Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Smith]

I do not think I said this earlier, because I was merely intervening, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.

I appreciate what the Minister just set out in correcting the record from last week, because a lot of what I was going to say had to do with the lack of the licence. In spite of what he said, I still think that it is a problem for us to be debating clause 11, and later schedule 1, without that detail in front of us. It is very generous of him to say that we can be part of the consultation process, but given that we are encumbered with being here for 10 hours a week, I am not quite sure when would be able to do that. With all due respect, I still want to put on record how disappointing it is that we do not yet have the licence. Ultimately, Great British Railways is entirely premised on that licence: it does not operate without it, cannot deliver its functions without it, and will not create this supposedly amazing utopia of perfection for passengers and infrastructure deliverers alike without it.

Debating the clause without that context feels like a completely wasted opportunity—indeed, I fear that this debate will be incredibly short. This is something that I have seen happen with other Bills. The Minister will say that this is what the Opposition would also have done, but we were not in the position to set up Great British Railways, which—next to the NHS—will be the biggest Government-funded and backed body in this country. Without the scrutiny of hon. Members this morning, we cannot do our job properly.

Such scrutiny is in the interest of all the stakeholders—the public, the staff who work for all the railway companies that are to be brought into Great British Railways, and all the other stakeholders that provide services through open access or freight. Whether it is the coffee shop in a station or the trolley service on the train, all these people need this information, and I am disappointed that we cannot provide that scrutiny at this stage in the debate. I would welcome the opportunity to see the draft as soon as it is out, but it is disappointing that has not come in time for debate in Committee. No doubt similar comments will be made on Report and, hopefully, in the other place.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. When I asked the question and he, with alacrity, answered, I did catch the expression on one of his official’s faces; I have to say that I have, on occasion, found myself in that position in the past, so I sensed what might have been coming.

I have to say that I am deeply disappointed. Although it is important that stakeholders are engaged, this legislation has been some time in the making. The licence is at the heart of how GBR will operate, so the fact that not even a skeleton draft will be made available to hon. and right hon. Members as the Bill continues its passage through this House is deeply concerning. I will speak at greater length when we get to schedule 1, but we are effectively being asked to give the Government a blank cheque, based on assurances of intent, without actually seeing the detail of the legislation.

Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I thank Members for tabling amendments on GBR’s funding and financial framework. In this chunky group of important amendments and new clauses, I first turn to new clause 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a mid-funding period review of GBR’s funding, and new clause 41 from the shadow Minister, which seeks to create a GBR annual statement of financial performance.

In my view, the Bill already creates sufficient transparency about how GBR is funded. Further process could constitute unnecessary bureaucracy. Under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2, the Secretary of State is already required to publish details of the financial assistance given to GBR using the funding period review funding power. Under paragraph 5 of schedule 2, GBR must publish its business plan and keep it up to date throughout the five-year period. Between those two commitments, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons will already have key information about how much funding the Secretary of State is providing to GBR, and the details on GBR’s business plan to understand what GBR is doing with its money. It would be unnecessary and inefficient to conduct an extra review.

New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to set funding two years in advance of the funding period. First, I believe that it is misplaced to require that funding be committed two years in advance. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances over a five-year period, and new projects will surface. That was well acknowledged by all the witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, including those representing the railways supply chain. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance will be redundant before it even starts.

I can also assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railways with certainty, and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period. The ORR, which will run the process, intends to set deadlines so that funding is committed in time for the industry to prepare. Secondly as with new clause 26, new clause 34 seeks to introduce additional reporting requirements that are unnecessary, given the transparency requirements already provided for in the Bill.

I now turn to new clauses 39 and 40. New clause 39 would create a duty for GBR to achieve value for money and long-term fiscal sustainability. New clause 40 would require GBR to develop a transition plan toward ending any reliance on taxpayer funding within its first operational funding period. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that GBR must deliver as efficiently as it can, ensuring good value for money and reducing costs to the taxpayer, and I assure him that the Bill is already very specific about GBR’s achieving value for money. Clause 18(2)(f) includes a specific legal duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to take into account

“the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”.

The ORR must also provide advice to the Secretary of State on whether GBR’s estimated costs in GBR’s draft business plan represent good value for money, with a requirement to publish a summary of that advice as part of the funding process. That is before the Secretary of State signs off on the business plan. Therefore, the hon. Member’s intent is already achieved by the Bill, and the amendment would only create extra bureaucracy and inflexibility without adding to transparency or financial sustainability.

A statutory transition plan to eliminate taxpayer funding would be unrealistic, and would undermine the railway’s ability to achieve its social goals. The reality is that taxpayer subsidy will always be needed for some parts of the railway. For example, while we aim to have the most profitable and efficient network possible, there will always be some lower-population regions of the UK in which rail travel will not make a profit and will need taxpayer subsidy. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the Government to withdraw funding and neglect connectivity in those important rural regions, whether that be in Devon, Dorset or elsewhere—constituencies represented by Members across the Committee. Rapidly forcing GBR to operate without public support would be devastating for the economy and for the mobility of the public, not to mention reducing efficiency and the long-term capacity of the network.

Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to set and publish an annual savings target for GBR. Introducing a statutory savings target risks creating a rigid measure that might not reflect the operational realities of the railway. Efficiency is already embedded in the Bill’s framework and will be a key consideration when GBR publishes its business plan and sets out how to meet its objectives, including on efficiency. Statutory targets are therefore not required to drive performance.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

In the context of efficiency and cost, I want briefly to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. What assessment have the Government made of the financial cost of bringing together a whole range of diverse terms and conditions and salary structures, from multiple train operating companies, into GBR?

[Keir Mather]

When it comes to setting up the operational structure of GBR, including questions about workforce and staffing, it is fair to say that no piece of railway legislation for 113 years has specified in statute what the operational decisions will be. Those conversations are ongoing, as they have been while rail companies have been taken into public ownership through DfT Operator, and they are always held, I am pleased to say, in close consultation with the workforce and trade unions.

On the overall principle of cost, I would point out to the right hon. Member that the Department’s view is that establishing GBR is set to cost £200 million to £400 million overall—which is 1% to 2% of a single year of operating budget—but could unlock up to a billion pounds-worth of efficiencies across the rail sector. Value for money is not only baked into the legal duties under this legislation, but is part of GBR’s operational ethos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

May I correct an earlier omission, Mr Western, by stating that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship?

First, I want to make some general comments about this part of the Bill, which appears to be based largely on the existing five-year control period framework for rail industry planning and funding. Overall, that is a system that has been felt by the sector to work reasonably well. I had intended not to bore the Committee too much with war stories from my own time on the railway, but perhaps the only drawback of the system is that there tends to be an enormous consultant bonanza halfway through each control period, when the planning starts for the next one even while some of the plans and good intentions of the current control period gather dust on a shelf without necessarily being reviewed. That applies not so much to infrastructure enhancement, but more to process improvements for making the railway better.

First, I will say a little about our amendment 147, and then I want to speak, at perhaps rather more length than usual, about amendments 216 and 215. If there is one hill that I would be willing to perish on when it comes to this Bill and its design, it is probably the decision to not include funding for passenger services as part of the five-year funding settlement.

Our amendment 147 is basically intended to support what the Government are planning to do on five-year funding settlements, but to strengthen and protect them by simply creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to reopen their funding should a major eventuality arise. The examples that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham gave are pertinent; it is a bit of an extreme example, and hopefully we will not be there, but I think it would be reasonable to review the five-year funding of the railway in case of the outbreak of war. Our amendment would not stop the Secretary of State doing that; all it would do is require them to consult the ORR and make sure that the ORR gives written consent. It is a simple step to provide that little bit of extra governance and peer review.

I agree with the hon. Member’s comments on the shortcomings of his own amendment 129 in this area. I admire his honesty and the reflective nature of those comments—that is commendable, and something to which we can all aspire. Compared with his amendment, which would prevent variations entirely, perhaps ours is a compromise. I agree with his amendment 119, which shows good intention to make sure that the planning and funding happens in advance of the next five-year period.

