Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Does anybody have anything to declare? No. We will now hear oral evidence from First Rail, Rail Freight Group and ALLRAIL. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

John Thomas: I am John Thomas, policy director of ALLRAIL.

Maggie Simpson: I am Maggie Simpson, director general of Rail Freight Group.

Steve Montgomery: I am Steve Montgomery, managing director of FirstGroup’s rail division.

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

Q67 Thank you for attending to give oral evidence. Maggie Simpson, we heard from the chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road this morning that the appeals process is very tightly constrained. Is it worth the paper it is written on?

Maggie Simpson: We are really concerned about the scope and definition of the appeals function as proposed in the Bill. We know that Great British Railways wishes rail freight to succeed. There are positive provisions for rail freight at the beginning of the Bill, but GBR will be a vertically integrated, incredibly powerful monopoly that, quite rightly, will be very focused on its own trains. This legislation will last for a long time, and the behaviours and actions of people today may not be mirrored in future Administrations or at future times.

Our members—businesses across the country that rely on the railways for their supply chains—are really concerned about ensuring that, if things go wrong, they have an effective right of appeal. The provisions in the Bill set an incredibly high threshold—judicial review standards—for bringing an appeal. Even if it is met, the actions that can be taken are such a high bar that it is very unlikely that a decision would ever be overturned, and future Secretaries of State can by regulation, through the negative procedure, set out even more steps and fees. We are really concerned that that is weak. It is a backstop provision; we would only need to use it if things went wrong, but if it is not any use, it will deter people from investing.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Moving on to access decisions and charging, on your reading of the Bill, does the ORR have enough power to hold GBR to account? If your answer, as I suspect it might be, is that it does not, what changes need to be made to improve the Bill?

Maggie Simpson: On capacity allocation in particular, as well as the points I have just made about the appeals function, we have a conflict between two clauses in the Bill. The capacity duty in clause 63 sets an incredibly powerful requirement in law for GBR to keep capacity for its own trains and any trains it wants to run in the future. We have sought assurance from the Department for Transport on how that duty and clause 60, on the infrastructure capacity plan, work together. The Department has told us that its intention is for the capacity duty to be subservient to the infrastructure capacity plan, where an assessment is made of the best use of the network, but that is not what the law says. We would like to see it clarified that the value-based assessment of what is the right use of capacity on the network is done first, and that GBR is then able to assure the capacity afterwards.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you. Mr Thomas, in your view, under the Bill, will the railways be regulated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner? I am talking about the relationship between open access—the non-nationalised parts of the railway—and GBR. If not, why do you say that, and how would you suggest it is fixed?

John Thomas: First, I will say that the policy intent is quite clear. One of the DFT’s supporting documents to the Bill is quite clear that one of the definitions of a duty on GBR is for it to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. Network Rail’s recent access and use policy document also made it clear that GBR would have to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to suggest that.

It is really important that there is something on the face of the Bill to say that GBR needs to be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory in its decision making. I think that would be in the best interests of customers and communities, and it would give our members confidence to continue to invest, rather than just relying on the taxpayer to make investments.

The reason I say no is that there is no such provision on the face of the Bill. Going back to Maggie’s point about appeals, I think it would really help the appeals process if there were provision for GBR to be non-discriminatory in making decisions; otherwise, what are appeals going to be based on? They will be based on GBR’s own policies, and if it can discriminate against other services, what is there to appeal against?

In addition, the ORR will lose its ability to hear appeals on the basis of taking into account the benefits of competition for users. We think that is wrong. We think that an open access appeal could never be successful if that provision were taken away, so we advocate adding it back in. The ORR should have a duty to take account of the benefits of competition. Clearly, it has to take into account other matters, as it does currently, including the funds available to the Secretary of State, but if it does not have the ability to take account of the benefits of competition, how is an open access operator ever going to be successful in any appeal?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Mr Montgomery, will you say whether you agree with that position, as well as answering this final question? In areas of capacity and access, the Bill anticipates the Secretary of State being granted power to change capacity decisions and access agreements without notice. If that is the case, what impact will that have on the ability of open access operators to build a business case for investment in the future? What impact will it have on future investment?

Steve Montgomery: I agree with everything John and Maggie said. The challenge we see as a private sector operator is how you get anybody to invest in the industry with the lack of clarity in the Bill. As John alluded to, there is reference by the DFT in the memorandum of understanding on the Bill, but nothing in the Bill itself. That makes it very difficult to go to a board and say, “Look, we want to invest in these things.” What certainty do you have for the future?

An awful lot has been made of open access as we have gone through this process. It would take up 1% of overall capacity, but it is held out there, in the commentary, as one of the major plays in the Bill. We think that open access brings the opportunity for competition, which we seem to have lost with some of the wording in the Bill. How do we make sure that there are better services for customers? That is what we all want and what GBR is setting out to do, but how do we make sure that we all have a fair chance when bidding? We have talked about the access situation. GBR can decide not to give access, and the ORR has very limited powers to hear an appeal, so where is the confidence for the private sector investment that the industry continues to cry out for?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Q Thank you all for appearing before the Committee. I will start by asking you a macro question about the provisions in the Bill. There are two fundamental protections for freight within the Bill: the freight target and the freight duty, and not just GBR but the Secretary of State and the ORR will be accountable for them. The consultation response published alongside the Bill mentions freight 100 times. There will be a freight rep on GBR’s board and a specific freight team within the organisation. I understand that you met the Rail Minister and had the opportunity to discuss some of the concerns. In the overall context of the provisions in the Bill, do you think that GBR, as it will be set up through the Bill, will have due consideration of the needs of freight and an interest in promoting it?

Maggie Simpson: We have been very clear that we welcome those provisions. We are grateful to the Rail Minister and his team at the DFT, and to your own team, for their commitment to freight. That is really good but, with respect, I have been around a long time and I have seen circumstances in which Secretaries of State and Rail Ministers have not been as keen on freight, or perhaps have been more keen on road freight and less keen on rail freight. We have seen situations arise through different political times and economic circumstances.

When I am looking at the Bill, I am looking at whether it works today, with a Government who are supportive of and promoting freight, and at whether it would it work in the future, with a Government, of whatever colour, who have a different view. We have to look at it through that lens because we legislate for the long term. It is really difficult, because you are saying to people who are trying to help you, “Actually, I don’t like this.” That is an emotional tension—of course it is.

The duties and provisions in the Bill are great— I would not want to be going into GBR without them, and I think they will be powerful—but they are doing a lot of heavy lifting. We are going into a very different cultural environment. GBR will think about its own trains first; it has to for it to succeed—that is kind of the core. We are going into a very different access arrangement and a very different set of parameters, and it is entirely possible that they could go wrong and that we would need the recourse of the appeal function. They might not, but we need to know that it will work if they do. Having a strong appeal function will help it to work, because GBR will know that if things do go wrong we have that recourse in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Trainline and Independent Rail Retailers. We have until 3.05 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Catriona Meehan: Good afternoon. My name is Catriona Meehan. I am the director of public affairs at Omio, here today representing Independent Rail Retailers.

John Davies: My name is John Davies, I am vice president of industry relations at Trainline. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you both for attending to give oral evidence. This section is about independent rail retailers. I am going to start with what the Competition and Markets Authority said about this. I am quoting it. It is saying that it is

“important to give the right signals from the outset that TPRs will be competing on a level playing field with GBR—to encourage that competition and investment which will benefit passengers directly”.

That is what the CMA says. Mr Davies, do you agree with the position that the CMA has taken? If you do, do you think the Bill as currently drafted gives a level playing field between GBR and independent retailers? If not, why not, and what would you do to fix it?

John Davies: Yes, we agree with the view that the CMA has expressed on giving the right signals from the outset for how the reformed rail industry should work as far as retail is concerned. They also highlighted the risk of this structure giving rise to the actual or perceived risk that GBR will self-preference its own retail operation. There is relatively little about the structure of the reformed rail industry in the Bill, but I think the relevant point is that the creation of GBR will bring together online retailing in a single website and app. This creates a conflict of interest, because GBR will define and operate the future retail market, it will set its economic terms and it will also compete in it.

It is not just the CMA that has recognised these challenges and risks. The Government’s own Railways Bill impact assessment registered this point in terms of the competitiveness of the ticket retailing market—it could be questioned by potential investors who might be concerned that GBR will use its unique position to take actions that put its retail competitors at a disadvantage. However, I should also note that we are encouraged by some of the words of Lord Peter Hendy, who said in a December interview with Simon Calder that there ought to be a level playing field. We look forward to understanding more about how that will be provided, because we have not seen any of the detail on that just yet.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Other witnesses have strongly argued for an express duty on the face of the Bill that GBR should be fair and non-discriminatory in its approach. Would you agree that that would be helpful in this circumstance as well?

John Davies: I think it can only be helpful. There is a need to be certain that the retail part of GBR will compete in the market in the same way as everybody else, that it will do so on equality of terms, and that there will be equality of market access on things like fares, features, products, data services and system access, as well as economic parity, so that there is certainty that GBR’s online retail activity will not be loss-making or cross-subsidised, and that there will be transparency of costs and revenues, so that the ORR can hold it to account.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q In other similar organisations, such as SNCF in France, the decision was taken to recognise the structural conflict of interest, and set up the retail arm of SNCF as a standalone organisation, presumably to prevent or reassure investors that there would be no cross-subsidising. First, do you think that would be a better solution in the United Kingdom? Secondly, if we got that through, could you explain or provide more details to the Committee on what impact it would have in real life?

I have in mind, for example, LNER currently being able to offer a full refund with one click on its website, and that service and facility not being made available to independent retailers even under the current system. Can you elaborate on quite how important that is for the independent sector? I would then like Catriona Meehan to come in with her views, too.

John Davies: When we talk about the need for the right kinds of protections for retailers, we are pointing at something that is not theoretical—these are risks that are with us today. You point at the example of delay repay, where independent retailers are prevented from supporting customers who have purchased their tickets through them by submitting their claims directly. It also occurs with things such as loyalty schemes, retailer inability to offer customers pay-as-you-go fares, and our ability to offer assisted travel. Independent retailers are not permitted to have access to a very significant amount of propositions around rail travel that are a very meaningful part of the market.

Catriona Meehan: I completely echo all of John’s points. For us, it is a concern that there would not be proper separation, which could lead to a degree of self-preferencing. You mentioned SNCF and the separation there, which is an example that we think works well. It is not perfect, of course; there are things that could be improved, but a colleague on the previous panel from ALLRAIL mentioned that EU markets are moving the other way: they are liberalising rather than nationalising.

It is interesting to look at why it has happened and why there is a need for it. FRAND principles were mentioned. We are also seeing that in other markets. Omio operates across 46 markets globally, so we have a lot of experience in other markets. Obviously, the UK is very important through our partnership with Uber trains, but we should also talk about the wider sector of independent rail retailers. Unless we have proper safeguards and assurances in place, we are not sure exactly how GBR will not self-preference. That is not exactly clear to us right now.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you both very much for taking the time to come and speak to us today. I suppose the existing system is that retailers rely on what is often quite a complicated web of contracts with the Rail Delivery Group operators and Network Rail to get access to the data and the systems that they need to operate. When things go wrong at the moment, your backstop is litigation, which can be incredibly costly and time-intensive for your organisations. In that context, would having a straightforward code of practice backed up by the ORR with an enforcement power be a simpler, more streamlined and predictable and less costly way to do business than the existing system?

