Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for bus services in West Dorset constituency.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. It is my privilege to bring this debate to the House.

This issue may seem niche, but it matters a great deal to my residents. It has generated a huge number of queries, social media comments, emails and constituency casework since I became an MP, reflecting just how deeply it affects people’s daily lives. Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn, it can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them and, as I recently saw through casework, their families, too. That is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or when there are further cuts to essential routes, as we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last-minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company, which the council could not afford to meet, when changing to a winter timetable.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, I welcome the direction that the Government have taken. I welcome the introduction of the new local authority bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement. I welcome the recognition of rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long-term funding provides certainty. It allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop-start cycle of short-term funding announcements that has characterised this area for too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. As he is well aware, West Dorset is similar to my constituency, with market towns and many townlands rather than towns, and the profitability of public transport can be questionable. However, does he agree that the bottom line is not the ledger, but connectivity and the end of rural isolation in an affordable fashion? Does he agree that we are not getting the balance right for our rural constituencies, which are the backbone of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member rightly touches on a lot of the issues that I will come to, all of which I know are as pressing in his part of the United Kingdom as they are in mine.

I thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had on these issues. For the first time, the funding formula explicitly recognises rurality. That is an important step forward, and one that I and many other rural Members have called for from our first days in the House. However, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. Rural bus services fell by 52% between 2008 and 2023.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

My constituency neighbour will know that in Somerset and Dorset, we get older models of buses no longer used elsewhere. At the same time, rural bus depots, such as the one in Yeovil, are closing. If a bus breaks down from Ilchester on the way to Dorchester, passengers have to wait over an hour for a replacement bus. Does my hon. Friend agree that if depots for repairs are going to be closed, we need newer buses in West Dorset and Yeovil?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to raise the pertinent issues of older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. I hope that has been heard by the Minister.

Across England, there were over 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus service frequency in West Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns are already transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. That creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients miss hospital appointments, which contributes to the £1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments for NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities, older residents become isolated, and communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return.

That is why simply maintaining today’s network cannot be considered a success; the scale of decline means that we must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in Government bus funding: the lowest allocation anywhere in the south-west. That is £10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset receives and £7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive over three and a half times Dorset’s allocation and Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency, while Dorset is often forced simply to maintain what it has left.

The Government deserve credit for recognising rurality, but rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula. Serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas. There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers can even begin to increase.

Every summer, West Dorset’s population increases by over 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand on our transport networks, which were designed to serve a much smaller permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations.

The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester’s bus network. However, the Bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset—over eight times as much in funding per head.

Transport for Greater Manchester manages a budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services, and I want Dorset to have the same level of ambition. However, rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the Government truly wish to level up rural transport, the funding formula must recognise that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them in our cities.

The consequences of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people. The recent Milburn review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to 29%, while for many families the cost of owning and insuring a car has simply become unaffordable.

At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. On average, young people are now 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, which should concern every Member of this House. When the last bus leaves before a hospitality evening shift finishes, a young person cannot access that hospitality job; they have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments to the Bus Services Bill during its passage to improve connectivity for young people by providing free bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds, to encourage better co-ordination between buses and trains, and to ensure that funding reflects the realities that rural communities face. Those amendments were not adopted, but I hope the Government will start to move in the positive direction that they indicated.

West Dorset has an ageing population, and many people rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops. When the bus services disappear, independence disappears with them. Poor transport also increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities—all these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of “total place” thinking, which was first developed over a decade ago: looking across departmental boundaries, instead of operating within them. The Dorset total transport pilot brought together school transport, adult social care transport, public bus services and community transport.

With just £180,000 of funding, the pilot improved services in some areas while identifying longer-term efficiencies and introducing more flexible, demand-responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand. Rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or to return to depots, we should ask how those vehicles could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day.

We also need a more joined-up approach between different modes of transport. People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and co-ordinated bus services. In many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Interconnectivity goes across not just buses but other modes of transport such as trains. There is a petition in one of my rural areas where, pre-covid, trains ran every 30 minutes; that is now every two hours, and there is a big gap in the middle of the day. Does the hon. Member agree that we need strategic planning in the mayoralties across all modes of transport?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%—talk to anyone who has got off the last train from Crewkerne when the last bus stopped two hours beforehand. We are depriving our communities of the ability to get around, and of course there is an economic impact to that.

The CB3 community bus in Beaminster demonstrates exactly what local communities can achieve when volunteers, councils and residents work together. Similarly, the new LB1 evening service between Lyme Regis and Bridport has quickly proved a success, despite disruption caused by necessary works on the A35. I am also encouraged by proposals for further community transport in places such as Sherborne, which have my support, but parish councils and volunteers cannot continue to carry the burden alone.

The Department for Transport currently makes up to £3.8 million available annually for eligible community transport operators, but that is across the whole country. Given the scale needed, that is simply not enough. Instead, there should be dedicated, ringfenced grant funding specifically to help communities establish new community transport services where commercial routes have disappeared. A hub-and-spoke model supported by smaller community buses and demand-responsive transport could reconnect villages at a fraction of the cost of restoring traditional commercial routes immediately.

