118, 114 and 115 as they address similar wording in other parts of the Bill. However,but I will seek to press amendment 126 to a vote if we get the opportunity to do so this afternoon.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 26—Great British Railways: funding review—
“(1) Thirty months after the commencement of any five-year period covered by a funding settlement for Great British Railways, the Secretary of State must publish a review of Great British Railway’s funding.
(2) The review set out in subsection (1) must include figures for—
(a) funding allocated to;
(b) ticket revenue raised by;
(c) amount of government subsidy received by;
Great British Railways.
(3) A copy of the review must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
(4) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This new clause adds statutory transparency to rail funding cycles.
New clause 34—Great British Railways: Certainty of Funding—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a funding certainty framework for Great British Railways (‘the Framework’).
(2) The purpose of the Framework is to establish and maintain terms for the funding of Great British Railways.
(3) The terms of the Framework must include provision that—
(a) The Secretary of State may not vary, reduce, or reopen the funding settlement for an active Control Period, unless either—
(i) a statutory provision made after this Act amends Great British Railway’s duties requiring funding revision, or
(ii) an emergency has been declared within the meaning of section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;
(b) the Secretary of State must publish—
(i) the confirmed funding determination,
(ii) the assumptions underpinning it, and
(iii) any exceptional circumstances to justify any adjustments,
within an active Control Period;
(c) the Secretary of State must agree the funding for the next Control Period not less than two years before it is due to start;
(d) when determining the funding settlement for a Control Period, the Secretary of State must take into account—
(i) the Long-Term Rail Strategy,
(ii) Great British Railway’s duties, and
(iii) whole system planning considerations across infrastructure, passenger services and freight;
(e) The Secretary of State must work with Scottish Ministers to align as far as possible funding determinations so that Great British Railways receives a single, coherent, funding determination no less than two years before the relevant Control Period starts.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) any funding determination for each Control Period;
(b) any exceptional revisions of the funding determination for a Control Period within that Control Period;
(c) whether the Office of Rail and Road, or any other relevant body, has met any relevant deadline to confirm funding for the next Control Period, and where it has failed to do so, the reasons for that failure.
(5) Nothing in this section amends or removes the ability of Office of Rail and Road to carry out Periodic Reviews for each Control Period.
(6) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the stability of Great British Railways’ funding;
(b) the effect of any instability on—
(i) the efficiency of,
(ii) delivery of services by, and
(iii) management of risks associated with projects run by, or associated with,
Great British Railways.
(7) For the purposes of this section, ‘Control Period’ has the meaning given in any final decision taken by the Office of Rail and Road which concludes each periodic review of access charges as described in Schedule 4A of the Railways Act 1993.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a Funding Certainty Framework, with funding for each Control Period set two years before it is due to start, to enable Great British Railways to plan effectively.
New clause 39—Great British Railways: financial duties—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to ensure that its operating expenditure does not exceed its operating income in each financial year (‘the duty’).
(2) The duty does not apply to capital expenditure aligned with national infrastructure investment and enhancement pipelines.
(3) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must provide guidance to Great British Railways about its duty under subsection (1).
(4) This duty must include guidance about—
(a) operational income, including fare revenue, access and charging functions, commercial income, and non-fare revenue streams;
(b) operational expenditure, including staffing, operations, support, maintenance, rolling stock operation, management and renewals; and
(c) the exclusion of capital expenditure aligned with national infrastructure investment and enhancement pipelines.
(5) Great British Railways has a duty to ensure its business plan and operational decisions have as a priority its long-term fiscal sustainability within the objectives set out in the rail strategy.
(6) In meeting its duty under subsection (5) Great British Railways must seek to increase its revenue.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), ‘revenue’ includes—
(a) fare revenue through passenger growth,
(b) commercial retail income,
(c) income from property, station and land commercialisation,
(d) freight access revenue, and
(e) market expansion.”
This new clause puts duties on Great British Railways to ensure its operating expenditure does not exceed its income, and to deliver long-term fiscal sustainability. It makes further provision relating to those duties.
New clause 40—Great British Railways: non-reliance on taxpayer funding—
“(1) Within its first operational Control Period, Great British Railways must set out a transition plan towards ending any reliance on taxpayer funding.
(2) The transition plan under subsection (1) must identify—
(a) any efficiency improvements Great British Railways can make, and
(b) any cost-reduction measures necessary for Great British Railways to operate in such way as does not rely on taxpayer funding.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘Control Period’ has the meaning given in any final decision taken by the Office for Rail and Road which concludes each periodic review of access charges as described in Schedule 4A of the Railways Act 1993.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to set out a plan towards ending any reliance on taxpayer funding.
New clause 41—Great British Railways: annual statement of financial performance—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish an annual statement of its financial performance, including—
(a) its operating income and expenditure,
(b) whether it achieved operating cost self-reliance,
(c) the reasons for any failure to achieve operating cost self-reliance,
(d) where it has failed to achieve operating cost self-reliance, any actions it will take in the next financial year to achieve it, and
(e) an assessment of its compliance with its duties under section [Great British Railways: financial duties].
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the annual statement before Parliament.
(3) The Office of Rail and Road must review Great British Railway’s performance as set out in the annual statement, and publish an assessment of whether Great British Railways is meeting its efficiency and revenue targets.
(4) Where the Office of Rail and Road concludes that Great British Railways has not met its duties under section [Great British Railways: financial duties], a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out—
(a) the reasons for Great British Railways’ failure to meet its duties, and
(b) any corrective action to be taken by—
(i) the Secretary of State, or
(ii) Great British Railways.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to publish an annual statement on its financial performance, and for the Office of Rail and Road to assess that performance.
New clause 44—Great British Railways: savings target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a savings target for each financial year for Great British Railways.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review,
(b) may revise or replace the target, and
(c) must publish any revision or replacement to the target.
(3) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to the target set by the Secretary of State under this section.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a savings target for Great British Railways.
Keir Mather
Clause 12 establishes a new funding process for GBR that takes what we have learnt from the successes of the periodic review process today and applies them to the new GBR world. That new funding period review will not only provide GBR with five years of funding to carry out its job of operating and maintaining the railway network, but will create a structure through which GBR will develop and own integrated business plans, across track and train, that reflect its role as the directing mind for the railways. That five-year funding certainty will help to drive the best price for Government and the taxpayer, through lower risk and the benefits of economy of scale. It will also generate consistent, longer term work for private partners in the rail supply chain, keeping good, well-paying specialist jobs alive and thriving.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 12 is an enabling clause. It is very short and merely refers to schedule 2, so I make no representations to change it and shall not seek to divide the Committee on it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I want to make a few remarks about the Conservative new clauses, on which we have mixed opinions. New clause 34 perhaps has some merit in terms of its intention to strengthen protections for the five-year funding review period process. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will speak to our new clause 26 shortly.
We feel that some of the other Conservative new clauses have not necessarily been fully thought through or recognise the reality of how railways work. For example, new clause 40 seeks to end GBR’s reliance on taxpayer funding. Of course, in an ideal world we would love all public services to end their reliance on taxpayer funding—that would be paradise because we would not need taxation—but the reality is that extremely few railways in the world are entirely independent of taxpayer funding. We invest public money in railways because they are significant enablers of all sorts of economic and social benefit, so we have some concerns about new clause 40.
Some of the other Conservative new clauses have good intentions. For example, new clause 41 seeks to require the publication of data on financial performance. But it also seems to be over-fixated on GBR needing to reach a self-financing state, which seems somewhat unlikely.
I have said enough. I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on his new clauses and of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset comment on ours.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. In simple terms, the new clause would ensure that Great British Railways’ funding is reviewed, published and scrutinised by Parliament halfway through each funding cycle, so that there is transparency and accountability on public money and it is spent effectively.
Any long-term rail strategy, particularly one that involves large sums of public money, must be open to proper scrutiny, regularly reviewed and accountable to Parliament. This is especially important as the Bill in its current form gives the Secretary of State a significant concentration of power over the future, shape, funding and direction of the railways. If Parliament is to be asked to confer that level of authority, accountability should increase alongside it. New clause 26 provides a sensible and proportionate mechanism to do exactly that without dragging Ministers or officials into day-to-day micromanagement.
As currently proposed, Great British Railways risks becoming the rail equivalent of NHS England—a fear raised previously in Committee—a large, centralised body distant from accountability and with blurred lines between ministerial direction and operational responsibility. Transparency is the safeguard to protect against ending up with another unaccountable arm’s length body.
The new clause would require a statutory funding review halfway through each five-year settlement. That review would set out, in clear figures, exactly how much funding GBR had been allocated, how much revenue had been raised from fares, and how much Government subsidy had been received. Crucially, it would also be sent directly to the Transport Committee, thereby ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny. That matters because taxpayers are funding the railway twice: once through general taxation and again through ticket prices. Passengers and taxpayers alike deserve to know where their money is going, how it is balanced between subsidies and fares, and whether it is being spent evenly and effectively across the funding cycle, not just all at the start or at the end.
A mid-point review would also allow us to see what is working and what is not, particularly given that GBR will be a new organisation. It would give time to correct course when things are failing, and to continue or scale up when results are delivered. Above all, it is about hardwiring trust into the railway system, with clear information, published transparently and scrutinised by Parliament, with a focus on passengers. We believe new clause 26 would strengthen the Bill and hope the Government will give it due consideration.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mr Western, for allowing me a second bite at the cherry. I misdirected myself in dealing just with clause 12 in itself, rather than the new clauses in the group.
A forward view of funding certainty is key to stopping the stop-start approach to infrastructure funding. The Committee has received plenty of evidence from the industry—both in written evidence and in the oral evidence we heard on Tuesday last week—that this is a major concern. The date in schedule 2(1)(d) is therefore important, and needs to be a minimum of two years prior to the start of the next five-year funding period. That is because, given that we currently have five-year control periods, funding certainty decreases in the run-up to the end of one control period and the beginning of the other and, as a result, the amount of work undertaken and committed to by Network Rail decreases proportionately. We therefore get a wind-down of activity, with specialist staff being laid off by the supply industry, before it all grinds up a gear at the beginning of the next control period. We end up with a bell curve of activity.
We have heard strong evidence—I will read some out in a moment—about how that uncertainty disrupts the ability of the supply sector to service Network Rail and its infrastructure development plans efficiently. It does two pretty terrible things: first, it drives up costs for Network Rail and therefore for the taxpayer, and secondly, it means that less work gets done per pound. It is expensive and it takes longer.
In written evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Forum states:
“The Bill states in Schedule 2 Part 1 that the SoS can ‘vary the financial assistance’ previously agreed as part of the GBR five-yearly settlement during the five-year term. This flies in the face of providing the stability that the Transport Committee was seeking to address through the ‘Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust’ inquiry earlier this year. Re-opening of the settlement should only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances that should be explicit in the legislation.”
Why has the Minister moved away from the position that was previously articulated? Why is the sanctity of the funding settlement within a five-year control period—which has been, albeit imperfect, so valuable for the industry—actively removed by schedule 2? To put it another way, why is the Secretary of State being granted new powers to vary the financial settlement without notice?
The Rail Industry Association, which represents the supply sector for the railways, states:
“The railway, and rail supply businesses, need stable funding to be able to plan effectively and be efficient. Changes to the Control Period style five-year infrastructure funding settlement (Schedule 2) undermine this and amplify the uncertainty already faced by suppliers.
RIA and our members are very concerned the current Bill drafting allows the Secretary of State for Transport to remove railway funding mid-period, at no notice and with very limited transparency over the impact, for example, on safety, performance or efficiency.
We disagree with the principle that the Secretary of State should be able to remove funding mid-period. Stable multi-year funding settlements are a longstanding principle for infrastructure networks because short-notice funding changes reduce the efficiency of spending and make it harder for suppliers to plan ahead with any confidence.
Supply chain confidence in the UK rail market is already historically low with 64% believing the rail market will contract in 2026 and 62% freezing recruitment or reducing headcount (over one in three business leaders plan to lay off staff in 2026), according to a RIA-commissioned Savanta survey of rail business leaders.
There is…currently already a lack of full work visibility to the end of the current Control Period, which completes in March 2029, and companies are now repositioning themselves away from rail to target other industrial sectors in the UK and overseas rail markets—the ability for the Secretary of State to remove funding would clearly exacerbate this situation…Concerningly, even on its own terms Schedule 2 does not require transparency over the impacts on efficiency, performance and safety if there are changes within a funding period and longer-term.”
Mr Western, you cannot tell me you agree that that is a very troubling statement from the industry, but I am sure you do agree, or are likely to. The difficulties with the current system are only going to be exacerbated by the proposed changes under schedule 2.
The statement of funds will indicate what the Secretary of State
“reasonably considers may be…available”.
That gives no certainty of funding, which is a key concern of the sector. It would be a backward step from the status quo. Paragraph 4(3)(c) of schedule 2 contains no focus on minimising the cost for the taxpayer, but merely refers to
“how Great British Railways proposes to meet those costs.”
Paragraph 4(5)(b) refers only to “good value for money” and not to good value for money for the taxpayer.
Under paragraph 4(7)(a), regarding the business plan, Great British Railways could retain a huge amount of information from potential open access operators, thereby preventing a level playing field.
Finally, paragraph 7(3) removes the whole point of funding periods, which is to provide funding certainty for five years. On its own, that provision removes that funding certainty—which is obviously a backward step. The RIA has stated:
“The railway has benefited from 5-year funding settlements for infrastructure for over 30 years, but the legislation proposes that the Transport Secretary will be able to reopen these at any time without consultation. Any deviation from 5-year funding stability risks increased future costs for taxpayers and a deteriorating experience for passengers.”
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we have to consider the new clauses before us as drafted. Does he accept that almost no railways in the world run without subsidy on a net basis and that, where they do, there are unique geographical circumstances? The railways in Great Britain have operated with subsidies under all models since the early 1950s, and the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, if they were to be implemented as written, would be Beeching on steroids.
Jerome Mayhew
I agreed with the hon. Gentleman until that last sentence, because new clause 40, which I will come to in a moment, would require not the removal of subsidy but looking towards it—it is aspirational. It would set GBR’s sights on minimising its costs to the taxpayer, not through penny pinching if that would be the wrong decision, but through growth in its revenue by becoming efficient and doing more for less. Those are all good incentives that a private business inevitably has because of the challenge of competition.
New clause 39 would require Great British Railways to focus on other opportunities for funding and on minimising operational costs, just like any other business. The areas of focus under subsection (7) are the revenue opportunities.
New clause 40, on non-reliance on taxpayer funding, would make the direction of travel for GBR clearer. It may be—in fact it is almost certain—that it will never achieve it, but it is a noble objective. It should be clear that GBR should aspire to reduce the need for the taxpayer to support the rail sector by making it as efficient and attractive to passengers as possible, thereby attracting more passengers and freight on to the railways. That would create a virtuous circle, rather than the opposite. We should start thinking about that, which is what new clause 40 is intended to achieve.
New clause 41, also tabled in my name, would require Great British Railways to publish an annual statement of its financial performance. The new clause builds on the theme, forcing Great British Railways to focus on its financial performance and reduce its reliance on the taxpayer. It may be the skimmed-milk version of new clause 40 that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might find more palatable.
It is important that we do everything we can to design into a nationalised structure, where there is no competitive tension, incentives for GBR naturally to seek to achieve efficiency and productivity enhancements. There is a very real need for that, because the taxpayer’s pound can only be spent once, and funds are needed in many areas of Government. Apart from anything else, we need to reduce the tax burden, which this Government have raised to the highest on record, so anything we can do to build a structure that incentivises GBR to reduce its dependence on the taxpayer is a good thing. It also forces public accountability.
Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to give GBR an annual savings target. Taking all the new clauses together, the intention is to allow GBR to focus on providing genuine value for money for the taxpayer, not just in abstract terms, and to cut away some of the existing inefficiencies in the infrastructure commissioning and decommissioning process, to provide a longer period of certainty for the supply chain so that it can pass on the resultant efficiencies to the taxpayer. That money can be either reinvested in accelerated infrastructure roll-out, rather like the ability of ScotRail electrification to do more for less, or—heaven forbid—used to produce tax cuts for the hard-pressed taxpayer. I hope the Minister will be bowled over by those suggestions, and look forward to hearing his response.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I will touch on three of the new clauses—one at greater length than the others—to follow up on the words of my hon. Friend.
For me, new clause 39 highlights something that is clearly missing from the Bill: what actually happens when these currently franchised, privately run rail services come into public ownership across the board. Over many years, unions have fought hard for terms and conditions for staff and railway companies, but these are not uniform across the board. There is a huge differential in the terms and conditions that staff are subject to.
I pay huge tribute to the men and women who work on the railway; they are a brilliant group of people. I am obviously on a train every week, coming up and down from my constituency. However, it is really important that we have this conversation about what the Bill will actually mean. As my hon. Friend pointed out, value for money is mentioned only once in the Bill. We are, in effect, writing a blank check for GBR to spend whatever it wants on bringing all these staff into its employment.
We were told very clearly when the Committee began that this is not a civil service; it is the public sector, so there is a difference there, but it is effectively a private body as well. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how staff are being brought across—obviously some franchises have been brought into Government control already—and about the Department’s plans going forward, because time and again, we see pay going up for public sector workers without that necessarily reflecting any changes in performance.
Laurence Turner
The 1992 White Paper that preceded the Railways Act 1993 said that, at the time, British Rail had the second highest workforce productivity of any railway in Europe. What does the hon. Member think went wrong in all the years under privatisation that followed?
Rebecca Smith
That is a very long time ago. Under privatisation, the unions have done a very good job. In my constituency in the south-west, there are no seven-day contracts, for example. If I want to get a train up from my constituency on a Sunday, those trains are cancelled quite regularly, because the service relies on the good will of the staff to do overtime to make the train even come up to London.
Whatever we do, we need to look carefully at the terms and conditions that will be brought forward into this new public body. Up to this point, it has been down to each individual company to negotiate. That has been done with highly professional and competent union representatives, but we are not on a level playing field at the moment. As a member of the public, I want to be sure that those public sector staff are not receiving undue recompense for what they are doing, which would not be in accordance with other public sector bodies.
Private companies have been expected to give their staff a huge amount of benefits—quite rightly; that is their choice as private companies. If the staff become public sector, things like free rail travel need to be on the table. We must at least acknowledge those issues and make a decision to continue them, rather than assuming it is a given, which is down to unions to negotiate.
There is no conversation in the Bill about that TUPE-ing across of staff members. Value for money is really important. We do not want inequality being built into our public sector workforces simply because we are renationalising something.
Subsection (7) of new clause 39 provides that we should be showing where revenue comes from. That is absolutely justifiable. The private companies that will continue to operate in the railway system will have all that information available to their shareholders—to the people they are reporting to. If Great British Railways does not show that information, there is, again, no opportunity for scrutiny. If commercial retail income is flopping because GBR is not doing a very good job, we have no way to hold it to account for that. I do not see why it should be frightened to share that revenue information. It should instead see this as an opportunity to show good practice and how things could potentially progress under GBR.