John Davies: Yes, it would represent a streamlining of the system, but that is only true in so far as the GBR online retail function itself is subject to that code of practice equally. It is not clear to us that that is what is intended yet. That is something that we are working through with the Department and the ORR to set out exactly what that means. To the point that was made earlier about the parts of the customer proposition in the rail market that are not available to independent retailers currently, the surety of a code of practice would provide for what we characterise as parity of market access, which is not just fares— “Can we all sell the same fares?”—but features such as delay repay, services such as passenger assistance, and products such as loyalty. We should be able to have all those things on an equal basis across the industry: if they are good for one retailer to offer in support of rail travel, they should be good for everybody. In the work that we are contemplating on the code of practice, we aim to get to a place where no independent retailer or customer of an independent retailer is ever at a disadvantage in comparison with buying a ticket through what will be the future GBR online retail function.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Scotland and the Welsh Government. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Bill Reeve: Good afternoon. I am Bill Reeve, director of rail reform for Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Peter McDonald: Good afternoon. My name is Peter McDonald. I am director of transport for the Welsh Government.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you both for coming to give evidence. I will be fairly brief—I always say that, but never am. Mr Reeve, I will start with clause 8, which is on the potential powers for Ministers in Scotland to give directions to GBR. On the face of it, that all looks good: they have to consult the Secretary of State, and she or he has the power to overrule the Scottish Minister. Do you think that the Bill has the balance of responsibilities and powers right there?

Bill Reeve: There has to be a balance, because we are trying to secure the ability of our Ministers to have a proper accountability mechanism and proper direction for implementation of our strategies and of our very substantial funding of the infrastructure. Equally, our network is not an island; clearly, if a direction in Scotland were to have a material impact on matters south of the border, which would not be the intention, that provision is there; I can understand that. There were constructive discussions between our Ministers and officials about how we strike that balance so, broadly, we are content with the arrangements, noting that an MOU is also required by the Bill to flesh out a little more how that will work in practice.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q A recurring theme of this evidence today is the saga of the missing memorandum of understanding and/or draft licences. We have not seen 19 and counting documents that will form a crucial part of the governance of GBR in the future. Have you any idea about those? Have you seen a draft of the MOU? Do you know what is going to be in it?

Bill Reeve: We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be. Since the Bill submission last year, that has clearly been a key priority for us. Again, we have had good constructive discussions, working through in detail, as we should. Thus far, we are pleased with those discussions.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Okay, but nothing yet. Let us move on to clause 10, which gives the Scottish Ministers power of guidance over GBR. Some people have expressed concern that there could be so much political control over future GBR that it will be hard to work out whether the guiding mind is Ministers or GBR. What is your take on that?

Bill Reeve: I do not imagine that the guidance will be used then. Ordinarily, I would imagine that we would start with the use of our strategies, our statement of objectives and our normal means of engagement. It is important to remember that, whereas currently we spend £1 billion a year on Network Rail in Scotland, and it is for the ORR to enforce its delivery obligations under the delivery plan to the current funding arrangement, that role is being removed from the ORR.

What you see reflected in the Bill is something to address what would otherwise be a complete accountability gap. We would welcome the fact that we will have stronger accountability mechanisms under these provisions than we have had hitherto, given the very substantial amount of funding that we fund the railway infrastructure in Scotland with.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q It is interesting that you indicate that the guidance is a last resort, not a first resort. It does not say that on the face of the Bill. Do you think it should?

Bill Reeve: I think that would be a matter of convention and expectation. It is not the sort of thing you would rush to do when there are other ordinary means of engagement to be used first.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I turn to Mr McDonald. It is very different in Wales. The vast majority of the Welsh railway crosses the border with England, as opposed to Scotland, where there is more of a discrete railway—if I can put it like that. I think only the core valley railway is wholly within the gift of Welsh Ministers. Bearing that in mind, and that there will then have to be consultation with the Secretary of State on the vast majority of railways that affect Wales, do you think the Bill has the right line between consultation and decision making for Welsh Ministers, since it affects so much of their railway?

Peter McDonald: Yes I do, in terms of the legislation. However, I do not think we can come to a full judgment on this. This may also pre-judge your second question, because we do not have the full memorandum of understanding in front of us. It is only when we see that full package that we can make a judgment about whether the degree of consultation and partnership is sufficient for Wales.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Would you accept that the Committee is flying blind substantially on a lot of this, because we do not have the MOUs or a lot of the information that is core to the successful running and governance of GBR at the moment?

Peter McDonald: In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December. We are now working closely with Department for Transport officials on the detail. We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March. It is important for us to do that, because, similar to the Scottish Government, we have a pre-election period ahead of the devolved elections, and we would not want that to lose momentum in this important process.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is quite a significant risk, isn’t it?

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you both so much for coming to give evidence. Mr Reeve, would you be able to speak to the overall level of working that has taken place between DFT, yourself and the Scottish Government? The most unlikely of advocates for the way in which this process has been developed is the SNP Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who said that

“the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 210.]

That is impressive, isn’t it? Do you have any reflections on how this process has been worked out in consultation with yourself and the Scottish Government and whether it might provide instructive lessons for how GBR might seek to engage on a four-nations basis once it is established?

Bill Reeve: It would be churlish of me to disagree with that quote, frankly. In all seriousness, the level of engagement both between officials, and between our Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister, has been, in my experience, the best I have ever known when it comes to inter-Government exchange. It has been a constructive discussion and a sometimes forthright debate, which is reflected in where we have come to agreement now.

You will be aware that it is the Scottish Government’s position to support the Bill as it goes through the legislative consent motion process in the Scottish Parliament—pending any amendments that might change that; I do not want to fetter the will of our parliamentarians. We have been encouraged by the level of constructive engagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Angel Trains, the Railway Industry Association and Siemens. We have until 4.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves?

Malcolm Brown: I am Malcolm Brown, the CEO of Angel Trains.

Rob Morris: Good afternoon. I am Rob Morris, the joint CEO of Siemens Mobility, a manufacturer of trains and the supplier of rail systems here in the UK, for the UK.

Darren Caplan: I am Darren Caplan, chief executive of the Railway Industry Association, a trade association representing rail suppliers throughout the UK.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you, all three of you, for agreeing to give oral evidence today. I will start with Mr Brown, who represents Angel Trains: first of all, can you say a little bit about Angel Trains?

Malcolm Brown: Yes, by all means. Angel Trains is a ROSCO—a rolling stock operating company. We own circa 4,000 passenger vehicles in the UK, and we provide the bridge between private sector finance and the actual rail industry. In the last 10 years, we have invested about £1.9 billion in new rolling stock in the UK, and we invest about £80 million a year in refurbishing and maintaining trains across the network.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q That is an awful lot of money, and that comes down to the meat of it: this Bill changes the relationship between GBR and the supply chain—between GBR and ROSCOs, in your case. Does it provide your company, and companies like yours, with the long-term view needed for the supply chain and, by extension, investors? If not, what is needed to fix the gaps?

Malcolm Brown: As has been covered in other panel sessions, the Bill as it stands does not provide a long-term view. It relies on the building blocks that it refers to—we talked about this in other panel sessions—where you have a long-term rail strategy and there is also a promise of a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy. It is those documents that we would look to to provide a long-term view on what is coming up in the industry.

Our assets last circa 30 to 35 years, as does the infrastructure, and it is that long-term view that we require, not necessarily to give us certainty, but to give us a clear look-through that allows us to decide whether to invest and the level of investment we will make. In answer to your direct question, we will be looking to the railway strategy, which we presume will come first, and then to the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q There is reference, obviously, to a long-term strategy for rail in the Bill, but how long that is is not defined. Let us give the Minister a helping hand: for the ROSCOs and for the supply chain, what do you mean by “long-term”? What is helpful, and what is just too far in the future?

Malcolm Brown: As a general rule, a 10-year horizon is something that we can work with. With the nature of infrastructure—not just rail, actually, but other infrastructures too—for this type of asset, that, while it is not whole life, gives a clear look forward. When you extend that, clearly the level of accuracy, if not certainty, gets less. That is perfectly okay; we are used to dealing with that. That is how infrastructure actually works. We do not need to have 100% knowledge of something that is going to happen in 35 or 40 years, but what you want to have for look-through is, “Okay, we know what is going to happen in 10 years, and therefore, on a probability basis, this is what we will assume to do in 30, 35 or 40 years.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q So if you have a degree of certainty for the next 10 years and a forward look for, say, the next five after that—the Minister is right here, so shall we say 15 years for a long-term strategy? Is that what you are suggesting?

Malcolm Brown: No, I am not. I am suggesting that the strategy should give various date points—10 years, 15 years, 30 years. I do not think we should exclude it saying, “Here is a vision for what we wish our rail industry to look like in 30 years,” while accepting that that will actually change. It has to change; it has to morph and adapt to the market.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q What is missing from the Bill, from your perspective?

Malcolm Brown: I think the references to the building blocks of the long-term rail strategy and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy are key components that will actually help give greater colour to the Bill. At this point, a number of us are looking at this and trusting in the fact that they will come, and will come in a timely manner, and that that will allow us to get on and invest. This is not just investing for investing’s sake; this is taking Rob’s plant in Goole and actually pouring work in there that will employ people in the local area. It is that type of thing that will break the log jam that we have just now, and let us get on with things.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Mr Morris, you have just been referred to. At the moment, you have a control period of five years where the funding is locked down and there is a degree of forward certainty. Under the Bill, that certainty will be removed. It is not giving you more certainty for the future; it is giving you less. How important to the supply chain is certainty about the control period?

Rob Morris: Certainty is very important. We have invested something like £340 million, and we are currently investing in a new Goole facility for rail and train manufacture and a train command and control systems R&D and manufacturing facility at Chippenham. To continue with investment not just in facilities, but in skills and rolling stock for the future, we need certainty about the financing or funding over the control periods. It is not just about renewals, which are currently included, and which are there to stop the infrastructure from falling over; it must also be about enhancements and rolling stock and the maintenance of that.

From our perspective, we would echo what Malcolm said about the 30-year long-term strategy. For all those elements I have talked about, we must recognise that strategies have to be reviewed. I would suggest that that be done every five years for all of those and that funding is made available on a five-year basis, so that the supply chain has absolute clarity on where it can invest and how it can support GBR. GBR spend will be 50%-plus, we expect, within the supply chain, so what it does not want is for the supply chain and the investors to fall over.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You make an important point that enhancements should be included in this, not just maintenance. Coming back to the question, the Bill introduces for the first time an ability for the Secretary of State to change the funding settlement within a five-year period and without notice. You would agree that that is a backward step in certainty for the supply chain?