Importantly, that funding should recognise that the greatest cost comes at the beginning. Communities need capital investment to purchase vehicles, recruit drivers, establish a booking system and build passenger confidence. Once services become established and passenger numbers increase, public subsidies can reduce over time. Demand-responsive transport has already shown real promise in Wiltshire, where passengers can book flexible journeys through an app and AI software identifies the most efficient routes. Data suggests that these services have been particularly successful among younger users travelling between villages and market towns before they learn to drive. West Dorset would be an ideal place to pilot a similar, larger-scale approach.

For rural communities such as West Dorset, buses are fundamental to tackling social isolation, supporting economic growth and giving young people genuine opportunities. I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeals of my residents and ensure that rural Britain is no longer left waiting at the bus stop while the rest of the country moves ahead.

Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this important debate on what is, frankly, an outrageous and insulting decision by the MCA. I also pay tribute to the amazing work of the coastguard rescue officers in Lyme Regis, West Bay and across the country. I recognise the extraordinary sacrifice they make when they drop everything to respond to emergencies and save lives.

As has been said, no one joins the coastguard for the money, but that small, modest payment helps to soften the substantial financial impacts that they incur. My CROs tell me that it helps cover the cost of a family meal to say thank you for sacrificing time together; it replaces the sunglasses broken while performing CPR; it helps to compensate the children for an abandoned cinema trip; it helps to recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff or in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It is not a salary; it is recognition.

I believe this Government must find a way to square the circle of the court’s judgment with properly recognising the sacrifice that these heroes make.

Railways Bill

Edward Morello Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner]

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is, I say respectfully, wrong on this issue. When the Labour party first committed to the reintegration of track and train, under the then shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), I wrote the announcement—so I do bring some bearing to that question.

It has been a privilege over these years to ride on the footplate of this reform journey. The Bill will end the national buck-passing game of “Whose Line is it Anyway?”. Most importantly, it will establish a rail network that is run by and for the nation. I look forward to voting against amendments that would undo that important journey of reform.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It was my pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who led on the legislation for the Liberal Democrats, and behind whose expertise I have gamely hidden throughout. I believe that the Bill should be about passengers, which is why I strongly support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would establish a passengers’ charter.

New clause 1 would establish clear expectations around value for money, quality of service and adequate seating. It would require targets for reliability and a timetable for improvements to the passenger experience. Importantly, it would address issues that passengers in West Dorset have repeatedly raised with me: reliable highspeed wi-fi; comfortable seat design; dependable mobile connectivity; power outlets; luggage and bicycle storage; accessibility and clean toilets; onboard food and drink provision on journeys lasting more than two hours. Those are basic expectations of a modern railway in a modern country.

New clause 1 would also strengthen accessibility and extend the principles behind delay and repay to failure of onboard amenities, while moving towards automatic digital compensation. Importantly, NC1 sends a simple message to all: passengers come first. The same principle underpins new clause 43, which would place a duty on Great British Railways to provide food and drink on rail services lasting over an hour. For many passengers, particularly those travelling long distances from rural areas, access to refreshments is a necessity. If we want people to choose rail over car, we must think about the entire journey experience, and not simply whether the train arrives at the destination.

Passenger-focused reform must also mean affordability, which is why new clause 6 is important. At a time when many households continue to face pressure with the cost of living, the new clause would require plans for fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. It would extend standardised discounts for young people, provide discounted fares for veterans, establish a national tap-in, tap-out system, guarantee that passengers received the best-value fare regardless of how they purchase their tickets, introduce a national railcard, and enable open source access to ticketing systems and fare databases. The new clause would also require collaboration with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing. In rural areas such as West Dorset, where passengers often rely on both rail and bus services, joined-up ticketing could make a huge difference.

Linked to affordability and passenger growth is new clause 2, which would require a report into the merits of the rail-miles programme. We already reward loyalty in supermarkets and airmiles, yet regular rail passengers receive little recognition for their continued use of the network. A rail-mile programme would encourage repeat journeys, support passenger growth, and provide greater flexibility for commuters, students and working families. It would also help encourage modal shift away from private car use and towards public transport.

For young people, passenger-focused rail reform must also mean access to opportunity. That is why I tabled new clause 47, which would provide free rail travel to 16 to 18-years-olds in education, training or apprenticeships. If a young person cannot physically reach a college, apprenticeship or job opportunity, then every other intervention becomes less effective. New clause 47 would help to remove that barrier and support social mobility, economic participation and fairness.

The needs of rural communities are also reflected in new clause 40, which would place a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to both permanent and seasonal population growth. Coastal communities face the double challenge of being underfunded for their permanent population while simultaneously accommodating huge seasonal increases in demand. This new clause would require consideration of rolling stock services and infrastructure investment to ensure that communities are not left behind simply because population increases occur seasonally rather than permanently.

New clause 42 would require an assessment of the benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the west of England line. This proposal is important not only to my constituents, but across the south-west.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important and timely debate. It is particularly pertinent to me as West Dorset is nothing but small towns and villages, and 60% of the population live outside of the towns.

For me, this is about opportunity and fairness. Transport determines whether a young person can get to college, an apprentice can reach a workplace, an older resident can attend a hospital appointment, and a business can recruit the staff it needs. Some 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and 66% of elderly people are unable to reach a hospital within 30 minutes by public transport.

In the recent Milburn review, transport repeatedly emerged as the hidden driver of youth detachment from education, employment and training. If a young person cannot physically reach a college apprenticeship, interview or job opportunity, every other policy intervention becomes irrelevant. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport is a significant practical barrier for those without access to a car or a driving licence. This matters because young people are far less likely to drive than previous generations; the proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to just 29%.