Before I talk about our amendments 216 and 215, which I really do feel are critical, I want to read a couple of extracts from the policy paper on how the Government plan to fund GBR, which was published on 5 November 2025 as part of the series of factsheets on the Bill, because it will set the context for what I am about to say. The first thing that the factsheet explains is how passenger services—now known as train services—are currently funded. It states that passenger services

“run by government contracted train operating companies, such as Thameslink, are funded differently to”

Network Rail. It continues:

“The overall money available for passenger services is set at the Spending Review and then allocated via an annual business planning and funding process. Train operating companies also receive money from other sources, such as ticket fares. The train operating companies set out what they intend to deliver in annual business plans, then they seek approval from government. When approved, the contents of these plans are reflected in service agreements with the government.”

That is what the factsheet says about how things work today. It goes on to explain how things will work in future and in relation to the five-year funding review periods for other things. It states:

“Given the greater uncertainty of passenger services spend and income, due to changes in passenger demand which are difficult to predict, Passenger services will not be included within this commitment at this point. Passenger services and other activities outside of infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewal will be funded using existing powers, which will be updated to account for GBR. As these powers already work well in allowing the government to provide transparent and flexible funding to the railway industry, we have decided to keep them and continue to use the Spending Review for these aspects of GBR funding.”

Why does this matter? My real issue with the exclusion of funding for passenger services from the five-year funding review periods, and the failure to align it with infrastructure funding, is what the Rail Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy, says about the objectives of the Bill. He has said it on the record on many occasions, including in front of the Transport Committee and when speaking at the Rail Industry Association reception a couple of weeks ago. He says that one of the key aims of the Bill is to properly enable the alignment of track and train—of infrastructure and train operations. He is absolutely right about that; I agree with him very much. Having worked on both sides of the fence, for Network Rail and for train operating companies, I have seen the endless misaligned objectives, budgets and ways of working and can say that he is absolutely right in his diagnosis and his prescription. However, the omission of passenger services from the five-year funding period runs the risk of undermining that. Let me explain why.

The key issue is that critical elements of the running of the railway are included in passenger services funding. Those include staffing on stations, in rolling stock maintenance depots and, critically, of train crew—drivers, guards, conductors and so on—as well as train crew training, which for many train operators has been a complete mess since the pandemic. Often, the temptation is to paint those train operators as evil private sector ogres and figures of terror from whatever fantasy franchise one wishes to quote, but in reality, since the pandemic, they have been subject to very tightly prescribed contracts by the Department for Transport, and that has led to some very poor short-term decisions about train crew training that have, at times, led to serious service cuts. We are thankfully recovering from some of that, but not wholly: for example, CrossCountry is still running at a significantly lower level than before the pandemic.

There is also the key question of the impact on Network Rail delays. A figure is often cited by those who like to bash Network Rail—having worked there, I know that there are plenty of reasons for doing so, but this one is a bit spurious—that 60% of delays are caused by Network Rail and only 40% by the train operators. Therefore, they say, aren’t the train operators wonderful and isn’t Network Rail terrible? The problem is that, partly because of the way that train crew operations and train operators are funded, a lot of the delays counted in that 60% are fundamentally train operator delays—delays that they have the most ability to influence.

Very sadly, from time to time, people commit suicide on our rail network. That is of course terrible. It initially causes very significant delay and passengers are generally sympathetic to that. Generally speaking, the benchmark for clearing and reopening the line in a way that is safe for everyone, having done the scene of crime investigation and so on, is 60 to 90 minutes. Passengers are understanding of that. They are not understanding when 12 hours later the service is still in complete meltdown because the trains are in one place, the drivers are in another and the guards are in yet another.

A few months ago I was travelling from Didcot to Cambridge via London, because we still do not have East West Rail—maybe one day we will, but that is one for another time—and many hours after a fatality between Reading and London, Reading was a trainpark. Every platform was strewn with Great Western inter-city trains or commuter trains, because its train crew and rolling stock diagrams are so complicated that it is not able to recover during disruption. That has happened partly because there is not a whole-system focus on the alignment between infrastructure funding and train crew and train operations funding.

There has been a lot of pressure, through the franchising process, to cut back on train crew costs, and therefore to diagram—forgive the jargon; I am trying to avoid using it. Diagrams are the daily allocations of instructions as to which trains drivers, guards and others work on. The way to reduce train crew costs, particularly given that there have been above-inflation pay increases, is to tighten those diagrams and squeeze every bit of productivity out of them. When the train service is working normally, it is fine if the train does one thing, the guard does another and the driver yet another.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, in the context of infrastructure and operating companies coming together—although it also applies more broadly—about the tightness of those diagrams and that scheduling. On East Midlands Railway, although normally the trains are short-formed, we regularly see a 10-car train that is packed in the front five carriages because the back five have to be locked, completely empty, and travel to London with no one sitting in them because there is not a member of staff to staff them. That is because the diagrams are so tight that there is no contingency to put extra staffing in place at short notice when someone does not turn up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It is of course our obligation as the Government to meet the concerns of stakeholders, whether raised in the oral evidence session or elsewhere. It is also incumbent on me to point out that we want to abolish boom and bust in the rail system. On the fear about cliff edges, as was acknowledged by the ORR in its oral evidence, in reality there is not a cliff edge when funding always tends to run over the five-year period. Five years is the basis for the decision process by which funding allocations must take place. It is important to take the oral evidence in the round. It is also important to note that the ORR, which will be running the process, intends to set deadlines so that funding is committed with time for the industry to prepare. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendments 129 and 147 both seek to prevent or restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to vary the agreed funding settlement. I assure Members that the intention of providing a five-year funding commitment is that it lasts for five years. The Government are signed up to that principle. I also agree that certainty for GBR and industry is beneficial. More funding will mean we can get the best out of the railway and encourage investment, innovation and value for money.

Putting a hard restriction on all change, as amendment 129 suggests, would not be proportionate, as the shadow Minister acknowledged. As he noted, there may be unforeseen circumstances that require changes to funding, either to provide more or to reduce the amount. For example, GBR may outperform expectations and need less than is awarded, in which case Ministers will need to recoup the costs for the taxpayer, and can choose to do so in whatever way they see fit.

[Edward Argar]

The Minister is ever optimistic.

[Keir Mather]

Indeed! The operating environment may also change and GBR may need more funding than is committed. It is right that elected Ministers are able to make decisions on public spending and allocate resources as needed, balanced against the clear benefits of certainty.

Amendment 147 would restrict Ministers’ ability to vary funding by adding a requirement that the ORR must provide written consent. Although the Office of Rail and Road will have an important advisory role, it would not be appropriate for it to entirely determine changes to funding. Responsibility for decisions of public expenditure must remain with the Secretary of State, particularly where changes may be required due to wider fiscal circumstances. The amendment would also result in ORR consent being needed for increases in funding and immaterial changes.

The Bill provides assurances. If the Secretary of State considers that the impact of a funding reduction could be material, the Bill requires her to notify the ORR, giving it an opportunity to comment publicly on the likely effects on the railway. That balances the need for the Government to retain control over Government funding with the opportunity for independent evaluation and, if needed, public pressure, to protect certainty for the railway.

On amendments 215 and 216, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for so ably setting out, based on his practical experience, and far better than I ever could, the need for a single guiding mind for the railway. His explanation was buttressed by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendments, which seek to align passenger service funding within the five-year infrastructure funding cycle. I support that intention. The Government agree that many benefits are derived from integrated funding streams. However, I do not agree that the amendments are necessary.