I have one more point, which came up right at the end of the Select Committee hearing—I managed a question to the Minister, Lord Hendy, but have not seen a response. There is a huge amount of land and value that belongs to these railway stations, currently run by private companies, in some cases, including for things such as parking. What happens with all that income and all the opportunities for Great British Railways to potentially make some money? How will we know about that money and where it is coming from? New clause 39 seeks to bring that information to the fore and ensure that it is transparent and in the public domain.
Turning to new clause 40—this might be something of a segue, but I am going take the opportunity to put it on the record anyway—there is something about the aspiration to move from heavy taxpayer-funded reliance that speaks to the devolution conversation that we have been having. We have had multiple conversations, and I am sure we will have more, but ultimately GBR is being set up to give more powers to certain local authorities and local areas if they wish it, which is great—we want those communities to be able to control more of what happens. However, as we have been discussing, we are effectively developing a two-tier system, whereby anyone who is not in a mayoral authority will effectively be paying into the railway company and GBR, but not necessarily getting the levers to effect change locally. The Minister has reassured me that that will be done through business units and so on, but given that we do not know the scale of those business units or which regions and communities they represent, it is important that we know how that taxpayer money is to be used for funding across the country.
There has been a huge amount of storm damage in the south-west this weekend. Where will the funding come from under the new GBR? The south-west is not a mayoral strategic authority. Will we get our fair share of funding through the set-up for GBR? New clause 40 sets out the aspiration to move away from taxpayer funding and would surely create a more equitable system for the future.
Finally, new clause 44 would introduce a savings target. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has been alluding to the point about the costs we currently see in the system, particularly around infrastructure. That has certainly come up in the Transport Committee, in terms of how much it costs to build a bridge or a new station and the lack of competition and challenge. The new clause would create an opportunity to ensure that we pay as little as possible for the best outcomes. We have had lots of evidence in the past few months to show that other parts of the world can produce the station infrastructure that we need for a lot less than we are paying for it. I believe that is down to how the system currently works, and new clause 44 would force us to look at how it could work under GBR.
Keir Mather
I thank Members for tabling amendments on GBR’s funding and financial framework. In this chunky group of important amendments and new clauses, I first turn to new clause 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a mid-funding period review of GBR’s funding, and new clause 41 from the shadow Minister, which seeks to create a GBR annual statement of financial performance.
In my view, the Bill already creates sufficient transparency about how GBR is funded. Further process could constitute unnecessary bureaucracy. Under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2, the Secretary of State is already required to publish details of the financial assistance given to GBR using the funding period review funding power. Under paragraph 5 of schedule 2, GBR must publish its business plan and keep it up to date throughout the five-year period. Between those two commitments, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons will already have key information about how much funding the Secretary of State is providing to GBR, and the details on GBR’s business plan to understand what GBR is doing with its money. It would be unnecessary and inefficient to conduct an extra review.
New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to set funding two years in advance of the funding period. First, I believe that it is misplaced to require that funding be committed two years in advance. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances over a five-year period, and new projects will surface. That was well acknowledged by all the witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, including those representing the railways supply chain. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance will be redundant before it even starts.
I can also assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railways with certainty, and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period. The ORR, which will run the process, intends to set deadlines so that funding is committed in time for the industry to prepare. Secondly as with new clause 26, new clause 34 seeks to introduce additional reporting requirements that are unnecessary, given the transparency requirements already provided for in the Bill.
I now turn to new clauses 39 and 40. New clause 39 would create a duty for GBR to achieve value for money and long-term fiscal sustainability. New clause 40 would require GBR to develop a transition plan toward ending any reliance on taxpayer funding within its first operational funding period. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that GBR must deliver as efficiently as it can, ensuring good value for money and reducing costs to the taxpayer, and I assure him that the Bill is already very specific about GBR’s achieving value for money. Clause 18(2)(f) includes a specific legal duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to take into account
“the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”.
The ORR must also provide advice to the Secretary of State on whether GBR’s estimated costs in GBR’s draft business plan represent good value for money, with a requirement to publish a summary of that advice as part of the funding process. That is before the Secretary of State signs off on the business plan. Therefore, the hon. Member’s intent is already achieved by the Bill, and the amendment would only create extra bureaucracy and inflexibility without adding to transparency or financial sustainability.
A statutory transition plan to eliminate taxpayer funding would be unrealistic, and would undermine the railway’s ability to achieve its social goals. The reality is that taxpayer subsidy will always be needed for some parts of the railway. For example, while we aim to have the most profitable and efficient network possible, there will always be some lower-population regions of the UK in which rail travel will not make a profit and will need taxpayer subsidy. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the Government to withdraw funding and neglect connectivity in those important rural regions, whether that be in Devon, Dorset or elsewhere—constituencies represented by Members across the Committee. Rapidly forcing GBR to operate without public support would be devastating for the economy and for the mobility of the public, not to mention reducing efficiency and the long-term capacity of the network.
Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to set and publish an annual savings target for GBR. Introducing a statutory savings target risks creating a rigid measure that might not reflect the operational realities of the railway. Efficiency is already embedded in the Bill’s framework and will be a key consideration when GBR publishes its business plan and sets out how to meet its objectives, including on efficiency. Statutory targets are therefore not required to drive performance.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In the context of efficiency and cost, I want briefly to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. What assessment have the Government made of the financial cost of bringing together a whole range of diverse terms and conditions and salary structures, from multiple train operating companies, into GBR?
Keir Mather
When it comes to setting up the operational structure of GBR, including questions about workforce and staffing, it is fair to say that no piece of railway legislation for 113 years has specified in statute what the operational decisions will be. Those conversations are ongoing, as they have been while rail companies have been taken into public ownership through DfT Operator, and they are always held, I am pleased to say, in close consultation with the workforce and trade unions.
On the overall principle of cost, I would point out to the right hon. Member that the Department’s view is that establishing GBR is set to cost £200 million to £400 million overall—which is 1% to 2% of a single year of operating budget—but could unlock up to a billion pounds-worth of efficiencies across the rail sector. Value for money is not only baked into the legal duties under this legislation, but is part of GBR’s operational ethos.
Laurence Turner
I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite the union. Does the Minister agree that changes to terms and conditions, if they happen at all, often take place on a very long-term transitionary basis? Indeed, that is my understanding of what happened the last time that the railways came under public ownership, when many people remained under pre-1948 terms and conditions for several decades. I would not wish to make assumptions or pre-judge future discussions, but can he confirm that nothing in the Bill would prevent similar transition arrangements in future?
Keir Mather
As my hon. Friend rightly highlights, questions about the operational structure of GBR have been left outside the framework of this Bill. That is precisely to allow those conversations to continue and so that the legislation can be fit for the creation of a railway system that works for the long term.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, but would encourage them not to press their amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind Members that decisions on new clauses are usually taken after decisions on existing clauses and schedules, even though we may have just debated them—one for a future day.
Schedule 2
Funding Great British Railways
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 60, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) The date specified in section 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State has to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 216, in schedule 2, page 60, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.
(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—
(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);
(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);
(c) fares;
(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;
(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”
This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Amendment 129, in schedule 2, page 63, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may not, however, vary the financial assistance provided to Great British Railways”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from varying the financial assistance provided to GBR.
Amendment 147, in schedule 2, page 64, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may not vary the financial assistance to be provided under paragraph 6 unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has consulted the Office of Rail and Road on the propsed variation, and
(b) the Office of Rail and Road provides written consent that the variation does not undermine the approved business plan required by paragraph 4.”
Amendment 215, in schedule 2, page 69, line 25, at end insert “including passenger services”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 216, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Jerome Mayhew
Our amendments in this group develop the theme that I spoke about in the debate on the last group. We have tabled two small probing amendments to challenge the stop-start nature of funding under the current control period. Amendment 119 would insert the following new paragraph (1A) into schedule 2:
“The date specified in section 1(d)”—
which, to paraphrase, refers to the funding agreement for a control period—
“must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”
Amendment 129 would insert the following new subparagraph (6A):
“The Secretary of State may not, however, vary the financial assistance provided to Great British Railways”.
Olly Glover
May I correct an earlier omission, Mr Western, by stating that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship?
First, I want to make some general comments about this part of the Bill, which appears to be based largely on the existing five-year control period framework for rail industry planning and funding. Overall, that is a system that has been felt by the sector to work reasonably well. I had intended not to bore the Committee too much with war stories from my own time on the railway, but perhaps the only drawback of the system is that there tends to be an enormous consultant bonanza halfway through each control period, when the planning starts for the next one even while some of the plans and good intentions of the current control period gather dust on a shelf without necessarily being reviewed. That applies not so much to infrastructure enhancement, but more to process improvements for making the railway better.
First, I will say a little about our amendment 147, and then I want to speak, at perhaps rather more length than usual, about amendments 216 and 215. If there is one hill that I would be willing to perish on when it comes to this Bill and its design, it is probably the decision to not include funding for passenger services as part of the five-year funding settlement.
Our amendment 147 is basically intended to support what the Government are planning to do on five-year funding settlements, but to strengthen and protect them by simply creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to reopen their funding should a major eventuality arise. The examples that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham gave are pertinent; it is a bit of an extreme example, and hopefully we will not be there, but I think it would be reasonable to review the five-year funding of the railway in case of the outbreak of war. Our amendment would not stop the Secretary of State doing that; all it would do is require them to consult the ORR and make sure that the ORR gives written consent. It is a simple step to provide that little bit of extra governance and peer review.
I agree with the hon. Member’s comments on the shortcomings of his own amendment 129 in this area. I admire his honesty and the reflective nature of those comments—that is commendable, and something to which we can all aspire. Compared with his amendment, which would prevent variations entirely, perhaps ours is a compromise. I agree with his amendment 119, which shows good intention to make sure that the planning and funding happens in advance of the next five-year period.
Before I talk about our amendments 216 and 215, which I really do feel are critical, I want to read a couple of extracts from the policy paper on how the Government plan to fund GBR, which was published on 5 November 2025 as part of the series of factsheets on the Bill, because it will set the context for what I am about to say. The first thing that the factsheet explains is how passenger services—now known as train services—are currently funded. It states that passenger services
“run by government contracted train operating companies, such as Thameslink, are funded differently to”
Network Rail. It continues:
“The overall money available for passenger services is set at the Spending Review and then allocated via an annual business planning and funding process. Train operating companies also receive money from other sources, such as ticket fares. The train operating companies set out what they intend to deliver in annual business plans, then they seek approval from government. When approved, the contents of these plans are reflected in service agreements with the government.”
That is what the factsheet says about how things work today. It goes on to explain how things will work in future and in relation to the five-year funding review periods for other things. It states:
“Given the greater uncertainty of passenger services spend and income, due to changes in passenger demand which are difficult to predict, Passenger services will not be included within this commitment at this point. Passenger services and other activities outside of infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewal will be funded using existing powers, which will be updated to account for GBR. As these powers already work well in allowing the government to provide transparent and flexible funding to the railway industry, we have decided to keep them and continue to use the Spending Review for these aspects of GBR funding.”
Why does this matter? My real issue with the exclusion of funding for passenger services from the five-year funding review periods, and the failure to align it with infrastructure funding, is what the Rail Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy, says about the objectives of the Bill. He has said it on the record on many occasions, including in front of the Transport Committee and when speaking at the Rail Industry Association reception a couple of weeks ago. He says that one of the key aims of the Bill is to properly enable the alignment of track and train—of infrastructure and train operations. He is absolutely right about that; I agree with him very much. Having worked on both sides of the fence, for Network Rail and for train operating companies, I have seen the endless misaligned objectives, budgets and ways of working and can say that he is absolutely right in his diagnosis and his prescription. However, the omission of passenger services from the five-year funding period runs the risk of undermining that. Let me explain why.
The key issue is that critical elements of the running of the railway are included in passenger services funding. Those include staffing on stations, in rolling stock maintenance depots and, critically, of train crew—drivers, guards, conductors and so on—as well as train crew training, which for many train operators has been a complete mess since the pandemic. Often, the temptation is to paint those train operators as evil private sector ogres and figures of terror from whatever fantasy franchise one wishes to quote, but in reality, since the pandemic, they have been subject to very tightly prescribed contracts by the Department for Transport, and that has led to some very poor short-term decisions about train crew training that have, at times, led to serious service cuts. We are thankfully recovering from some of that, but not wholly: for example, CrossCountry is still running at a significantly lower level than before the pandemic.
There is also the key question of the impact on Network Rail delays. A figure is often cited by those who like to bash Network Rail—having worked there, I know that there are plenty of reasons for doing so, but this one is a bit spurious—that 60% of delays are caused by Network Rail and only 40% by the train operators. Therefore, they say, aren’t the train operators wonderful and isn’t Network Rail terrible? The problem is that, partly because of the way that train crew operations and train operators are funded, a lot of the delays counted in that 60% are fundamentally train operator delays—delays that they have the most ability to influence.
Very sadly, from time to time, people commit suicide on our rail network. That is of course terrible. It initially causes very significant delay and passengers are generally sympathetic to that. Generally speaking, the benchmark for clearing and reopening the line in a way that is safe for everyone, having done the scene of crime investigation and so on, is 60 to 90 minutes. Passengers are understanding of that. They are not understanding when 12 hours later the service is still in complete meltdown because the trains are in one place, the drivers are in another and the guards are in yet another.
A few months ago I was travelling from Didcot to Cambridge via London, because we still do not have East West Rail—maybe one day we will, but that is one for another time—and many hours after a fatality between Reading and London, Reading was a trainpark. Every platform was strewn with Great Western inter-city trains or commuter trains, because its train crew and rolling stock diagrams are so complicated that it is not able to recover during disruption. That has happened partly because there is not a whole-system focus on the alignment between infrastructure funding and train crew and train operations funding.
There has been a lot of pressure, through the franchising process, to cut back on train crew costs, and therefore to diagram—forgive the jargon; I am trying to avoid using it. Diagrams are the daily allocations of instructions as to which trains drivers, guards and others work on. The way to reduce train crew costs, particularly given that there have been above-inflation pay increases, is to tighten those diagrams and squeeze every bit of productivity out of them. When the train service is working normally, it is fine if the train does one thing, the guard does another and the driver yet another.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, in the context of infrastructure and operating companies coming together—although it also applies more broadly—about the tightness of those diagrams and that scheduling. On East Midlands Railway, although normally the trains are short-formed, we regularly see a 10-car train that is packed in the front five carriages because the back five have to be locked, completely empty, and travel to London with no one sitting in them because there is not a member of staff to staff them. That is because the diagrams are so tight that there is no contingency to put extra staffing in place at short notice when someone does not turn up.
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman gives another good illustration of the problem, and of the foolishness of our current obsession with ordering five-coach inter-city trains, which no other serious western European country does. So often, they are either short-formed as five coaches or the other half is unavailable—or even, when it is available, no one knows, because they cannot walk all the way through and access the other half of the train. We should not be doing that anyway, but he makes a very good point.
There are many other examples of what I am talking about, but I hope that underlines why I really do think that amendments 216 and 215 are critical, and why the objectives in schedule 2 should include passenger rail services, which should be subject to the five-year funding period so that they are not subject to the short-term whims of the Treasury—dare I say that it has any influence on this—and so that the fulfilment of the Bill’s key objective of properly integrating track and train is fully enabled. We will press amendments 215, 216 and 147 to Divisions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Edward Morello
As always when following my hon. Friend, I find myself with little to add. All of the very good points have been made, but it is probably worth reinforcing why we think amendments 216, 147 and 215 are important.
Amendments 216 and 215 speak to an absurd anomaly. I am probably unusual in this Committee in that I am not a rail expert—far from it—but the absurdity of not having aligned funding cycles for passenger and infrastructure strikes any outsider as madness. As somebody who regularly travels on the Salisbury to Exeter line, which is in need of electrification and new rolling stock, I ask any Minister who is responsible to tell me when the operator should make a decision on whether to buy new rolling stock, when they do not know whether electrification is going to happen. Do they wait for the electrification and then buy the rolling stock, having just spent all this money extending the life of diesel carriages? Having the two interoperable is just common sense. I would hope that making the two funding cycles run simultaneously would be a non-contentious idea.
On amendment 147, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage gave the example of the outbreak of war, which is definitely an extreme one, but we must also insulate any piece of legislation against future politicians—Ministers—wanting to meddle and perhaps not adhering to the desire that it was designed around. The amendment is intended to make sure that Ministers, whether in the Department for Transport or the Treasury, cannot rip the funding carpet out from under the rail operators. If the Bill really is about long-term planning, then there has to be long-term security of funding as well, and amendment 147 is about making sure that there is an additional safety net should any future Government, of any make-up, not want to adhere to the spirit of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give consideration to our amendments.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 119, which would require the Government to commit funding for a five-year funding period at least two years before the period starts. I can appreciate and identify with his desire to provide certainty to industry, and agree with the ambition that the amendment presents to generate a stable operating environment for the railway. However, as I said in response to new clause 34, I believe that the desire to require funding to be committed so far in advance is misplaced. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances and new projects will surface. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance may be redundant before it starts.
I can assure the hon. Member that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railway with certainty and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period.
Jerome Mayhew
I heard what the Minister said, but it flies in the face of the evidence that the industry itself gives him and all of us about the need for certainty towards the end of a control period. All that the amendment seeks is certainty for two years at the start of a control period. How is he going to address that particular issue?
Keir Mather
It is of course our obligation as the Government to meet the concerns of stakeholders, whether raised in the oral evidence session or elsewhere. It is also incumbent on me to point out that we want to abolish boom and bust in the rail system. On the fear about cliff edges, as was acknowledged by the ORR in its oral evidence, in reality there is not a cliff edge when funding always tends to run over the five-year period. Five years is the basis for the decision process by which funding allocations must take place. It is important to take the oral evidence in the round. It is also important to note that the ORR, which will be running the process, intends to set deadlines so that funding is committed with time for the industry to prepare. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendments 129 and 147 both seek to prevent or restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to vary the agreed funding settlement. I assure Members that the intention of providing a five-year funding commitment is that it lasts for five years. The Government are signed up to that principle. I also agree that certainty for GBR and industry is beneficial. More funding will mean we can get the best out of the railway and encourage investment, innovation and value for money.
Putting a hard restriction on all change, as amendment 129 suggests, would not be proportionate, as the shadow Minister acknowledged. As he noted, there may be unforeseen circumstances that require changes to funding, either to provide more or to reduce the amount. For example, GBR may outperform expectations and need less than is awarded, in which case Ministers will need to recoup the costs for the taxpayer, and can choose to do so in whatever way they see fit.
Keir Mather
Indeed! The operating environment may also change and GBR may need more funding than is committed. It is right that elected Ministers are able to make decisions on public spending and allocate resources as needed, balanced against the clear benefits of certainty.
Amendment 147 would restrict Ministers’ ability to vary funding by adding a requirement that the ORR must provide written consent. Although the Office of Rail and Road will have an important advisory role, it would not be appropriate for it to entirely determine changes to funding. Responsibility for decisions of public expenditure must remain with the Secretary of State, particularly where changes may be required due to wider fiscal circumstances. The amendment would also result in ORR consent being needed for increases in funding and immaterial changes.