At the same time, local bus services have disappeared. In the last 15 years bus journeys outside London have fallen by 21%, and bus frequency in West Dorset has fallen by 62%. Some local authorities are experiencing reductions of up to 80%. Entire small towns and villages have lost evening and weekend services. A young person offered a hospitality shift that finishes at night in a neighbouring town without a return bus service has not really been offered a job at all.

That is why transport connectivity must be central to any serious effort to reduce the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why the Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that we need a fundamentally different approach to public transport in small towns and rural areas. We need properly funded local bus services, and we would replace the current patchwork of funding streams with a single integrated transport fund that gives local authorities the flexibility to deliver the service their communities actually need.

The move towards multi-year funding settlements and the increase in funding for local transport are both welcome. They provide the degree of certainty that councils have been calling for over many years and are a significant improvement on the short-term, stop-start approach of the past. However, they are not enough on their own to reverse the years of decline. Areas outside urban hubs have seen some of the deepest service reductions. They need targeted investment if we are to rebuild sustainable networks, rather than simply to continue managing the decline. We would restore the £2 bus fare cap and ensure that local authorities have resources to expand services where demand exists.

We must also recognise the role that community transport can play. The CB3 community bus service in Beaminster demonstrates what is possible when local communities work together to maintain essential connections. Such models can help bridge gaps where traditional commercial routes are no longer viable, but parish councils and volunteers cannot be expected to carry this burden alone. Community transport needs secure, long-term grant funding from central Government. We would also support pilot programmes and new technologies such as on-demand transport services. Those schemes have proven particularly effective for young people travelling between villages and market towns.

We must also rebuild confidence in our railways. For too long, investment has focused overwhelmingly on cities and flagship projects, while small towns have been left behind. The Liberal Democrats would establish a railway fund, allowing local authorities to bid for funding to improve stations, restore local rail connections and strengthen links between neighbouring towns. We would implement long-term rail fare freezes in line with inflation, introduce a “rail miles” loyalty scheme and create a passenger charter to improve reliability, accessibility and service quality. That would improve things like wi-fi, seating and toilets and put customers at the heart of our railways. We would also reform ticketing by introducing a national tap in, tap out system, bringing the convenience enjoyed by passengers in London and Manchester to the rest of the country.

Local authorities must have greater influence over transport planning, so that rail and bus services work together, rather than operating in isolation. Transport is not just about buses and trains; it is also about giving people safe alternatives to cars. The Liberal Democrats want a nationwide active travel strategy that creates safe walking and cycling networks, linking homes, schools, town centres and transport hubs. For small towns, active travel presents a huge opportunity. Distances are often short enough for cycling to be quicker than driving or public transport, yet frequently the infrastructure is absent. That is why we must support investment in dedicated cycle routes, safer road infrastructure and the conversion of disused railway lines into walking and cycling corridors.

If we are serious about tackling regional inequality, reducing the number of young people who are not working or in education, and delivering genuine economic growth, small towns cannot continue to be an afterthought.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I will come to some of those specific issues shortly. Our teams are incredible and work really hard, both here in Westminster and down in our constituencies, but that should not be necessary. People should not only get the help they need when their MP steps in.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

A lot of my constituents say that there is effectively a two-tier system: if someone is able to use the digital system, it is extremely fast; if someone has a medical condition, they have to use the paper form, which creates all sorts of administrative problems that we end up chasing up. My caseworkers say that the DVLA is one of the worst departments at responding to MPs’ offices. Does my hon. Friend think that the system has to change?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his comments. I am afraid the DVLA is certainly in the top three worst departments, and I will come on to some specific cases shortly.

When constituents come to my office, they are frustrated but also really anxious. They have followed DVLA guidance by declaring their medical conditions, or they have reapplied for a licence after a temporary suspension, and then they wait, often for months, with no meaningful updates. The DVLA’s strategic priority is to drive up digital engagement, yet in practice the medical licensing system remains stubbornly analogue. The department does not routinely use email, it does not proactively chase missing documents, it does not provide status updates, and it still relies on posting medical questionnaires to GPs and consultants. Unless someone chases their MP, who then chases the DVLA and pushes the constituent to chase their clinician, cases simply stall. Applicants are left idling, with no sense of when or if the system will move them forward. This is not a functioning public service.

Let me give Members one example, which sadly is not unusual. Ellie submitted a medical questionnaire in March 2025 relating to possible epilepsy. Her symptoms stopped following B12 injections, and her consultant confirmed in writing that she was fit to drive. Six months later, she received a call from the DVLA, and she confirmed that there had been no further episodes. A month after that, her licence was revoked without her even being notified. She discovered that only in January 2026, when she happened to check her driving licence online.

When Ellie contacted the DVLA, she was told that her medical questionnaire was missing—one that had never been sent to her. After resubmitting the forms in February this year, she was informed that the original paperwork from last year could not be located. A full year after first engaging with the DVLA, her case is now classed as high priority after daily contact from her—sometimes 12 times in a day. No one should have to fight that hard to prove that they are safe to drive.

The underlying issue is simple: the DVLA is stuck in manual, while the rest of us are on automatic. Medical applications are processed strictly in date order, correspondence with clinicians happens by post, and returned documents then sit in another queue. This is a system designed around administrative convenience, not the human impact.