It is important to note that passenger services are already fully considered under GBR’s statutory duties and through the integrated business plan, in which GBR will plan all its activities on a five-year basis across track and train. The Bill requires GBR to deliver safe, reliable and efficient services, taking passenger needs into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

No, I am not willing to say that those objectives, in principle, should not be pursued as a result of this legislation. The question is where within the Bill these things reside. If we are talking about short-term objectives relating to GBR’s operational efficiency as an organisation through, say, a key performance indicator, that is best placed within the business plan. If we want legal duties to ensure that we improve passenger experience or the reliability of train services, they are best placed as legal duties. There is a question about where we apportion the responsibilities and accountability mechanisms within the Bill. I do not believe that schedule 2 is the right place to be as prescriptive as the shadow Minister intends with those specific requirements.

On amendment 123, there is already a mandatory requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to obtain advice from the ORR on whether the activities that GBR is to undertake represent value for money. Unlike the list of potential objectives, that is mandatory. I also direct the Member to the assurances that are already in the Bill: there is a duty on GBR to make efficient use of public funds when exercising its functions, and a clear role for the ORR to assess the value for money of GBR’s proposed plans and to publish that assessment.

[Edward Argar]

Will the Minister confirm that the advice it will be obliged to seek will be published? If it is private advice, it has no teeth whatsoever, because the Secretary of State could accept it or refuse it, as could GBR, and no one would ever know. Would that advice be public?

[Keir Mather]

The purpose of issuing advice is so that we can enter into an era for the railways where these discussions happen in a way that is far more commonplace than the broken-down patterns of accountability that currently exist. I therefore envisage the sort of adversarial situation that the right hon. Member suggests occurring less than it does under the existing rail system.

The ORR and the Secretary of State are both required to consider value for money when they advise on and approve the business plan. I hope that the relevant measures will show the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that we are serious about getting the best out of GBR and provide him with enough reassurances to seek to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 122 would specify that the Secretary of State’s statement of objectives may include an objective on increasing passenger numbers and freight. It would narrow the wording of the objective in paragraph 2(3)(a) of schedule 2 from relating to passengers and freight to just increasing the numbers of those things. I do not think it would be wise to require ever-increasing passenger numbers as an objective in itself. Different objectives—such as increased reliability, improved passenger experience or references to spare freight paths—might contribute to that overall outcome while being more important in the moment. Again, that should be for the Government of the day, not inflexible legislation, to decide. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw his amendment.

Finally, amendment 206 proposes to expand the list of potential topics that could be covered in the statement of objectives, with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggesting the inclusion of a section on customer experience and satisfaction. The current list in the Bill is purely illustrative, so Secretaries of State may in future add to the list of topics, and include just some of the topics or slightly different ones in their statement of objectives. I invite the Committee to note that the illustrative objectives already included in the Bill contain reference to the carriage of passengers or goods, as well as to fares and accessibility—all matters that are important to passenger experience—so it is unclear what more would be achieved through the amendment, which would simply add a further example to the list.

Furthermore, the Bill contains a duty for the Secretary of State and GBR to exercise the functions in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of the users and potential users of railway passenger services. Unlike the list of potential objectives, that duty is intended to be mandatory. I hope that demonstrates to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that we consider passenger experience to be absolutely central to GBR’s objectives, and provides him with enough comfort not to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which seek to add requirements to the production of GBR’s business plan and the ORR’s advice on that plan. However, on the subject of the publishing of advice, I briefly return to a question that was put to me by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. I feel that I was unnecessarily circumspect in the answer that I gave him, and it did not reflect the incisive nature of his question, which was about a mandatory requirement that exists in the Bill for the Secretary of State to obtain advice from the ORR on whether the activities of GBR represent value for money, and whether or not that advice can be published. I tell him that the ORR must publish a summary of that advice, and it can publish the advice in full. Although I do not wish to predict the future, I expect that it will likely to so, as part of its work in holding the Government to account. I hope that that is a full answer for the right hon. Member.

[Edward Argar]

I thank the Minister very much. I cannot imagine where that flash of inspiration and recollection came from, but I am grateful to him for the clarification.

[Keir Mather]

Committees move in mysterious ways—that is all I will say.

I will take each amendment in the group in turn, starting with amendment 124, which would require GBR to develop key performance indicators for each of its statutory duties. I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will agree that KPIs should be realistic and measurable, so they would also need to be grounded in the specific proposals for what GBR intends to deliver over the next five years. They also need to be allowed to evolve over time, to ensure that they are most relevant to GBR’s planned delivery and can be effectively used to track GBR’s progress.

The way an indicator is set out can influence how an organisation behaves, and we should be able to refine them over the course of several funding periods, to get GBR to deliver in the way that it needs to. Therefore, a more flexible process works better than fixing the nature of the indicators in legislation—and I give way to the hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Schedule 2 will establish a new funding process for GBR that takes what we have learned from the successes of the periodic review process and applies them to the new GBR world. The new funding period review will provide GBR with five years of funding to carry out its job in operating and maintaining the railway network, and will create a structure through which GBR will develop and own integrated business plans across track and train that reflect its role as the directing mind for the railways.

The schedule retains the role of the ORR in testing and scrutinising the plans, ensuring they are ambitious but deliverable, and providing confidence to the Government. The new funding process, with the five years of certainty it provides, will help to result in the best price for Government and the taxpayer, and generate consistent, longer-term work for private partners in the rail supply chain—keeping good, well-paying, specialist jobs alive and thriving in the United Kingdom.

The schedule will also give greater representation to devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities, providing them with a real opportunity to advocate for the countries and places they serve at the national level. The funding period review will provide GBR with the structure it needs to set out how it will make our railways reliable, offer better value and be more accessible. I therefore commend schedule 2 to the Committee.

[Edward Argar]

I will not detain the Committee for long. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for his succinct explanation. However, I have two concerns; while he may be able to reassure me on these, I certainly think they need an airing. First, how does he propose to ensure that the funding period is properly aligned with a spending review period? I have seen the challenges faced in government when there is a misalignment, or where one period overlaps the other.

I was only very briefly Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I have also been a Minister in a spending Department, and I have seen the challenges that occur when there is a misalignment, because the Treasury is very clear about non-commitment beyond an existing comprehensive spending review period. How will the Minister ensure alignment and certainty? Without alignment, although there is the impression of certainty, we all know the all-powerful hand of the Treasury if one, as a spending Minister, cuts across its bow on such matters.

The other challenge has been raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister a number of times in various contexts. Although I take the point about the five-year period—and the Minister referenced seeking to bring greater certainty to investment decisions with that—I am still not quite clear. I may have missed it, but I do not think I have heard a clear explanation of what steps are being taken to iron out the peaks and troughs that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned, because it is still a five-year period.

Unless the budget is set for the next five-year period in, say, year two or year three, well ahead of its coming into force—I would posit that the Treasury would be highly unlikely to agree to that—it still does not get around the problem: year one is scaling up, we might see spending in years two and three, and possibly in a bit of year four, but then that spending will drop off again due to a lack of certainty about what is coming in the next year one. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how what he sets out in the schedule will help to address the peaks and troughs that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister so ably highlighted to the Committee previously.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston for his contribution. He is right to note that the five-year funding process has a different period from that of the spending review. It is tested in the sense that the funding process for Network Rail works similarly now. As was acknowledged in the oral evidence from the ORR, there is not in reality a cliff edge through the five-year funding settlement, as funding always tends to roll over the five-year boundary, but five years is the envelope through which those decisions take place.

That is my assessment of how the process works; if I have failed to answer any of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, perhaps he will illuminate me on what they are and I can provide him with a more fulsome response later on.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13

Charging and terms and conditions

Railways Bill (Third sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I advise Members that any clauses or amendments that I announce in a grouping are debated at that point, although some of the decisions—that is, the votes—might come not at that point, but later. We will decide on amendment 257 and clause 1 after this debate; we are also discussing new clauses 24 and 38, but the decisions on those will come later. I hope that that is helpful and that it will help Members with other groupings we debate.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already addressed clause 1 in broad terms, so I do not propose to repeat what he said, other than to express my agreement with his concerns about the unintended consequences and potential impact of nationalisation on passengers. I recognise that that is the Government’s decision and that, with their majority, they will be able to carry it—unless they have a huge rebellion on a scale we have not seen before, which is highly unlikely.

