Railways Bill

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together.

My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?

[John McDonnell]

I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates.

Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

When I was growing up, the state of the railways, alongside the weather, was a general complaint that united most people. Thankfully, the days of the cardboard British Rail sandwich are long gone, but I regret to say that general dissatisfaction with the railway experience in my part of the world remains. That is why I welcomed the Railways Bill and the creation of Great British Railways, and I was optimistic about the renationalisation of South Western Railway, which covers my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I regret that the reliability of that service and the experience of my constituents is, if anything, worse than a year ago. I now no longer tell my family to collect me at the scheduled arrival time, but call ahead, so regular are the delays.

James, a constituent who has travelled from Wareham to London for 50 years, told me that the service has never been so poor and is not a pleasant experience. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), which would create a passenger charter. It should not be too much to ask for wi-fi that works, access to a drink or snack on a long journey, clean toilets and a guaranteed seat. Those with disabilities, bikes and prams should be able to get on and off a train and be able to put their luggage or equipment on board.

I also support new clause 6 and in particular its provision relating to fares for children. That issue was raised by students of Purbeck school when I visited last year. More than half do not stay on for sixth form, accessing colleges in Poole, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Brockenhurst. We all consider children to be children until they are 18, but not the rail companies, to whom childhood stops at 15. I presume that dates back to when we left school at 16, but we are more civilised now, and it is outrageous that a 16-year-old is considered an adult. Regardless of what happens to the new clause, please will the Government fix that?

My new clause 11 is about reducing bike thefts linked to the railways. Until February this year, bike thefts were not investigated where the bike had been left for more than two hours. That is a ridiculous position, bearing in mind that most people are going to school, out for the day or to work, and so staying away for more than two hours. The change that now allows bike thefts caught on CCTV to be investigated is great, but small rural stations such as mine at Holton Heath do not have any CCTV, so we should be preventing the bike thefts in the first place. More than 4,000 bikes were stolen from railway stations in 2024, so a modest requirement for secure cycle storage alongside car parking, or on platforms of smaller stations, seems only reasonable. I asked South Western Railway to do that voluntarily, but it refused, so my only option was to put my name to a new clause that would give passengers security and peace of mind but also reduce the need for people to drive to stations, thus supporting the railway’s role in carbon reduction.

There is an opportunity to take the railway to more people, which is why I support amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) but has, I believe, now been withdrawn. In Dorset we have a huge opportunity to revolutionise rail use through Dorset Metro, which could increase train frequency across the local area from Wareham to Christchurch and create potential new stations or halts to take the strain from the heavily congested roads. In areas where railways cannot be restored because of housing developments, the “rails to trails” programme proposed in new clause 5 provides a great opportunity. The fantastic Castleman Trailway runs through the heart of my constituency, but at Corfe Mullen it stops abruptly as it reaches the A31, and there is a missed opportunity to connect those on both sides of the community.

If we are going to let the train take the strain, it must be reliable, affordable and safe. My constituent Adam says that as things stand, he is considering moving elsewhere because travel is such a problem. While the Bill constitutes a good step, I am not sure that we can currently call this the “Great” British Railway, and I hope that the Minister will do better and accept more of the amendments to allow it to be great again.

[Cat Eccles]

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.

Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of railway accessibility. I wish to put on record, as I have been advised to by the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, that my name has been mistakenly added to new clauses 22, 59, 60, 61 and 62, but has correctly been added to new clause 23, which concerns that issue of railway accessibility.

[Cat Eccles]

The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded.

Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail.

The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed.

I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.