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 General Committees

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I see a lot of familiar faces from the Railways Bill Committee— I worry that I have become a member of a group I never aspired to join.

I am here to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; we support this statutory instrument, which lowers the minimum age to obtain a mainline driving licence in Great Britain from 20 to 18, while maintaining the age of 20 for drivers operating in the channel tunnel zone, in line with international agreements. This SI removes an arbitrary barrier that has prevented the rail industry from recruiting directly from school leavers, at a time when the workforce is ageing, we are facing significant shortages and young people are struggling to find employment opportunities.

The regulations do not alter existing safety requirements, or mandatory medical, psychological and competency assessments, which remain in place. A 2024 Rail Safety and Standards Board report concluded that there is no evidence that 18 or 19-year-olds pose a higher safety risk than older drivers. Safety is driven by robust training and supervision standards, rather than age alone. Overall, despite some industry concerns, this is a proportionate and evidence-based reform that supports the long-term resilience of the rail network. As Liberal Democrats, we are always happy to see the UK aligning with our European neighbours on this issue.

Local Transport: Planning Developments

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing this important debate and on her continued work in this policy area.

In West Dorset, the issue with planning development is not just about how many homes we build, but where we build them and whether they are built with the infrastructure that is needed to support them. As I have said repeatedly, we need the right houses in the right places and at the right price. That means genuinely affordable homes for local people. It means accessible homes, so that older residents can downsize and stay close to the family. It means not building on floodplains—something that recent storms in the area have shown to be serious and costly. It means protecting natural landscapes, such as the one that covers 70% of West Dorset; and it means that, when new homes are approved, the infrastructure that is needed, such as GPs, dentists, schools and, critically, transport, must be delivered.

Having spent many thrilling hours on the Railways Bill Committee, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will not revisit every rail argument, but I do want to be clear that housing growth and rail capacity must be planned together. Local transport must be properly joined up. Local communities must be given a voice; and buses need to connect reliably with train services, so that people in new developments can realistically commute without relying entirely on a car.

When demand increases, supply should increase with it. Ticket prices remain too high, and peak services are often overcrowded, with elderly and disabled passengers standing for long journeys. It is not acceptable, and it will only worsen if housing numbers rise without matched investment. West Dorset is rural and spread out. We have an ageing population. Many residents rely on buses to get to work, school, hospital appointments and shops, but bus services have been cut back dramatically.

From 2010, service frequency in West Dorset fell by 62%. Satisfaction with bus services across Dorset stands at just 48%, despite nearly half of residents living in areas ranked in the top 20% most deprived nationally for access to services. Dorset received £3.8 million through the bus services improvement plan, compared with £11.6 million for Devon. It was one of the lowest settlements in the south-west. It does not reflect our rural geography, the scale of the problem, our older population or our surge in visitor numbers during the summer months.

When new housing developments are approved, especially in rural areas, they should come with guaranteed improvements to local transport. If buses are unreliable or non-existent, people will have no choice but to drive. Properly supported community transport also has a role to play. In places where commercial routes are no longer viable, there should be secure grant funding for community-led services. A hub-and-spoke model linking villages to key towns can be more realistic than trying to restore full commercial routes.

The CB3 service in Beaminster shows what can be achieved when communities work together, but parish and local councils cannot be expected to carry the financial burden alone. We should look seriously at pilots for larger roll-outs of on-demand services. Flexible bus systems can use technology to plan the most efficient routes based on bookings. These services have already worked particularly well for younger people travelling between villages.

If that is to work, the council will need technical support and funding to deliver it properly. On-demand services should be supported where reinstating traditional bus services is not viable, and the Government services should provide new centralised pots for community transport funding that can be bid for to specifically counteract the years of underfunding. The extra money and multi-year funding from central Government is a welcome change, but it is not enough to turn the tide. We need measures targeted to those places that have lost the most before we can start building a more sustainable network; otherwise, we will just normalise failure.

There is also a sequencing problem in planning. I have seen developments where housing has gone ahead but infrastructure has stalled, sometimes because a contractor has gone bust after being awarded the contract, as happened recently in Bridport. That leaves new homes without the transport links, roads and roundabouts that they were promised. It undermines trust in the planning system and fuels opposition to future development.

Transport is central to whether a development works. If we build homes without properly improving buses, trains and roads, we increase congestion, make daily life harder and create understandable resentment. If we want communities to have and agree to new housing developments, we must show that infrastructure will come alongside it, not years later.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Bloore.

Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Edward Morello Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

New clause 52, in the name of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation on the frequency of services, and then to give GBR a duty to supply whatever frequency of service the public consultation demanded. To be effective, a consultation would have to be national and cover every single community in the country. We believe this is a recipe for chaos and shows no concern for deliverability. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has been very constructive and thoughtful in his proposed amendments during Committee. This one, which is not in his name, is different and, at the risk of sounding slightly cynical—this is perhaps the first time those of us on the Conservative Benches have done so—is a typical have-it-all Lib Dem amendment, with no regard to the practical consequences.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Western. I wanted to speak briefly in support of new clause 52, which, as the hon. Member for South West Devon indicated, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. It would introduce a duty on train frequency, which is something my constituents—and I am sure those of other Members—write about continuously. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult the public on how often GBR services should run, taking account of local need. It would then require the publication of a report, ongoing engagement with communities, and a binding duty on GBR to deliver the agreed frequency, with regular monitoring.