The Bill provides assurances. If the Secretary of State considers that the impact of a funding reduction could be material, the Bill requires her to notify the ORR, giving it an opportunity to comment publicly on the likely effects on the railway. That balances the need for the Government to retain control over Government funding with the opportunity for independent evaluation and, if needed, public pressure, to protect certainty for the railway.
On amendments 215 and 216, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for so ably setting out, based on his practical experience, and far better than I ever could, the need for a single guiding mind for the railway. His explanation was buttressed by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendments, which seek to align passenger service funding within the five-year infrastructure funding cycle. I support that intention. The Government agree that many benefits are derived from integrated funding streams. However, I do not agree that the amendments are necessary.
It is important to note that passenger services are already fully considered under GBR’s statutory duties and through the integrated business plan, in which GBR will plan all its activities on a five-year basis across track and train. The Bill requires GBR to deliver safe, reliable and efficient services, taking passenger needs into account.
Jerome Mayhew
GBR may plan on a five year basis, but it is not the same five years, is it?
Keir Mather
The shadow Minister is right to point out that allocation of funding for passenger services, as opposed to other GBR activities, initially takes place through the spending review funding process. I am about to address his point, but I should say that the Bill contains the ability for Ministers to extend the five-year funding process to passenger services once GBR is set up and prepared to manage that. It would not be responsible to do that from the outset when GBR is still in the transition and set-up phase. Ministers need to feel confident that GBR is financially mature enough before they can consider integrating funding further. I hope that addresses both the shadow Minister’s point and the contribution from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Olly Glover
I understand what the Minister is saying, but I am sure that in his line of work he has already encountered many instances where, despite noble intentions for something to perhaps happen at some point in the future, it ends up being years, if not decades, before it does. That is why it would be rather more sensible to enshrine the requirement in legislation.
Keir Mather
Respectfully, I believe it is more sensible to be prudent and cautious regarding the funding of passenger services, rather than risk creating a situation that a newly created GBR might not be in an immediate position to sufficiently accommodate within its operating structure. Erring on the side of caution, I encourage Members to withdraw their amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
As I intimated earlier, amendments 119 and 129 are probing and I will not press them to a vote.
I was interested to hear the Minister’s apparent position that there is no boom and bust, that the current situation for infrastructure funding is fine and that the evidence from the industry appears not to be—
Keir Mather
For the record, I said that we shared the aspiration to abolish boom and bust as it exists within the rail system. That applies to our infrastructure as much as it does to any other part of the railway’s operation.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that clarification, but although the Minister may share that ambition, he is not choosing to do anything about it. Having said that, I said I was not going to press the amendments to a vote and I will not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 60, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the statement of objectives to contain standards to be achieved when carrying on activities in relation to railways and railway services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 60, line 39, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives to include objectives relating to the list in sub-paragraph (3).
Amendment 122, in schedule 2, page 60, line 41, after “(a)” insert “increasing”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set the objective for GBR of increasing passenger and freight journeys.
Amendment 123, in schedule 2, page 61, line 7, at end insert—
“(f) delivering improved productivity and efficiencies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives to include an objective of delivering improved productivity and efficiencies.
Amendment 206, in schedule 2, page 61, line 7, at end insert—
“(f) customer experience and satisfaction.”
This amendment expands the objectives the Secretary of State sets for railways funding settlements to include customer experience and satisfaction.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendments 120 to 123 aim to strengthen GBR’s value for money and wider performance duties. As drafted, paragraph 2(2) in schedule 2 only gives the Secretary of State the option of tying performance objectives to granting public funds. The performance objectives should be at the core of the granting of funds, so amendments 120 and 121 seek to change the wording of the current drafting by replacing “may” with “must”. In other words, they would make it clear that it is not an option but core to the application of the process, and should therefore be mandatory.
Amendment 122 would make it clear that Great British Railways should aim to increase passenger services. I do not know why this has become such a hot topic; I would have thought it would be obvious—I was about to use unparliamentary language for a moment there. Increasing passenger services should obviously form part of the functions and aspirations of GBR, and that should be included on the face of the Bill. It should be clear that GBR aims to increase passenger services, not just freight. In addition, the list of objectives in the schedule is missing a specific objective on productivities or efficiency, which amendment 123 would add.
This series of simple amendments seek to perfect the currently imperfect drafting, to put performance at the heart of the Bill and to recognise that the pursuit of increased passenger numbers should be a key objective of GBR, in addition to its focus on growing rail freight, which we all agree with.
Edward Morello
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 206, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The amendment goes to the heart of what we Liberal Democrats believe the Bill should be about: putting passengers first. It would expand the objectives that the Secretary of State sets for the rail funding settlement to include customer experience and satisfaction explicitly. In other words, it would ensure that when decisions are made about money, priorities and trade-offs, the people who actually use the railways are not an afterthought.
Making customer satisfaction central to GBR would help to rebuild trust in the railways, which many people currently feel have stopped working for them. If we are serious about encouraging people to shift away from the convenience of cars and toward more sustainable public transport, customer experience has to be central. People will not make the switch because they are told to; they will do so because trains are easier, more comfortable and more reliable.
The creation of customer satisfaction targets and objectives that are tied to rail funding settlements will create the incentives for change. It will make it more likely that investment decisions will focus on what actually improves journeys for passengers, rather than just on what is cheapest in the short term. It will find the balance between what is affordable and what is best for users.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for West Dorset for their amendments, all of which look to amend the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives.
First, amendment 120 would require that the statement of objectives contains standards for GBR to meet when conducting its railway activities. I agree that we need to measure GBR’s performance against clear standards to ensure high-quality delivery. However, the statement of objectives, which is a document to set direction and inform the funding process, is not enforceable, and consequently it is not the right place to require standards.
The original drafting provides flexibility, letting the Secretary of State specify what standards should be achieved by GBR when delivering against the objectives in the statement. This allows for circumstances in which providing a standard helps to better articulate the strategic vision for GBR over the five-year funding period.
However, it may not always be appropriate for an objective in the statement of objectives to be accompanied by a standard, particularly when an objective is straightforward or high level, such as a requirement to have regard for security threats or to support economic growth. The Bill contains other mechanisms, including the business plan and the licence, to ensure that there are robust and enforceable measures against which to hold GBR to account.
There is a similar case to be made on amendment 121, which seeks to set a structure for the statement of objectives, and amendment 123, which proposes to expand the list of potential objectives to include a section on productivity and efficiencies. The amendments would change the list from illustrative objectives to a set of requirements. It would fundamentally not be appropriate to impose such a structure on the statement of objectives, which needs to be able to take a different approach each time it is made, in response to wider environmental concerns and socioeconomic circumstances. The intention is that the list serves as a guide to future drafters, and I believe that the flexibility to allow adaptation to circumstances that we cannot predict will ensure that this legislation remains fit for purpose into the future.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I understand, although I do not agree with, the argument the Minister is making on amending “may” to “must”—he says it would be unenforceable—but he seems, unless I have misunderstood, to have conflated that argument with his point about amendment 122, which seeks not to make a discretionary provision a mandatory one but to expand the considerations. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set the objective for…increasing passenger and freight journeys.”
Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Keir Mather
To my knowledge, I am not conflating the two amendments. My point is that setting objectives that are so closely tied to discernible and prescriptive standards would, in effect, contravene the original intention of the schedule, which is to provide flexibility in setting objectives over the five-year period. If, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, I continue not to meet that intention, I will happily give way again.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister wants flexibility, and he says that is why amendments 123 and 206—tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage respectively—should not be agreed to. Will the Minister set out the circumstances in which he thinks it would not be appropriate for the organisation to focus on
“delivering improved productivity and efficiencies”
or on
“customer experience and satisfaction”?
Why does he need flexibility to ignore those objectives?
Keir Mather
No, I am not willing to say that those objectives, in principle, should not be pursued as a result of this legislation. The question is where within the Bill these things reside. If we are talking about short-term objectives relating to GBR’s operational efficiency as an organisation through, say, a key performance indicator, that is best placed within the business plan. If we want legal duties to ensure that we improve passenger experience or the reliability of train services, they are best placed as legal duties. There is a question about where we apportion the responsibilities and accountability mechanisms within the Bill. I do not believe that schedule 2 is the right place to be as prescriptive as the shadow Minister intends with those specific requirements.
On amendment 123, there is already a mandatory requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to obtain advice from the ORR on whether the activities that GBR is to undertake represent value for money. Unlike the list of potential objectives, that is mandatory. I also direct the Member to the assurances that are already in the Bill: there is a duty on GBR to make efficient use of public funds when exercising its functions, and a clear role for the ORR to assess the value for money of GBR’s proposed plans and to publish that assessment.
Edward Argar
Will the Minister confirm that the advice it will be obliged to seek will be published? If it is private advice, it has no teeth whatsoever, because the Secretary of State could accept it or refuse it, as could GBR, and no one would ever know. Would that advice be public?
Keir Mather
The purpose of issuing advice is so that we can enter into an era for the railways where these discussions happen in a way that is far more commonplace than the broken-down patterns of accountability that currently exist. I therefore envisage the sort of adversarial situation that the right hon. Member suggests occurring less than it does under the existing rail system.
The ORR and the Secretary of State are both required to consider value for money when they advise on and approve the business plan. I hope that the relevant measures will show the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that we are serious about getting the best out of GBR and provide him with enough reassurances to seek to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 122 would specify that the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives may include an objective on increasing passenger numbers and freight. It would narrow the wording of the objective in paragraph 2(3)(a) of schedule 2 from relating to passengers and freight to just increasing the numbers of those things. I do not think it would be wise to require ever-increasing passenger numbers as an objective in itself. Different objectives—such as increased reliability, improved passenger experience or references to spare freight paths—might contribute to that overall outcome while being more important in the moment. Again, that should be for the Government of the day, not inflexible legislation, to decide. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw his amendment.
Finally, amendment 206 proposes to expand the list of potential topics that could be covered in the statement of objectives, with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggesting the inclusion of a section on customer experience and satisfaction. The current list in the Bill is purely illustrative, so Secretaries of State may in future add to the list of topics, and include just some of the topics or slightly different ones in their statement of objectives. I invite the Committee to note that the illustrative objectives already included in the Bill contain reference to the carriage of passengers or goods, as well as to fares and accessibility—all matters that are important to passenger experience—so it is unclear what more would be achieved through the amendment, which would simply add a further example to the list.
Furthermore, the Bill contains a duty for the Secretary of State and GBR to exercise the functions in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of the users and potential users of railway passenger services. Unlike the list of potential objectives, that duty is intended to be mandatory. I hope that demonstrates to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that we consider passenger experience to be absolutely central to GBR’s objectives, and provides him with enough comfort not to press his amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
We have heard with interest what the Minister has to say, but I am wholly unpersuaded that he is adequately reflecting the needs of the industry, so I will seek to press amendment 120 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 124, in schedule 2, page 62, line 9, at end insert—
“(d) measurable performance indicators for each statutory duty listed in Section 18.”
This amendment would require the business plan to include measurable performance indicators for GBR’s duties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 125, in schedule 2, page 62, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment would require GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.
Amendment 127, in schedule 2, page 62, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment would require the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.
Amendment 128, in schedule 2, page 62, line 27, leave out from “publish” to the end of line 28 and insert—
“the approved business plan in full, apart from any sections which it considers to contain commercially sensitive information, and”.
This amendment would require GBR to publish its full business plan saving any sections which are commercially sensitive.
Jerome Mayhew
We now turn to paragraph 4 of schedule 2, which deals with the business plan and approval by the Secretary of State.
To receive public funding under paragraph 4, GBR is required to include in its business plan an explanation of how it will meet the objectives set by the Secretary of State. Amendment 124 seeks to strengthen this obligation by requiring GBR to set meaningful KPIs against which its performance and meeting its statutory duties—as set out in clause 18, which we will come to in a bit—can be measured. We had the saga of the missing licence; now we have the saga of the missing KPIs—and 19 other documents. This is important, given the absence of any direction from the Government on KPIs, despite being repeatedly requested on the Floor of the House over a number of months. The only response from the Government as a result of that probing is that they will be “robust”, whatever that means, hence the need for amendment 124.
Amendments 125 to 128 would strengthen GBR’s focus on minimising the cost to the taxpayer and increasing the role of the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that that happens. Amendment 125 would require an express focus on how plans will minimise costs to the taxpayer, which is too often overlooked—the Bill makes hardly any reference to value for money. The taxpayer is ignored entirely. This amendment would make it a legal requirement to address that and would—under the maxim that “you get what you measure”—drive behaviour.
Amendment 127 would require the Office of Rail and Road to provide an assessment of whether GBR’s plans to minimise costs to the taxpayer are, in fact, likely to do so. That would be undertaken before the Office of Rail and Road approves the business plan. Again, this is about driving behaviour through focus and making sure that the taxpayer is not forgotten in the deliberations between nationalised Great British Railways and civil servants at the Department for Transport.
Finally, amendment 128 would require GBR to publish its full business plan, save for commercially sensitive sections, which they should of course have a carve-out from displaying to their potential competitors—although most of their competitors have been designed out under the wording of the Bill. Amendment 128 would welcome transparency, which—given the huge amount of public funding that the organisation currently requires and no doubt will continue to require—is necessary, so that the public can see how their money is being spent, and whether the organisation is focused on driving down the cost to the taxpayer and driving up value for money.
I commend all the amendments to the Minister.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which seek to add requirements to the production of GBR’s business plan and the ORR’s advice on that plan. However, on the subject of the publishing of advice, I briefly return to a question that was put to me by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. I feel that I was unnecessarily circumspect in the answer that I gave him, and it did not reflect the incisive nature of his question, which was about a mandatory requirement that exists in the Bill for the Secretary of State to obtain advice from the ORR on whether the activities of GBR represent value for money, and whether or not that advice can be published. I tell him that the ORR must publish a summary of that advice, and it can publish the advice in full. Although I do not wish to predict the future, I expect that it will likely to so, as part of its work in holding the Government to account. I hope that that is a full answer for the right hon. Member.
Edward Argar
I thank the Minister very much. I cannot imagine where that flash of inspiration and recollection came from, but I am grateful to him for the clarification.
Keir Mather
Committees move in mysterious ways—that is all I will say.
I will take each amendment in the group in turn, starting with amendment 124, which would require GBR to develop key performance indicators for each of its statutory duties. I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will agree that KPIs should be realistic and measurable, so they would also need to be grounded in the specific proposals for what GBR intends to deliver over the next five years. They also need to be allowed to evolve over time, to ensure that they are most relevant to GBR’s planned delivery and can be effectively used to track GBR’s progress.
The way an indicator is set out can influence how an organisation behaves, and we should be able to refine them over the course of several funding periods, to get GBR to deliver in the way that it needs to. Therefore, a more flexible process works better than fixing the nature of the indicators in legislation—and I give way to the hon. Member.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is a mind reader; I was just about to ask him to give way. He says he cannot agree to amendment 124 because we need flexibility in the future, but he will see that it refers to
“measurable performance indicators for each statutory duty listed in Section 18”,
so that flexibility would only run so far as any alteration to the statutory duties set out in his own clause 18, which GBR has no ability to change. The Government do not intend for there to be flexibility, so why does the Minister say he needs it?
Keir Mather
I respectfully disagree with the shadow Minister’s interpretation. This is about how GBR discharges those legally binding duties, and whether we should be overly prescriptive about the means by which it does so. It is important to have flexibility. Given the amount of technological change that we have seen in railway processes over recent decades, as well as socioeconomic factors and the need for GBR to balance those duties, we cannot be overly prescriptive about how we ask it to meet them—apart from the fact that it is legally required to do so.
I assure the hon. Member that GBR’s business plan will have not just a robust but a comprehensive set of KPIs against which it will be held to account. Progress against them will be tracked, and GBR will publish updates in line with the requirements in the Bill. The ORR will also monitor GBR and its business plan, and provide advice to the Secretary of State.
Rebecca Smith
I am thinking through the schedule. Forgive me if I am wrong, but ultimately, it is GBR’s business plan. Effectively though, there are going to be wheels within wheels, in terms of each of the business sectors, the different mayoralties, and the operators that are doing different things in different countries. To me, it feels overly simplistic: we have got one plan, which is the plan for the funding of the entirety of GBR, but if there are no KPIs at all, how are we supposed to even compare parts of the country against each other? Surely there will be different funding streams and business cases for different things. To me, it just feels like one overarching plan. How on earth are we supposed to hold the Government to account for delivering that, let alone ensuring parity and equality across the country, and making sure that funding is going into the right places, where it is most needed?
Keir Mather
That is a very important point. While the hon. Member points to a system that is simple in the objectives that it sets out for the railway overall, I see one that provides sufficient breadth to allow the organisation to develop over time and offer a system of operation that is closer to the communities it seeks to represent—and which, most importantly, is agile in adapting to changing socioeconomic circumstances and technological innovation.
The need for objectives that are not overly prescriptive, and the place for KPIs being in the business plan, allows a holistic approach to setting objectives for the railway, which can guide work overall for a national organisation, offering a single uniting mind, while at the same time not fettering GBR’s ability to evolve as an organisation in future.
In that sense, I believe we desire the same outcome: to make sure that the railway operates in the most effective way possible. In the light of the measures in the Bill that I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 125 would require GBR to include in its business plan information about how it will minimise costs to the taxpayer, while amendment 127 would require the ORR to advise the Secretary of State on this. I agree that it is important for GBR to deliver in the most efficient way that it can. That is why GBR, the ORR and the Secretary of State—all the people involved in the railway, and in the business plan—are all subject to a cost and efficiency duty, which is applied by clause 18. That will ensure that GBR aims to be cost-efficient at all times, which aligns with the intent of amendment 125.
Adding additional requirements for GBR in this space could create perverse incentives. For example, a focus on minimising costs, without other checks and balances, could drive GBR to cancel unprofitable lines even if they are important to local communities because doing so will save money. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for GBR to neglect connectivity in those important rural regions. GBR will also be robustly scrutinised from a value-for-money perspective by the ORR, and the Secretary of State will need to consider the ORR’s advice before approving GBR’s business plan. I hope that is enough to assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill can deliver the outcome he seeks without amendment, while allowing GBR the autonomy necessary to plan in the way it sees as most appropriate.
Finally, amendment 128 seeks to limit the information that GBR could redact from its approved business plan. I agree that GBR’s activity must be transparent, and that will be an important part of how we hold GBR to account. That is why the Bill already requires GBR to publish its business plans. The Bill provides for slightly more discretion for GBR to redact sections of the business plan than amendment 128 proposes. That is because it is important that all types of sensitive data, not just the commercially sensitive, are able to be protected. Personal data, security-sensitive information about stations or anything legally privileged are all examples of content that may need redaction from the final plan. A flexible requirement can be better used to navigate these nuances. However, let me be clear that GBR’s public law duties and wider accountabilities framework will ensure that GBR will not be able to hide information that is important and relevant to public scrutiny.
In the light of these considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press the amendments.
