Railways Bill

Debate between Andy McDonald and Lewis Cocking

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for supporting the point I was making. The Elizabeth line was a new line with new trains going along it, but currently, planning applications are submitted and the response is: “This development is next to a railway station. We will grant the planning permission.” There are no new services. There are no extra trains. The only consequences for the line are the thousands of houses that are built near it. If my constituency were served by HS2 or we were getting a new train, that would be a completely different matter, but when capacity is being added to existing services and when that planning process is taking place, there is nothing to say that there must be more trains and a more frequent service, and the trains have to be longer during the rush hour to deal with the extra housing.

We need to look at how communication with rail users can be improved and at how this nationalised rail service will work, because, as I have said, the service in my area was one of the first to be nationalised and my constituents have seen no benefit at all.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others.

Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry.

But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.

I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership.

Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.