The new clause is designed to ensure that rural and less well-served areas are properly heard, and that timetables reflect how people actually use the railway and not just what is easiest to operate. If I were the shadow Minister, I would probably describe this as a probing new clause designed to draw out some secret piece of information. I heard what Minister said about it. All the other Liberal Democrat amendments have been designed to restrain the power of the Secretary of State and ensure that GBR is not micromanaged, and I think the new clause probably flies in the face of that. We will leave it there.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Members for South West Devon and for West Dorset for their contributions. I remain of the view that a unified system under GBR will plan and deliver an achievable, reliable timetable and ensure that the network is actually able to deliver it, so that the services promised to passengers are delivered. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce costs, and through its role in issuing the timetable, GBR will be able to ensure that all services represent the best use of the network, with a strong appeals role for the ORR to ensure that fairness is embedded in the system. I therefore retain the view that the hon. Members should not move their amendments.

Amendment 174 agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Capacity duty

Amendment proposed: 81, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “to” to the end of line 37 and insert—

“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—

(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.—(Rebecca Smith.)

This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Edward Morello Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

Division 79

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 3

Noes: 8

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 64, page 36, line 14, at end insert

“and the higher amount does not hinder progress against the Rail freight target set out in section 17.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 255, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—

“(8A) Following an appeal made under subsection (8), the ORR may, if it decides that GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant, direct GBR to revise a scheme.”

This amendment requires that any charge levied by GBR under its charging scheme does not have a detrimental impact on the freight growth target.

[Edward Morello]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It will escape no one that, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I have been left with my hand on the wheel. I do not think trains have a wheel, but I am not entirely sure how they work—[Interruption.] They have a stick, yes. However, given that both amendments are in his name and relate to the freight target, I can only assume that they are eminently sensible and that the Government should accept them. If not, we would apparently like to press them to a Division.

[Keir Mather]

It is, once again, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendment 254 would require GBR, when charging above the cost directly incurred—in other words, when charging mark-ups—to consider its target to increase the use of freight. I can reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset immediately that GBR will not be able to raise charges in a way that is not compatible with its statutory duties or targets.

In practice, that means that when developing its own test of affordability, GBR is expected to establish bespoke criteria for divergent market segments operating on the railway, including freight, as Network Rail set out in its discussion document on charging. That allows GBR to design a test that can support its duties, including those under clause 18, and the targets to increase freight under clause 17.

We intend that the provision will operate in a way similar to the “market can bear” test today. GBR will develop its own test of affordability in consultation with the sector, including the Office of Rail and Road, before publishing it. However, as we move away from European law, in which the “market can bear” test is established, and to the Bill, which carries over the same principles, we must ensure that the language in the drafting is fit for purpose for UK statute. That is why the Bill stipulates that GBR will be able to levy mark-ups only if it is affordable to efficient operators. The Bill preserves that fundamental safeguard for operators, but in a form that can be applied more clearly in the UK context.

The test will be published with clear routes of appeal, as a further layer of protection for any operators, including freight, that are subject to charges when using GBR infrastructure. When hearing appeals, the ORR will consider the extent to which GBR has appropriately considered all factors before levying a mark-up. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for West Dorset that amendment 254 is unnecessary, as the Bill already achieves its intended effect.

Amendment 255 would give the ORR an explicit power, following an appeal against the content of a charging scheme, to direct Great British Railways to revise the scheme in cases where it considers GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. The Bill already provides clear and robust rights of appeal to the ORR in relation to the content of a charging scheme. Those rights are supported by strong and effective remedies where an appeal against GBR is successful, as set out in clause 68.

In the system set out in the Bill, where the ORR upholds an appeal on the content of a charging scheme, it has the power to remit all or part of the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration. That means that the ORR can require GBR to make changes to the charging scheme if it was identified during the appeal process that GBR had acted in a discriminatory manner, inconsistently with its statutory duties or in a way deemed procedurally unfair.

The ORR can also give legally binding directions to GBR, which could include setting out what it failed to take account of in the original decision and what it must do to ensure that those matters are properly assessed when reconsidering it. The amendment would therefore introduce powers that are already provided for in clause 68. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press amendments 254 and 255 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I heard what the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson said but, because of my long-standing and passionate support for freight targets in the context of charging regimes, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 88

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 4

Noes: 7

[Edward Morello]

I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 68, page 38, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

This amendment, along with Amendments 204 and 205, strengthens the role of the ORR, and reduces the role of the Secretary of State, in considering appeals against GBR access decisions.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 204, in clause 68, page 39, line 10, leave out from “Chapter” to end of line 11.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.

Amendment 205, in clause 68, page 39, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.

[Edward Morello]

Amendments 203 to 205 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The clause gives the Secretary of State extensive powers to intervene and, ultimately, overrule access decisions made by GBR. As I said in our previous sitting, we must remember that those powers are not just for the current Government, but for all future Governments. The Bill concentrates too much authority in the hands of the Secretary of State, with too little accountability and independent oversight. The amendments would reduce ministerial micromanagement and strengthen the role of the ORR in determining appeals on access decisions. The ORR should be an independent regulator whose job it is to make fair, evidence-based judgments. Access decisions should be governed by transparent regulation, not by political discretion. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR, protect the independence of GBR and prevent excessive control by the Secretary of State, especially without any accompanying accountability—something the Government have continued to refuse when the Opposition parties have tabled amendments. However, I hope we will have a sudden volte-face on amendments 203 to 205.