Laurence Turner
On amendments 125 and 127, I have full sympathy with the ambition of reducing costs to the taxpayer wherever possible. However, the word “minimise” is important here, because a natural reading would be to bring that cost to a minimum.
Each Government have recognised that there is a balance to be struck between the charges raised against the taxpayer, fare payers and other users of the railway. We heard evidence from Richard Bowker, the former chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority, who has contributed what is sometimes known as Bowker’s law—there are only two sources of income to a railways: passengers and taxpayers.
I fear that if these amendments were incorporated into the Bill, the natural outcome would be that fares would rise, as indeed may charges levied upon freight users of the railway. For that reason, I hope they are not supported.
Jerome Mayhew
Mr Western, you get what you measure. We on this side of the Committee are very keen that we measure the level of involvement for the taxpayer and that we do our best to look after the taxpayer in the design of this structure, so I intend to press all the amendments.
Keir Mather
Schedule 2 will establish a new funding process for GBR that takes what we have learned from the successes of the periodic review process and applies them to the new GBR world. The new funding period review will provide GBR with five years of funding to carry out its job in operating and maintaining the railway network, and will create a structure through which GBR will develop and own integrated business plans across track and train that reflect its role as the directing mind for the railways.
The schedule retains the role of the ORR in testing and scrutinising the plans, ensuring they are ambitious but deliverable, and providing confidence to the Government. The new funding process, with the five years of certainty it provides, will help to result in the best price for Government and the taxpayer, and generate consistent, longer-term work for private partners in the rail supply chain—keeping good, well-paying, specialist jobs alive and thriving in the United Kingdom.
The schedule will also give greater representation to devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities, providing them with a real opportunity to advocate for the countries and places they serve at the national level. The funding period review will provide GBR with the structure it needs to set out how it will make our railways reliable, offer better value and be more accessible. I therefore commend schedule 2 to the Committee.
Edward Argar
I will not detain the Committee for long. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for his succinct explanation. However, I have two concerns; while he may be able to reassure me on these, I certainly think they need an airing. First, how does he propose to ensure that the funding period is properly aligned with a spending review period? I have seen the challenges faced in government when there is a misalignment, or where one period overlaps the other.
I was only very briefly Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I have also been a Minister in a spending Department, and I have seen the challenges that occur when there is a misalignment, because the Treasury is very clear about non-commitment beyond an existing comprehensive spending review period. How will the Minister ensure alignment and certainty? Without alignment, although there is the impression of certainty, we all know the all-powerful hand of the Treasury if one, as a spending Minister, cuts across its bow on such matters.
The other challenge has been raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister a number of times in various contexts. Although I take the point about the five-year period—and the Minister referenced seeking to bring greater certainty to investment decisions with that—I am still not quite clear. I may have missed it, but I do not think I have heard a clear explanation of what steps are being taken to iron out the peaks and troughs that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned, because it is still a five-year period.
Unless the budget is set for the next five-year period in, say, year two or year three, well ahead of its coming into force—I would posit that the Treasury would be highly unlikely to agree to that—it still does not get around the problem: year one is scaling up, we might see spending in years two and three, and possibly in a bit of year four, but then that spending will drop off again due to a lack of certainty about what is coming in the next year one. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how what he sets out in the schedule will help to address the peaks and troughs that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister so ably highlighted to the Committee previously.
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston for his contribution. He is right to note that the five-year funding process has a different period from that of the spending review. It is tested in the sense that the funding process for Network Rail works similarly now. As was acknowledged in the oral evidence from the ORR, there is not in reality a cliff edge through the five-year funding settlement, as funding always tends to roll over the five-year boundary, but five years is the envelope through which those decisions take place.
That is my assessment of how the process works; if I have failed to answer any of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, perhaps he will illuminate me on what they are and I can provide him with a more fulsome response later on.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 13
Charging and terms and conditions
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 13, page 7, line 22, leave out “as it thinks fit” and insert “as are reasonable”.
This amendment would ensure Great British Railways only charges what is reasonable for provision of services in circumstances where it is a monopoly supplier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 13, page 7, line 28, at end insert—
“(3) A person aggrieved by a charge, or terms and conditions issued under this section, may appeal to the Office for Rail and Road.”
This amendment allows appeals against the charges and terms and conditions issued by Great British Railways under section 13.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
This afternoon is turning into a marathon session, and the only people who cannot take a comfort break are the shadow Minister and the Minister, so far as I can work out; I have my legs crossed.
Clause 13 allows GBR to charge people to whom it is providing a service relating to its functions—this is the important bit—“as it thinks fit”; there is no qualification there. The clause will allow GBR to charge for services that it provides that are currently chargeable under the existing rail regime, such as the back-of-house services currently provided by the Rail Delivery Group, from which all passenger operators, private and public, including open access operators, benefit.
There is a very significant problem with the wording of the clause, because the difference between now and then is that GBR will be a monopoly provider of those services. If we add the two factors together—first, the fact that it is a monopoly provider and secondly, that it is allowed to charge as it thinks fit, with no qualifying criteria—the result is at least the opportunity for GBR to abuse its position to inflate charges and kill competition. GBR will be in direct competition with competitors that can only buy those services from GBR. We know that that will cause a huge issue for open access operators because they have told us so, as GBR will once again be acting as a player and as the referee. That is a clear conflict of interest designed into the structure that the Bill creates. The clause needs to have much greater protections on the calculation of access charges.
The Government use the example of the back-of-house services currently provided by the RDG to explain what would be applicable under the clause. The Rail Delivery Group is a membership organisation consisting of train operating companies, owning groups and Network Rail. The key services they provide are journey information, reservation systems, railcards and working to improve performance, safety and accessibility.
The language in the clause as drafted gives Great British Railways carte blanche where no alternative provider of those key services is allowed—a conflict that will lead to abuse and is contrary to the direction of the Competition and Markets Authority, which expressly said that there needs to be a level playing field when dealing with matters of this kind. That is the Government’s Competition and Markets Authority, so who is right here—the CMA, or the Bill as drafted?
Rebecca Smith
I want to briefly speak to the proposed new subsection added by amendment 23, which would offer anybody given conditions by GBR the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Office of Rail and Road. The issue of accountability and the unequal playing field faced by those on the outside compared with those on the inside came up in the Transport Committee’s evidence sessions and last week. Having heard a lot of that evidence, the amendment appeals to what I think is the right way to do things. We must ensure that organisations engaging with the railway, or offering services to the railway—even if they are being paid separately for them—have the opportunity to appeal a decision that affects or impacts them. I feel that not having such an opportunity is particularly onerous. I support amendment 23 and concur with everything that the shadow Minister has said.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendments 22 and 23 and the hon. Member for South West Devon for speaking in their support. Amendment 22 seeks to require GBR to set reasonable charges for the delivery of its functions, and amendment 23 seeks to require the ORR to provide an appeals role for anyone who considers the charges set by GBR to be unfair.
On amendment 22, we clearly agree that GBR must act reasonably when setting charges and there is no suggestion that it will not do so. In fact, safeguards to ensure that GBR cannot levy unreasonable charges already exist in the Bill. Clause 18 requires GBR to act in the public interest and to ensure that railway service providers, such as devolved operators, freight operators and open access operators, can plan, invest and make decisions about their own businesses. When setting charges, GBR must therefore do so in a manner consistent with those duties, and it must not set charges that undermine operators’ ability to run viable and successful businesses.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to clause 18(2)(e), which states:
“They must exercise the functions… in the manner best calculated to be in the public interest”.
Can the Minister not see that GBR’s assessment of what is in the public interest could very well be what it considers to be in its own interest, because it is a public body? The provision would allow GBR to prioritise its own interests, such as the increased receipt of revenue from third-party operators, at the expense of the competition. That is not the safeguard that the Minister says it is, is it?
Keir Mather
I disagree with the shadow Minister’s interpretation of how the duties function in this regard. GBR cannot take a wholly self-interested, cynical interpretation of what constitutes “best use” under clause 60, which we will turn to in due course. GBR has to make a best-use decision that takes into account the needs of open access and freight. Also, under GBR’s duties, it must take account of promoting the interests of users and potential users of the railway, some of whom—even though open access constitutes a small proportion of the railway network usage overall—will be people using open access operators. Further, the duty in clause 18(2)(d) says,
“so as to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance”.
Such persons would not be able to do so if they were being levied unreasonable charges.
There are supplementary safeguards that I will turn to. Existing competition legislation will also require GBR to ensure that the charges it sets are fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. The ORR will retain its enforcement role in consumer and competition law, concurrent with the Competition and Markets Authority, so it will be able to ensure that GBR is treating the private sector fairly. It is also important that, as a public body, GBR must be able to recover appropriate costs from those who benefit from the services that it provides. If it were prevented from doing so, the burden would ultimately fall on taxpayers and passengers. The Government’s ambition is to have a successful rail industry that attracts investment and can support its own costs, rather than unnecessarily relying on the taxpayer.
Amendment 23 would introduce an appeals role for the ORR on these charges. Again, we fully support the principles of fairness and transparency that underpin the amendment. For significant charges, such as charges for access and the use of infrastructure, the Bill already provides an appeals route to the ORR. However, an appeals route to the ORR for every possible charge that GBR may levy in relation to its statutory functions is clearly disproportionate. The amendment would require an appeals route to be provided even when those charges may be small, such as contributions to cover a railcard cost.
Clause 13, in its sum, simply ensures that GBR can recover the costs of managing and delivering services, such as back-office retailing services, by charging those who use GBR services, such as non-GBR operators or retailers. It is essential that GBR should have a clear statutory right to recover costs from users of its services. That supports the sustainability and efficiency of GBR’s operations, and ensures that taxpayers and GBR customers are not subsidising the operations of others. Importantly, it replicates how those cross-industry functions are paid for today. The Bill and existing competition law already provide adequate protections for third parties and a route of redress, should that be required. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw his amendment and commend clause 13 to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
The Government’s defence is pretty extraordinary. What they are saying is that GBR should be free to charge unreasonable amounts—otherwise there would be no objection to the wording of the amendment, which simply seeks to put the word “reasonable” into the requirement. The Government say that even though this monopoly provider can charge as it thinks fit, there should be no specific right of appeal and that the other operators should rely on the CMA taking an interest or on wider competition law—in other words, after-the-event litigation.
We all know that in a business environment we can argue about the chaos at the end, but a business can already have been destroyed by a decision from a monopoly provider—on which there is no right of appeal and which could not be held back until an appeal has been heard. This is an absolute charter for GBR to run roughshod over independent retail operators, open access operators and even rail freight. It is with no hesitation at all that I seek to push for a vote on both the amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
In today’s system, the ORR can require Network Rail to pay a fee to cover some of the costs of the ORR’s railway activities; that is done via Network Rail’s licence. The clause will ensure that, in the future system, the ORR will continue to have the independent funding it needs, by allowing it to require a similar fee from GBR. That ensures that the ORR will continue to operate in an impartial and independent way—a crucial part of enabling it to provide high-quality advice to railway funders and to conduct its role as the access appeals body fairly. I commend clause 14 to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
So here we are: this is the eminently sensible approach to providing funding for the ORR to continue its operations as a safety regulator. Clause 14 allows the Office of Rail and Road to require GBR to pay a levy to the ORR for performing its non-safety railway functions. That provides the ORR with a legally guaranteed funding source independent of the Secretary of State or Government. The provision aims to provide the ORR with a stable and predictable funding stream that will enable it to plan and carry out its activities. Those were remarkably similar words to the ones used by the Minister—I wonder why!
What I have described replaces the current system under which the ORR requires Network Rail to pay a fee for it to perform its non-safety functions via the process set out in the Network Rail licence. The ORR, as we all know, is an independent regulator, so decisions on its funding should be kept separate from organisations that have a vested interest in its decisions, which is why GBR, despite paying the levy, will not determine the amount. The amount is agreed between the ORR and the Treasury and then provided by GBR through this levy.
This is one of the few clauses through which the Bill is not actively diminishing the role of the ORR. Instead, it provides the ORR with a legally guaranteed funding source, independent of the Secretary of State or Government—save, obviously, for its negotiations with the Treasury. The aim of that is to provide the ORR with a stable and predictable funding stream that will allow it to plan and carry out its duties successfully. That duty already exists in the Network Rail obligation, as I have already mentioned.
I am glad to see from the Government’s explanatory notes on the clause that GBR will not determine the amount of the levy, which will be agreed between the Treasury and the ORR. It seems that the Government do understand the concept of partiality and bias, but are prepared to admit that only when it comes to certain clauses in the Bill.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his support—slightly barbed support, but support nevertheless. I have nothing further to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Rail strategy
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 15, page 8, line 18, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the support given to rural communities in accessing rail travel, and
(d) the co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities for greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to set out the long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options.
Amendment 207, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the consideration of the national rail network as a whole, and
(d) the development of national and regional integrated timetables including—
(i) any infrastructure enhancements necessary to facilitate such development,
(ii) strategies at a local or regional level to deliver these enhancements in line with the 5-year funding periods; and
(iii) a system of prioritisation of connections between services, taking into account interchange times and overall end-to-end journey times resulting from those connections.”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration.
Amendment 224, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the development of rail freight network usage.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to include developing rail freight.
Amendment 25, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods.
(1B) A control period as set out in subsection (1A) must be no shorter than five years.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to remain in place for three control periods at a minimum.
Amendment 260, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (‘the level crossings strategy’).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 261, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include a network electrification strategy to—
(a) require that any new rail lines are electrified, and
(b) set criteria for determining which existing rail lines should be fully electrified, based on current and potential operation of those lines, and set a timetable by which electrification should be completed.
(3B) In preparing the network electrification strategy under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must take into account the current and potential future—
(a) maximum operating speed of,
(b) average number of trains in an hour using,
(c) average volume of freight transported on,
(d) maximum potential reliability of rolling stock using, and
(e) acceleration requirements of
trains using the relevant lines.”
Amendment 225, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, at end insert
“, and persons wishing to operate services for the carriage of passengers or goods on Great British Railways’ infrastructure.”
This amendment requires consultation with freight operators during the preparation of the rail strategy.
Amendment 213, in clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out any progress on the rail strategy.
(9) The report under subsection (8) must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
(10) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment requires regular reporting to Parliament and the House of Commons Transport Committee on delivery of the rail strategy.
New clause 27—Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national rolling stock strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out rolling stock requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Great British Railways must align each strategy to the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60, the rail strategy in section 15, and each funding period as set out in Schedule 2.
(4) Great British Railways must set out how the strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a national rolling stock strategy each year, setting out the expected rolling stock requirements per operating region and route, aligned to current and future planned infrastructure, and aligned to the long-term rail strategy and 5-year funding periods.
New clause 28—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 29—Railway services: Sunday working arrangements—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) current figures for use of railway services on Sundays, and
(b) projected figures if services on Sundays were increased.
(3) The report must identify and set out actions that can be taken to increase demand for railway services on Sundays.
(4) When setting out actions under subsection (3), the report must have due regard to five-year funding periods for Great British Railways.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a report on current Sunday demand, suppressed Sunday demand, and identify actions to be taken to increase demand for railways services on Sundays in line with the 5 year funding periods.
New clause 54—National signalling strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national signalling strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out expected signalling renewal requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Signalling requirements as set out in subsection (2) must be informed by the principle that new or renewed signalling will be digital and based on standards set by the European Train Control System.
(4) Great British Railways must align each strategy to—
(a) the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60,
(b) the rail strategy in section 15,
(c) each funding period as set out in schedule 2, and
(d) current and future planned infrastructure including electrification and rolling stock changes.
(5) Great British Railways must set out how each strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause introduces a national strategy for digital signalling rollout to create an approach to signalling renewals, enhancements, and interfaces with rolling stock, and to realise signalling safety, capacity, and performance benefits of digital signalling.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover
We have reached a rather long group of amendments at this point in the afternoon. I would generally have liked to have used that as an opportunity to be concise. However—[Laughter.] No, no, the substance is too severe for that to be the case.
Let me start off on a positive note: this rail strategy is perhaps the strongest element of the Bill. It is absolutely what our railways need to hopefully get us out of the endless cycle of decision, indecision, dither and delay: “Yes, we’re doing it,” then, “No, we’re not,” or committing to things that are undeliverable before they have been properly planned, thought through, funded and so on.
In this part of the Bill, we even have the potential to put ourselves on as glorious a footing as Switzerland and its approach to its rail network. Somehow, I have managed to avoid talking about Switzerland so far in this Bill Committee—
Olly Glover
Oh right—okay. I seemingly stand corrected. Well, there we go; this probably will not be the last mention either.
It is good that an element of the Bill enables us to have some hope of reaching the glory of the marvellous rail network in Switzerland, which genuinely merits admiration. We so often assume, lazily, that railways in Europe are better than those here. Some of them are in some respects; others are not. However, Switzerland’s railway is pretty much better than ours all over.
I turn to our amendments. Generally speaking, the intention behind them is either to strengthen or enhance what is already in clause 15 regarding the rail strategy. New clause 2 proposes to expand the number of factors that should be considered in developing the strategy, to ensure that critical elements that have not necessarily been well-planned or managed on our network hitherto are better stewarded in the future.
I turn first to amendment 134. It would very simply put what is currently in an accompanying piece of commentary on the Bill into the Bill itself, including the clarification that by “long-term” we mean “30 years”. The problem is that at the moment “long-term” can mean many things to many people, depending on their own particular agenda. We could include in clause 15 the words “for the next 30 years”. That would make it very clear what the rail strategy was focused on, but would not preclude its being changed in the future. That is important, because any strategy should be regularly reviewed and refreshed in the light of changing circumstances. However, the amendment would enshrine the idea that the strategy is intended to get GBR to engage in long-term thinking in its future planning of our network.
Amendment 137 would add a couple of elements to clause 15. First, it would ensure that the long-term rail strategy considered the support that rural communities need to access rail travel and the need for
“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”
and GBR. That is so we can have a real focus on
“greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
I hope that is welcomed by the Government, given their own commitment to introduce an integrated transport strategy at some point in the future.
Amendment 207 intends to ensure that the rail strategy considers the rail network as a whole and the relationship between the integrated timetables that we need to move to and the infrastructure enhancements necessary to enable those timetables. Let me explain that a little further. The historic focus of development on our rail network has been, with some exceptions, an obsession with reducing journey times to and from London on major inter-city routes. In and of itself, that is not a flawed goal. However, tens of millions of pounds will often be spent on cutting a couple of minutes from journey times.
A particular example of that was removing an avoiding line at Stoke-on-Trent as part of the modernisation of the west coast route. It was for the 7 am Manchester to London inter-city train, which has been the subject of so much controversy recently in relation to ORR decisions. That passing loop was taken out just to save 30 seconds from the journey time for one train a day, which does not even stop at Stoke-on-Trent. That shows the extent of the obsession with reducing journey times to London, which I have just alluded to.