Let me address my hon. Friend’s new clause 38. As a Government Minister, I saw that the easy bit was coming up with a strategy and pushing some legislation through the House; the hard bit—and the bit that makes the difference as to whether something works for our electorate and for the great British public—is the implementation and delivery of the intent behind the strategy or legislation. There can be no doubt that this legislation is complex and represents a significant change to a service and industry that is relied on by many, day by day, up and down this country.

The Minister knows I have a lot of respect for him. He has risen up through the ranks rapidly but justifiably through his abilities and talents. I have seen in the past his willingness to listen and reflect on different perspectives, so I gently encourage him to look at new clause 38 with an approving eye. It is not onerous. It is a written ministerial statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham proposes, which is not a challenging thing to produce in a Government Department and then lay before the House. Although on occasions such scrutiny might test the Minister’s patience, I have to say with the benefit of hindsight that the scrutiny that comes through that publication and having to go through the process of summarising where we have got to in implementing a policy can often lead to that policy being kept on track and to course corrections as it is implemented, and can genuinely improve outcomes and delivery for the public.

I conclude by gently commending my hon. Friend’s proposed new clause to the Minister. I hope he will look at it with an approving eye or at least an open mind.

[The Chair]

We now look forward to the Minister responding on amendment 257, and on new clauses 24 and 38, although he might be relieved to hear that he does not have to make a decision on those today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Of course, taxpayers pay for a wide range of services, public or otherwise. Too often, the railway has been viewed almost uniquely, with the high expectation that it covers its own costs. The key challenge with a rail fares freeze is that it needs to be fiscally responsible. While the one-off gesture is welcome, and relieves some of the pressure that has built up over the last few years during the cost of living crisis, our measure for the future is, we believe, more fiscally responsible. A cap on fare increases that does not exceed the rate of inflation should become the default, and should be reviewed as part of each five-year funding settlement.

We also advocate for extending, where not currently provided for, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 to address the anomaly of fare rates for young people aged 16 to 18. We want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing that is consistent across the countries of England, Wales and Scotland.

[Edward Argar]

May I ask, on a factual point, what assessment the hon. Gentleman has made of what the cost of that 50% discount would be?

[Olly Glover]

I have not made an assessment of it at this moment. But that is not unique: at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, the right hon. Member will find that a number of the Conservative proposals that are debated in this place have not yet been fully costed—

Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification. I want only to add, as a further clarification, that in the future GBR will account for about two thirds of passenger services in Britain, and GBR infrastructure will make up 90% of station stops. It is quite important to give that level of context, so that people can better understand the impact that these changes in the railway will have on their lives.

Amendments 3 and 4 would limit GBR’s research, advice and standards development functions to only the railway and services managed by GBR. I reassure the shadow Minister that the vast majority of research and innovation carried out by GBR will relate specifically to the services that it provides and the operation and maintenance of its network.

However, research, development and innovation tend to be general in nature and application. It is critical that GBR’s research, development and innovation should be able to support the wider rail network, not just the elements that GBR manages itself. Collaboration between the independent parts of the sector on learning and innovation is, we argue, crucial for the rail network to operate as an integrated whole, and limiting this function could arbitrarily restrain wider adoption of best practice. Various organisations, including Network Rail and train operating companies, currently publish standards adopted on the railway, so this is not a unique or abnormal practice. However, these amendments could arbitrarily constrain it and might even hinder GBR from supporting research that might bring benefits to parts of the network, or services, not managed by GBR.

Amendment 5 seeks to return responsibility for taking access decisions to the ORR. That is one of the fundamental questions sitting at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The amendment is contrary to the Government’s manifesto commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind for the railways. It would reintroduce the fragmentation and conflicting accountabilities that exist in today’s system. At present, there is no single body in charge of taking a whole-system approach to making access work. That leads to conflicting opinions about what services can fit where and when. Differences in view between Network Rail and the ORR cause delays in producing the timetable, hindering efforts to tackle congestion, disruption, cancellations and overcrowding. The current system is not fit for purpose: it lets passengers down every day, and taxpayers are not getting value for money.

In the current system, the absence of a single directing mind, with a single set of objectives, leaves us with ridiculous situations such as the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. I do not understand how hon. Members can think that continuing the current system benefits anyone, least of all passengers.

The Government have been clear that for GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions consistent with the best use of the network, the ORR’s current role must change. GBR must be the decision maker on access; it must have authority and full accountability for what happens on the tracks. The ORR will play a key role as a robust appeals body that ensures that GBR’s decisions are fair. Without one body in charge of taking access decisions, we cannot deliver the performance improvements that we have promised passengers and the public.

Amendment 6 would remove the delegated power for the Secretary of State to confer further statutory functions on GBR in the future. Although clause 3 has been drafted to cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake, it is responsible to legislate with proportionate flexibility. For example, in the future there may be new technologies or other responsibilities relating to the railways that GBR would need to take on. We heard in oral evidence on Tuesday that the advent of artificial intelligence and wi-fi are two examples of that type of change, and that witnesses understood the need for this type of flexibility for GBR.

There is precedent for this type of power in legislation. For example, the National Health Service Act 2006 includes a power to add functions to special health authorities specified in regulations. That power is already limited to adding new functions that relate to the railways; any regulations conferring new functions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 241 seeks to require GBR to act

“in a fair and non-discriminatory manner”

when carrying out its statutory function in clause 3 —specifically, when GBR is providing back-of-house functions to facilitate railway services run by operators other than GBR, such as a journey planner. The amendment is not needed, because the duties set out in the Bill will govern GBR’s behaviours when carrying out its statutory functions. I assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the duties will require GBR to act in the interests of the public, taxpayers and passengers. GBR will act fairly and in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions.

In addition, competition law will apply in full to GBR. This requires GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. Both the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority will regulate GBR’s behaviour against its competition law obligations, so I hope that hon. Members will be assured that GBR must always treat all private operators with fairness and in a non-discriminatory manner. Given those safeguards, the addition proposed would be duplicative.

I turn to new clause 15, which seeks to implement a statutory electrification programme. Living near Selby station, I know better than most that rail electrification is important, including to realise the Government’s wider goals of decarbonisation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage ably set out the fact that decarbonisation is not the sole efficiency and aspiration that can be realised through electrification. We fully realise the need to reduce the cost of electrification and accelerate the delivery of committed schemes in comparison with past experiences.

We are currently developing a long-term strategy for rolling stock and associated infrastructure. That will be published in the summer and will consider the future approach to electrification. That being said, a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is not the right way to deliver these important upgrades. In the effort towards net zero, electrification may not always be the right solution—although the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage made a well-reasoned case as to how, in many cases, it is. Other opportunities, such as trains powered by batteries, may be more appropriate. It is also hard to predict the pace at which battery technology and other alternative technologies will progress over the next 20 or 30 years, and what that means for the extent of electrification that will be needed as we move towards net zero.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s points. How does he see the drive towards electrification, for all the good reasons he has set out, sitting with building a degree of resilience into the rail network? The hon. Member for Nottingham South, the other Minister, may have experienced the problem that I had last weekend, when, due to attempted overhead cable theft, a load of trains through the east midlands were cancelled. That happened because there is no back-up mechanism to move those trains if the electrical supply is not there. How do we square that circle of making sure that a bit of resilience is built in?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Member makes an important point about resilience on the railway; it complements the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the fact that we live in a changing climate. That creates pressing resilience challenges across the breadth of the railway. The right hon. Member makes a good point about not being over-reliant on one technological mode. That being said, I hope that, through an overall transition towards decarbonised rail transport, alongside the other decarbonisation measures that the DFT is taking across the piece, we will be sufficiently resourced, capable and in pursuit of innovative solutions to make sure that electrification can play a prominent part in the future of the railway.