[Rebecca Smith]

I shall be brief. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR and reduce the role of the Secretary of State in considering appeals against GBR access decisions. Without further ado, I will say that we will support all three, should the Liberal Democrats press them to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I listened to the Minister’s points. I think that the Liberal Democrats have been adamant throughout scrutiny of the Bill that we want to establish clear lines between the ORR, GBR and the Secretary of State in order to limit meddling under any future Government and to protect what this Government are trying to achieve. The Bill needs clear red lines on where Secretary of State power should be, so I will push the amendments to Divisions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 175 to 183 and 186 will ensure that GBR can enter into connection contracts with adjacent infrastructure managers and facility owners. A connection contract is a formal agreement that focuses on the physical interface and upkeep of the connection between two rail networks. Connection contracts are important in enabling the smooth passage of trains from GBR’s network to others, such as the Core Valley Lines in Wales. They also allow GBR’s network to be connected to privately owned depots or ports, which will be of importance to freight operators. These technical amendments retain the existing arrangements, enabling GBR and other parties to enter into connection contracts. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.

[Edward Morello]

I wish to speak in support of amendment 146 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements. We believe that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for train operators and passengers. Access agreements are detailed, regulated contracts that set out service patterns, responsibilities and costs. They are overseen by the ORR and published on its public register. Amendment 146 would remove ministerial powers to terminate those agreements early, limiting the ability of the Secretary of State to micro- manage GBR.

While I risk sounding like a broken record, as I have said before, these are powers that apply to both the current Government and future one. While I understand the desire for the Secretary of State to have the power to terminate agreements, those powers sit better with the ORR and GBR. If we want stability, investment and reliable services, we need to signal to the market that there will not be political intervention that undermines long-term planning. I hope that the Government will see the sense of this amendment.

[Rebecca Smith]

Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to except GBR or a subsidiary of GBR from the sections outlining the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. That change would prevent the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. The clause removes GBR from the normal ORR supervised access regime, giving it a special exemption that no other operator has. Since GBR is both operator and infrastructure manager, we believe that this creates an uneven playing field and risks unfair treatment of competing operators. If the Government insist on the current drafting, they must come clean and admit that their intention is to treat competitors unfairly in comparison, and that they are not in favour of competition and reject private investment as a driver of innovation and improvement on the railway.

Given the destruction of the current independently managed fair and level playing field, it is no surprise that the industry has major concerns. Eurostar’s written evidence to the Transport Committee explains:

“The Railways Bill consolidates strategic and operational authority in Great British Railways. While centralising network management offers efficiency gains, it is essential that ORR’s independent regulatory function is preserved, especially for open access and international services. In future Government will have the overarching interest in the Infrastructure Concession (let to LSPH), the Maintainer Operator (Network Rail) and the largest operator on the route (SET). There needs to be an independent referee to balance these interests with those of open access operators.

ORR provides impartial oversight of track access, station allocation, depot facilities, charging, and timetabling. Its independence provides transparent decision-making and safeguards competition, while giving investors confidence in the long-term stability of services.

Decisions such as the allocation of depot access at Temple Mills demonstrate the importance of ORR in balancing competing demands for constrained resources. Without statutory protection, GBR could constrain competition and impede international service growth. In addition, it could reduce transparency in access allocation.

Eurostar recommends that the Bill explicitly preserves the ORR’s independent role in regulating access, charges, and depot allocation for international services. This statutory protection is essential to provide fair treatment for operators and give certainty for the future of UK international rail services.

In international rail terms, the ORR’s role is more important than ever before, given the recent ruling enabling a new entrant to the market to access Temple Mills depot. The regulator will need to perform a strong, independent and objective role in ruling on cost sharing, compatibility and rolling stock issues.

The ORR can also play a role in track access charges – costs for accessing the London-to-Calais stretch of rail are nine times higher per kilometre than the cost of accessing equivalent infrastructure in Belgium, France or the Netherlands.”

Written evidence to the Transport Committee from Lumo and Hull Trains outlines their concerns:

“The ORR plays an essential role in maintaining a fair, transparent, and competitive rail network. Its independence supports confidence among passengers, freight operators, and private investors. Lumo and Hull Trains believe the Railways Bill should preserve this role to help GBR succeed.

To maintain balance across the system, the ORR must retain meaningful regulatory powers to ensure decisions made by GBR on access and charging are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the Government’s growth objectives. The current drafting of the Bill, however, limits the ORR’s capacity to intervene proactively, restricting its powers primarily to appeals after decisions have been made.

Enhancing the ORR’s decision-making and enforcement capability would help ensure that GBR’s commercial and operational decisions remain aligned with the wider interests of passengers and the market. This approach would reinforce the Government’s ambition for a collaborative, competitive, and accountable rail system. A strong regulator also provides stability for investors, ensuring that GBR operates within a framework that fosters long-term confidence and fair treatment for all market participants.

While the Government desires to create a ‘directing mind’ in GBR, coordinating rail with a whole network view, for private operators to have confidence in the system there must be appropriate protections guaranteeing fair access and charging. The ORR is well-positioned to perform that role as an essential backstop, but the correct framework must be built around it to enable it to operate as such.”