Rob Morris: Absolutely. Although we are based in the UK, we are a global company. If there is uncertainty here in the UK, we will cut off investments because we are in competition with a global market.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you for that. Mr Caplan, you represent RIA. Please explain to the Committee what RIA is and how important your organisation is.

Darren Caplan: We represent rail suppliers in the UK—all around the country, large and small. They can be companies like Siemens and Angel, and they can be SMEs—60% of the supply chain are SMEs and they are our members. There are about 640,000 jobs in the UK rail industry, and about half of those work in the supply chain, so it is quite a lot of jobs.

Around £40 billion of GVA is rail, and half of that is from the supply sector. Around £14 billion of Treasury revenue comes in from our sector, and half of that is from the supply sector, so it is a really important sector, covering building, maintaining, reviewing, infrastructure, rolling stock, signalling and so on—it is the full gamut of the rail industry.

The point you picked up on, Mr Mayhew, is really important, and I am happy to expand on that. I have in front of me the Bill’s clauses and provisions. Schedule 2 is the one we are concerned about, and it is really significant. It says:

“The Secretary of State must provide the ORR and Great British Railways with a statement, in relation to a funding period, indicating the amount of financial assistance that the Secretary of State reasonably considers may be made available to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State…for the purpose of funding the activities of Great British Railways during the funding period.”

That period is five years. It says, “must provide”. Then, three pages later, on page 64, it says:

“If the Secretary of State proposes to vary the financial assistance to be provided…the Secretary of State must notify Great British Railways of the proposed variation…The Secretary of State must notify the ORR if…the Secretary of State considers that the proposed postponement, withdrawal or reduction is likely to have a material impact on the ability of Great British Railways to carry on the activities specified”.

That is “provide” versus “notified”. It says they must “provide” the budget for a five-year period, but later it says they just have to “notify” if they want to change what they do. That is hugely significant, because it means that you can set up a five-year budget and decide that you want to change it once in that control period, or every month if you want to. That is highly political, because a future Secretary of State can decide what they want to do coming into a new control period. The future is less certain under the Bill than it is currently. We have had control periods for the last 30 to 35 years— we are now in CP7. Under the Bill, the future version of funding assistance for rail will be less certain than it is now.

The Bill also only talks about postponing, withdrawing or reducing, and not increasing. At no point does it talk about funding going up; it is all about reducing it. For my fellow witnesses, when they are looking at where they are going to invest, they will say that there might be £45 billion invested over five years, but that could come down—if you do not know for certain, why should you do it?

My final point is that rail is a very certain industry: you know what you need to spend in five years—you know the renewals you need to do, and you know the rolling stock you need to get, maintain or refurbish—so why can you not commit to a five-year spending envelope? It is very simple.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You are saying that schedule 2— I think you referred directly to paragraph 7(4)—increases risk and uncertainty for the supply chain, and that, as with any business, you price risk. That draft might be a Treasury draft, and I do not want to blame DFT—it may have been imposed, and who can possibly lift up the secrets of the boudoir in government—but do you agree that the outcome of that draft is that it increases risk and uncertainty, and that gets priced into the contract, so either investors will withdraw because they have no certainty, or if they remain, the cost to GBR and therefore to the taxpayer inevitably increases? It reduces, rather than increases, value for money; do you agree with that statement?

Darren Caplan: Yes, absolutely—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I am going to cut you short. You say absolutely. What about the other two?

Rob Morris: That is absolutely correct.

Malcolm Brown: It is fundamental economics.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you. I rest my case.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you all very much for giving evidence today. Mr Morris, I will begin with you for the Siemens perspective. I have had the opportunity to visit your fantastic production plant in Goole, and your local skills work is also commendable. I take the point about the need for long-term certainty in the rail industry, not only on rolling stock, but on those infrastructure improvements. On what Mr Brown referred to as the “building blocks” that sit throughout the legislation, the long-term rail strategy will provide a vision over 30 years—longer than 10 or 15 years—about the direction of the railways, and the rolling stock strategy is being developed in tandem with the Bill’s progress through Parliament, on which I believe stakeholders will be thoroughly consulted.

Duties for GBR also exist in the Bill. One of those duties is

“to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance”.

In a five-year business plan you may have fluctuations in spending to reflect fiscal reality, but would you say that through those building blocks, long-term certainty is offered to the industry, and GBR has to reflect industry needs and build a railway that is coherent in serving their interests over the long term?

Rob Morris: The short answer to that is yes, absolutely. The other elements that we have just discussed—on enhancements, and on rolling stock and the maintenance and funding thereof—are absolutely fundamental to that. I also think that the ambitions for the railway need to be included in that. Witnesses on previous panels have talked about freight and the target there. What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.

A good example of that is last week’s announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail, where rail and investment in it will create opportunity for increased productivity— I think £40 billion per annum was mentioned. It seems to me that there needs to be a connection in the Bill between what the Bill seeks to achieve, and generating that ambition, not just for freight growth, but for passenger growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry, Mr Caplan, but props are not allowed.

Darren Caplan: My apologies. The charts show how uncertain the current situation is, and these measures would make it less certain. If we can have the positives for GBR going forward, and get these issues addressed, that will be better for the supply chain.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I am grateful that we got a little more time to explore that. At the moment, we are in control period 7, so that takes us—

Darren Caplan: To 2029.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Yes. That is the last 30 to 35 years or so. A control period is a five-year investment cycle. The period is agreed at the start of the CP, or shortly before the start of it, and that funds the maintenance or improvement works.

Darren Caplan: Operations, maintenance and renewals.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q What you have shown us in your smuggled-in prop—

[The Chair]

Contraband.

Darren Caplan: Apologies, Chair. I was not aware of the rules.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am going to put words into your mouth, but please correct me if I am being unfair. In each control period, you get a bell curve of activity. You start with a low level of activity, because people did not know that there was certainty of funding, and then in years 2 and 3 it gears up and you get peak activity in year 2.5, roughly. Then, as you get towards the end of the control period where the medium term funding dries up or is uncertain, you get a drawdown of activity. That is the point that you were trying to make—is that correct?

Darren Caplan: It can happen between control periods as well, but the basic point is that over those five years, that money is the same. It can vary a bit between years—you can carry some over—but in that time you spend that money. Our concern about schedule 2 is that you can reduce the amount of money in that period.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Would it be a better system if you had control periods that had a greater certainty looking forward at any one time between the decision when money was tied down—if indeed it is tied down under the terms of the Bill—and the date at which the activity would then take place? For example, for the current control period of five years, if you take the decision on funding for the next control period, let us say two years out, would that be effective in increasing certainty, reducing the need for a bell curve of activity, and thereby reducing costs for the supply sector and, by extension, for the Government and taxpayers?

Darren Caplan: Absolutely. If you do the work that you need to do on rail when you need to do it, it is much cheaper than doing it at a later date. It is 30% cheaper to do a renewal when you are supposed to be doing it than at a later date. That is better for the taxpayer, because you can aggregate it. It is also better in terms of passenger experience, because the asset is being maintained when it needs to be.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I am just going to interrupt you. That is a different point from the one that I am asking about. I am talking about the cost of planning and implementing renewals and about having a degree of certainty looking forward regarding when that money will be spent. If you always have a minimum of, let us say, 24 months for planning and commitment to funding, does that make it easier for the supply chain to commit resources, and therefore cheaper?

Darren Caplan: These guys can talk to that specifically, but I assume so, because you are planning out your workforces, your investment in partner machinery, your overall business plan, the apprentices you are going to take on and innovation—all these things can be planned in advance. If you know, you will get a better cost.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Can you illustrate that with electrification, for example?

Rob Morris: Yes—electrification and signalling are both part of the renewals process. The five-year cycle that we currently have—which is often referred to as the boom-and-bust cycle, because that is what it is like for us—adds, let us call it, a subjective cost increase of about 30%, as Darren mentioned.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q What sort of sums of money are we talking about in the control period?

Rob Morris: The overall figure is normally about £40 billion, in terms of renewals and operations maintenance.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q So 30% of £40 billion is an increased cost as a result of this process.

Rob Morris: Subjectively, yes. I think there will be more accurate figures around that, but it is an inefficient process.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is amazing.

Rob Morris: One thing I would say to support the figures that Darren mentioned earlier is that we have had a particularly sluggish start to this control period, which is actually prolonging that and impacting on skills and capabilities in the industry, which might add additional costs to remobilise.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q And your combined evidence—again, I am putting words into your mouth, but correct me—is that the Bill as drafted not only does not solve that problem of 30% of increased costs, of the £40 billion every five years, but actually exacerbates it, because it removes what little certainty there currently is.

Rob Morris: Your words are correct.

Darren Caplan: Yes.

Malcolm Brown: I am not in that space, so I could not comment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q So for the people in that space, yes.

I am going to move to Siemens now. Historically, during the period of privatisation, rolling stock improvements have been inextricably linked with franchise bids. As franchises have come up for renewal, different operating companies have been in a bidding process, through competition, to make the most attractive proposal to the Department for Transport. Some of that would be in cheques to the Treasury, but a lot of it has been in improving rolling stock infrastructure. My own operating company, Greater Anglia, entirely renewed its rolling stock right across its area as part of its franchise bid.

That impetus for improvement of rolling stock is being removed entirely and replaced by GBR, a nationalised bidder. It has various duties. I look at clause 18(3), which we discussed a little earlier, under which it has a duty to improve “railway service performance”, but that is defined as being, in the main, reliability and passenger overcrowding. There is no reference to improved customer experience, to quality of rolling stock and to improved services that would come with new rolling stock. For Siemens, are you concerned that moving to GBR will lead to a reduction in the pace of improvement in rolling stock?

Rob Morris: Again, it is about understanding what the ambition is specifically with rolling stock and the funding thereof. My belief is that there is a need for a passenger growth target, which would further fuel the need to make sure that there is a clear approach to modern, carbon-neutral, efficient rolling stock to match a similar infrastructure for the betterment of GBR.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q At the moment, all of that is missing from the Bill, is it not?

Rob Morris: Yes.

Malcolm Brown: If I may, there is a natural life cycle. There is a beat rate to replacing, renewing and then retiring rolling stock. It is lumpy, because you do not replace trains one at a time; it tends to be in fleets. There is not a great deal we can do about that. What would concern me is if we reverted to everything being planned and done by a central organisation. We have tried that before. I refer the Committee to the 2014 National Audit Office report on the DFT procuring IEP. It did not go well, the National Audit Office says. There is a natural tension there just now—the commercial tension of trying to improve rolling stock and always trying to have the next best thing.

You talk about Greater Anglia. Apologies, but it is Alstom’s trains that we bought in there. They are a step change that was there before, but we cannot keep replacing every single train every time. We need to refurbish trains. We invested £125 million in the Pendolino fleet on the west coast. That created 100 jobs at Widnes and its own infrastructure there. That was completed on time and on budget. Nobody ever really talks about that, but we can do it. We have given the passenger an environment that is as new. That is a lot more cost-effective than simply going, “We must buy a new train every time we feel like it.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Where is the incentive to carry on and accelerate that process in this Bill? Where is the incentive for GBR?