We believe that the way to achieve that is to have something more flexible to future direction and opportunities, such as GBR’s business plan, which is already provided for in the Bill. Of course, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy might be more appropriate as a way to set out GBR’s plans for electrification rather than their being in the Bill.

We move to new clause 20, which would require GBR to work towards climate change targets. I assure the Committee that the environment will form an important part of GBR’s considerations through various mechanisms already included in the Bill. One of the strategic objectives for the long-term rail strategy will be environmental sustainability. GBR will have a duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy and a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, which includes environmental considerations, when developing its business plan. Finally, it is important to point out that Network Rail is not currently directly obligated to deliver on those targets, but has still published “The Greener Railway Strategy”, which includes targets on net zero, climate adaptation, air quality, biodiversity and other environmental areas.

To conclude, we remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges faced not only by rail, which is already a comparatively green way to travel, but across all transport modes, and GBR will be an important partner in that work. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured and will consider withdrawing their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Amendment 130 and new clause 8 constitute a Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a 21st century update to passenger charters. I shall seek to be concise; in the unlikely event that hon. Members would like to hear more, I should say that I gave a ten-minute rule Bill speech on the subject in the House of Commons yesterday.

For context, given above-inflation fare increases over many decades, which I alluded to earlier, the modern rail passenger rightly expects more than they often get. On-board amenities are generally not subject to any form of compensation provision should they not be available. Indeed, passenger charters generally make good noises about having such amenities, but they do not get the same guarantees for them as they do for delays.

The issue is not necessarily about moving to this tomorrow; there are many older trains on our network that require either upgrading or replacement with modern amenities, but where the amenities exist they should be provided. It should no longer be considered a luxury to have functioning wi-fi or a mobile phone signal so that people can be productive on the train. Toilets should be reliable, a seat should not be considered a luxury—a standard class ticket does not entitle one to a seat—and there should be adequate space for luggage, pushchairs, bicycles and so on. In so doing, we will make the rail offer more attractive to the travelling public and ensure that people do not have bad experiences, as did my friend Jen from Wallingford who, after a particularly terrible journey between London and Glasgow on Avanti West Coast, has now returned to driving, even though the distance is—off the top of my head—some 350 miles.

Our proposal would require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter before Parliament within six months of the Act’s being passed. That updated charter would look at providing value-for-money guarantees not just for delays, but for provision of other amenities, with reasonable waivers such as for journeys under 30 minutes, which can be subject to commuter-heavy loading at peak times.

The whole principle of delay repay should be protected. I keep hearing rumours—I have no idea whether they are true; perhaps the Minister could give us assurances that there will not be any attacks on delay repay. We should be proud of it, as it is a much more generous compensation provision than in any other European country and it should not be diluted or reduced to save costs. Instead, we should focus on preventing delays and managing delays better so that we do not need to pay so much delay repay. That compensation provision should be extended to other onboard amenities, so that there is an incentive to create a 21st century onboard environment that enables us to retain our existing passenger base and attract far more people to our railway.

[Edward Argar]

I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.

I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.

The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.

[Edward Morello]

I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage’s passenger charter. I recommend that any Member who was otherwise engaged to go and listen to his ten-minute rule Bill, which outlined it in far greater detail than I will today.

[Edward Argar]

I have it here!

[Edward Morello]

It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member can intervene again if I have misunderstood his point, but I think there is a lot of utility in the fact that GBR, by being able to direct passenger services as well as having responsibility for long-term infrastructure such as stations, provides a coherent basis on which to tailor the passenger experience across the multitude of ways in which passengers engage with the railway and its infrastructure. From my perspective, it actually removes issues in cases in which competition may not be what is best for the passenger—where there is an offer in the catering car on their service down to London, but also a small business running a café from the station. We will have more of an opportunity to offer a holistic service for the passenger.

It is also important to me that we do not want to fix the passenger offer in statute. We want GBR to be able to adapt to passengers’ needs as they change over time. For example, I cannot imagine that many were thinking about wi-fi when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but we know how fundamental it is to social and economic connectivity for passengers on the railway today.

To ensure that GBR does a good job of managing the passenger offer, the Bill will also establish the passenger watchdog, which will have strong powers to act in passengers’ interests. The Government and GBR will have to consult the watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer, and GBR will be expected to take account of the watchdog’s advice. The watchdog will also set minimum consumer standards, covering areas such as accessibility and passenger information.

The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy.

[Edward Argar]

The Minister has just said that the watchdog will have strong powers, but then uses words like “consultation” and “taking account of”. I have taken Bills through this place, and there are other words, like “should”, “could” or “must have regard to”—in fact, Bills rarely say, “must”; they normally say, “should pay attention to” or “should heed”. What actual powers will the watchdog have to compel GBR or the Secretary of State to take a particular course of action?

[Keir Mather]

That is a very important point. I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. The passenger watchdog will have the ability to make sure that GBR is compliant with minimum consumer standards on accessibility and information—this will be an independent power to directly monitor the passenger experience—as well as investigation powers, including to demand information by a deadline. It will be fully established within 12 months of Royal Assent of the Bill, so it will be stood up quickly to provide the oversight that it needs to provide.

The Secretary of State will also have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy, as well as her statement of objectives, which must be addressed by GBR in its business plan, which itself must be signed off by the Secretary of State under the new funding process. It would therefore be inefficient and duplicative to create yet another document to achieve the same aims.

Let me turn briefly to delay repay. The passenger watchdog can set standards that relate to delay repay. It is namechecked as an example in clause 46, and delay repay will still be available under GBR. The Opposition spokesperson—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I regularly find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for West Dorset—possibly to the detriment of us both—on a whole range of things, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson again on this occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight that amendments 133 and 35 are not dissimilar in their intent and in what they seek to achieve. It is important, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield says, that while we do recognise the desire and the need to drive up an increase in the use of railways for transporting freight, at the moment we risk disproportionately focusing on that to the detriment of traveling passengers. If there was any tension there, I would posit that freight may win out.

Yet in the Bill, it is the traveling passengers who will be not only paying for their tickets but essentially, as taxpayers, paying to subsidise or backfill any additional funding needed for the railways as a nationalised industry. Given that, it is vital that the passenger is front and centre of the thinking behind the Bill and how GBR comes into being. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham rightly highlighted the importance of the culture of the organisation. It may inherit DNA from predecessor organisations, but GBR will be a new organisation, and that gives the Minister and the Secretary of State an opportunity to help shape that culture.

I have a genuine concern that in what is being done, the power of the passenger—of the paying public or the market—is diluted by virtue of creating what is essentially a state monopoly in GBR. What the amendments proposed by both my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage seek to do is to put the passenger back into the mix in some way, and require that their voice has to be heard alongside that desire to drive up usage for freight. If there is a target or an obligation on GBR to drive up passenger numbers, it will have to be responsive to what passengers want, what they see and the experiences they have on the railways, which will drive them to use those railways more often.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, who knows of what he speaks. But at the moment, with the perfectly reasonable desire to increase the use of railways for freight, we risk that being unbalanced to the detriment of the passenger and their voice not being heard. For that reason, I am supportive of both amendments in seeking to make sure that the passenger remains front and centre of how GBR operates.

[Keir Mather]

I genuinely thank the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and Members from across the House for their considered and meaningful contributions on this matter. It shows the strength of feeling that we all have about making sure that the passenger experience sits at the heart of the way that our railways function. On the detail about the length of trains, which I agree is an interesting point that has been teased out in this debate, the rolling stock strategy that the DFT is bringing forward will have specific regard to the issue of train length. That will hopefully assuage some concerns.

The shadow Minister also pointed to the potential deficiencies in Network Rail caused by having an operational focus on the maintenance of infrastructure as opposed to promoting the needs of passengers. I would contrast that with the point that a lot of the issues that come with accessibility on the railway and sufficient provision of passenger services arise as much from the access regime and diffuse accountability as they do from cultural or institutional failings in Network Rail. In the current system, access is ultimately decided by the ORR and timetabling by National Rail, and we can end up with a situation where there is a 7 o’clock train from Manchester Piccadilly to London with no passengers on it. The existing system cannot put passengers at its heart, because its decision making process is too disjointed to be able to look at the railway in a holistic way. That is what the Bill is seeking to change.