What there has not been is an accompanying focus on trying to improve connection times between trains at Birmingham New Street, for example, or at Manchester Piccadilly or in Leeds. That is important, because there is very little point in cutting some time off inter-city routes if that time saving is negated by having a longer connection and waiting time at a regional hub. What puts a lot of people off using trains is the lack of decent connections and having to wait for their next train at stations that might not have particularly amenable environments.
By contrast, that is what has been done so well in Switzerland. It began in 1987, when a national referendum approved what was a 20-plus-year plan, to upgrade the country’s rail network around connections. That led to a nationwide investment in infrastructure improvements designed to enable a nationwide inter-city timetable, so that at all the key hubs—such as Zurich, Berne or Basel—trains would arrive within a 10 or 15-minute window and passengers could easily change from inter-city train to inter-city train, or from a local train to an inter-city train. Such integration is not just limited to the rail network; it is applies to other public transport. Anybody who has travelled extensively in Switzerland by public transport knows that the same level of timetable integration exists for buses, cable cars, mountain railways and so on.
Amendment 207 would create the framework for that kind of thinking: we would have to think hard, in the long-term strategy, about what sort of timetabling we want to see on our network in the future and what infrastructure enhancements are needed to get end-to-end journey times down.
Our amendment 135 would ensure that the rail strategy considers international rail. For the purposes of the Bill, that is not the Dublin to Belfast Enterprise service, which is of course the subject of entirely different legislation—a very good train it is, too, and not just because it is named after that series of wonderful flagships from “Star Trek”—but international rail through the channel tunnel. The amendment would simply require that the rail strategy includes an international rail strategy to support the development of international routes and consider some of the key challenges in increasing capacity, particularly rail depot capacity, to the channel tunnel and beyond, as well as options for upgrading the existing rail network so that we can get far more rail freight directly through the channel tunnel, which is currently not possible because of limited gauge clearance on the existing network.
Our amendment 136 would require the rail strategy to include a network electrification strategy, which another amendment alluded to. Something that has so far been absent from this Government’s thinking, as it was from that of most previous ones, is clear criteria for electrification, of whatever type—including the current fetish for discontinuous electrification with batteries. The amendment would create a framework for us to be very clear about the criteria that will be used for each electrification type, including maximum operating speeds, which lend themselves far more to full electrification than to batteries, the intensity of traffic, whether there is freight, and so on. It is a very strategic amendment that would help to focus the output of the long-term strategy on things that need to be addressed.
I have a bit more to say; I am attempting to be concise, Mr Western, and I thank you for your forbearance, as I thank the rest of the Committee for theirs. Amendment 213 would require the Secretary of State to update Parliament annually on progress on the rail strategy. This is not intended to hamper the strategy or bog it down in bureaucracy; it would merely involve updating Parliament, from time to time, on the development and delivery of the rail strategy. The key purpose is to ensure that the Transport Committee can carry on the great review and scrutiny that it does of so many things—that is not a comment on my contribution, but on that of all Transport Committee members, past and present.
New clause 27 would require the strategy to incorporate a national rolling stock strategy. I understand from remarks made by the Minister and by the noble Lord Hendy in the other place that that is very much the intention anyway. Perhaps we will have another of those debates where they say that that is the intention anyway but for some reason we cannot possibly put it in the Bill. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause, because it is so important.
New clause 28 would require GBR to set out a cyber-security and technology strategy. Technology is changing all the time, and the railway has not always been the fastest at embracing it. There is a particular issue with cyber-security. A couple of months ago, I attended a forum in Parliament, which was well attended by representatives from the rail industry. There are real issues about how software on rolling stock is kept up to date, and the funding for that. The new clause is intended to ensure that proper thought is put into a framework for cyber-security.
New clause 29 would require GBR to publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays and the current arrangements for staffing of the railway on Sundays, which in my opinion and that of many of my constituents simply does not align with the 21st century nature of the Sunday economy.
Finally, new clause 54 would require GBR, within 12 months of the passing of the Act and every subsequent 12 months, to publish a national signalling strategy. The reason this is so important is that we have been slow to embrace digital signalling and the European train control system in this country. That is starting to improve, with ETCS currently being introduced to the southernmost 100 miles of the east coast main line, but those in the industry are clear that the current fragmented structure makes it hard to introduce ETCS and digital signalling, because open access operators, particularly freight operators, are not necessarily incentivised to align their driver training and locomotive upgrades with the plans to introduce digital signalling.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 15 requires the Secretary of State to publish a document that sets out the long-term strategy for the railway, which we welcome, after consulting with Welsh Ministers and the passenger watchdog. The Secretary of State must keep the strategy under review and publish any revisions.
The clause does not provide any detail, which is part of the problem. The industry is in the dark now, and it will still be in the dark if the Bill ever becomes law. There is no draft prepared. There is no indication of the direction of travel. There is just subsection (4), which is very limited. All it says is:
“(4) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the rail strategy under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.”
Well, with what and when? We are in trouble here, with no direct reference to even the development of rail freight, which we have seen in other parts of the Bill is apparently in the Government’s mind. Amendment 224 would serve to correct that by making specific reference to rail freight.
More widely, the Government have missed an opportunity to set clear targets for the strategy to achieve. Colleagues will know from the debate on clause 3 that we have already tried to amend the Bill to assist with that. Our purpose clause, new clause 1, would have set a clear direction, and new clause 2 would have set KPIs for what the strategy should achieve. That would have helped to inform our set of amendments to clause 15.
We are told that Great British Railways should be the guiding mind, so our approach is that GBR will implement the long-term strategy for rail, based on the Secretary of State’s long-term priorities for the railways. GBR is intended to be the stand-alone expert implementer of the development of the railway. The priorities are set out by the Secretary of State through the licence in schedule 1, access to funding in schedule 2 and the long-term rail strategy. All recognise that the political cycle and control periods are far too short for rail infrastructure projects. The industry really needs more predictable forward views. There is inevitably an uncomfortable fit between the needs of democracy and the political cycle—political views change with general elections and sometimes even between them—and the long-term investment certainty that large projects need. There is currently no indication of how long term the strategy will be, or even what it will seek to achieve.
Amendments 24 and 25, which we debated with clause 13 but would also affect clause 15—I do not seek to repeat the debate, but I wish to mention the impact that they would have—seek to address those failings by requiring the rail strategy to be geared towards enabling GBR to meet its key performance indicators. Without the amendments, the clause will set out a long-term strategy that includes no requirement to set clear growth targets for passenger numbers or freight use, meaning that there will be no measurable outcomes or performance metrics. I intend to seek to divide the Committee on those amendments when the time comes.
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 134 would ensure that the rail strategy covers a 30-year period. That is logical given the infrastructure life cycle, and any timeframe is, by its nature, arbitrary, but I have to say that 30 years feels on the long side, given the political cycle of four or five years. I wish the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage well and we should be having a stab at setting out what long term actually means, but that is why we have tabled an amendment that would set the period at 15 years. That would be long enough to show the direction of travel, as he has in mind, but short enough to have some sense of connection between the political cycle and the objectives of the strategy. We may have a difference of opinion, but we are pointing in the same direction.
Olly Glover
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, but I put it to him that the fact that our Parliaments tend to be four or five years long is precisely why the strategy needs to be very long term, so that we avoid subjecting our railway to the political cycle and the whims and whimsies of the Government of the day. But perhaps the key point is that the Government’s own guidance on the Bill, in the section entitled, “What is the Long-Term Rail Strategy?”, states:
“It will set out strategic objectives for the railway over a 30-year period.”
Would it not be coherent to put that on the face of the Bill?
Jerome Mayhew
From the Government’s perspective, yes, it would be, but we have recent experience—this is a slight tangent, but I hope the Committee will bear with me—of Governments passing key objectives to achieve long out in the distance. I am thinking of the Climate Change Act 2008 and its objective of achieving net zero by 2050. That all sounds good in 2008, but in my view it does not achieve the objective of balancing democratic accountability with a long-term direction. Look, we are slightly arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both parties agree that we want a long-term strategy, but should it be 15 years or 30 years? In a sense it does not really matter, but it needs to be significantly beyond the current five-year control period.
Amendment 137, also in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the strategy to set out a long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options. It is a worthy objective, although we would want to go further if extending clause 15(1) beyond the railway network and railway services—the catch-all descriptors. The amendment is slightly a halfway house, but it nevertheless points in the right direction, and in so far as it makes progress, we are happy to support it.
Amendment 207, again in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, would introduce a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration. There is perhaps a better solution tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is engaged somewhere else as we speak—there may be a better way to achieve that outcome.
Amendment 224, which I tabled, would add paragraph (c) to clause 15(1). As drafted, the provision requires the Secretary of State to
“prepare and publish a document that sets out”
her
“long term strategy for…(a) the development and use of the railway network in Great Britain, and…(b) the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided in Great Britain.”
This important amendment would add a focus on “rail freight network usage”. Rail freight does, in a sense, come under “railway services”, but we need to give it particular focus, and the amendment offers a good opportunity to do so.
Amendment 25, which is also in my name, would require the rail strategy to remain in place
“for a minimum of three control periods”,
which would be 15 years. We have already debated whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but the provision would provide the industry with a genuine long-term strategy and mean that that strategy is less likely to be used as a political football when Governments come and go. The period of 15 years is short enough to have political weight, but long enough to give the certainty that the industry also seeks.
I will briefly mention amendment 260, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I know that the subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart because he has told me so, multiple times.
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, repeatedly, which is great, because my hon. Friend is absolutely fighting for his constituency and his constituents. He has told me of a repeated trouble that communities experience when a level crossing closes very frequently and for long periods with no regard to the economic impact of that on the town in which it is based. That can cause long periods of tailbacks, but there is no consideration of that when the usage of the piece of line is set, and the Bill, as drafted, makes no provision for GBR even to take that problem into account. Amendment 260 would insert clause 15(2A), which states that the
“rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”)”,
and clause 15(2B), which states:
“The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
That is actually a very sensible point, because it recognises that the railway does not impact just trains. If a level crossing temporarily closes arterial routes, there is an impact on other modes of transport, so it would be sensible for a strategy to take into account the full impact of the changes that the Secretary of State has in mind.
Amendment 261, which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also tabled, would insert an alternative subsection (2A) in clause 15, stating:
“The rail strategy must include an assessment”
of
“the ability of passengers to change between…main line rail services”
and from rail services to
“other modes of public transport.”
The amendment would also provide that the
“assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
This is, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge standing up for his constituents and the particular issues that they face with the co-ordination of services. Having heard the experience of Mayor Burnham with the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the Committee could argue that the increased integration of all modes of transport should properly be a focus of GBR, and the amendment would apply that integration to areas that are not mayoral combined authorities. Later in Committee, we will consider an amendment that seeks to extend the same courtesies to local transport authorities as the Bill extends to mayoral combined authorities, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon will be keen to speak to that.
Liberal Democrat amendment 135, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the Secretary of State to make an international rail strategy part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. That would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase channel tunnel and London St Pancras high-speed rail capacity.
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 29th January 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 January 2026 - (29 Jan 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper.
Clause 15
Rail strategy
Amendment proposed (27 January): 134, in clause 15, page 8, line 18, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the support given to rural communities in accessing rail travel, and
(d) the co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities for greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to set out the long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options.
Amendment 207, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the consideration of the national rail network as a whole, and
(d) the development of national and regional integrated timetables including—
(i) any infrastructure enhancements necessary to facilitate such development,
(ii) strategies at a local or regional level to deliver these enhancements in line with the 5-year funding periods; and
(iii) a system of prioritisation of connections between services, taking into account interchange times and overall end-to-end journey times resulting from those connections.”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration.
Amendment 224, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the development of rail freight network usage.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to include developing rail freight.
Amendment 25, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods.
(1B) A control period as set out in subsection (1A) must be no shorter than five years.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to remain in place for three control periods at a minimum.
Amendment 260, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (‘the level crossings strategy’).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 261, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include a network electrification strategy to—
(a) require that any new rail lines are electrified, and
(b) set criteria for determining which existing rail lines should be fully electrified, based on current and potential operation of those lines, and set a timetable by which electrification should be completed.
(3B) In preparing the network electrification strategy under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must take into account the current and potential future—
(a) maximum operating speed of,
(b) average number of trains in an hour using,
(c) average volume of freight transported on,
(d) maximum potential reliability of rolling stock using, and
(e) acceleration requirements of
trains using the relevant lines.”
Amendment 225, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, at end insert
“, and persons wishing to operate services for the carriage of passengers or goods on Great British Railways’ infrastructure.”
This amendment requires consultation with freight operators during the preparation of the rail strategy.
Amendment 213, clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out any progress on the rail strategy.
(9) The report under subsection (8) must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
(10) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment requires regular reporting to Parliament and the House of Commons Transport Committee on delivery of the rail strategy.
New clause 27—Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national rolling stock strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out rolling stock requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Great British Railways must align each strategy to the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60, the rail strategy in section 15, and each funding period as set out in Schedule 2.
(4) Great British Railways must set out how the strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a national rolling stock strategy each year, setting out the expected rolling stock requirements per operating region and route, aligned to current and future planned infrastructure, and aligned to the long-term rail strategy and 5-year funding periods.
New clause 28—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (“the strategy”).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 29—Railway services: Sunday working arrangements—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) current figures for use of railway services on Sundays, and
(b) projected figures if services on Sundays were increased.
(3) The report must identify and set out actions that can be taken to increase demand for railway services on Sundays.
(4) When setting out actions under subsection (3), the report must have due regard to five-year funding periods for Great British Railways.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a report on current Sunday demand, suppressed Sunday demand, and identify actions to be taken to increase demand for railways services on Sundays in line with the 5 year funding periods.
New clause 54—National signalling strategy—
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national signalling strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out expected signalling renewal requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Signalling requirements as set out in subsection (2) must be informed by the principle that new or renewed signalling will be digital and based on standards set by the European Train Control System.
(4) Great British Railways must align each strategy to—
(a) the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60,
(b) the rail strategy in section 15,
(c) each funding period as set out in schedule 2, and
(d) current and future planned infrastructure including electrification and rolling stock changes.
(5) Great British Railways must set out how each strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause introduces a national strategy for digital signalling rollout to create an approach to signalling renewals, enhancements, and interfaces with rolling stock, and to realise signalling safety, capacity, and performance benefits of digital signalling.
Clause stand part.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am doing a rapid rewrite as this speech was full of witticisms and pithy things to do with speeches that none of us can remember from earlier this week— or last week; whenever it was. I would like to speak in support of amendments 134, 137, 136 and 213 and new clause 28, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Amendment 134 would require the rail strategy to cover a 30-year period. That matters because decisions on electrification, rolling stock, workforce planning and passenger experience simply cannot be made on short political cycles.
Amendment 137 is particularly important for rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Too many rural communities are poorly served by rail and have limited alternatives when services fail. The amendment would ensure that the rail strategy explicitly supports rural access and strengthens co-operation with local and regional transport authorities so that trains, buses, and cycling and walking routes actually connect. No one should miss a bus just because a train arrives three minutes late or wait 40 minutes because timetables were not aligned in the first place—an experience familiar to anyone arriving at Crewkerne.
Amendment 136 would place electrification at the heart of the rail strategy. Electrification is not just about missions; it improves reliability, efficiency and resilience.
Amendment 213 would introduce a vital safeguard, which the Government refused to put in place earlier when they rejected our new clause 26, to prevent Great British Railways from hiding from accountability to those who gave both it and the Secretary of State their power. The amendment would require regular reporting to Parliament and the Transport Committee. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has agreed to provide an annual update to Parliament on how we are doing against our climate and nature targets. I would hope that what is good enough for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is good enough for the Department for Transport.
New clause 28 would require a cyber-security and technology strategy. We need to know whether and how GBR will use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate, develop resilience and improve the passenger experience. I know from my work on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy under your leadership, Mr Western, that the threats to national infrastructure are real and increasing. We must make sure that our public and national infrastructure remains safe and protected.
At the same time, we continue to campaign for passengers to be placed at the heart of the Bill. They deserve modern, accessible services, reliable wi-fi, real-time information and inclusive design. For these and future technologies to benefit the passenger now and long into the future, we need real investment and real innovation so that we will always have a modern railway planned over the long term.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I can see the intent behind amendment 134 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would ensure that the strategy covers a 30-year period, and I think it is important that one looks to the future. Given our relative ages, I suspect that, notwithstanding any decisions by the electorate, the Minister may be the only person who is still in this place to assess whether the strategy has worked in 30 years’ time. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was right to highlight that a 30-year strategy would set a baseline, but, as with any strategy, it would be right to refresh and, if necessary, amend it every few years to reflect changing externalities or new Government who wish to tweak it in a different direction. I think that is a sensible approach.
Amendment 137 has an important focus on rural transport links. I have four stations in my constituency: Syston, Bottesford, Sileby and Melton Mowbray. Apart from Melton Mowbray and Syston, those stations are in relatively small villages that are served by only irregular buses. The intent behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to not only focus on investment in those rural services, but ensure that there are linkages so that people in outlying villages or elsewhere can access them. I know that my constituents would very much welcome that.
Amendments 207 and 261 focus, in different ways, on interchanges and integrated transport, which are hugely important. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly highlighted the experience, which I expect many of us and our constituents have had, of landing at a railway station five minutes after the train has gone because the bus service is not integrated in its timetabling.
I gently caution the Minister that a national integrated transport strategy may not be something he wishes to take on himself. If I recall, that was something mooted in “Yes Minister”, and Jim Hacker took on the job, in an episode known as “The Bed of Nails” because it was deemed virtually impossible to win when trying to integrate all aspects of transport strategy. Fond as I am of the Minister, I would counsel him not to take on that role, even if the Bill has the right intent of trying to integrate transport a little better.
Amendments 224 and 225 would rightly require freight services to be considered carefully, and would require consultation with freight operators. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken a number of times about the potential tension between passenger services and GBR’s own services, and the need for freight services to be protected and supported, as well as whether there is an explicit target for freight versus passenger services. Again, I think the amendments are sensible.
Finally, I think new clause 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require an assessment of the need for Sunday services, is extremely sensible, and I hope that others on the Committee will speak to it. I mentioned Sileby station in my constituency. Sileby is a large village, but on a Sunday it has only one bus to Leicester first thing in the morning and one bus back from Leicester in the afternoon. That is the extent of the public transport available to that large and growing village. Constituents have written to me to ask what can be done to better understand the demand for and possible implementation of a Sunday rail service there—even if it is only irregular, running once or twice a day, it would be something—to give them that option, so I know that they would welcome new clause 29.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will speak to a few of the amendments and new clauses, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, as well as some of those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because some of their ideas are worth noting.
It is obvious why I would support amendment 224, which yet again seeks to include in the Bill more mention of rail freight. As someone who is keen on looking at how we can use rail, and even sea, for freight, I emphasise the necessity of ensuring that it is a central part of the Bill. The Government speak about wanting to tackle climate change and bring net zero into play, but that will be hampered if the rail freight network is not strongly represented in the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will say that it does mention rail freight, but we do not feel it is explicit enough, and we want to ensure that we get it nailed into the Bill wherever we can.