Malcolm Brown: I cannot comment. I presume it is going to be in one of the building blocks. My concern is that we have a group of people who are trying to design trains for a hobby, when we have manufacturers such as Siemens in the UK, which have global platforms for trains. Yes, we adapt and customise them for the UK, but we get all the benefits of the manufacturing experience of a global manufacturer with the economies of scale that that provides as well. We do not need bespoke custom-built trains in the UK.

[Keir Mather]

Q To conclude with a broad-brush question, if we set up GBR with the ability to have an integrated view of the entire rail network, especially on a passenger basis, as an organisation that has real buying power and long-term certainty about the requirements it needs, and that sits alongside a rolling stock strategy that has been developed in consultation with industry for the long term, specific duties on GBR to provide certainty to those who provide railway services and a duty to promote the needs of future passengers, which I believe inherently means having a rolling stock pipeline which improves that experience, does that not offer quite a positive departure from a franchising system that, to an extent, was the definition of boom and bust in its short-term thinking and the unforeseen consequences that could often arise in the system?

Malcolm Brown: To my mind, there is the potential there—there is no question of it—but without having visibility, at the risk of repeating my previous answers. You talk about consulting with the industry; there is a vast amount of experience in the UK rail industry. I am totally agnostic about whether that is in the private or public sector. I would compel GBR to use that experience to inform the decisions and the forward planning.

I have an organisation that is not as large as Siemens. It is about 170 people and I think about 60% of them are qualified engineers. We have more than 30 years’ experience of acquiring rolling stock and structuring it. I think we are reasonably good at it. I would say utilise the experience and expertise that is there. I am not saying private or public; I am saying use the experience that is there to, frankly, avoid reinventing the wheel.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from the Urban Transport Group, Greater Manchester combined authority and West Yorkshire combined authority. Ms Brabin is on her way; she is in the building and will join us shortly. We have until 5 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves, please?

Andy Burnham: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Andy Burnham. I have been the Mayor of Greater Manchester for coming up on nine years. I was previously the Member of Parliament for Leigh for 16 years.

Jason Prince: Good afternoon. My name is Jason Prince, and I am the director of the Urban Transport Group, which represents transport authorities and mayoral strategic authorities across the UK.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Thank you both, as ever, for coming to give oral evidence; it is very helpful. Mr Burnham, I am going to focus on you. It is difficult, isn’t it? You have a national rail network, where you have to have a degree of national organisation, but you have devolved areas as well, which rightly have ambitions for an increased level of control, as I believe you do for rail. There will inevitably be a degree of tension between them. Part of the Bill’s job is to do its best to get that balance right. Inevitably—I speak as the shadow Minister—it will be very hard to be perfect, but we need to do as much as we can to get the Bill as good as we can by design at this stage.

I will start with the Bee Network up in Greater Manchester, which you have organised on the basis of concessions let by you, the mayoralty. The benefit of that is that the fare box is kept locally and it is operated privately. It does not have to be; you could run those concessions through a wholly owned subsidiary. I accept that. That approach of keeping the fare box local does not work with GBR because the fare box stays with GBR. Even if you have a greater level of devolvement, it feels a bit like it is going to be GBR in Greater Manchester, just painted yellow. Is that what you wanted from the Bill, or did you have aspirations for a bit more control?

Andy Burnham: Thank you very much for the question. I agree with the way that you have presented it. There is a tension to be resolved, but I believe it can be resolved. It is really important that you have mentioned the Bee Network, because I am responsible for running the tram and bus systems, so the backbone of the public transport system is under our control. We have to move to a world where the railway emerges from its railway silo and sees the bigger picture—the integration of public transport across all modes. I would encourage the Committee to think about that, because that change is coming. You will know, Ms Barker, that Liverpool city region will also soon embark on putting buses under public control, and I think the model we are creating will become something of a norm around the country.

I think it is possible to go further, as you say, and my evidence for that is TfL Overground: an arrangement was reached between the Government, the railways and TfL on an integrated, fair offer. I believe that is entirely achievable in Greater Manchester, where the railways come into the capped system. Actually, the rest of the Bee Network adds value to the railway, because no longer will it be the case that you buy a ticket in somewhere like Buxton or Glossop and your travel runs out at Manchester Piccadilly; in a capped system, people can have their onward travel all included under that daily cap. That is what operates in London, and I see no reason why it cannot operate in Greater Manchester—indeed, we will insist that we get the same.

Isn’t it all about revenue sharing, hopefully in relation to passenger growth? We have a plan to bring eight rail lines into the Bee Network, starting with two this year, and it is a plan that has been agreed with the rail industry. This is potentially a win-win for everybody, because the arrival of the capped Bee Network system gives people more reason to use the railways, so we think that we can increase patronage on those rail lines.

It has to be a real partnership with the railway, which is why we are encouraging the Committee to go beyond the idea that we are just consultees who can be listened to or not. Meaningful partnership is what will build the right railway and the right public transport solution in our city. It is much more than painting the trains yellow, although I do want to see yellow trains all over Greater Manchester with bees on them.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Welcome to the Committee, Ms Brabin; I am sorry that we started before you managed to get in.

Tracy Brabin: My apologies for being late.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Is there not a bit of a problem then, Mr Burnham? That is not what is in the Bill. At the moment, the Bill has a duty to consult, but it does not give the level of power to mayoral combined authorities that you were just identifying. In your answer, you said that you will insist on getting more. Well, you will not get more powers under the Bill, as currently drafted—those powers are not given to you. What do you say about that, and how do you think it should be changed?

Andy Burnham: I do not think it can be justified any more that there is one transport arrangement for London, but that arrangement is not available to everywhere else—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. The sitting is now suspended, and we will resume in 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I bring the shadow Minister back in, I make colleagues aware that the session will run until 5.15 pm.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q First, I apologise for taking so long during the Division. I am also a Whip, so I had to stay in the voting Lobby. It is something to get used to again when you come back to the House. I am picking up fag ends, because it sounded as though the Minister was discussing very similar issues to those that I was discussing before we left.

It was rather frustrating, Mr Burnham —the Division bell went when you were about to deliver a hammer blow against the Government on your disappointment about what is not in the Bill and what should be in it. You used to say that you wanted more autonomy for the Bee Network. I have heard your answers—it is clear that your position on that has not changed. You want to have more autonomy, but the Bill does not provide it at the moment. You have a duty to consult, which is okay so far as it goes, from GBR, and then thereafter, once it has consulted with the mayoralties, it only has a duty to have regard to what it is that you have said or requested. In your combined evidence, what would be a better form of words more accurately to reflect the relationship that you think should exist between the national and the regional? Mr Burnham, because we were halfway through a conversation, perhaps we could start with you, then move on to Tracy.

Andy Burnham: Thank you. I do not know about coming back, but what I do know is that in my 16 years here, there were enough Tory MPs around that there was no double-jobbing, I do not think, from my memory. We will move on.

I think that it is about a meaningful role. I do not think autonomy is actually what we are asking for here today, any of us.

Tracy Brabin: No.

Andy Burnham: What we are saying is that we want a meaningful partnership, which is about more than just being consulted and then ignored—which, if we are honest, does happen to us as mayors with the rail industry. Even though I am chair of the Rail North Committee, we sometimes have to work very hard to make the railways listen to what democratically elected mayors and leaders say. It is a different relationship, and I would say that I strongly feel the railways need culture change. We need to get back to a railway that serves people and places, not a quite adversarial section of transactional arrangements that can be very complex. It feels to us sometimes that the railways have lost sight of that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q It has become very command-and-control, hasn’t it? It is top-down, but you are saying that it should be more bottom-up.

Andy Burnham: Yes, I think if you end up with a very top-down railway, it is a bit like the phrase I used to hear in the Department of Health: “You can hit the target and miss the point.” Is that not that the risk with the railways, if they become too much like monolithic structures? It has to be a bit of both. If you go back to the old British Rail days, I remember a thing called Regional Railways, which was very separate to InterCity, so that split has always been there in the railways.

What we are arguing for in front of the Committee today is to think of the railways in a more place-based context. Railways serve growth in local areas, and there are things that we can bring to the table to support the health and growth of the railways in the future. It points to a different partnership, but it is a partnership. We want the right to specify timetables, as it is legitimate for us to make those requests, and we want a stronger role over station access. Actually, we think there should be a presumption in favour of devolution. Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse, which presumes that it should be devolved, if that is possible, but there is still a callback if it cannot be devolved.

There is a relevant recent example: the Access for All funding. The Rail North Committee has asked the Department to devolve the Access for All funding, so we do not get the situation that Tracy described a moment ago. Currently, that is not being supported by the Department. We submit lists of stations to the Department as part of our Access for All bid on a regular basis, but we have often had the experience that it comes back with a different prioritisation to the one we sent in. This is really granular, local stuff, and it is mind-boggling to us that you have an infrastructure programme for the railways, and then an Access for All programme at the highest level that is dealing with very local schemes at stations. It is a meaningful partnership, and we are calling for a devolved role, where there can be one.

Tracy Brabin: I totally agree with what Andy has said; it is about accountability. I do not think you could expect the Secretary of State to be accountable for the whole of the network. How on earth would they understand the challenges? At Denby Dale, all they need is a ramp, and those sorts of decisions should be made locally.

We are building three stations in the next year. Why are they so expensive? In Germany, I think it is £5 million a station, but here they are £50 million. In the ’80s, it was £500,000 a station in today’s money. Surely, if we are working together as a collective for the good of the nation, we could find a way that makes it easier—one where we are more agile in building stations, and where we are part of that conversation around services. Also, it is about where we get then get the revenue from, so that we have a circular pound—the one that goes into the washing machine and comes back out again on the other side—and can build more accessibility on more stations.

[Keir Mather]

Q I have a few more questions—and, Jason, these include you as well.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My apologies.

[Keir Mather]

No, mine did not either—it is important that we also get to hear your perspective, Jason. One of the things I want to hit on is accountability. One of the benefits of the Bill that Lord Hendy stressed in his evidence to the Transport Committee is that by having a unified, guiding mind for the railway, you will have hard-working people at GBR who will wake up every day and know that they are responsible for making sure that the railway runs in the interests of the British public, in partnership with people like yourselves. Could you take us through the current challenges in engaging with an array of different private sector operators and DFTO-managed train companies? What does it look like for the people you represent who are trying to navigate this bewildering system, and for you guys who are trying to drive high standards, passenger satisfaction and, ultimately, better economic opportunity for your local areas?

Tracy Brabin: It has been very difficult to navigate who is responsible for what. There is a lot of finger pointing with, “It’s them,” or “It’s them,” and trying to get a decision about who actually owns a project has been difficult. That is why I really welcome the leadership that Lord Hendy has shown in bringing together track and train and having that simplicity.