Finally, Angel Trains also provided written evidence to the Transport Committee:

“Angel Trains believes that the new access framework must provide equitable access to all parts of the railway, whether operators are GBR-led, Open Access, or freight. As a lessor of rolling stock to both GBR-led and Open Access operators we believe parity among operators is crucial and would welcome greater clarity from the Government on how access and charging decisions will be made and prioritised. As an independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) should be responsible for ensuring a level playing field by intervening if concerns are raised that GBR could have taken a discriminatory decision, for example, around preferential access rights and charging for GBR operators over Open Access competitors.

Beyond access arrangements, we would welcome further detail from the Government about how GBR will be held to account. In its current form, GBR possesses a high concentration of power in its role in setting both strategy and delivery. In order to provide adequate scrutiny and accountability, there must be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that financial, economic, and safety objectives are met.

Angel Trains believes that there should be clear divisions between different parts of the rail system to ensure adequate accountability…As outlined above, it is vital that there is a fully independent regulator to hold GBR to account, for which the ORR could be best-placed. Beyond acting as an arbiter on access and charging decisions, the ORR should be empowered to report on GBR’s performance and issue performance improvements notices to GBR, in addition to other regulatory duties. The ORR must maintain a regulatory function to provide fairness and stability for the rail industry, which encourages investment and ensures financial sustainability by creating a level playing field across the sector and eliminating subjectivity from decision-making.”

We therefore seek to leave out clause 69 and will vote against it. This would keep GBR under the normal access regime supervised by the ORR and ensure a fair system. We have no objections to Government amendments 175 to 183 but, as mentioned, we are less happy with clause 69 as a whole.

Clause 70 amends the 2016 regulations to exempt GBR from the provisions of those regulations that would otherwise apply to its infrastructure. The 2016 regulations will continue to apply to other infrastructure managers. We do not object to the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Regulations about non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services

[Edward Morello]

I beg to move amendment 256, in clause 72, page 41, line 38, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must not make provision for the Secretary of State to direct operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.”

This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State does not exercise powers over operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 221, in clause 72, page 42, line 2, leave out from “consult” to end of line and insert

“the Office of Rail and Road and affected facility owners”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the ORR and affected facility owners before making regulations under this section.

Amendment 231, in clause 72, page 42, line 4, at end insert—

“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”

This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.

Clause stand part.

Clause 73 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I speak in support of amendment 256, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 72 allows regulations that could give the Secretary of State powers over operational matters in freight sidings and terminals. Amendment 256 makes clear that those operational decisions must not be subject to ministerial direction. The amendment comes directly from the freight industry and reflects clear concerns about unnecessary political interference.

Freight sidings and terminals are operational commercial assets, and their day-to-day management should sit with operators, not with Ministers. As we said in previous sittings, the powers would apply to not just the current but future Governments. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I should say that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State too much control and too many opportunities for micromanagement with too little accountability over too many areas. Amendment 256 draws a sensible boundary, protects freight operators from meddling, and supports a stable and efficient freight network.

[Rebecca Smith]

I will speak to clauses 72 and 73, and the grouped amendments. Clause 72 is another controversial clause. It sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the management and operation of non-GBR infrastructure, which means any network, station or track not operated by or on behalf of GBR; about the rights to operate trains that use non-GBR infrastructure; and about competition in the market for the provision and supply of such operations.

Subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to set access terms and charges for non-GBR infrastructure, overriding commercial negotiation and bypassing the ORR. That cuts directly against the stated principle that the publicly owned operator must not regulate its competitors. It is an extraordinary clause that cuts up contract law and throws it out of the window.

The Rail Freight Group is concerned. It states:

“Clause 72 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to intervene in privately owned rail freight terminals, setting conditions of access and charges amongst other matters. Again, we understand that this is not the intention of the clause (which exists to enable GBR to take over other infrastructure such as HS1, Heathrow Branch or the Core Valley Lines) but nonetheless it is an extant risk to rail freight as presently worded, and we believe freight terminals should be explicitly out of scope for this clause.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not arguing that stakeholders are not valid in raising concerns about the issues: they are. I am seeking to ameliorate their concerns by outlining what provisions are in the legislation to offer sufficient scrutiny and ensure that the way in which the process happens offers robust safeguards.

Constraints are built into clause 72 to ensure sufficient oversight, with the Secretary of State consulting persons considered appropriate and making changes in secondary legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that legislation will be subject to full public consultation and subsequently debated in both Houses, which reflects the importance of the regulations in providing certainty for business.

I have already said that the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties to ensure that there is full transparency and industry comment. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 would all narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings, and amendment 231 would exclude freight-only facilities. I have already spoken on why some of the principles that lie behind those amendments are unnecessary.

Let us take my example of GBR changing the date when its new working timetable is to take effect. On the basis of the amendments, other infrastructure managers would forever be misaligned with that new timetable change date, even if they wished to align. The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the owners or operators of private freight facilities on operational matters.

I am happy to reassure the Committee that the power cannot be used to bring other infrastructure managers or operators of privately funded facilities into public ownership, as I know how exercised Opposition Committee members have been about that principle. In the consultation, industry broadly supported the ability to make necessary amendments, although it is of course right to raise concerns when they arise. Most sector bodies agree that it will be important to ensure that there are no regulatory barriers to passenger and freight operators crossing between different networks, and that is what the clause seeks to achieve.

Amendment 221 would make the ORR and affected facility owners statutory consultees to the power. That is unnecessary as before exercising the power to make regulations, the Secretary of State is already required to consult all persons they consider appropriate, which would include the ORR and any affected facility owners. If the Secretary of State did not consult such persons, there would be strong grounds to challenge the regulations.