Amendments 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) would require the rail strategy to consider local need, in particular in respect of level crossings and integrated transport. That is something that the Select Committee on Transport, which I am a member of, is also looking at. Indeed, we had our first hearing on integrated transport yesterday, and one thing that came across strongly to me was that we should really have been looking at an integrated transport strategy before this Bill was introduced, because how rail and buses—I have had the privilege of serving on Bill Committees on both subjects—slot into such a strategy is really important. Therefore, having something on the face of the Bill that pushes towards ensuring that we have regard for integrated transport is important.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to look at modal interoperability. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that a level crossing in a conurbation has a negative impact on road use and, in some instances, cuts one side of a town off from the other? Is he right, as I suggest he is, that that should be part of GBR’s consideration?
Rebecca Smith
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, amendment 260, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, would require the forthcoming rail strategy to have specific regard to level crossings. Fortunately, I do not have anything like what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham describes, where a level crossing splits an entire town in half, but I presume that the Government will not want to invest in bridges everywhere there is a level crossing, so having at least some regard for level crossings in the rail strategy, and ensuring that one thing does not negate the other, will be essential. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends.
Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, relates specifically to rural communities, and no doubt it overlaps with amendment 260. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, he has highlighted the importance of good rail connectivity in our rural communities. Again, that came up in the Transport Committee’s oral evidence session yesterday: how do we make sure that we are not just weighting the system in favour of urban areas, and make sure that due and serious regard is given to rural communities? My rural community has only one station, and we are keen to see more stations that will serve rural communities, both in my constituency and others. But ultimately, if we really want to see that modal shift away from cars to the railway, we have to make sure that everybody stands a fair chance of accessing it.
I will turn to new clauses 28 and 29, again in the name of hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The first is about technology and the need for connectivity on the railway. As somebody who does the right thing and uses my mobile phone rather than Great Western Railway’s wi-fi to connect to the internet—because that is what the parliamentary security people tell me to do—I am entirely reliant on my 4G network to work on the train. I sit there for three and a half hours one way and three and a half hours back, if I am lucky—I have that to look forward to later on today—and I rely on that time to complete my work. I am sat in Bill Committees half of the week, so that time on the train, doing my constituency work and reading in preparation for this Committee, is essential. When there is no decent wi-fi or 4G connection, that is a problem.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very exciting pilot that GWR has been doing using Formula 1 technology, which is right up my street, as those who know me well will appreciate. It is excellent. Effectively, it uses that thing no one likes because it technically belongs to that American Musk guy—is it Skylink?
Rebecca Smith
That is it. It still works, though, and provides a very good internet signal.
I suppose that is a question for the Minister: what regard is he giving to such pilots? That might not be on the face of the Bill, but a large part of the population will want to know we have talked about how to ensure that connectivity on Great British Railways is up to date. Connectivity means getting from A to B, but also the ability to work using the internet. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on that point.
I will just briefly speak to new clause 29, on Sunday working arrangements. I have mentioned this already, but those far-flung parts of the country that rely on a possibly hourly service into London that connects all the way through the south-west region need the guarantee of Sunday services. I have to leave at 6.55 am to get here. If I want to get here for an early start on a Monday, I have to leave the night before—if there was no train available, I would lose nearly a whole day just to get to London for a meeting on a Monday morning. It is a privilege to be able to do that, but I would rather not, and more frequent trains would help.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to speak in support of amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, and amendment 261, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The two amendments attempt to deliver the same thing: better integration between rail and other modes of transport. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is a man of great attention to detail, but it was perhaps a little sloppy of him on this occasion not to include in his list of trains, buses, trams and cycling the word “ferries”. Of course, ferries are fundamental in my constituency; we cannot get off the Isle of Wight without using them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to rebuke me, albeit very politely and gently. I should have worded the amendment in a non-exclusive manner, to make sure that I did not forget any other form of transport. He is right to highlight, as I know he is about to, the critical importance of the integrated transport terminal in Portsmouth harbour for access to and from his wonderful island. There are many other examples of such terminals, including the one in Ardrossan harbour for getting to and from the Isle of Arran in Scotland. I am sure that, if I had had the Government’s resources at my fingertips rather than having bashed away at this over Christmas, I would not have made that error.
Joe Robertson
I thank the hon. Member for his apology, if that is what that was; it is accepted. My argument for integration between rail and all modes of transport, although I will use ferries as a particular example, is important. The Minister is also the Maritime Minister, and is well aware of the specific issues that my constituency faces.
The two amendments seek to deliver integration through strategy. If we think back to the evidence given to this Committee last week by the future Prime Minister who is currently apprenticing as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he said that integration is essential—and he would know, being in charge of a combined mayoral authority. We are due to get a combined authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the amendments can be viewed as mirroring the strategic responsibilities put on combined mayors, who have responsibility for travel and the interoperability of transport connections in their areas.
What the amendments—and particularly amendment 137 —seek to do is ensure that the Minister and the Government also have the responsibility to ensure co-operation. That is explicit in amendment 137, which calls for
“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”.
The amendments would end situations such as, for example, the one where, if I was to travel home on the 3.30 train from Waterloo down to Portsmouth Harbour station, the train would arrive five minutes after the ferry had departed. I imagine those are frustrations across pretty much every constituency in the land between trains and other forms of transport. If that situation is not addressed in the explicit way set out by the two amendments, it will continue to be a significant problem that will never get dealt with. Giving more attention and powers through the Bill will help to deliver improvements even for modes of transport, such as Isle of Wight ferries, that are not regulated by the Government and where they do not have explicit and express powers.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Transport Act 1981, which privatised British Rail’s ferry operations, including the Sea Link service to the Isle of Wight, contained no passenger interest provisions of the type contained in this Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that such an omission was an oversight and an historical missed opportunity?
Joe Robertson
I do. It is not difficult for me to agree and accept that the way Wightlink, which was part of British Rail, was dealt with was more than a missed opportunity; it was a bad decision. Locally, I work cross-party with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on that.
This Government have an opportunity. I thank the Minister for the work he is doing and I hope he will be prepared to intervene in a way no Government have done. There are clearly opportunities to make small improvements to the Bill, and accepting the amendments would do that not just in my constituency, but in others. I will leave the Minister with a question: if he does not support the amendments, how else might he use powers in the Bill, or would he be prepared to introduce amendments of his own, to improve connectivity for other modes of transport that do not have any formal regulation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address.
Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed.
Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.
Jerome Mayhew
I just want to give the Minister some further clarity about what amendment 25 actually does. He is right that it says,
“The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods”,
but that should be read in the light of subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State express power to
“keep the rail strategy under review”,
and paragraph (b), which says that they
“may revise or replace it.”
Does he accept that it is quite clear that the amendment, read in conjunction with subsection (4), does not prevent reacting to new events?
Keir Mather
On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.
I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.
The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.
Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.
The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.
Olly Glover
We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.
Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his job in highlighting some of the practical challenges that the amendment might entail. The important bit is not so much the strategy; I think what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to get at is that, when Network Rail or GBR assesses the function of a level crossing, it also needs to take account of the impact on the society in which it is based: for instance, cutting a town in two or stopping vehicular access for multiple periods during a day. Does the Minister not agree that, if GBR did not consider that—it was not in the list of considerations that the Minister mentioned a moment ago—it would not be doing its full job?
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I very much identify with the sentiment identified by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. This is something that impacts Selby town, much as it affects communities across the country. It is right that GBR has regard to managing the way in which level crossings impact road users as much as it does the way that railway infrastructure and passenger services do.
My question is whether that obligation is best placed in this part of the Bill. Network Rail already has a system for considering the impact of changes on local communities, and that will be mapped over into the way that GBR functions. I believe that the transfer of that process, in a way that is reactive and operationally agile, is probably the best way to ensure that those considerations remain integral to how GBR carries out that work.
On connectivity and multimodal journeys, I am happy to confirm that strategic objectives in the long-term strategy will already include supporting better connectivity between communities. This will provide direction on the long-term trends affecting the railway. However, as with others in this group, amendment 261 would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term assessments of passengers’ ability to change between rail services or different modes—things that could change frequently, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in a document that sets out long-term strategic aims.
However, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be pleased to hear that we will soon be publishing our integrated national transport strategy, which will set out the Government’s vision for domestic transport across England. It will focus on a transport network that works well for people across the country, including improving integration across modes, but I will of course take the sage advice of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about my personal role as part of that process.
Amendments 225 and 213 both seek to make the strategy subject to additional procedural requirements. Amendment 225 requires consultation with operators during preparation of the strategy. I can reassure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Government have already committed to consultative engagement with key stakeholders, including freight and passenger train operating companies, which will be essential for gathering evidence and informing the strategy’s development. Therefore, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 213, meanwhile, requires regular reporting from the Secretary of State to Parliament on delivery of the strategy. However, as GBR will be the principal organisation responsible for delivering the vision and outcomes that will be set out in the long-term rail strategy, it will be for GBR to report on its progress in delivering it. GBR already must have regard to the strategy, and will respond to it through its business plans, on which it will report regularly. Given that and other existing reporting mechanisms, the amendment would be duplicative.
The new clauses in this group all propose new strategies or reports—for example, on rolling stock, cyber-security and technology, Sunday working arrangements or signalling. Those all naturally cut across the long-term rail strategy and, if accepted, would, in my view, risk GBR being busier completing strategies than actually running the railway. However, I would like to take each new clause in turn to give them due regard.
On new clause 27, the Government absolutely agree with the principle of a long-term rolling stock strategy. In fact, we would go a step further and say that this strategy should cover not just rolling stock, but the related infrastructure as well, in a single integrated strategy. Such a strategy was sadly lacking during the last three decades of privatisation, with decisions about rolling stock and related infrastructure taken to meet short-term and route-specific needs of operators seeking to maximise their profits. It is this Bill, establishing GBR, that will put that right.
However, I do not agree that the Bill needs this as a duty on GBR. Rather than creating a duty for GBR to deliver at some time in the future, we are already working with relevant parties across the industry to develop a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy to be published this summer. GBR will inherit that strategy and act on it to deliver improvements for industry, taxpayers and passengers.
Likewise, there is no need for a reporting requirement relating to cyber-security and technology. Cyber-security remains a priority for my Department; we are committed, through both existing cyber legislation and policy, to ensuring that GBR operates safely and securely. While new clause 28 reflects priorities that the Government share, the measures it proposes, such as on artificial intelligence, digitalisation and innovation, are already being delivered without the need to include them in this Bill.
On new clause 29, relating to Sunday working arrangements, I would first like to say that I have no doubt that creating GBR to improve both the quality and dependability of train services on Sundays will drive up demand and allow more people to benefit from the railway. We want a railway that operates reliably and sustainably, seven days a week, on a lower net subsidy than today, with built-in resilience and a diverse workforce. However, this is not an overnight change, but a long-term one, and not a process that, in my view, needs to be set out in legislation. Rather, we will continue to work with staff, managers and unions across the future railway to deliver this change collaboratively.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is touching on a key issue that the railway will have to address if he is serious about achieving a reliable Sunday service, and that is operating a seven-day schedule with a six-day roster. Does the Minister intend finally to address the six-day roster issue and to move working practices on to a seven-day roster?
Keir Mather
We want GBR to be empowered to address and deal with all these questions relating to personnel and timetabling in a way that is consultative and in partnership with both unions and private sector operators. My point merely remains that it is not appropriate to freeze them in aspic as part of this Bill, in a way that might prevent GBR’s ability to work properly through those considerations with the workforce once it exists. Producing a separate report on the demand for Sunday travel would duplicate the work that GBR already has to undertake through its business plan, which will set out the outcomes and key deliverables for GBR, including train service levels, which will be agreed with the Government and published accordingly.
Finally, new clause 54 relates to a signalling strategy, and again there is no need to place such requirements in this Bill. Network Rail has released its approach to digital signalling for 2024 to 2029, setting out the routes that will be converted to digital signalling. GBR will take over that approach and would be expected to develop it in its future business plans.
To bring the focus of the discussion back to clause 15, the long-term rail strategy will ensure that the railway will always have long-term direction from this Government and future Governments. Such directions are vital for stability and confidence within the rail industry. The strategy will help to prevent the constant short-termism that has been called out by both the industry and its supply chain.
I hope that, following my response to these amendments, the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw them, and I commend clause 15 to the Committee.
Olly Glover
I apologise, Mr Western; I had forgotten I was due to speak, because we started to discuss this group the other day.
I do not have too much to say. I can understand some of the Minister’s points, but I certainly disagree with others. There is, of course, a balance between being too prescriptive and something being so woolly that it ends up being—this is a very tenuous analogy, but it could end up being like a glass of Ribena for a two-year-old, or predominantly water. That is the debate that we have been having, but I shall not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to press these two amendments to a Division, as I stated on Tuesday.
Also, I have a thought for our subsequent proceedings. We talk a lot about preserving things in aspic, but for the interest and attention of the Committee we may need a different analogy. Perhaps we should preserve things in stone, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) did in the 2015 general election. Perhaps we should turn to that analogy a bit more.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment 25, particularly his comments on the Secretary of State, so I will not press it to a Division.
Amendment proposed: 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 16, page 9, line 11, leave out “have regard to” and insert “seek to achieve”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 218, in clause 16, page 9, line 20, after “and” insert
“each single strategic authority, and”.
This amendment would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities when exercising its statutory functions.
Clause stand part.
New clause 33—Long-Term Rolling Stock Leasing Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a framework for the long-term leasing of rolling stock (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must apply to all rolling stock agreements for use on infrastructure managed by Great British Railways.
(3) The Framework must include measures to—
(a) provide that rolling stock leases entered into, renewed or extended by Great British Railways or passenger operators for use on infrastructure managed by Great British Railways, have a minimum lease term of 15 years for new or renewed rolling stock, unless the Secretary of State determines that a shorter term is justified by exceptional operational or market circumstances;
(b) require Great British Railways to assess whole-life asset cost, maintenance, refurbishment and residual value when procuring or approving leases;
(c) provide Great British Railways with the power to specify obligations in long-term leases that support accessibility, improved energy efficiency, and interoperability across the network;
(d) ensure that long-term certainty supports—
(i) manufacturers of, and
(ii) persons who maintain
rolling stock by enabling investment in skills, supply chains and technological innovation;
(e) require that lease terms are consistent with Great British Railways’ long-term network strategy, its five-year funding settlements and its access and capacity allocation duties;
(f) require Great British Railways to publish an annual statement setting out—
(i) projected rolling stock needs for the 15 years following the publication of the statement;
(ii) any lease terms agreed within the year prior to the annual statement;
(iii) an assessment of the alignment of lease arrangements with the Framework’s objectives;
(iv) a value-for-money assessment of any new or renewed leases.
(4) Before issuing or revising the Framework, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) the Passenger Council,
(c) the Office of Rail and Road, and
(d) any other persons the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(5) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out its compliance with the Framework and the reasons for any departures from the minimum lease requirement.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a Long-Term Rolling Stock Leasing Framework, and for Great British Railways to comply with this framework.
New clause 36—Rolling Stock Investment Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report containing a framework for rolling stock investment (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must include an assessment of needs for rolling stock for the period of 15 years following its publication, including—
(a) procurement of new rolling stock,
(b) refurbishment of rolling stock that is already in use,
(c) digital signalling and onboard technology upgrades,
(d) decarbonisation, and
(e) accessibility improvements.
(3) The Framework must set out the routes through which private investors may finance—
(a) new trains,
(b) refurbishments to existing stock,
(c) upgrades to low-carbon traction,
(d) modernisation of interiors of trains,
(e) predictive maintenance, and
(f) digital systems.
(4) The Framework must promote private-sector investment in energy-efficient rolling stock and accessibility improvements.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the meaning of ‘energy-efficient rolling stock’ includes hybrid, battery, or hydrogen technology.
(6) The Framework must set out how procurement undertaken by, or on behalf of, Great British Railways will—
(a) ensure competitive tendering,
(b) encourage innovation in design and maintenance,
(c) provide private investors with a stable commercial investment environment, and
(d) ensure a consistent pattern for the placement of orders.
(7) Great British Railways must align any plans for investment in the Framework with—
(a) its integrated business plan, and
(b) funding determinations for the relevant Control Period.
(8) Great British Railways must update the Framework at least once each year after it is first published, including in relation to—
(a) updating Great British Railways’ strategy for its fleet of rolling stock,
(b) opportunities for private capital investment in rolling stock,
(c) the reasons for any major changes to planned procurement,
(d) expected timelines and volumes for procurement, and
(e) how it will use private investment to—
(i) reduce whole-life cost of stock,
(ii) improve quality of stock, and
(iii) support jobs in the rail supply chain in the UK.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a rolling stock investment framework.
New clause 37—Great British Railways Accountability—
(1) Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year.
(2) The business plan set out in subsection (1) must include—
(a) a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year,
(b) how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy,
(c) the outcomes Great British Railways expects to achieve, and
(d) how these outcomes reflect the funding settlement for the relevant Control Period.
(3) Great British Railways must publish a delivery report each year (‘the Report’).
(4) The Report must set out progress made against the outcomes in the Rail Strategy, including—
(a) passenger experience,
(b) freight growth,
(c) accessibility,
(d) passenger growth,
(e) integration with housing and local transport, and
(f) long-term infrastructure and service improvements.
(5) The Report must assess Great British Railways’ performance against its statutory duties as set out in this Act.
(6) The Report must include Great British Railways’ performance against its key performance indicators set by the Office of Rail and Road, including—
(a) areas of underperformance,
(b) risks to delivery,
(c) corrective actions taken, and
(d) financial performance related to its business plan.
(7) The Office of Rail and Road must assess Great British Railways’ performance against its business plan, key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators] and statutory duties, and publish an annual assessment of its performance.
(8) If the Office of Rail and Road makes any finding of material underperformance in the assessment set out in subsection (7), it must give notice to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) Great British Railways.
(9) The Secretary of State must publish a written response within 90 days of receiving a notice under subsection (7).
(10) Within 90 days of receiving a notice under subsection (8), Great British Railways must set out—
(a) how it will rectify any underperformance identified in an assessment under subsection (7), and
(b) and how it will measure progress against any areas of underperformance.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of—
(a) each business plan under subsection (1),
(b) each delivery report under subsection (3), and
(c) each assessment made by the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (7).
(12) When the Secretary of State lays a copy of the delivery report in accordance with subsection (11)(b), a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament about the contents of the report.
(13) For the purposes of this section, ‘Control Period’ has the meaning given in any final decision taken by the Office of Rail and Road which concludes each periodic review of access charges as described in Schedule 4A of the Railways Act 1993.”
This new clause sets out a reporting and accountability framework for GBR.
Jerome Mayhew
The usual procedure applies again. Clause 16 requires both GBR and the Office of Rail and Road to “have regard to” a number of different requirements, such as the long-term rail strategy, the statutory transport or rail strategies published by the Welsh and Scottish Governments respectively, the mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. There is a key political question within this clause: why has the Minister chosen to apply a duty on GBR and the ORR to only “have regard” to those strategies? In practice, that means only that GBR and the ORR will consider transport plans, not that they must, or even should, follow or prioritise them.
