Railways Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.

The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.

This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.

Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.

We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.

As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes

“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—

putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—

“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.

As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.

[Wendy Morton]

Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand to correct the hon. Gentleman: the most punctual is, I believe, Greater Anglia, which services my constituency, but the point he makes is a good one. The greater integration of track and train brings greater efficiencies and leads to greater punctuality. That is exactly why that was Conservative party policy going into the last general election. What we do not need is increased control by perhaps heavily unionised workforces being given extra political power through nationalisation, taking the focus off the customer and focusing on the organisation and its purposes instead.

We have the track and train being integrated, and this Bill should be giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver dynamic management. That is crucial for a big organisational change. It should be putting passengers first by giving GBR the power to sort out the worst of the union-imposed inefficient working practices. How can we seriously have a seven-day timetable staffed by a five-day working week, requiring voluntary overtime to staff just normal service? It is clearly ridiculous. This legislation should give GBR the power and, importantly, through this new clause, the political support it will need to fix that problem.

We need to enable drivers to operate train doors where that is not yet standard practice and to fix similar Spanish practices. I think that is very unfair on the Spanish, by the way, who surprisingly run a much more efficient railway in some respects. We need to increase flexible driver training and operation, and so much more. Under new clause 54, tabled in my name, a working practices and productivity modernisation framework would provide GBR with that direction and give it the political cover to act.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member will be aware that I have already addressed that question in answer to one of his colleagues, but if international companies, whether state-owned or private, make a tender that is more attractive than any other operator applying for that tender, the people who benefit most are the taxpayers and service users of the United Kingdom. That is what happens.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree with new clause 85, which would make the interests of disabled people a key performance indicator for Great British Railways? I have been contacted by Katrina, a constituent from Sproatley, who has an upper limb disability as a result of thalidomide and relies heavily on rail travel. There are many services on which she cannot pre-book a seat, which for many of us is a convenience but for her is essential, because she finds being jostled frightening. She needs to have her interests recognised by the railway. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be very useful for the Government to accept new clause 85?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that the needs of disabled passengers such as his constituent, whom he so ably represents, are very important. That is one performance indicator that the Government should impose on GBR, but is it not ridiculous that we have to have Government action to impose KPIs on a railway? We should not be doing it this way.

Instead of giving GBR a clear purpose and direction and then supporting it to deliver, the Government are imposing nationalisation, which will bring with it, as we see in the Bill, an inevitable explosion of bureaucracy, civil service plans, targets, long-term strategies and civil service rights to give guidance and direction, all in the name of the Secretary of State. What will be the impact of this on GBR over time? Will it lead to the dynamic management that this structural reorganisation must have if it is to have a hope of working? Let history be our guide. I cannot think of a single example of a nationalised industry in any country, either now or in the past, that is or was a byword for management dynamism. Members should try it themselves—we cannot think of one, can we? If GBR needs dynamic management, how can nationalisation possibly be the answer?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Father of the House is nailing me down to a cast-iron assurance at the Dispatch Box. I am not in a position to do that, but I fully expect to be in this role in a future Government and look forward to the opportunity to encourage open access to provide the through train that the right hon. Gentleman needs or for GBR to do so.

If GBR needs the dynamic management that we say it does, the Government are imposing for political reasons—very popular ones among their Back Benchers, as we have heard—a management system that has never worked in the past, but somehow it will be different this time. They have made their choice and we need to make the best of it. At the very least, this founding legislation should identify core key performance indicators which will survive the test of time in legislation. New clause 53 and amendment 158 provide them. They are detailed, but in essence, they focus on reliability, safety, comfort and on-board experience, affordability and value for money, passenger and network growth, financial sustainability and freight growth.

Until covid, privatisation undeniably brought a focus on ridership that had been missing previously under nationalisation. I accept that private businesses are not trying to be nice; they work to increase ridership because it brings in fare income, which creates profit. They are not directed to do so; the natural incentives work to solve the problem. The innovation of privatisation, fought tooth and nail at the time by Labour and the unions, was supported by passengers, who voted with their feet. British Rail oversaw the long-term decline in ridership from about 1 billion in 1950, reducing in a straight line to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation immediately reversed that 40-year trend of decline, growing back ridership not just to 1 billion but to 1.7 billion in 2019.

Under the Bill, GBR does not even have a passenger growth target. New clause 14 in my name would rectify that by requiring the Secretary of State to set GBR a passenger growth target and to keep it under review. How can the Government be against that? They have agreed to put one in for rail freight growth, but for some reason passengers are not listed in the Bill. Instead of these sensible, pro-growth and pro-passenger measures, we have clause after clause of political control, micromanagement of a nationalised structure, and unfettered rights of guidance and direction by the Secretary of State—by which we mean Department for Transport officials—over GBR at any time and for any reason, under clauses 7 and 9. It is a recipe for corporate paralysis where decisions are second-guessed by civil servants.

Amendments 150 and 151 limit at least the giving of guidance by Department for Transport officials to issues where GBR fails to meet a key performance indicator, and the giving of mandatory directions to serious issues where GBR has missed KPIs and the chief executive has been removed in consequence. I fear that over time, as the corporate memory of the train operating companies fades and with it their focus on the customer experience, this focus will be replaced by other incentives.

Heavily unionised workers of a nationalised industry well understand that the Government will now be politically exposed to industrial action as never before. It will be entirely rational for them—I do not blame them for doing so—to use this new bargaining power to increase pay and improve conditions, which sounds good, does it not? Why would they not do so? It does, however, increase costs and reduce productivity. Who benefits? Not the passenger or the taxpayer. Labour will be too weak to stand up for the taxpayer and for fare-paying passengers. Services will become more expensive, worse, less frequent—or all three—and we will be back to the rationing of resources as we see in every nationalised sector.