In West Yorkshire, the partnership piece of work was published last week. We have been seen as an exemplar in our strategic place partnership, where we brought together Network Rail, DFT, the TOCs, the shadow GBR, ourselves and all the partners to identify how we can cut through roadblocks. It has been incredibly effective. When the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire and I were working with David Blunkett on the White Rose rail plan, it was helpful to look together at how we could phase the delivery of the plan, how we could make it affordable and what was the structure of delivery. You can do that only when you are all in the room and all have skin in the game, and you are not blaming each other. I want to reflect on the relationship held locally by our organisations and myself. I think that is the way forward.

We also need resources, and I speak for other mayoral strategic authorities as well. I am blessed to have some very talented people—some of them are sat behind me—who help me with our rail plan, but not every MSA has that talent. Although people might be waking up to deliver better outcomes, they are not all sat in the regions. Having people with timetabling and infrastructure experience actually in the regions would also be a huge benefit.

Andy Burnham: The job of getting the railway to be more accountable has been the devil’s own job in my time as mayor. I am not talking so much about recent times, but certainly in the early days when we had the 2018 timetable collapse. It was only Transport for the North and the Rail North Committee that got underneath what was going on inside Northern and TransPennine. If we had not been there, I do not think the travelling public would have seen the change.

We were the ones who challenged Northern, when it was run by Arriva, to keep guards on the trains. We were the ones who fought to keep ticket offices open—the railway would have closed them if it had not heard our voice. We had to challenge Avanti West Coast when it was collapsing and cutting the timetable between Manchester and London—two major cities in this country—damaging our growth. It just took that decision without any reference to us. Recently, the Office of Rail and Road has done something relating to a ghost train. We constantly have to challenge these things. Without us, I do not think we would have a railway that has moved towards more public ownership and more accountability.

I think major culture change is needed. I come back to this point. My observation is that it is still not responsive enough to what local areas need. As people may know, I support Everton. I go to Everton’s new ground on a regular basis. So many more people are travelling there by train, but to the railways, it is like it has not happened. It is as though they are oblivious to it. They are not in the place with us, managing it and putting extra people on. The railway seems to be too dislocated from what happens on the ground. For example, Sunday services are not put on during the Manchester Christmas markets. That is the thing: you need a railway that is knitted in to supporting growth.

Finally, look at the evidence where we have more locally accountable railways. Transport for Wales is a strong operator, in my experience—it serves Greater Manchester as well. Merseyrail is accountable to the Mayor of Liverpool. It has higher levels of performance, I believe, although all railways have their issues. That is evidence that if you have more local accountability, you generally have a higher performing railway that is more responsive to what people are saying.

Tracy Brabin: Andy and the Rail North Committee have been holding operators’ feet to the fire not just for northern transport but also for the east coast main line where it goes through other mayoralties. So on accountability, I think coming from a mayoral strategic authority or a mayoral combined authority where all mayors across the country can hold rail to account—you are doing a brilliant job, Andy, but currently where else in the country is there that group that will hold operators to account? At the moment, it is only the Rail North Committee, but surely that has to be across the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Bowker CBE. We have until 5.35 pm for this panel. Will the witness briefly introduce himself, please?

Richard Bowker: I am Richard Bowker. I am the former chair of the Strategic Rail Authority. I now co-present a podcast about the railways called “Green Signals”.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q It is a very good podcast; I listen to it a lot. Thank you very much for giving oral evidence. I now realise how you get a CBE in this country—you just have to be involved in the railways and they come along. You are certainly the third—probably the fourth—that we have had before us today.

I am going to focus on a couple of things. On access and capacity, we have heard a lot of evidence today; I do not know how much you have heard, but it has replicated, in essence, what was put before the Transport Committee a few weeks ago. There is a huge amount of concern in the sector about whether the Bill provides a level playing field between GBR and open access, freight and the like, coupled with a very weak—those are my words—appeals process, which is so narrowly constrained that it only deals with errors of law as opposed to disagreements on the merits. Is it right that there is a real problem with the future of competition in our railways? If you agree with that broad statement, perhaps you could expand on your reasons why.

Richard Bowker: I will probably say more about certainty and confidence for investors than competition per se. If I think about my experience at the Strategic Rail Authority, it was a significant frustration that elements of planning in terms of timetable and service were split apart in the way that they were. I think the Government are right to want to create a directing mind—I say directing mind rather than guiding mind. We have a capacity-constrained railway. In places, that is very severe, and someone needs to say, “Right. This is how we think we should allocate capacity.”

Having said that, there is a possibility that the pendulum has swung a little far. Probably the biggest issue with that would be rail freight. If you are a rail freight operator, at the moment you have certainty; if you are unhappy with the way that you are treated, you can go to the ORR. As an independent regulator, the ORR can make the final access decision.

What is contemplated is a perfectly logical process, starting with an access and use policy, capacity plans and capacity decisions. The problem is that railway timetables are not really like that; they are more dynamic. These things change. We looked at doing exactly this at the SRA, and it is very difficult to do. It changes constantly, so it has to be very agile. Under the Bill as drafted, while the process could work perfectly adequately, the capacity duty in clause 63—and potentially clause 18(4)—seems to say, to me at least, “Yes, GBR has all these duties, but they are subject to the capacity duty.” I can see why that causes tension and concern among freight operators, for example. I am not saying that it cannot work, but until we actually see it work, there is a risk that third-party operators will be concerned.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You looked at it when you were with the SRA, back in the day, and you rejected it, presumably. What were the reasons for your rejection of that approach?

Richard Bowker: The ’93 Act was not set up that way; it was set up so that the Strategic Rail Authority was responsible for setting an overall strategic plan for the railways and for managing the award and management of franchises, but Railtrack plc, and then Network Rail, was under the regulation of an independent economic regulator. The two worlds were apart. Whereas the regulator had to have regard to our strategies, it did not have to comply with them, so we always had that tension. It was not really for me to change it. That is why I think that, overall, this is a good approach.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q We heard evidence earlier today from Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group, and she was very concerned. She said that her members are very concerned, and that that has fed into the ability to take investment decisions, which require a degree of certainty. She was very concerned about clause 63 and its relationship with clause 60. She was also concerned about the ability of the Secretary of State to take unilateral decisions about non-GBR infrastructure without notice and without consultation. We heard that those approaches, together with an effective inability to appeal, meant that investment for rail freight, but also for open access—other rail users—was put in doubt. Do you think she is overreacting?

Richard Bowker: It is not for me to say whether she is overreacting, but I absolutely understand the concern, because rail freight in particular involves a lot of private capital. You have to have a degree of confidence and assurance that if you have access rights, you will be able to maintain them, so I understand that. I think the Government are right to create a directing mind. We have seen too many examples of timetabling processes that have gone wrong for precisely that reason—it is about balance.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q It is not really the directing mind I am focusing on; it is having a level playing field where, for the first time, we are going to have GBR being the directing mind but also an operator. There is a direct structural conflict of interest in the design of GBR as set out in the Bill—that has been the evidence of many people to the Committee today—combined with essentially no right of appeal other than on matters of law. First of all, do you recognise that as a proper concern? Secondly, if so, do you think a partial solution would be to have a mechanism for appeal on the merits to an independent regulator—let us call it something like the ORR?

Richard Bowker: On the first point, yes, I recognise the concern. Secondly, personally I would look at clause 18(4) and ask whether we really need to have the capacity duty able to override other duties. As far as the appeals process is concerned, I can see why being able to look at a case on the merits rather than on a strictly legal basis would help enormously. If GBR believes that its access and use policy, its capacity planning and its final decisions constitute a good process, it should not fear that.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you, Mr Bowker, for coming to give evidence. Just the other day, a group of DFT civil servants were recommending your podcast to me, so you will be pleased to know that you have friends on the inside, at the heart of Government.

I was pleased to hear that you agree with the concept of a guiding mind for the railway—a unified body able to direct services in the interests of passengers. I want to point to the specific provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to passenger experience. One of GBR’s duties is to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, including those with disabilities, and clause 18(3) talks about having reliable services, and the avoidance and mitigation of passenger overcrowding. Does what is contained within the legally binding duties on GBR reflect the overall aspiration to have a unified railway with the passenger at its heart?

Richard Bowker: Yes, I think it does. There is a danger in being overly prescriptive about how you do those things, but the duties are fairly widely drafted, and they probably do do that. Much of this will depend not so much on what the Bill says GBR’s duties are; they are pretty clear and comprehensive. It is about how it is then structured to go on and do these things. Previous panel members talked about culture and behaviour, and those are really important. So, yes, I think the duties are broadly fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Department for Transport. We have until 5.55 pm for this panel. Ministers, you have both participated in today’s sitting, but could you please briefly introduce yourselves for the record?

Keir Mather: My name is Keir Mather. I am the Minister for Maritime, Aviation and Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport and the lead Minister for the Bill.

Lilian Greenwood: My name is Lillian Greenwood. I am the Minister for Local Transport, and I am assisting as a Minister on the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Right. Actually, I am slightly surprised, because this is an unusual process; it was a Tony Blair innovation that we got rid of. We did not think it had much purpose, but we will find out in the next few minutes, won’t we?

We have heard lots of evidence, and some clear, consistent themes have risen out of it. If you have read the Transport Committee’s report on this issue from a few weeks ago, as I am sure you have, you will know that the sector is giving the Government a few messages very loud and clear. We will discuss those a little bit, but the secret question is: So what? What are you going to do about it? That is what I hope you will come back to.

A level playing field is fair and without discrimination. There is a structural conflict of interest between GBR as the holder of the ring and GBR as an operator—for example, in the relationship with open access, with freight and with independent retailers. Each one of those—they are sectors, not individual organisations—has profound concerns about a structural conflict of interest that has been deliberately built into the Bill.

Combined with that, there is an appeals process that is not worthy of the name. We can say that it is robust, but we all know that it is not. It is very, very tightly defined. It relates only to areas of law; there is no appeal on the merits at all. GBR is judge, jury and gamekeeper, as well as participant—that is a slightly mixed metaphor, but you get the point.

With the defenestration of the Office of Rail and Road as an economic regulator, the independent arbiter of the relationship with GBR is now gone. You have heard the evidence. What are you going to do about it?

Keir Mather: It is a very good question, Mr Mayhew. It goes to the core of the differing ideological perspectives that underlie the debate we have had today on the Bill. Although you see the state seeking to take too much control and giving itself an unfair advantage, our perspective on why this legislation is so important is that passengers—who are ultimately both people who pay for services on the railway and taxpayers who end up funding those services more often than not under this broken rail system, and will do once GBR is established—deserve a good service. We believe that having a unified service with a single guiding mind to bring track and train, passenger services and infrastructure together under one roof, with one point of accountability, is the best way to achieve those aims.

You asked me what we are going to do about the concerns raised today. It is my obligation as a Government Minister to address them, to explore ways in which we can allay them further and to progress the work the Department is already taking on through its stakeholder engagement, whether that be on the freight target or the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, to make sure that stakeholder concerns are heard.

On the principle of fairness and transparency as it relates to ticketing and third-party access, it is worth making the point that GBR is, by public law principles, obligated to have regard to fair and transparent processes as part of how the system works. On access and appeals, that is a real point of contention, which we will explore throughout Committee, but I heard the concerns raised by freight stakeholders and others.