That seems a slightly unusual position for the Government to take, given their keen approach to oversight of GBR in other clauses, such as 7 and 9, where it looks like they wish to maintain their role as key stakeholder over that of the devolved Governments and the mayoral combined authorities. The weak obligations are shared, whereas the strong obligations are kept primarily to themselves. It is a surprising approach, particularly given that clauses 7 and 9 effectively strip GBR of operational independence. I recognise that the Scottish Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government in Wales have their own clauses to guide and direct, but the mayoral combined authorities certainly do not. I wonder whether this clause is directed at overweening powers demanded by certain mayors, but I could not possibly look into the depths of the psychology of the Labour party as it struggles with its issues at the moment.
It is very noticeable, as Mayor Andy Burnham said to us last Tuesday in oral evidence, that there is a substantial difference between the Government’s proposed treatment under the Bill of mayoral combined authorities and that of Transport for London. There does not appear to be any rationale for that deliberate divergence—or at least not one that the Government have identified.
As other mayoral combined authorities come online, the Bill provides no formal mechanism for their wishes to be respected. Members of the Committee who were in the oral evidence session will remember that Andy Burnham said he would “insist” on greater authority in that area. The Bill as currently drafted does not provide that avenue for him or for others, so those looking for advancement in the future might like to consider their voting strategy on this clause. After all, page 33 of the Labour manifesto states:
“Mayors will have a role in designing the services in their areas.”
Can the Minister outline the mechanism for existing and future mayoralties to be put on a statutory footing, and for their local transport plans to be given greater consideration from GBR and the ORR?
There is one other question regarding this clause. It relates to subsection (3). What does GBR do if the strategy of a mayoral combined authority or Transport for London conflicts with that of the Secretary of State? How are potential conflicts between strategies resolved, and who will be the arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will there be an independent structure? With that in mind, the clause should be strengthened to ensure that GBR and the ORR respond more clearly and act under greater requirements.
That is where amendment 26 comes in. It would replace the very weak “must have regard to” with “must seek to achieve”. That change seems small on the face of it, but it would strengthen the requirement on GBR and the ORR to engage and work with mayoral combined authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Mayor of London. Will the Minister support this modest proposal to strengthen that relationship?
The clause currently restricts the duty of mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. It is silent on other strategic authorities, yet the same arguments apply to areas that are not yet or will never be mayoral combined authorities when identifying regional needs for current and future transport. We heard that concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. I hope that she will be able to expand some of her thinking on this in a moment. We have heard examples from the west country where local government reform is floundering, as it is around the country, including in Norfolk where I am a Member of Parliament. It is already delayed until 2028. That is perhaps just the first of further delays as well, as this Government lose steam. There is no idea where, when or even if it will go ahead.
There are also many areas that will never have a mayoral combined authority because of the structure of their local government settlement. We do have local transport authorities, though, which are the base level of local government that has responsibility for local transport co-ordination. It seems like a very significant omission that the Bill currently only relates to mayoral combined authorities. That is the lowest level of regional government to which it deigns to provide any form of requirement for co-operation with the ORR and GBR. Why is that? Where there is, for sound local reasons, no mayoral combined authority, why are the Government designing out the ability of local government representatives, the local democrats, to co-operate and co-ordinate with the ORR and—more importantly in this instance—GBR? What happens to their interest? There is simply no explanation as to why these large authorities, which will be the local transport authorities in their own right, have been excluded from consideration. That leads me neatly on to amendment 218, which adds them to the list.
New clause 33 requires the Government, or rather GBR, to set out a long-term rolling stock leasing framework. The clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework, and require GBR to comply with that framework. It mandates a minimum 15-year lease, save in exceptional circumstances. That is because the longer the lease, the better the value for money for the taxpayer.
Longer leases lead to lower costs, which will lead to more UK investment, more trading and better value for taxpayers, as the industry and supply chain are able to plan ahead and produce effective business plans. There is a consequence to the leasing’s being done by the public sector, rather than the private sector: the Government will have to consider the impact of the cost of leasing on the national debt. That is, after all, the logical consequence of their political decision to nationalise the railways—the operating companies. There is a cost that comes with it, and that is moving from the private sector balance book on to that of the public sector. The Government need to own the financial consequences of their political and ideologically driven decision, and that is one of them.
Rebecca Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the positives of new clause 33 and its attempt to rectify things as they stand, is that it is not throwing private investment in our rolling stock out of the window? We have heard in evidence and throughout the Bill process, whether that is in Transport Committee evidence or the Bill Committee, that millions and millions of pounds have been accepted by this Government by the private sector for rolling stock investment. If we are not careful, we will completely dissuade them from being involved. We are already seeing them moving to Europe with that investment instead.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clause 33(3)(a) to (d) is aimed at reducing short-term decisions and focusing more on long-term efficiency and savings. I am sure there are many former business people on the Labour Benches—or maybe not, actually—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are. There are many former business people on these Benches, and all those who have run businesses will know that predictability of the future is one of the key drivers of economic success and of driving down costs. New clause 33 will help to achieve that for the taxpayer.
GBR will also be mandated to produce an annual public report that enables Parliament and the public to properly hold GBR to account. We have heard time and again how light the Bill is on the ability of the public and of Parliament to hold GBR to account; we are the representatives of the people and we are being denied, by design, the opportunity to do that adequately. Yet it will be spending £20 billion-plus each year, about 50% of which, at the current rate, is public money. Why are the Government running scared of public oversight of these operations?
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I think this is an opportune moment to ask a question, as a Derby MP with Alstom in my constituency— the only place in the UK now where a train can be designed, engineered, manufactured and tested. Under the previous Government, Alstom had to make thousands of redundancies because there was just no certainty about work and there were delays on various projects. Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government did not take any steps to come up with a rolling stock strategy?
Jerome Mayhew
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not.
As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well.
New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain.
The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base.
There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise.
New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states:
“Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”,
which we have already considered, and it dictates:
“The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year”
and
“how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”.
At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include
“freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”,
which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted,
“integration with housing and local transport”
and
“the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.”
The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector.
Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action.
This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.
Olly Glover
I should have said earlier, Mr Western, that it is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship as we debate another exciting group of amendments. I want to make some brief remarks on the Conservative amendments in this group. I eagerly await the Minister’s polite but withering put-down.
Amendment 26 is a matter of wording. Alas, unlike the shadow Minister, my only experience of the law is occasionally watching “Kavanagh QC”, a reference that no doubt reveals my age. I shall await the Minister’s comments on that amendment and shall reach a view in the no doubt incredibly nail-bitingly tight Division on it. On amendment 218, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to get mayoral consultation right, and to have plenty of it.
New clause 33 seems sensible, given the Conservatives’ and Labour’s total obsession with rolling stock leasing rather than purchase, which I find utterly bizarre. Rolling stock leasing can make sense, particularly when gilt prices or the cost of capital is high, but it is quite expensive on a whole-life cost basis. Otherwise, why would rolling stock companies do it? There are some very nice people in them, but they are not charities. Rolling stock leasing happens elsewhere in Europe, but it is not as universal as it is here. However, that feels like either yesterday’s war or tomorrow’s—probably not today’s.
On new clause 36, I note that the shadow Minister has tabled amendments about the private sector to similar effect in group 36. I politely suggest to him that, in the same way that members of the governing party can sometimes be too ideologically committed to the idea that public sector is automatically better, the evidence does not necessarily support the view that private sector is automatically better in the rail context. It is context-dependent. ORR benchmarking from 2012 showed that our train driver and rolling stock maintenance costs, both of which have been in the private sector for some time, were generally significantly higher at that time than those of our European counterparts. I do not believe that those trends have changed significantly.
I would be interested to hear from the shadow Minister and from the Government the evidence that private sector is automatically better than public sector, or vice versa. I think it depends on the context. Perhaps more important is getting requirements and specifications for tenders right or deciding in each individual context the best way to get value on a whole-life cost basis. We definitely have a problem on the railway, and perhaps as a nation as a whole, with being obsessed with getting up-front capital costs down, but there is not quite the same level of attention for a decent appraisal of whole-life costs and deciding how to move forward on that basis.
On new clause 37, I understand the intention of an annual business plan, but my slight worry is that it could undermine the logic of the five-year funding review period. Perhaps the shadow Minister can address that when he sums up.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a couple of small points to make. Cornwall has a very well-developed local integrated transport plan and devolution of bus franchising as well. Will the Minister reassure Members representing non-mayoral areas that GBR will have some regard to the solid local plans we already have in place?
The shadow Minister commented on running businesses. In a previous life, I was an equity partner in a law firm. Some of us have done a lot of other things. It might be worth considering how many shadow Ministers now in opposition worked in the public services they ran as well.
Rebecca Smith
I want to make a few comments in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham. He suggested that I might want to make some comments on amendment 218. I acknowledge the comments and the request for clarification and reassurance from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who, like me, often speaks about issues with railway service in the far south-west. What is going on in Cornwall is good. It is a devolved county that has been given foundation status. Devon has something similar, but Plymouth is not part of that, so the way in which transport strategies are being developed at the moment is further complicated. Local government reorganisation will not solve that problem; it will take further devolution. I believe Devon has been told that it will not be in the next round of opportunities to be a mayoral authority.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member, who is advocating for her constituents. Within London, Transport for London operates at least four lines—the Elizabeth, Central, Lioness and Metropolitan lines—all of which leave the London boundary. They would therefore potentially enter the boundaries of strategic authorities. If the amendment were passed, which would Great British Railways need to have regard to: the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority’s transport strategy?
Rebecca Smith
I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard. I do not see how that would be contrary to what is going on in London.
I will briefly speak to the new clauses and then bring my comments to a close. It is worth looking at the rolling stock leasing framework, and I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about pursuing a leasing framework. At the end of the day, let us be real: the Government and the country at this point in time are not in a position simply to buy new rolling stock just because GBR comes into ownership. Forgive me if I am wrong—I am not an expert on this—but ultimately there will be some requirement to continue leasing. As much as it would be great to have brand-new trains that all look identical and all do the same thing, realistically we are just not in that position.
That leads me to one point that has come up in some of the evidence sessions I have sat in, which is accessibility. I know that a lot is being done to ensure that accessibility is central to the Bill and that people who need access to trains are considered. The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised this issue specifically for those outside the disabled community, including people of particular ages who have mobility needs. We heard from Lord Hendy that it could actually be decades before we see an improvement to accessibility because of the rolling stock. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham would give due regard to putting some system in place to ensure that that those accessibility improvements are looked at strategically and on a rolling basis—so to speak. I believe that the amendments add something, given the argument for accessibility.
We have talked a lot about supply chain manufacturing, which amendment 36 is about. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Derby South. Ultimately, we need to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for our manufacturing sector. I have already mentioned the defence sector; we have a huge requirement for our advanced manufacturing at the moment and we need that certainty. We have seen the role that private sector investment plays in the development of rolling stock. That is not to say that the private sector is better than the public sector—I happen to believe that they are both important in the right proportions—but we have had so much investment from the private sector while the railway has been privatised. To just walk away from that on an ideological basis does not seem right.
Rebecca Smith
Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.
Laurence Turner
Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.
Rebecca Smith
The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety.
The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea. If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them.
First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs.
On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR.
The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.
Keir Mather
I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.
Rebecca Smith
On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate.
For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables.
We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway.
New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement.
New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements.
On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy.
Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments.
Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
This is now a common refrain in our deliberations. The Minister says, “Don’t worry. All these things will be taken care of at some future date in documents that have not been drafted and certainly haven’t been shared with the Committee.” With the greatest respect to him, I do not take it on trust that the Government are looking carefully and in sufficient detail at these matters, so I will press the amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd February 2026
(4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2026 - (3 Feb 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. I remind Members that the selection and grouping documents show the way in which amendment and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 25
Designation of services by Secretary of State
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 227, in clause 26, page 14, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.
Clause 26 stand part.
Amendment 228, in clause 27, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, Welsh ministers must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.
Clause 27 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room.
Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.
The explanatory notes state:
“The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail. This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.”
The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State?
The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding. This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation.
The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight. Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it.
I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest. Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations.
In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales. It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee.
On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227.
Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228. It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland. Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales.
The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on.
Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales. It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mrs Barker, and to everybody—another day in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, which seek to ensure that the designation of passenger services does not negatively impact rail freight or undermine GBR in network capacity planning activity.
I hope it is helpful if I clarify that clauses 25 to 27, which set out designation powers of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers for passenger services, only describe a very high-level mechanism for assigning responsibility for passenger services. For example, the designation helps make clear who is responsible for the service. Further clarity is provided by exemption from designation to show where services have been devolved to other authorities, such as to mayoral strategic authorities or Transport for London. Designation is not a detailed service specification, nor does it determine network access or capacity allocation.
Last week, we published a draft of the Secretary of State’s designation letter to help clarify that, and copies are available in the room today. Ministers’ designation powers do not override or conflict with GBR’s role in determining network access. The access decision process requires GBR to balance passenger and freight needs. The safeguards in the Bill, including the statutory duty to promote rail freight or the ORR’s oversight and appeals body to protect fare freight access are also unaffected by designation. The amendment is therefore impractical and unnecessary and would not achieve its intended purpose in practice.
Protecting rail freight, which I fully endorse, is already enshrined within the Bill. For absolute clarity, I must emphasise that the access clauses in the Bill set out the stages through which network access is determined. It is not determined or affected by designation. The access clauses include producing the infrastructure capacity plan, which will set out GBR’s view of how best to use GBR’s infrastructure to accommodate freight, open access and publicly funded passenger services, as well as maintenance and improvement of the network. GBR will take into account its infrastructure capacity plan when allocating capacity. In comparison, designation is simply the method of determining whether a service should be devolved to, for example, a local authority, or maintained by the Secretary of State and run by GBR. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism by which responsibility for who should run passenger rail services is determined. Clauses 26 and 27 replicate this, but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. The Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services which GBR or others—including Transport Scotland or Transport for Wales—may run for them. Designation powers will also assist in providing clarity about which Minister has responsibility to provide, or contract for, cross-border services. Ministers can also exempt services from these designations, which is the way that services can be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. That was the mechanism used to allow Transport for London to run its devolved service. As I have mentioned, the new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not include route level or timetable detail. Designation is therefore entirely separate from access or timetabling decisions.
Jerome Mayhew
As I intimated previously, I will put the first amendment to a Division and then we will take a view after that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
Clauses 28 and 29 enable the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to exempt certain railway passenger services from designation. Exempting a service means that the Secretary of State or devolved Ministers will not be responsible for that service. Instead, responsibility can be devolved to someone else—for example, a mayoral strategic authority—for them to run or contract out the service. That mechanism preserves the existing approach for devolving services to mayoral strategic authorities and their transport agencies, such as Transport for London or Merseytravel, and for light rail networks such as in Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State cannot exempt Scotland-only or Wales-only services, because those fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Clause 29 allows devolved Governments to determine which services fall outside designation, offering flexibility in managing their respective networks.
These clauses are necessary to ensure that there is still a way to devolve services, where that can bring benefits and is the best outcome for the network. Exemptions must be made by regulations, ensuring that the allocation of responsibility for passenger services is transparent. Clause 30 provides supplementary provisions for exemptions under clauses 28 and 29. It allows exemptions to apply to specific persons, classes of persons, services generally or parts of services. Exemptions may be conditional or time-limited, so that decisions to devolve services can be tailored to the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Jerome Mayhew
You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states:
“All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.”
That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted. It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement.
Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.
Keir Mather
I can start by confirming that existing exemptions from designation will be retained. I hope that provides an assurance to the shadow Minister. The powers could be used to allow devolved Administrations to determine which services fall outside of designations, and therefore give them flexibility in meeting the needs of passengers relying on services that otherwise could fall through the cracks. I hope that, having provided the shadow Minister with that assurance, he can support these clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Provision of railway passenger services
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert
“by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.”
This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 170 to 172.
New clause 6—Repeal of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024—
“The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 is repealed.”
This new clause repeals the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 32, page 17, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment requires pre-award publication of public service contracts.
Clause 32 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023.
Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers.
Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty.
There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.
Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.
Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well.
Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner.
If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.
Jerome Mayhew
It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry.
Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity.
Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me.
New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services.
We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future.
I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.
Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards.
The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself.
Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.
Olly Glover
Apologies. One recognises one’s status.
We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.
I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.
Keir Mather
May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.
I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.
The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.
Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.
Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.
Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.
The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.
Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s response demonstrates an extraordinary lack of confidence by the Government in the efficacy of nationalisation—the very thing that they are seeking to promote in the majority of the Bill. All that amendments 41 to 43 would do is give the Secretary of State flexibility by making them able by law, in certain circumstances, to give a contract for passenger services to the private sector. They would not require it; they are not saying that this is a battle between privatisation and nationalisation. The only ideological battle here is by the Government, who are saying that it is impossible to conceive of any circumstance in which a private business might be able to offer better value for money for the taxpayer and a better service for passengers than a nationalised part of GBR. They are so concerned that a private business might be offered that opportunity, because they are overwhelmingly better, that they are seeking to legislate to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Would the shadow Minister follow the logic of his argument as far as to say that the Conservative Government that passed the Railways Act 1993 were ideologically motivated and acted in an ideological manner, given that that Act barred the public sector from taking on franchises?
Jerome Mayhew
I was 23 at the time, and I certainly was not following every clause of the 1993 Act as it went through the House—I accept that that shows a shocking lack of dedication to my future career. We can re-argue the battles of the early 1990s or we can seek to learn from the mistakes of the past, if the hon. Gentleman claims that they are mistakes, but let us not repeat them in the opposite direction, which is exactly what the clause is intended to do. If he is right that that was a mistake then, on his own logic, it is equally right that this is a mistake, and I look forward to him supporting me as we vote on amendment 41.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 148, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment removes the power to give binding directions over fares.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services.
Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion.
If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions
“are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”,
or in other words,
“they are a last resort”.
The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister accept that in recent years, when Transport for London was negotiating its fare settlements, the previous Government dictated the level of fares that should be charged not just for the congestion charge, but for passenger rail services? The Conservative Secretary of State and Government were doing that very thing in negotiations with Transport for London for rail passenger services in London.
Jerome Mayhew
I think we have to decide what GBR is going to be. Is it going to be a stand-alone organisation that is trying to run itself efficiently, providing value for money for the taxpayer and hopefully, one day, a check on the Secretary of State? Or is it going to be a creature of the Department for Transport that is told what to do and having its decisions second-guessed? This is a big decision that the Government have to take.
The clause creates a huge risk of stasis, as GBR gets bossed around and becomes a passive recipient of instructions from the Department for Transport. I worry that it is a recipe for future disaster, so I have questions for the Minister. What factors will the Secretary of State take into account when deciding the general level and structure of fares? Why is the Secretary of State in a better position to take those decisions than GBR is, given the objects that she has set the organisation? What additional information will she use that is not available to GBR? I will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. At least it is clear that any future failure of the railways will be down to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, not to GBR, since the power to guide and then direct and then set fares lies expressly with the Secretary of State.