As all amendments in the group relate directly to the notion of passenger numbers and increasing the number of passenger journeys, I will respond to them as a whole. As a commercial organisation, we believe that GBR will be naturally incentivised to drive up revenue through growing its passenger base and attracting more people to use the railway. GBR must also have the flexibility to determine how it can deliver on that ambition without adverse incentives, for example to congest the network at the expense of passenger experience, being established.

The Bill already includes a duty for sector bodies, including GBR, to promote the interests of users and potential users. That will require GBR to consider during decision making how to encourage new users on to the railway. That is a natural incentive to grow passenger numbers to enable them to realise the benefits of rail travel. That might include working towards encouraging modal shift, extending the network to areas with poorer connectivity or making informed choices to grow different types of services, such as leisure journeys.

In discharging its full remit of duties, including in particular its public interest and making efficient use of public money duties, GBR should make sensible, rounded decisions on where to target passenger growth across the network. It should do that in a sustainable way, and not to meet a passenger target frozen in aspic that might not be appropriate for the needs of the railway at the time. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment:

“authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”

We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.

[Edward Argar]

I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities.

I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities.

To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects.

The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act. I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that.

I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power.

We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a

“Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.”

Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think.

How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours? They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Baggy Shanker]

Q Are you saying that we do not need any changes in this area?

Steve Montgomery: We can modify it, but we need that comfort that it will be evaluated fairly and not have the constraints of GBR putting everything in front of it, saying, “We might use those paths in the future again”. We cannot have that; we need certainty. As I said earlier, we need the opportunity to allow investment in the railway. If private sector investment is coming in while there are paths sitting there not being used, that means that we are not funding the industry up to the capacity that it may have.

John Thomas: There are no protections in the Bill for open access operators. As Keir said, freight is mentioned at least 100 times and there is a freight growth target that GBR must have regard to, but there is nothing on open access. There is an inherent conflict when you have a body that will be granting access to its competitors. We would rather see the Office of Rail and Road still making those decisions. We accept that that is unlikely, because that is not the direction of travel from the Government, so as a minimum we think that a fair and non-discriminatory provision in relation to GBR decisions will help.

We think, as I said earlier, that the provision for ORR to have regard to the benefits of competition in hearing appeals will help. It will not be as sufficient as today. This is not part of the Bill, but we think that the access and use policy ought to carry on with the not primarily abstractive tests. It is not just because of lack of capacity that decisions have been rejected in the past; as Steve said, it is the revenue abstraction test as well. There is nothing to stop GBR increasing test in terms of the level of abstraction that is allowed before not granting access to open access operators. There is a lot to be worked through in the access and use policy to protect open access operators but, as I say, there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to protect them at the moment.

Maggie Simpson: We recognise that the current system is not perfect, but my members want to understand two things: first, if they are running a train today that their supply chain relies on, that they can reasonably expect to be running that train in the future. Today, the ORR would have a presumption of continuity—forgive me, this is not in the Bill—so if we came to the end of an access contract they would let the trains go into the next one. The infrastructure capacity plan process is different: it throws everything up in the air. People are really worried that they will commit and invest against a service that their supply chain relies on, and then in future something else will be judged to be better value and they will be taken off the network.

Secondly, when people are looking at investments, whether that is a new port or a new terminal—a new interchange might be a £1 billion investment—they need to have a sense that the capacity for the trains coming out of that interchange will be there when they need to use it. The current system has more capacity for that. That is why clause 63 worries people, because they think that that capacity could be taken away from those trains.

John Thomas: Clause 71 is also a real concern for us, because it allows the Secretary of State to establish regulations to amend or even abolish access rights or access contracts. That seems quite a draconian power to us. We have been assured that that is not the intention, and that the intention is to use that power to amend contracts so that they are operable in the new structure. Our view is that the clause should be limited to enable contracts to be operable in the new structure, and not to give the Secretary of State unilateral powers to amend or abolish access contracts or access rights. Again, that will make private sector operators really nervous about future investment. I agree with Maggie: I get no impression that the current Administration would ever use that clause—but, if you are never going to use it, why have it in there?

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q A brief question from me: in this morning’s session my colleague Ms Smith highlighted 19—and counting—different documents, plans and strategies that are referred to here. This Committee has not had any sight of drafts of them yet and I am conscious that nor will you, but they will be fundamental to how this works or does not work in practice. Recognising that you have not seen the documents, what assessment would you make of the Bill’s provisions on how, for example, the access and use and the infrastructure capacity policies will be produced? How should they be produced to properly reflect both the needs of an effective railway and the multiple groups with a stake in this? How can they be framed to ensure that GBR, which will essentially be a monopoly provider with a weakened regulator, is meaningfully held to account for what it puts in those policies?

Maggie Simpson: My members and I are working collaboratively with Network Rail colleagues and DFT colleagues to try to ensure that those policies and plans are going to be written in the right way. It is fair to say there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly on capacity allocation. On track access charges we feel a little more comfortable with the Bill provisions and that we will get there, but on capacity allocation there is a huge amount of work yet to be done.

Some of that work is practical stuff around the interplay between capacity plans on different routes, regions and sections of network, which could be quite big or quite small, and how we wind a freight train through what could be 10 or 20 different infrastructure capacity plans. There is a lot of work to do. There are great people working on this, so let us hope that they get there.

In terms of how GBR is held to account, that is a macro question for this Committee across a lot of different aspects. There are lots of powers in the Bill that you will have seen going in both directions between GBR, the Secretary of State, the regulator and so on. Our focus is on that appeals function, which I have already spoken about.

[Edward Argar]

Q Gentlemen, do you have anything to add?

Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions.

John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail.

As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Q As I did in this morning’s session, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I have a few short questions, primarily to Ms Simpson to start with. We heard from some of our witnesses in this morning’s panels that they would like to see a passenger growth target in the Bill on an equivalent basis to the freight growth target. I am interested in your reaction to that proposal.

Maggie Simpson: It is not my business to talk about the passenger railway. We see two things as important in having a freight growth target: first, it is a statement of Government commitment to growth, which is hugely powerful; secondly, and importantly, the people who are going to be running GBR are going to spring out of bed every morning and say, “It’s my job to make my trains run on time,” and the freight growth target makes them say, over their Weetabix, “Yes, and I must make freight run on time as well.” It is the incentive effect of having a growth target.

We have seen that effect really powerfully with the freight growth target that the Scottish Government and Whitehall have set, in that it changes the dynamic and the culture. I think—perhaps you would say I am biased— that people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary—but in terms of other factors, I leave that to others.

John Thomas: May I add to that? I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

Q Picking up on a point that was made by witnesses on our devolution panel, the geography of, say, West Midlands Rail Executive does not overlap entirely with the geography of the combined authority. Similarly, there might be a case for reaching a clause 5 agreement with more than one mayoral authority at the same time. Does the clause as drafted allow the flexibility to reach an agreement directly with, say, West Midlands Rail Executive, or a combined agreement with the East Midlands combined county authority covering the cross-country service?

Keir Mather: I think we have been really clear, and the provisions in the Bill support this, that GBR needs to be organised locally so that it can work really collaboratively with local leaders, and it is through the business units that it has to devolve that responsibility to as close to decision-makers as possible. MCAs are the right level, in terms of being a catalyst for economic and housing growth, but you are right that the challenges around rail infrastructure and service provision, even though the solution to a lot of them may be set by MCAs, are inherently cross-border. I would expect GBR to be able to fulfil a role in facilitating the ironing out of those differences, for the good of everyone, on a cross-border basis.

