Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Andrew Ranger Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Q Mr McDonald, it is an interesting that the extent of rail devolution in Wales and Scotland is at rather different levels; perhaps I can put it that way. The Welsh Government have long called for greater devolution of rail policy. Does the Bill, and all that comes with it, give you hope for progressing that ambition?

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 Thank you both for coming in. This question is for both of you. Clause 80 of the Bill puts a duty on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers if it appears that a decision that it makes would “significantly affect the interests” of the Scottish or Welsh economy, or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland or Wales. Is “significantly affect” the right test? Is it a strong enough term to ensure consultation, or is there a risk that it will allow GBR and different personnel to make such a determination based on their own judgment?

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 I live in north-east Wales, but across many other parts of the country the complexity of cross-border services is also significant. In the Welsh case, the Welsh Government own TfW, which carries out lots of services in north-west England and Manchester; there are other such examples around the country. Are the mechanisms in the Bill appropriate for managing those complexities? What about the implied extra level of agreement and the working with different bodies, such as mayoralties, local authorities and the new devolution going on around the country? I would be interested in your views.

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 Mr Reeve, do you have anything to add?

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Q Finally, it has been indicated that GBR’s ticket functions, website and app will be subject to the code of practice, and in theory enforced by the ORR, backing this up. Ben Plowden highlighted that in his evidence, and others mentioned it. Is it the case that GBR’s ticket functions will be subject to the code of practice in full?

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 On the devolution aspect, how does the Bill reflect the interests of passengers and businesses’ needs, particularly in Wales, and ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient input into decision making?

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 When do you think the memorandum of understanding will be ready?

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.)