I want to take this opportunity to be really clear that the Department’s very firm view is that clauses 60 and 63 are not in contention with each other and that Great British Rail has the ability to decide what constitutes best use of the railway, in a way that not only meets its duties, but balances opportunities for GBR services, rail freight and open access alongside one another. The clauses provide an opportunity to appeal on the basis of whether that has been followed, through the ORR, but also a robust process, once that allocation has been determined, to figure out whether GBR has been compliant with the law, as of course we always expect it will be.

Overall, this is a point of ideological difference that exists between our two parties. Labour believes fundamentally that you need one point of accountability and that the Government need to take a more proactive role in fixing this broken rail system. I am really pleased that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve what I think are very noble aspirations.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q The question I asked had absolutely nothing to do with ideology or the unification of track and train; it is a fundamental question of fairness. The Government have decided that this is the route they want to go down. I may disagree with that, but that was not my question. Having decided to go down this route, it must be the Government’s intention to be fair and to treat participants in the rail sector that are not being nationalised—that is 60%, by the way; correct me if you have secret plans to nationalise the rest of it as well, because so far you have not told me or anyone else—fairly.

The Bill has designed in a structural conflict of interest, as we have heard many times from all sorts of different people. Given that the Government have taken that decision, my question has nothing to do with ideology—it is practicality. What are the Government planning to do to reassure that 60% that they will not be steamrollered by a GBR that says, “We are the masters now. We can do what we like and there’s no effective right of appeal, so suck it up.”?

Keir Mather: I would point to the extremely robust suite of accountability measures that sit within the Bill as it stands. If you look at the legally binding duties GBR has in how it undertakes its work, one of those, which came out in our discussion with the ROSCOs, is to ensure that those who provide railway services can plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance. GBR is bound to meet a freight target set by the Secretary of State; it is legally bound to meet its duty to promote the interests of freight and, in clause 60, through the design of the best use of the railway as GBR sees it, it must give equal regard to users of the railway. Open access operators and freight are included as part of that mix.

However, we also need to think about what this legislation does in the future and how that contrasts with the situation now. The ORR had to turn down a number of open access applications on the west coast because we had insufficient capacity in our rail network. I do not understand how that constitutes fairness or competitive advantage for open access operators—it means that they are locked out of providing services and turning a profit by a rail system that is failing.

GBR having the capacity to manage, within one centralised function, capacity on the railway overall allows us to unlock those benefits, in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, but with a robust set of accountability measures to ensure that it is compliant with the law, compliant with its duties, and compliant with the aspirations of the Secretary of State, irrespective of their ideological predilections. Hopefully, that is an adequate answer to your question.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Do the Government want private investment in the railway to continue?

Keir Mather: Absolutely. It is fundamental that that investment continues, both on the—[Interruption.] Sorry— I will just say this very briefly and then let you come back. On the rail freight point, where we have a target in place allowing us to boost the amount of goods moved by train, it might create more capacity for open access to work on the network, but the infrastructure delivery and the long-term rolling stock strategy that accompany this legislative piece of work also offer the private sector a real opportunity to play in the future of our railway, as I see it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q They do not agree, do they? We have heard stark evidence today that the lack of a level playing field and the lack of advanced sight of where this legislation is going are making investment in the railways less likely, not more likely. That is the evidence of the sector that you have heard today. You can put your fingers in your ears and say something different, but that is the evidence that we have heard.

Whether it is the access in use concerns, the failure of the appeals process to be anything worthy of the name, or the fact that the proposed powers for the Secretary of State to change without notice access in use, taken in combination, the evidence from multiple witnesses today was that the Bill does not make it easier. Are you going to listen to them, or are the Government going to pursue their dogged insistence that everyone else is wrong and they are right?

Keir Mather: If you take something like the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the consultations are undertaken in close partnership with the private sector. If you are asking me whether it is going to be easier in the long term, with GBR created, for private sector operators to engage with a level playing field, I think that it will be. I think that it creates a very clear structure of accountability measures, clear metrics by which decisions are taken and robust accountability, if GBR does not meet its obligations under the access regime, to make sure that it does things correctly, especially on the matter of access.

I think it is important that we dig into this further, because it came out consistently with the freight operators. GBR has to decide how it meets its capacity duty once it has decided what best use of the railway constitutes. That is a really important safeguard that is built into the Bill. The Secretary of State gives GBR its funding envelope through the business plan, and needs to ensure that GBR will deliver the services that it has said it will. It is therefore very important to have that capacity duty in place, but that is after GBR has made a determination, while balancing its existing duties and its need to promote freight and service providers on the railway, on whether or not those services stack up.

I think that the accountability process and appeals process are very clear, and give private operators multiple points to raise concerns, and robust enforcement measures for the ORR to substitute decisions and ask GBR to think again. The point about thinking again is very important, because we want GBR to improve as an organisation, and to become more agile and more responsive to the needs of the private sector, and the appeals process facilitates that.

[Olly Glover]

Q You have both been very clear, and so has Lord Hendy, that a key intention of the Bill and the creation of GBR is to better integrate infrastructure and train operation. If that is the case, why has funding for passenger services been excluded from the periodic review process of GBR’s infrastructure costs? Does separating those funding streams undermine the goal of a truly integrated railway?

Keir Mather: That is a really important point. I hope that you feel that the human side of the equation, in terms of furthering the interests of passengers through the duties, is embedded in clause 18, but I take your point about the funding envelope, and the way that passenger services are funded via the spending review period set by the Secretary of State, as opposed to infrastructure more broadly. The reason for that in the immediate term is that the procurement and delivery of passenger services is a far more complex and changeable process to work through than the delivery of long-term infrastructure, or other functions that sit under GBR.

In the future, we can certainly get into a debate about whether passenger services should be funded in a similar way to other aspects of GBR’s operation, but for the moment, and after GBR is stood up, which let us remember is in quite short order after the passage of the Bill, in around 12 months’ time, the Secretary of State needs to be able to determine that passenger services offer value for money. It is therefore right that she retains more control over the funding envelope for those services at that stage. We can certainly take the debate on how that should change in the future forward as part of this Committee. I would be very keen to explore it further.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? She started the statement by saying that people are sick to the back teeth of Westminster politicians promising the earth and delivering absolutely nothing—and then she did exactly that. We on the Opposition Benches know what the right hon. Lady’s statement marks today. It is not a strategy for the north or a genuine commitment to a project costed at £46 billion back in 2019, as the current Prime Minister then promised; instead, it is a flagrant attempt to silence their party’s restless northern mayors, while Labour Ministers, who came into office with no plan to deliver on their promises, butcher the Budget.

Let us get straight to the point. The Secretary of State can bluster all she likes, but where Northern Powerhouse Rail is concerned, we have no construction start dates, no completion dates, no published or costed route map, no sequencing, no idea who will pay, or by how much, and no certainty at all, except that it will not be what Labour promised ahead of the election. She says that this is a generational commitment. Well, at this rate it will turn out to be a multigenerational commitment. If the Prime Minister wanted to deliver what he actually promised in opposition, he knows that he would have another black hole of billions, such is the genuine uncertainty caused to the sector by this announcement.

What we have is a commitment to fiddling with the paperwork without any secure investment for the actual project, yet the right hon. Lady expects this House to believe that this is some sort of investment in the north. She and her Ministers must be delighted that the Mayor of Greater Manchester overplayed his hand at the Labour party conference last year. Today he feels constrained to profess loyalty to the Prime Minister, perhaps with wonderment at his generosity—that is in public, but we all know what he is doing in private.

Does the right hon. Lady take this House, her own Back Benchers and the voting public for fools? Whether she does or not, the Prime Minister certainly does. He wrote in The Yorkshire Post, with some gall, that this announcement is

“a serious plan backed by billions of pounds of investment”,

when we know from this statement that it is not. Can the right hon. Lady confirm how a £45 billion cap on a scheme costed as being way more expensive than that back in 2019 can possibly deliver projects already estimated to cost so much more than that value? What guarantees exist that schemes will be completed in full? When will this House finally be given the detail that it deserves? Perhaps she ought to remind the Prime Minister what he told The Yorkshire Post back in 2019, when he promised to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.

Today’s announcement offers nothing better than dither, delay and a further decade away from spades in the ground. How can the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister pretend that this is the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail when it is anything but that? By their own admission, no budget has been set out. The cap in funding gives no confidence that funding that will have to be raised from the private sector or through local taxes is in place. Can the Secretary of State tell the House which local taxes will have to rise, and by how much, to fill the gap created by her own £45 billion cap?

I know that the Secretary of State, like me, cares deeply about ensuring that Parliament is told the whole truth, but perhaps on this occasion it is the Prime Minister himself who should be lauded. He has said, time and again, that the cuts and downgrades that this Government have foreshadowed today represent nothing more than

“a betrayal of the North”.

Is it not the case that this is a strategy from a desperate Government to make a cut appear to be an investment, and to attempt to save face with the British public? Spending months and months hiding their mealy-mouthed plans, only to reveal them with bluster and misplaced confidence, is a sad indictment of a sorry Government.

To come to this House today without dates, budgets or a plan for how to raise shortfalls after the cap is, frankly, pitiful. To spin this as a plan for the future is a disgrace, and one of which the Secretary of State should be ashamed. She cannot escape the fact that her party came into power with no plan on how to deliver on its promises, and its complete ineptitude in managing the public finances means that it is now having to U-turn on those promises. If the metro mayors and Back Benchers had any backbone, then rather than gelatinously jostling for position under the next Labour leader, they would acknowledge the truth in what I have said and call out this betrayal.

[Heidi Alexander]

I cannot believe what I have just heard, to be honest. I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing in for the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), but I really hoped that he would have done a bit better than that.

The hon. Gentleman talks about no budget being set out. We have set out £1.1 billion to be spent over the next four years, which is far more than his Government ever spent on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the 14 years in which they had an opportunity to make improvements to the rail network in the north of England. If that is the way the Conservatives approach basic maths when we are spending more than £1 billion, I can see why the public booted them out of office at the last election.

We are working in collaboration with local mayors. We have agreed with them that where they see opportunity to boost economic growth beyond the core scope of the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals, we will work with them to agree local contributions so that the full benefits of this investment can be realised.

More generally, this is a classic case of the hon. Gentleman writing the questions without listening to the announcement. We are delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. We have set out our plans in full, we are funding NPR in full, and we will deliver it.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the previous Government and their aspirations. Let me remind the House of what that actually amounted to—the plan that got the location of Manchester wrong on a map, promised new tramlines that had already been built, and diverted funding away from the north to fix potholes in the south. That plan was not worth the paper it was written on, so we will take no lessons on this matter from the Conservatives.

If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, maybe he will listen to the people who run our great city regions in the north. The Mayors of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire said that

“we welcome the government’s once in a generation commitment to improving transport across the North”.

The Mayor of the Liverpool City Region said:

“After more than a decade of dither, delay and broken promises, this is the start of a new era, with a genuinely strategic approach and a government finally backing Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.”

The Mayor of Greater Manchester said,

“Finally, we have a government with an ambitious vision for the North”

and a

“firm commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail”.