[Edward Argar]

Q One of these questions will hopefully allow for a yes-or-no answer; the other might be just a date. First, we have heard a lot from witnesses about how much is in the Bill, but also how much is not, and how it is reliant on the building blocks. Will the Minister commit to publish a draft of the licence before the Bill leaves the Commons so that it can be considered by MPs?

Keir Mather: Yes.

[Edward Argar]

Q Thank you. Secondly, one of the most important things for passengers is the cost of rail travel, so when will passengers under this Bill and this plan see fares not just frozen but reduced?

Keir Mather: We think there are benefits from consolidation in terms of building a more efficient railway, which we are confident will be able to build a more efficient system for passengers. We hope that that will reduce costs. The Secretary of State also has power through the Bill to set guardrails on fares, which are a really important part of the system. Unfortunately, I have not brought my crystal ball with me today on the exact time when fares may increase or decrease.

[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.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is great support for a publicly owned railway on the east coast—

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in an earlier phase of my celebrated ministerial career, when I was apprenticeships Minister—I expected at least a titter when I said that, but clearly people take it very seriously, which I am actually rather relieved about—we looked particularly at smaller businesses and their commitment to training and introduced a grant scheme for small businesses that took on apprentices. I think there is a case for looking at that again, particularly in sectors with the most pressing demand—and haulage might be one of them—but I will say no more than that, because I do not want to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to anything they do not want me to commit them to; I simply endorse his thoughts.

The Bill does two things: it provides powers that will support Britain’s hauliers to continue operating internationally after the UK leaves the EU; and it gives the Government the necessary framework to introduce new administrative systems if needed after exit. It provides the kind of flexibility I have described and, as has been said, under provisions in part 2, puts in place a trailer registration system in line with the Vienna convention, which, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, came to pass in 1968. It is a UN treaty designed to facilitate international road traffic and increase road safety by establishing uniform traffic rules, and has been signed and ratified by 75 countries. The Bill will allow us to apply it more comprehensively.

I do not want to delay the House any further, because I know that others want to speak—

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Don’t stop! Do go on!

[Mr Hayes]

No. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I really feel that it is only fair to others to give them the opportunity to emulate my style and content.

Cardinal Newman—who, in my experience, is given insufficient attention during debates on road haulage—[Laughter]—said:

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”.

Of course there will be difficulties in the process during the period following our departure from the European Union. It will be a cathartic process, and all kinds of challenges will have to be met. However, that does not of itself make an argument for not taking the right action now; it does not of itself add up to the profound doubts that some seem to have. I have confidence in the capacity, skills and determination of those in the industry, working with the Government, to continue to deliver what they currently do so well.

Let me end by mentioning an important haulier in my constituency with whom I discussed these matters this morning. That gentleman, Mr Robin Hancox, runs a business called FreshLinc. His fleet of vehicles brings fresh produce—food and flowers—from the continent to this country. He is determined that his business will continue to work post Brexit. He recognises that that will present some new challenges, but he is confident that the Government are doing the right thing in taking the necessary action to make the process as seamless as possible. I am confident too, which is why I can enthusiastically say that I not only endorse the Bill, but am willing, ready and able to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I might not be able to emulate the knowledge and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), the eloquence, erudition and elegance of delivery of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), or the positivity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), but I will equally seek to avoid the pessimism of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I will seek to address the positives of this important piece of legislation, which is, as Members have said, a sensible preparation for different Brexit eventualities and for the delivery of a smooth Brexit for the people and businesses of this country.

The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear that he expects the UK to secure a good deal, and I share his positivity on that. He is right, however, to bring forward a precautionary contingency Bill. It is the action of a responsible Government to prepare for every eventuality. Indeed, it is also the action of a responsible Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to him for that. Of course, I hope that many of the Bill’s powers prove unnecessary, but it is right that we have them, and the regulation-making powers will allow the Secretary of State to create the regulatory architecture to cater for various scenarios.

My right hon. Friend and others have been clear about the importance of the haulage sector both to our economy and to each of us in our day-to-day lives. Lorries may not always be popular, but they are hugely important in making this country function. For the sake of brevity, I will not recount the statistics referred to by many Members, but they set out just how important the sector is to our economy. Not only is contingency planning important and responsible, but the economic imperative for each of us in our daily lives and for our economy is clear. The UK played a key role, starting in 1988 and continuing through the 1990s, in driving forward the liberalisation of haulage in Europe, and it is right that we are now acting to ensure that that continues. Baroness Sugg set out clearly in the other place our country’s reliance on the industry, particularly for foodstuffs.

At present, hauliers can move freely within the EU with the Community licence, and a standard international operator’s licence is also required for that. Alongside that system runs the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral quota permit scheme. While not without its uses—it is extremely useful—the ECMT quota is small by comparison with the volumes of journeys and hauliers operating within Europe. The Road Haulage Association has expressed reservations about it being too restrictive. While useful, it is unlikely to address the long-term needs of the industry and the country. On our exit from the EU, the Community licence scheme will no longer be available, hence why this Bill is necessary and important. It must not only cover non-EU agreements and any permit-based deal but provide for other eventualities.

[Mr John Hayes]

The RHA has been quoted at length and repeatedly during this debate, but it has also said that it wholeheartedly supports the Government introducing contingency measures. While it wants seamless transport of the kind that we have all spoken of, the RHA recognises my hon. Friend’s point about the Government’s wisdom in bringing forward these measures.

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is correct. The RHA has adopted a constructive, engaged and positive approach, as he will know from his dealings with it when he was a successful Transport Minister. The Bill will also provide the Secretary of State with new powers to allocate permits and to charge fees, and with enforcement powers for different offences.

The trailer registration scheme is an obligation that derives from the UK’s ratification—albeit slightly belated—of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which we had signed but never ratified and which built on the 1909, 1926 and 1949 conventions. The ratification of the convention now is part of our responsible preparation for all eventualities. I suspect the main reason why it was so important to do it now is found in paragraph 3 of article 3, which states:

“Subject to the exceptions provided for in Annex 1 to this Convention, Contracting Parties shall be bound to admit to their territories in international traffic motor vehicles and trailers which fulfil the conditions laid down in Chapter III”.

That will help to provide for the continued free flow of cars and commercial vehicles so that traffic can continue as before, allowing the UK to issue international driving permits.

In order that we can comply with the convention and secure the benefits of it, it is important that the registration of trailers is brought forward. The Department has been clear that it proposes mandatory registration for commercial trailers over 750 kg and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes used for international purposes, but not for domestic use. Such a reasonable and measured approach will ensure that caravans, horseboxes and so on are not necessarily caught by the scheme. However, I note that that is not specifically detailed on the face of the Bill, although the Minister in the other place made the point clear. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for such a scheme to be brought in.

On the subject safety, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has done so much in this place with her “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign, following the tragic death of Freddie Hussey. She has been passionate and determined in her pursuit of that cause, as I know some of their lordships were. I hope that the Minister, in his usual thoughtful and sensitive way, will pay due heed to what their lordships and the hon. Lady have said and will address her comments in measured, sensible tones.

I welcome this sensible piece of contingency planning by the Secretary of State—I pay tribute to him for his foresight—and the enabling framework that it provides. I suspect that there may be little actual change and that the powers may prove largely unnecessary following the negotiation of a successful deal, but it is right that we plan for all eventualities and ensure continued liberalised traffic and haulage for the future. That sensible approach reflects not only pragmatism but the Government’s clear and focused determination to secure a good deal for Britain, which is in sad contrast to the chaos and contradiction that characterise the Opposition’s policy as we deliver our exit from the EU. I again commend the Secretary of State for his foresight and sagacity, and I am pleased to support the Bill.

Community Transport

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her Committee’s report and on her excellent speech. There is a reason why the Transport Act 1985 set out a reasonable but relatively light-touch regulatory regime for community transport services, which, as hon. Members have made clear, provide services to address a commercially unmet need in our communities. They get people to hospital, GP appointments and the shops, and they generally help people to live a normal, active life by taking them from door to door with a caring, local service.

