Railways Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

Finally, we need a great British spruce-up of all our stations. As we roll out GBR, I want everything to look really good at our stations. Also, I have been reassured by my conversations with the Rail Minister about names on trains. I was worried, as we painted them all red, white and blue, that the names that people have chosen and which show pride in place might disappear—or, indeed, that we might not get any new ones. I hope the Minister will join my campaign to get the next train painted red, white and blue in my area named Q Central, after the fantastic women who were part of that organisation during world war two, which was the communications hub for the whole of the UK. It would be fantastic if the first GBR-branded train bore that name.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents.

I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe.

I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced.

Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action.

I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability.

Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound

“to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”.

We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers.

I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.

Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.

This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.

I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.

My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.

The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.

For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.

Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name.

My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics.

I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency.

A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies.

New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time.

New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?

[Dr Spencer]

I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced.

New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens.

New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport.

That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.