Clause 73 will ensure clarity in how key terms are applied throughout the access chapter of the Bill. It defines “GBR infrastructure”, “GBR passenger service” and “working timetable”—fundamental terms to the operation of GBR. The definition of GBR infrastructure ensures that the new access arrangements developed by GBR apply only where intended. The clause also includes a power to amend the definition, which is necessary to ensure that, as GBR’s network evolves over time, it remains clear to GBR and other infrastructure managers which parts of infrastructure are GBR’s responsibility. The clause is therefore critical to provide clarity and transparency.

Given what I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments. I commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee.

[Edward Morello]

I have nothing further to add, but we would like to press amendment 256 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Edward Morello Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I think we have to decide what GBR is going to be. Is it going to be a stand-alone organisation that is trying to run itself efficiently, providing value for money for the taxpayer and hopefully, one day, a check on the Secretary of State? Or is it going to be a creature of the Department for Transport that is told what to do and having its decisions second-guessed? This is a big decision that the Government have to take.

The clause creates a huge risk of stasis, as GBR gets bossed around and becomes a passive recipient of instructions from the Department for Transport. I worry that it is a recipe for future disaster, so I have questions for the Minister. What factors will the Secretary of State take into account when deciding the general level and structure of fares? Why is the Secretary of State in a better position to take those decisions than GBR is, given the objects that she has set the organisation? What additional information will she use that is not available to GBR? I will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. At least it is clear that any future failure of the railways will be down to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, not to GBR, since the power to guide and then direct and then set fares lies expressly with the Secretary of State.

My amendment 45 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, thereby preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set and making that decision separate from political influence. When considering amendment 45, Rail Forum said:

“We support this as it should be for GBR, as an arm’s length body and the directing mind, to determine fares not the Secretary of State.”

Amendment 148 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would remove the power to give binding directions over fares—another version of our approach.

The clause as drafted is overreach by the Department for Transport and exactly the kind of micromanagement that the Minister claims will not happen. Why do we need these powers?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.

As the shadow Minister outlined, amendment 148 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage is not overly dissimilar to Conservative amendment 45 in what it tries to achieve, but I will come at it from a slightly different angle. Clause 33, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue binding directions to Great British Railways on the level and structure of fares. We have said many times that the Bill already grants the Secretary of State extensive influence over GBR. Allowing binding directions on fares risks tipping that influence into outright micro-management. It opens the door to the imposition of short-term political decisions, rather than long-term, evidence-based decisions about fares being made by those responsible for actually running the railways. It is a tool that can be misused, particularly in times of fiscal or political pressure.

Even if the current Government assure us that they would not misuse the power, the problem is that once it exists, it exists for all future Governments. I hope the Government will recognise the inherent risk in that and support amendment 148, thereby preventing not only themselves but all future Secretaries of State from being able to abuse the power.

[Keir Mather]

On the role of the Secretary of State in setting parameters for fares, we have had a lot of debate in the Committee about the need to ensure efficiency on behalf of taxpayers, who are also passengers on the railway. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has the democratic responsibility to do so; therefore, it is right that the power exists to set broad parameters as they relate to fares. However, that process must be undertaken transparently. Parameters will be set through guidance and public service contracts, which will be published and open to scrutiny. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can direct on fares, but not that she will do so regularly. That is important to the point about overreach, and the exceptional circumstances in which direction might be a wise provision to have in the legislation. I will turn to that later.

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Member is far too eager. I shall turn to that in due course.

Amendment 148 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing directions to GBR relating to fares, and amendment 45 would do the same for directions and guidance. I remind hon. Members that, as I said when we debated the directions and guidance clauses earlier in the Bill, the strategic parameters and guardrails that the Secretary of State will set for GBR on fares may not ultimately be delivered through directions and guidance by default.

Clause 33 already allows for provisions on fares parameters and guardrails to be included in public service contracts awarded to GBR for operating passenger services. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances, which may necessitate a swift reappraisal of the strategic approach to fares. That is precisely what the Secretary of State’s directions-making power allows for, supplemented by the ability to issue guidance, to ensure a clear and speedy response if there is a crisis or unexpected change in context.

Amendments 148 and 45 would remove those options for the Secretary of State and, in fact, for Scottish Ministers where GBR is operating services that they designate. The Government strongly believe that that is not in the interests of passengers or taxpayers. I agree with Opposition Members that we do not want Ministers interfering with day-to-day fares policy. GBR will have the freedom to define its fares policy within the parameters and guardrails set out, simplifying fares, removing duplication and, in turn, improving value for money. It will therefore be set up to succeed from the outset. Contrary to what Opposition Members believe, the powers in clause 33 do not undermine that.

[Edward Morello]

I know it has probably been overused already in the Committee, but I keep returning to the NHS England example. The Government set up arm’s length bodies and Ministers are then invariably unable to resist the urge to tinker. The Government devolve responsibility out and then realise that having something completely arm’s length, which they have no control over, is very unattractive when they are politically responsible. What starts off being explained as happening only in exceptional circumstances invariably becomes day to day. The amendments are an attempt to protect against a repeat of the mistake with NHS England, which the Government are now having to unpick.

[Keir Mather]

We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.

[Edward Morello]

I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.

It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.

[Keir Mather]

Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.