In my semi-rural constituency of Charnwood, the Syston and District Volunteer Centre, which provides volunteer drivers in cars and minibuses, plays a huge role in supporting the community. It is well run and financially in a good place, but there is the risk that what is proposed in the consultation could unintentionally harm it.

My very real concern is that successive Governments over many decades, having not incrementally tweaked the regulations in the 1985 Act where necessary, have led us to a place where, under legal pressure, the Government have to consult on some remedial measures and risk adopting a legalistic and potentially unduly onerous interpretation of the regulations. As the hon. Lady said, it is very much a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In seeking to address the issue of legal compliance, they might unintentionally have a much wider-ranging impact on this hugely valued sector.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) highlighted, the legal point—the definition and interpretation of “non-commercial”—is important. Getting the right legal advice is important. With two lawyers in the Chamber—with all due respect to my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues—we may well get at least three, if not four, legal opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) was right that this should be tested in the court.

I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)—as a former Secretary of State, he has probably forgotten more about this issue than any of us in this Chamber will ever know about it—in urging the Minister, who is a reasonable and decent man, to reflect again on the proposal, to show flexibility and pragmatism in his approach, and to ensure that the consultation looks not just at delivering a legal fix but at addressing the broader policy context and delivering a vibrant community transport sector for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important and extremely timely debate.

I declare an interest: I am the chairman of the all-party group on community transport, which is backed and whose secretariat is provided by the Community Transport Association. Many hon. Members here are members; those who are not are very welcome to join. This is far more important than simply a parliamentary matter. In my constituency, I have four excellent community service providers—Our Bus Bartons, West Oxfordshire Community Transport, Volunteer Link-Up and the Villager—and they are all thriving. Only last week, I opened a new bus as it was handed over to the Villager service. Those services are all terrified about the impact of the Department’s proposed actions under the consultation.

I am very grateful to the Minister, who is very interested in this area. He has visited Our Bus Bartons with me, listened in person to the concerns and spent a great deal of time listening to my volunteers in person. I know he is concerned about this issue and he is doing his best, but there is an extraordinary problem here. The reason why all those volunteer-led services exist is that commercial providers have withdrawn. Is it not an extraordinary perversity that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, under pressure from commercial providers, which do not want to operate in these areas, it may be difficult or impossible for such volunteer-led services to run?

We have heard some excellent speeches today. I just want to mention a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), but there are in fact three barristers here.

[Edward Argar]

We will get six opinions!

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend says we will get six opinions—I am sorry all the barristers are agreeing with each other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham is absolutely right that there is clearly space for interpreting the law here, and that is exactly what we have to do. The sections 19 and 22 system, which has existed for so long, is a classically British compromise. It has created a benign environment under which community transport can operate. It is essential that we continue to go through the regulation and the law with a fine-toothed comb. Simply put, we cannot allow a situation to arise in which community transport providers are not able to operate.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (First sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Craig Tracey]

Q Would you envisage disputes going through the same channels as they currently do for disputes on liability?

Ben Howarth: In that kind of event, yes, I would.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Q I have a very quick question, following on, I think, from the answers that were given to the Minister’s question, in which you all said you anticipated that, if this goes to plan, it will see safer vehicles and therefore a reduction in accidents, leading to a reduction in premiums, which is clearly a positive for all those paying them. What assessment has been made, or what is your view of, any likely impact of that on the insurance market and industry? As I understand it, car and vehicle insurance premiums to a degree underwrite other insurance policies across the industry—that is the way it is structured. What impact do you think significant reductions in premiums would have in terms of disruption of the insurance market?

David Williams: Lots of work has been done on this by insurance companies and by market consultants, and they predict substantial reductions in the total premium pot. A couple of statistics—we think that 93% or 94% of accidents are caused by human error. I have driven in these machines; they are already much better drivers than most human beings. When we look at things like automated emergency braking systems—that is just one component of what will be the autonomous vehicle of the future—we know that they reduce accidents by 15% and injuries by 18%. So even if they cannot prevent the accident completely and absolutely, because they are braking better and faster there are fewer injuries.

We see a substantial impact. There will probably be a slight increase initially because you will have more expensive gadgets strapped around the periphery of vehicles, but once we see a higher proportion of these vehicles on the road, consultants predict a 50%-plus reduction in the total motor premium market. From our perspective, we are planning in that regard. The good thing is that it will not happen overnight, and therefore as we see motor premiums reduce we can move our staff and our capital on to other lines of business.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Q According to some of the figures I have seen, 63% of the adult population hold a valid driving licence, so by definition 37% of people currently do not. Of the 63% who do, many are precluded from driving because of health conditions or because they have lost confidence behind the wheel. My question is, first, do you think that this Bill will increase social mobility? Secondly, do you think it will increase car insurance volumes in your marketplace? Thirdly, you mentioned to my colleague that premiums will be lower for automated vehicles, so I want to seek reassurances about whether you think the Bill will reduce premiums for people who have mobility problems.

David Williams: One of the consortia we are involved with, Flourish, is looking at cyber-risks and also at mobility, at segments of society that currently feel cut off—people, who perhaps are disabled, living in a rural area and not able to get out and about. That is one of the reasons we want this Bill to go ahead and are keen to support it. Absolutely, it will support that.

In terms of volumes of cars on the road, there are numerous different models. Overall, the view is that there would be fewer vehicles, because this will enable car sharing on a scale that has not previously been seen, but in terms of number of miles covered, there are diverging opinions. One thing that might happen is that, because it will be as easy to get a car even if you do not own one as it is to get a train or similar, more people will move to transport on the road, which will drive up the number of miles. There are other views that there will be an integrated transport network, meaning that more people use public transport because they are much more able to link into it than they are now. I think the jury is out in that regard.

It will absolutely reduce premiums. The other aspect is that even when we have a mixed car park of manual and automated vehicles, because 50% of those vehicles will be safer, although the premiums on manual vehicles will decrease less, they will be less exposed and involved in fewer accidents, so overall that will have a positive impact from a premiums perspective, even on manual vehicles, as the number of automated vehicles increases.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (Second sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Q This is probably more to Mr Madderson. You touched on mandating or not mandating particular solutions. Do you have any assessment, either anecdotal or based on research, from your members? The big retailers may well be able to adapt over time and have different types of fuel supply, charging points, conventional fuels and so on. What is your assessment of the ability to adapt of smaller local retailers of fuel, or your feeling about the impact?

Brian Madderson: They are all extremely interested in this new technology and we, in fact, are providing a route to market for many of the charging point suppliers. They come to our regional forums—Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales—and they appear in our market review book, so there is a thirst for knowledge.

The real problem with the Bill as it is currently written is that in mandating motorway service areas and, indeed, large fuel retailers there is a key missing ingredient, and that is the carrot I referred to before. There is funding for charging points at home, on the street, in the workplace and in other public areas but there is no funding available for the fuel retailers who would like to embrace this technology in order to provide a diverse range of refuelling options for their customers. It is the big rump of the medium to small-sized filling stations right across the country that will find this more difficult, because the investment decision at the present time is not something that banks would support. There is almost no money to come back on a perceived return-on-investment basis. So they are the ones who will be holding back the growth of charging points right across the country—it is not just city-centric.

[Karl Turner]

Q To be honest, I think Mr Madderson has answered the question I was about to ask: what are the carrots? He said it was all stick and no carrot.

Brian Madderson: It does have to be some form of funding, because if you go to your bank and say that you want to put in a charging point that might cost you a lot of money, you will immediately be asked, “What do you see as the return on investment? I’ve got to get my interest back.” They have no idea at the moment, because the market is in such a state of flux. New systems are coming on. I heard of one relatively recently called ZapGo. I do not know whether it is a big runner, but it is looking at putting storage tanks into a traditional forecourt with charging posts, and being able to meter out the electricity on a basis that I am told Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would enjoy because you might be able to get fuel duty back on it. This is relatively new. There are all kinds of development in the marketplace, and I think it would be precipitous to ask them to invest 100% of the money now—they could not do it.