My amendment 45 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, thereby preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set and making that decision separate from political influence. When considering amendment 45, Rail Forum said:
“We support this as it should be for GBR, as an arm’s length body and the directing mind, to determine fares not the Secretary of State.”
Amendment 148 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would remove the power to give binding directions over fares—another version of our approach.
The clause as drafted is overreach by the Department for Transport and exactly the kind of micromanagement that the Minister claims will not happen. Why do we need these powers?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
As the shadow Minister outlined, amendment 148 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage is not overly dissimilar to Conservative amendment 45 in what it tries to achieve, but I will come at it from a slightly different angle. Clause 33, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue binding directions to Great British Railways on the level and structure of fares. We have said many times that the Bill already grants the Secretary of State extensive influence over GBR. Allowing binding directions on fares risks tipping that influence into outright micro-management. It opens the door to the imposition of short-term political decisions, rather than long-term, evidence-based decisions about fares being made by those responsible for actually running the railways. It is a tool that can be misused, particularly in times of fiscal or political pressure.
Even if the current Government assure us that they would not misuse the power, the problem is that once it exists, it exists for all future Governments. I hope the Government will recognise the inherent risk in that and support amendment 148, thereby preventing not only themselves but all future Secretaries of State from being able to abuse the power.
Keir Mather
On the role of the Secretary of State in setting parameters for fares, we have had a lot of debate in the Committee about the need to ensure efficiency on behalf of taxpayers, who are also passengers on the railway. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has the democratic responsibility to do so; therefore, it is right that the power exists to set broad parameters as they relate to fares. However, that process must be undertaken transparently. Parameters will be set through guidance and public service contracts, which will be published and open to scrutiny. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can direct on fares, but not that she will do so regularly. That is important to the point about overreach, and the exceptional circumstances in which direction might be a wise provision to have in the legislation. I will turn to that later.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Can the Minister give a few examples of the exceptional circumstances that might cause the power to be used?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member is far too eager. I shall turn to that in due course.
Amendment 148 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing directions to GBR relating to fares, and amendment 45 would do the same for directions and guidance. I remind hon. Members that, as I said when we debated the directions and guidance clauses earlier in the Bill, the strategic parameters and guardrails that the Secretary of State will set for GBR on fares may not ultimately be delivered through directions and guidance by default.
Clause 33 already allows for provisions on fares parameters and guardrails to be included in public service contracts awarded to GBR for operating passenger services. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances, which may necessitate a swift reappraisal of the strategic approach to fares. That is precisely what the Secretary of State’s directions-making power allows for, supplemented by the ability to issue guidance, to ensure a clear and speedy response if there is a crisis or unexpected change in context.
Amendments 148 and 45 would remove those options for the Secretary of State and, in fact, for Scottish Ministers where GBR is operating services that they designate. The Government strongly believe that that is not in the interests of passengers or taxpayers. I agree with Opposition Members that we do not want Ministers interfering with day-to-day fares policy. GBR will have the freedom to define its fares policy within the parameters and guardrails set out, simplifying fares, removing duplication and, in turn, improving value for money. It will therefore be set up to succeed from the outset. Contrary to what Opposition Members believe, the powers in clause 33 do not undermine that.
Edward Morello
I know it has probably been overused already in the Committee, but I keep returning to the NHS England example. The Government set up arm’s length bodies and Ministers are then invariably unable to resist the urge to tinker. The Government devolve responsibility out and then realise that having something completely arm’s length, which they have no control over, is very unattractive when they are politically responsible. What starts off being explained as happening only in exceptional circumstances invariably becomes day to day. The amendments are an attempt to protect against a repeat of the mistake with NHS England, which the Government are now having to unpick.
Keir Mather
We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.
Olly Glover
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?
Keir Mather
These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister says Great British Railways, not the Department for Transport, will run the railways. He says that is different from the set-up for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Was that not exactly the reason NHS England was set up, albeit not by his Government: to run the NHS so that the Department did not have to? I do not see the conceptual difference here at all; what I do is see the inconsistency in the Government getting rid of NHS England because that model does not work and bringing in GBR in the context of transport.
The Chair
Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I remind colleagues that we are not debating NHS England.
Keir Mather
We may have to hash this out in our own time. There is a principle around the replication of functions between organisations. The principle of GBR is that once those decision-making powers are taken out of the Department for Transport—this is the single-mind approach to access decisions, charging and best use of the railway—there is not replication and burdensome inefficiencies in how those functions are designated and actualised by the different organisations. I believe that the difference lies in that point.
To return to my previous remarks, and on the basis of what I have explained, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
I am wholly unpersuaded. The Minister did his best, but he cannot hide from the huge disparity between setting up a stand-alone arm’s length business, which is meant to run itself efficiently and with dynamism, and taking away its revenue-driving function. It is ridiculous. We will end up with an organisation that is second-guessed by the Department for Transport. We all say it is the Secretary of State, but of course it is not; it is many hundreds of DFT officials. They will each no doubt do their best as they see it, but they will be second-guessing the role of the industry organisation. That is not a recipe for an effective management structure, and I will push amendment 45 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 47 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 52 to 55, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families.
Amendment 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 48, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 53, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 49, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 54, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 50, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 55, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Clause stand part.
New clause 51—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.
(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—
(a) is a member of the armed forces;
(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or
(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.
(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.
(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.
New clause 59—Police officer fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PSCO) under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services.
(2) Regulations under this section must only make provision for police officers who—
(a) present a valid warrant card or PCSO designation card,
(b) are in full uniform or are undertaking such travel for operational purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause requires all rail operators to permit free travel for police officers on all passenger services, subject to certain requirements.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled.
The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards.
Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice.
Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue.
Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick.
I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.
Olly Glover
We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see.
Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity.
The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice.
On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.
Daniel Francis
I will briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 does not have many of these components. Yet the Mayor of London allows a number of discounts, including for veterans, care leavers, apprentices and people who are unemployed and seeking work. They are not on the face of that legislation, but those exemptions do exist, including for veterans, and I am sure the Minister will cover those points in due course. However, there is other legislation where that is the case. At no point in their 14 years did the previous Government attempt to amend that Act to provide that exemption for veterans, so that is the position that remains.
I remind Members of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 causes some concern with its reference to fares being “one third lower” because in many cases that would represent a fare increase for wheelchair users and blind passengers.
Rebecca Smith
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on amendments 46 to 50. I too am surprised that the Government are not seeking to enshrine the right to a veterans railcard on the face of the Bill. While it is laudable that they want to ensure that those long-fought-for discount fare schemes remain for young, elderly or disabled people, I believe that not making the veterans railcard a statutory discount is a backward step and will send a particularly strong message to that community, who we know are quite agitated by a lot of what is being done by this Government, particularly around the prosecution of veterans for previous conduct. Not to use this Bill as an opportunity to put this provision on the statute book is a retrograde step.
I want to pay tribute to the former Member for Plymouth Moor View, Johnny Mercer, who drove putting the veterans railcard in place in the first place through the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He said at the time that it underlined the “debt of gratitude” that we owe to our veterans. They are ultimately men and women who have fought hard for our country, and the opportunity to receive that discount in perpetuity—whether they have served one day or 100—is something that we should be proud of as a country and should seek to enshrine in legislation. The same goes for the opportunity for serving personnel to travel with their families.
I will be very surprised if the Government vote against the amendment: that would send a very clear message to our veterans community that they are valued more greatly by the Conservatives than by Labour. Although I am sure there is no ill intent behind the omission of the veterans railcard in the Bill, we have to think about the messaging and the political point that is being made. It would be relatively easy to put the veterans railcard in law so that it cannot be changed in the future, and I would support that. As has been said, the Bill does not prevent it from being added later, but I wonder why we are not seeking to enshrine it in law now.
Keir Mather
I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage for the amendments, which are about discounted travel for members of the UK armed forces, veterans, their families and the police.
On amendments 46 to 55, first and most importantly, the Government fully recognise the enormous contributions made by members of the UK armed forces, UK veterans and their families. I am pleased to confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard, which also covers family members of serving personnel. Those are valuable discounts for people who have sacrificed in the public interest, and the Government are rightly committed to them.
In our view, however, it is not necessary to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill,. The Bill gives continued statutory protection to the discount schemes that are already protected by the Railways Act 1993 to ensure consistency for groups for whom cost has historically been a particular barrier to travel, to ensure that our railway continues to be inclusive and to be consistent with previous Acts. That does not mean that other discount schemes are not at the forefront of our mind and will not continue.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Keir Mather
As I have just mentioned, we want to carry over those schemes to provide consistency for those groups. We are carrying over the role of the discretionary schemes as set out in legislation. We think that consistency is important but, for reasons that I will come to later, we also believe it is important that GBR is able to move in an agile way and think about evolving needs when it comes to concessionary travel. It is important, in terms of legislative carry-over, to ensure that that remains in place.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister says that he wants GBR to remain agile, but does he foresee a situation in which it is agile by removing the veterans railcard? If he says no, as I suspect he will, why does he not put that on the face of the Bill and support our veterans?
Keir Mather
For the reasons I have just outlined. I have already confirmed that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, which include the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the veterans scheme is incredibly important, that we all agree with it being there, and that there are absolutely no plans to remove it.
Keir Mather
Yes, I am very eager to agree with my hon. Friend.
This is a serious point. In my constituency, I see the difficulty that veterans have in attending Selby Abbey to mark the enormous contribution that people in our armed services have made across many conflicts. I would have thought that this is personal to every single member of this Committee, which is why I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend.
Laurence Turner
Does the Minister agree that there is a comparison with the disabled persons railcard, the criteria for which have been significantly expanded? That change is due to be implemented over the coming months, and that has been possible only because there was not a restrictive statutory definition in primary legislation. Our understanding of disability has changed since the legislation was passed, and we would not want to restrict ourselves unnecessarily for the future.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is absolutely right to note that we want the concessionary schemes to be able to evolve to reflect the needs and lived experiences of those they are designed to help. I will expand on that point in more detail later.
I will make some progress now. We are of the view that minimising the number of listed discounts on the face of the Bill will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements over time, reflecting passenger needs and other objectives. For example, in the future it might be desirable to rationalise the existing concessionary offer for current and former military personnel and their families to ensure consistent terms and conditions between the armed forces and veterans. GBR should be able to consider such options but, if we enshrine the schemes in primary legislation, it will become virtually impossible to amend and improve them.
The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community through travel discounts and other means. For that reason, while I sincerely understand the motivation behind the amendments, the Government do not believe they are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw them.
New clause 51 requires GBR to provide free travel
“to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.”
As I have said, the Government remain committed to all those who serve, and that includes supporting their attendance at events commemorating Remembrance Sunday. Last year, as in previous years, the Government worked closely with the rail industry to ensure that serving members of the armed forces and veterans were eligible for free travel to and from services of remembrance across the country. Likewise, Poppy Day volunteers and collectors—and their children—travelling to the London Poppy Day events were given complimentary travel to support their fundraising efforts on behalf of the Royal British Legion.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.
Keir Mather
While I do not anticipate provision around the specific instance the hon. Lady described—for example the poppy train being frozen into the licence of GBR—I do expect that GBR will be minded and motivated to continue to ensure that members of the armed forces community, veterans and their families can attend Remembrance Sunday services across the country. In our view, concessionary travel more broadly will improve the ability to do that. It will allow GBR to set provisions in an agile manner through an evolving concessionary fares scheme, rather than freezing them as part of the Bill—and, moreover, to set provisions that are not already locked into legislation and do not therefore need to be carried over, in the interest of consistency for the groups that they affect.
Turning back to my remarks on Poppy Day volunteers travelling to events with their children, I do look forward to that policy continuing in the years to come, although precise arrangements for how that will work will be confirmed closer to the time. All that being the case, we do not see the need for legislative amendments. These are things that the Government and rail industry already strongly support and have been providing for many years. A regulatory framework would only complicate delivery, which is more effectively facilitated at the operational level, so, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of new clause 51, I urged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw it.
New clause 59 requires GBR to provide a scheme enabling free rail travel for police officers and police community support officers who are in full uniform or who are travelling for operational purposes. The Government gratefully acknowledge the service of police officers across the country and all that they do to keep us safe. The speed, skill and professionalism of the response by British Transport police and other brave first responders to the horrific train attack in Huntingdon last year is just one example of how police officers and all our emergency services save lives every day across our country.
While I understand the intention of the new clause in supporting that vital work, the Bill is not the correct place to set out the requirements for such a scheme. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage knows, any new staff travel scheme should be the product of negotiations between the relevant organisations. To prescribe a scheme in primary legislation sidelines that process and risks the creation of a scheme that is not fit for purpose, as well as unfunded financial impacts to the railway. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of the new clause, the Bill is not the appropriate avenue to establish such a scheme, and I urge the hon. Member not to move it.
Clause 34 ensures that GBR will be able to provide discount schemes, such as those offered today as railcards. First, the clause continues the 1993 Act’s statutory protection for young, senior and disabled passenger discounts. Prices are historically more likely to be a barrier to these groups’ accessing rail travel, and they are covered by the protected characteristics of age and disability. Maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation supports equal access to employment, education and essential services. It is worth noting that, while other concessionary discounts are not included in the Bill, the Government recognise that they too are important, and there are no plans to withdraw any of the discounted schemes currently being offered.
Nevertheless, the clause also gives GBR the flexibility required to simplify and modernise discount schemes across the network, and to evolve the offer where that is considered desirable to meet passenger needs in the future. Finally, the clause ensures that devolved operators will still be required to offer the core statutory discounts, and that they will have flexibility over whether to participate in the GBR scheme or to create their own.
Jerome Mayhew
It is extraordinary that the Government say, on the one hand, that age and disability need to be included in primary legislation, but on the other hand that it is totally unnecessary to have the same security for veterans. We on the Conservative side of the House do not accept that logic and we will be pushing amendments 46 to 55, individually, to votes.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 57 to 60, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people aged 26-30.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 57, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 58, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 59, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 60, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Jerome Mayhew
This should be a short debate, since amendments 56 to 60 serve a single function: to defend the long-term provision of discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds. Although clause 34 refers to discounts for the young, there is potential for the definition to exclude discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds—and that is young to me, at least. Amendments 56 to 60 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people in this age group. Given the Government’s willingness to identify some characteristics as worthy of discounts in primary legislation—the young, elderly or disabled—what is the principled objection to including other, equally worthy groups? I will press the amendment to a Division.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments, which would place a statutory duty on GBR and on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to ensure that discounted rail fare schemes are available for persons aged 26 to 30—I do not know whether I should declare an interest, as a holder of one of those railcards.
The Government have stated that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the 26-30 railcard, but we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to list specific age ranges in the Bill in the way proposed. Listing specific age ranges would be unnecessarily inflexible. The Government are absolutely committed to retaining discount schemes for younger people; however, much of the current discount system is fragmented due to its origin in the franchising system, so GBR may want to rationalise the existing range of discount schemes currently targeting younger people to simplify duplicative and overlapping offers and age ranges between 16 and 30, for example, as part of introducing a modernised, more consistent offer for passengers.
Given that Acts of Parliament are drafted to last a generation or more, placing specific age ranges in the Bill would likely remove those opportunities and potentially limit opportunities for young people. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister says that he wishes to have flexibility. The whole point is that we are trying to remove flexibility, so that GBR cannot take away discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds in the future. The Minister’s argument actually increases my concern that that is a realistic prospect in the Government’s mind, and I feel even more strongly that we should divide in order to ensure that discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds are protected in the long term.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, in clause 34, page 19, line 10, leave out “lower fare” and insert
“fare that is one third lower”.
This amendment would ensure that discounted fares remain at one third off the price of a standard fare.
New clause 13—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that.
Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it.
New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.
Daniel Francis
I again declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.
Amendment 62 appears to refer not to railcards but to all ticketing. As I have said, it would result in an increase for many tickets for wheelchair users and blind and visually impaired people. As the parent of a child who is a wheelchair user, I know that the discount on a ticket for wheelchair users is 75%, and it is the same for an adult day return. For blind and visually impaired users the discount on an adult day return is 50%.
Some discounts also apply to the carer or companion of the wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. That provision is not included in the Bill, yet the Opposition thought it was more important to table an amendment to introduce a discount for 26 to 30-year-olds than to table one on a discount for the carer of a wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. I anticipate that the Government will confirm that the discount remains for carers and companions, and in my mind that does not need to be included in the Bill. I certainly do not support amendment 62, as it would undo the current, more generous discount arrangements for wheelchair users and blind or visually impaired passengers, and cause an increase in their fare.
Jerome Mayhew
This may shock the Committee, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and his expertise has exposed a lack of knowledge on my part. I was not aware that the discount in that circumstance was in excess of one third. Given that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful for his contribution.
Olly Glover
I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do.
On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense.
I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport.
Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.
Edward Argar
Is the hon. Member aware that, although not in a domestic context, there have in the past been schemes in which, instead of air miles, points or miles have been available—for example, with Eurostar—and they were extremely popular?
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.
Rebecca Smith
It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.
Edward Morello
I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.
It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.
Keir Mather
Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.
Keir Mather
Well, there we are.
Let me start by responding to what the shadow Minister described as a probing amendment. He asked me to set out a little more detail on how we envisage the use of conditions on discounts, and I want to reflect the intent that he described. We want to ensure that eligibility for concessionary schemes and discounts is kept up to date, is reflective and is rationalised where necessary. A good example could be changing terms and conditions to change the eligibility criteria for the disabled railcard to include non-visible disabilities, which we have committed to in the accessibility road map. The intent to make sure that discounts are reflective of the lived experience of those who rely on them very much lies behind the provisions.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 61, which would seek to remove GBR’s ability to set conditions on the use of discounted fare schemes. As drafted, the legislation will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements, if necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and passenger needs. More generally, it is worth noting again that the future framework on fares introduces clear and enforceable mechanisms that can be used to hold GBR to account, to ensure it delivers value for passengers and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers. Under this model, the Secretary of State will set parameters and guardrails aligned to GBR’s financial settlements. We believe that strikes an effective balance between strategic oversight and operational independence.
Jerome Mayhew
As I intimated, I am happy to withdraw amendment 61, which is more of a probing amendment, and I will not move amendment 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 47 to 50 and 52 to 55. Divisions are granted at the discretion of the Chair. Although I understand the importance to the hon. Gentleman of the principle of the amendments, the Committee has already made a decision on the principles, so I am not inclined to allow further Divisions.
Jerome Mayhew
In the normal course of events I would not seek to have repeated amendments on variations of a theme. However, this matter is politically salient because it deals with a live political issue between the parties on discounted fares, and whether the Government support veterans and veterans’ families. Each amendment deals with a separate part of the veteran community and also with veterans’ families. It is important that we hear the Government’s view through Divisions on every single one, so I ask you to reconsider your determination, Ms Barker, because of the political salience of the individual Divisions. I am sure you will have noticed that in other areas I have been co-operative, and that I do not cause Divisions just for the sake of it, but I ask you to allow Divisions on this occasion.
Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Question put, That the amendment be made.