Let me quote one more person:

“NPR is a project I’ve long championed…so it is excellent to see the government backing it in full”.

Those are not the words of a Labour mayor or a Labour Minister; they are the words of former Conservative Rail Minister Huw Merriman. Our plans are backed by the mayors, by business leaders, and by the Conservatives’ own former Rail Minister. That tells us everything we need to know about who is delivering for the north and who never did.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.

What should be a simple act of kindness—giving someone a lift to an airport, as we have all done—is increasingly being met with extortionate airport charges. This is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is why we believe the Government must now look seriously at regulating the fees. For constituents like mine in West Dorset, who live in a hugely rural area with limited public transport, where many villages do not even have a reliable local bus service, let alone a direct rail link to a major airport, it is increasingly painful. For my constituents to get to Exeter, Bristol or Bournemouth airports, let alone Heathrow or Gatwick, means driving, booking a costly taxi or, more often than not, asking a family member or neighbour to help.

If we want to drop someone off, we have to use the airport system and pay its charges. At Bristol, that now means £8.50 for 10 minutes, or £30 for an hour. Bournemouth airport promotes what it calls a passenger pick-up offer of up to 90 minutes to meet and greet friends, for the small fee of £6. For many people, that £6 will be spent on merely five minutes’ activity. For families who are already paying inflated air fares, baggage fees and taxes, it is just another hidden cost added to the journey.

The charges have risen rapidly across the country, far beyond inflation. Gatwick now charges £10 for just 10 minutes—double what it charged in 2021. What began in 2007 as a £1 security-driven charge at Birmingham airport has become a nationwide revenue stream. Airports often justify the increases by citing environmental goals or the need to encourage public transport use, but unless the charges are accompanied by serious, accessible and affordable public transport investment, they do not change behaviour; they simply extract more money from those who have no alternative.

The charges hit some groups particularly hard, including disabled passengers, people with reduced mobility, parents travelling with young children, and those from rural areas who are least able to use public transport and most dependent on car access. Although airports have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, statutory provisions for blue badge holders do not apply in private car parks, and many people fall through the cracks.

The Competition and Markets Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm in surface access charging. That assessment is now out of date. Since 2016, charges have risen sharply. Free drop-off zones have all but been removed, and on-site payment options have been closed in favour of online or phone systems that are confusing for most.

As people try to avoid the charges, police have reported increased dangerous behaviour, with cars stopping on motorway hard shoulders to pick up passengers. That is unsafe for drivers, passengers and emergency services and is a direct result of an unfair pricing system. It is also worth remembering, as has been highlighted, that these charges are not normal across Europe. Passengers at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Madrid do not pay to drop off loved ones. If it can be done there, it can be done here.

Airports argue that they face financial pressures, particularly from business rates, which were recalculated after the pandemic. We Liberal Democrats sympathise, and passing the bill directly to passengers through drop-off fees may be the easiest lever to pull, but it is not the fairest or most effective one. The Department for Transport has previously said that it has no plans to monitor or limit parking fees at airports, and I believe that position is no longer acceptable.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we want to reduce the environmental impact of flying, but it has to be done in a way that is fair and effective. We support investment in zero-carbon flights, reforming aviation taxation so that frequent flyers pay more, taxing private jets, improving rail alternatives and banning short domestic flights where fast rail options exist. What we do not support is offloading the cost of climate policies on to families, friends, disabled people and rural transport.

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

I rarely intervene on another spokesperson’s speech, but this raises a question: if the Liberal Democrats want these expensive policies and say that consumers should not pay, who should pay?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my point. It is not about whether the consumer pays; it is about whether the airports are using the revenue they claim they are generating to support climate policies for that purpose, or whether it is simply another revenue stream for them. Airports and providers must use the money correctly, rather than just levying another tax on passengers.

Regulation could take several forms. There could be a cap on drop-off charges linked to inflation. There could be a requirement for a free short-stay grace period. There could be mandatory exemptions for disabled passengers and carers. There could be greater transparency on how revenues are used and whether they genuinely fund sustainable transport.

What we cannot do is to continue to allow airports to exploit their control over access to extract ever higher fees from consumers who have no meaningful choice. It is time we recognised that airport drop-off charges have become unfair, unregulated and disconnected from their original purpose. I hope the Government will act.

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I join all other contributors today in congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. We often say, “This is an important debate,” and most of the time in this Chamber we do not mean it, but on this occasion I think we do.

Through some very articulate speeches, building one upon the other, the debate has exposed two significant problems with the current state of affairs in drop-off charges at our airports: first, whether we should be charging in the first place; and secondly, if we accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) that it is okay to charge for drop-offs, whether the process of charging is itself fair. Frankly, I was taken by surprise on this point, which was raised repeatedly. At multiple airports, the charging mechanism is itself unfair, as it does not give the opportunity of point-of-service charging—a barrier at which the customer pays—but instead requires customers to pay after the event by what are, at times, very complex mechanisms.

I was a barrister a very long time ago. There is a health warning on my legal advice, but this matter was first settled in 1877 by Mellish LJ—I do not have this at the back of my memory; I looked it up—in Parker v. South Eastern Railway Company. When parking somewhere, the terms and conditions are typically on a board. A provider seeking to rely on those contractual terms has to take reasonably sufficient steps to draw them to the consumer’s attention for the contract to be established, and it must be at or before the point at which the contract becomes established.

The reason why that triggered my memory is because, in my day, I learned about a very famous judge—Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls—who developed the argument in Spurling v. Bradshaw in 1956. He said that the principle covers typical, expected terms and conditions, but if there are particularly onerous conditions as part of the standard terms, the level of notice has to increase to a commensurate degree.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s considered thoughts on this issue. I wonder whether a requirement not to pay now, but to pay later and by a circuitous route, would constitute an onerous term when dealing with a consumer, as these contracts almost always are. If that is the case, has a contract been established at all with any of the people dropping off at these airports? I cannot give legal advice, and I am very out of date anyway, but consumer rights groups should explore this issue with a test case—a group action would run to many millions of pounds if it were proved successful. That is the point about whether charging is fair.

[Jim McMahon]

Throughout the whole conversation, the thing that keeps coming to mind is: why would the airports not want to provide a payment option to pay there and then at drop-off, if not for the fact that they would raise less revenue because they would not be able to charge a penalty if people miss the 24-hour window?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the kind of evidence that a judge would assess to establish whether sufficient notice had been given and how onerous a term is.

The second part is about whether the travelling public accept that this is a reasonable charge and has become the norm, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton asserts. An awful lot of people do not feel that it is fair in principle to charge for this service, because no real service is being supplied. People are occupying a bit of tarmac for one or two minutes. It used to be free, so the feeling of value is limited at best.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about a hidden charge, and he was absolutely right. As passengers, we are incredibly price-conscious when it comes to buying our flights. We will wear only one pair of socks for the entire holiday in order not to pay for baggage. We then get lumped with paying a tenner for being dropped off, and it is a hidden cost—it is not in the headline price of the flight.

I totally understand the reaction of many that this is unfair, and that the market is not working. The communal reaction is that we must regulate. Perhaps we should, but before we do so we need to understand why airports are raising these charges. I am sorry to say that in many cases it is because this Labour Government are forcing them to do exactly that.

If Government policy increases costs for airports, the airports, as rational commercial organisations, will seek to recover those costs from their consumers, because there is no one else—ultimately, the consumer always pays. This Government have increased employer national insurance contributions, levying more than £900 in additional tax for every single employee on the books. They have raised business rates enormously and have increased environmental targets, which also have significant cash consequences. All of it comes for the consumer.

I will not deal with national insurance contributions because we all know how impactful that change has been, not just to pubs but right across the private sector.

[Danny Beales]

I am just a bit confused. The hon. Member suggests that drop-off charges are the responsibility of this Government. At Heathrow, the charge is £7, but it was £6 during the 14 years of the last Government, so proportionally—following his argument—90%, or whatever the maths says it is, of the cost came from the last Government and only 10% from this Government. I do not exactly follow the logic of his argument.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The logic is not exact, but if you increase costs, you cannot be surprised if prices go up. Essentially, that is the point I am making.

On business rates, Gatwick has had the worst increase. According to the Financial Times, its business rates have increased from £40 million a year to £90 million a year, so the Government have increased Gatwick’s costs by £50 million every single year. Where do they think that money will come from? It will come from the consumer via drop-off charges, other additional charges or increases in the landing rates applied to airlines—such increases would go on to the consumer through increased air fares. It is therefore financially illiterate for the Government to very substantially raise the cost of doing business—particularly for airports, with their increased business rates—and then complain when these companies raise their charges.

There are additional costs on airports, which I will briefly talk about, because of environmental and net zero targets and requirements. Many airports have directly cited those costs to explain why they are raising charges. Many of them, including Bristol, Heathrow and Gatwick, have said that they are trying to raise drop-off charges to force passengers to use alternative modes of mass transport. That would be fine and well if additional public transport were available for those people being disincentivised from using their car.

However, I do not agree that we should penalise passengers by using the stick of increased charges to force them to use a less convenient mode of transport to get to the airport. Instead, we should lure passengers to airports by providing a method of public transport that is even more convenient than using the car. That is where the Government have gone wrong, because they have incentivised airports to use the stick of payments or costs to beat their own customers without providing an attractive alternative to car use.

I fear that I am running short of time—I see that I have one minute left—so I will not do the peroration where I say, “Aren’t the Conservatives wonderful? We are re-evaluating our environmental policies to get rid of the target of net zero by 2050, which is driving the transition at such a pace that it is increasing costs unrealistically, and we should be focusing on the consumer rather than on interest groups.” However, I hope that in the time available to him the Minister will show that he takes seriously what is genuinely an important issue that affects many millions of people around the country. It is an unfairness in plain sight. This is his opportunity to assure all our constituents that they have been listened to and that the Government are taking this issue seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

In the time remaining, I want to turn to the actual operating model of these parking charges. Most UK airports are privately operated and have the commercial freedom to set their own fees for the services they provide, but the Government expect fees to be set in a way that is both fair and proportionate. Well-designed parking facilities help to manage traffic flows and improve accessibility and local air quality. At the same time, airports must encourage passengers to use public transport options where possible.

Although all that is being considered, I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber will be disappointed to hear that the Government do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure; the Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability.

We support the continued success of our world-leading aviation sector, but we must do so in a way that delivers a green, more sustainable future. Airports should use their surface access strategies to set clear targets for sustainable travel and offer positive and practical incentives so that people do not drive to airports, but instead to use public transportation. When airports develop those strategies, they must clearly set out their approaches to parking and drop-off charges, and they must use their airport transport forums to plan future transport options in consultation with local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip made that point powerfully.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, many airports, including Manchester, offer a range of parking options, including free drop-off zones for passengers and public transport, but it is important that everyone who needs to can access our airports. Some parking options and public transport alternatives may not always work for passengers with accessibility needs. Although airports such as Manchester offer exemptions for blue badge holders, I want to push that further.

