Railways Bill

Debate between Ben Spencer and Elsie Blundell

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

As I made clear on Second Reading, this crucial Bill is about undoing the immeasurable damage done to our rail network, to passenger confidence and to economic prosperity after decades of privatisation and woeful mismanagement.

I will focus on rail devolution. I commend the Transport Committee on its incisive report on the topic, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for the amendments drafted in her name and her clear desire for us to get the most out of this legislation. I know how much is riding on the Bill for our regional mayors, strategic authorities and, most importantly, the passengers they serve. My appeal today is to ensure that the Bill supports the Government’s devolution journey.

Transport planning is a crucial competence of our elected mayors, and where mayoral strategic authorities are truly emboldened, entire city regions, local transport networks and whole communities are strengthened as a result. We must do as much as possible to support connections that improve economic density and therefore boost growth. Our achievements in Greater Manchester are a testament to that, and the absorption of rail into the Bee Network is the critical next step in delivering on the priorities of local people.

I welcome Government amendment 136, which will enable local bodies to enter into certain arrangements with the Secretary of State, but concerns remain that it may not reflect the full capabilities of our mayoral authorities. I would welcome any assurances from the Minister that this provision will not be narrower than existing provisions set out in the Railways Act 2005. Essentially, can the Minister confirm that the amendment supports meaningful partnership with our elected combined authority mayors? As the Bill stands, engagement between Great British Rail and our mayoral authorities could be predicated on good will among officials negotiating on their behalf, with little codified in the way of a formal, statutory partnership between the two.

Mayoral strategic authorities and mayors themselves are now integral to the delivery of housing policy, urban planning and regional economic development. For them to do that role without much of a stake in local rail networks is to proceed with one arm tied behind their backs. Authorities need to be sufficiently empowered in relation to Great British Railways to get on and demonstrate that they deserve greater scope to plan transport alongside other policy areas—for example, by strategically aligning rail corridors and house building. Great British Rail cannot inhibit this kind of common-sense approach in the way that Network Rail sometimes has in the past. Great British Rail and our local rail networks must work in lockstep with spatial plans and the changes we see across our communities. That is the only way we can ensure benefits for peripheral towns as much as for the hearts of our city centres.

We also need to think about the future. We can never say with certainty how committed a future Government may be to devolution, so the Bill must enshrine a robust partnership duty to ensure that mayoral authorities have a decisive role in commissioning services, shaping specifications and influencing fares and performance outcomes. We cannot simply rely on a duty to consult.

Local transport plans are critical, too. As the Bill stands, Great British Rail should “have regard to” local transport plans—forward-looking, multi-year plans developed by local transport authorities, each with a statutory basis, that promote safe, integrated, reliable and sustainable local transport policy. Simply having regard to them could lead to rail policy being delivered entirely by Great British Rail in a silo and in isolation from wider place-based policy.

I appreciate that we are planning a national rail network, but that work must not run roughshod over local economic and transport priorities. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to consider revising the language in clause 16 from “have regard to” to “act in accordance with”. I know that, in their response to the Transport Committee’s report on this matter, the Government were clear in their view that the current language is sufficient, but I am keen to stress that this Bill is about not just the next few years but the next few decades. We need to set an irreversible course for sustained devolution, and doing so means GBR not just regarding the plans, but fully aligning with them. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that.

I offer my full support to this crucial legislation, and I thank the Government for their continued engagement. Our regional leaders have an invaluable contribution to make in engaging with GBR; for that to be realised, we need to move beyond notions of consultation and towards equal and productive partnerships between mayoral strategic authorities and our rail network’s new guiding mind. That means making train travel and other forms of public transport better for passengers across the country, irrespective of where that may be, and ultimately driving economic growth. This ambition must be what guides us going forward, and that is how passengers nationwide will come to judge what we are doing here today.