More than anything, today’s debate has highlighted the importance of fairness and transparency. It is essential that passengers can easily find information about parking and drop-off options so that they can plan their journeys and make the right, informed choice. We expect airport parking and drop-off charges to be clear and accessible, both online and at the airport itself. Airports must also make it easy for their customers to pay the relevant fee in a timely manner before proceeding to issue penalty charges for failure to do so. I was disappointed to hear Members across the House give examples of where that has not been the case for their constituents. I undertake to remind airports, including Manchester airport, of their obligations.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the very good point that the notice of the charge was situated beyond the point at which someone could reverse out. Will the Minister undertake to remind Manchester airport that any notice of a charge has to be at a place where people can decide not to accept the charge?

[Keir Mather]

It should be incumbent on all airports, including Manchester airport, to provide transparency, clarity and ease of access to information about parking charges, so I will happily raise that when I next meet Manchester airport representatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden needs no support in being a champion for her constituents in this space.

Importantly, airport users are protected by consumer law. Most airports have contracts with private parking operators, which must belong to a trade association and follow the sector’s new code of practice and appeals procedure. If drivers feel that signage is inadequate or that they have been treated unfairly, they can appeal through those services.

More widely, we recognise concerns about poor practices among some private parking operators. That is why the Government have consulted on proposals to raise standards, in preparation for a new code of practice and compliance framework. Responses are now being analysed, and we will publish our response in due course. I am cognisant of the pressure that this creates on local communities, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned. He also mentioned ghost plates, which we are taking real action to tackle through the road safety strategy.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden on securing the debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. The debate has shone a light on drop-off and parking charges at airports, and reinforced the Government’s expectation that airports manage the arrangements with fairness and respect. We will continue to work to ensure that they do so, and I encourage Members across the House to join us in those efforts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

But it is not just LNER, is it? We have also heard worrying accounts about Greater Anglia and c2c, shortly after they have been nationalised. The Government say that fare simplification is one of their key objectives; fair enough, but there are increasing numbers of accounts of discounted tickets being removed in the name of fare simplification. How will the Secretary of State prevent the fare simplification process from turning into just the removal of discounts?

[Heidi Alexander]

As we extend contactless ticketing, passengers will benefit from simpler, more flexible travel, and the majority of single tickets will be the same price or even lower. We do not want this positive change to have any perverse impacts, so we will monitor it as it beds in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Rumours are swirling around the northern mayoralties that the Government are about to row back on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is this going to be another U-turn from the Government, or can the Minister take this opportunity to put those rumours to rest by saying from the Dispatch Box that the scope, funding and timeframe for Northern Powerhouse Rail are not going to be changed?

[Keir Mather]

I am perplexed at the Opposition’s new-found support for passengers on the rail network. Fares in our system rose by 60% from 2010 to 2014 under the last Government, including for residents in the north of England. This Government are committed to levelling up our railway across the United Kingdom, including in the north of England. We will put passenger experience and affordable fares for those passengers at the very heart of what Great British Railways seeks to do.

Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Happy new year to you, Mr Mundell, and all other hon. Members. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and, through him, Mrs Karen Hickman, who created the petition we are debating, which comes from a sentiment that we can all agree with. We want bus services that serve passengers well and as cheaply as possible. Everyone who uses buses wants affordable journeys. This debate provides us with an opportunity to explore how essential buses are to our constituents and, in particular, the role they play for older people.

Maintaining and improving the existing concessionary scheme, which offers free bus passes in England to those of state pension age and disabled people, is a critical responsibility of the Government, but fundamental to its success is that it remains financially sustainable in serving those who have reached state pension age. We know how valuable the bus pass is to those who have reached pensionable age, affording the opportunity for older people to take journeys and leave their homes. We must make sure that we do not jeopardise the scheme by expanding it beyond the bounds of the Treasury’s willingness to pay for it.

The importance of the scheme is apparent when we look at the experiences of older people. Age UK data suggests that more than 2 million people in England who are over the age of 75 live alone, and more than 1 million older people have said that they go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member, which is quite a sobering statistic.

Considering such statistics, the case for bus passes for older people becomes self-evident. Providing an incentive for old age pensioners to travel from their homes into the community clearly has extraordinary merit, but then we come to public funding. The starting point for the provision of any service is that those who benefit from the service should be the ones who pay for it. A free bus pass, after all, is not free. It is just paid for by someone else—in this case, other taxpayers—so we need to be sure that it is a sound reason for increasing taxes, which is the inevitable consequence of increasing public support.

We all know of schemes in our constituencies that seek to bring people together. In my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham, the Aylsham and District Care Trust runs a network of minibuses to bring older people to a central hub to connect them to the community. A free bus pass for pensioners continues that approach and sends a clear message that being older should not be a barrier to remaining a valuable part of the community.

However, as we all know, such schemes do not come without cost. DFT statistics show that £995 million—nearly £1 billion—in net current expenditure is spent on concessionary travel, with about £800 million of that being reimbursed to travel concession authorities. The Government’s response to the petition highlighted the importance of cost, saying that

“any changes to the statutory obligations, such as lowering the age of eligibility, would…need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme’s financial sustainability.”

The challenge of extending the scheme to those over 60 is not just a matter of cost; it should also consider the impact on the wider use of bus services. The profiles of the over-60s and those who have reached state pension age are very different. Look at rates of employment: the employment rate of those between 60 and 64 is 58%, but it drops to just 12.8% for those aged 65 and over. In addition, of those who have decided to retire early, the majority have taken that decision because they are in a sufficiently comfortable financial position to do so.

On the issue of available income, looking across the community as a whole, it is not at all clear that blanket taxpayer support for all those over 60 is an effective use of taxpayers’ money. We must ensure that policy decisions relating to buses create affordable trips for all. That is why the last Government’s decision on the £2 fare cap was so effective—it set a price reduction for all bus users, improving affordability for everyone and encouraging the take-up of services across society, not just for one part of it.

We should also recognise that not all parts of the country are the same. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that where a local authority has identified a particular need in its community, it is the organisation—not central Government—that is best placed to focus appropriate support, including local bus schemes.

Numerous Conservative councils across the country have taken steps to increase bus budgets and use enhanced partnerships to increase ridership. That includes my own Norfolk county council, which since the pandemic has increased ridership by over 40% through its enhanced partnership. Just two counties away, Essex has increased its ridership by more than 50%. In passing, it is worth pointing out that this growth in bus ridership surpasses that of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, despite his much vaunted Bee Network.

A blanket change across the whole of England is completely different from these targeted approaches that respond to local need. Extending free bus travel to an additional 4 million people, irrespective of their income and based solely on age, is likely to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year through increased taxes—between £250 million, as suggested by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and £400 million, as we heard from another speaker.

Ultimately, the Conservative party has made it clear that reforms to our bus services need to be realistic, and that we have to focus on passengers. I fear that the result of an expensive scheme could be increased costs for passengers more widely. We have already seen the Government encouraging local authorities to jump into franchising, which may put some local authorities at significant financial risk. We do not want to see further policies that may undermine financial stability, which would be bad for passengers in the long run, as well as for taxpayers.

I recognise that there are parts of the UK in which bus passes are available to those over the age of 60, but if we look at Scotland and Wales, which have had that policy in place for many years—led by the SNP and the Labour party—many of the same challenges present in England regarding buses remain, despite 100% subsidies. Between 2010 and 2025, the number of journeys per head decreased in Scotland and Wales by 31% and 41% respectively. Those decreases were more than, not less than, the fall in journeys per head in England, outside London. That suggests that the Conservative £2 fare cap policy was, in practice, a better solution than free bus passes to the over-60s. It is a great shame that one of the Government’s first acts was to increase that cost by 50%.

[Tom Gordon]

The shadow Minister seems to be saying that he disagrees with free transport for over-60s in the devolved nations. Is it his party’s position that if it were elected in the important elections in just a few months’ time, which is increasingly unlikely, it would get rid of that free transport?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the intervention as it brings me to my next point, which is that Government funds are limited. The support provided needs to be focused exclusively on areas in which it can do the most good. A blanket increase to 100% subsidies for a cohort that is mainly in employment does not appear to pass that test. I fear that, by increasing the cost of support for older people more widely, it would risk the current levels of support for pensioners. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on this matter.

Railways Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a very popular debate with a lot of contributions; I congratulate all those who managed to make their points in just three minutes. I will do my best to summarise the debate, starting by noting the excellent contributions from Opposition Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) brilliantly managed to discuss a Railways Bill by referring to ferries, but he did make the serious point that we want pragmatism, not ideology, to reform the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) made the good point that, through nationalisation, the taxpayer now has to replace private investment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made three important points: that the reforms simply advance the sprawling centralisation of powers; that, again, they involve practicality giving way to ideology; and that their drafting puts open access concessions at risk.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who is a member of the Transport Committee, was concerned that this was ideological time travel that takes us back to the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that, post nationalisation, cancellations of South Western trains had increased on his Chertsey-Addlestone loop.

There were also many thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Democrats. It is telling that the Government’s insistence on nationalisation as the only answer has united the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is worth noting that we have heard nothing from Members of the fag packet party, who, I think, still support nationalisation. Then again, however, they would not recognise a transport policy if it slapped them in the face.

Then there was Labour, with speech after speech welcoming the nationalisation of the railways—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Bring it on. In speech after speech, they showed deep suspicion of the profit motive. The tone was set by the Transport Secretary, who said that the current system benefits companies over passenger services—as though the two things are mutually exclusive—and taken up by the hon. Members for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), with claims of profit prioritised over customer experience, large-scale profiteering on the railways and dividends prioritised over people. I could go on.

This is the authentic voice of Labour: the private sector is not good—not good in the way that the state is good. The private sector invests to make a return, not to create unionised jobs. It innovates to make a return, not to satisfy a Government productivity goal. It innovates to beat the competition and make a return, not to satisfy a ministerial target. However, it does invest, it does innovate and it does improve to compete. Nevertheless, Labour clings on to its ideological faith in the efficiency of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary—and there is evidence. After all, we have tried this experiment before.

[Laurence Turner]

When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes, will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Let us wait to see if Labour actually nationalises it first; but the Conservatives are here to lead, not to follow.

There is plenty of evidence because we have tried the nationalisation experiment before. The railways were nationalised in 1948. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they might learn something. When the railways were nationalised in 1948, there were a billion passenger journeys a year. Thereafter, the impact of nationalisation was immediate: year after year, fewer customers chose to use the trains; year after year, they voted with their feet because the service did not give them what they wanted and was not focused on them and their needs. There was low investment because the railways were competing with schools and hospitals, followed by poor industrial relations with an organisation more focused on itself than its customers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), says from a sedentary position that it was because there were more cars—let us just hold that in our minds.

By the 1990s, just 735 million passenger journeys were taking place a year, instead of a billion. In 1993, the system was privatised by the Conservative Government. The unions hated it, and Labour therefore hated it, too. However, every year, more and more passengers were attracted to use the trains—not just a few more, but vastly more. By 2019, 1.75 billion people were using the railways each year—and there were many more cars. Labour cannot explain it; it should not have happened, but it did.

If the purpose of the railway is to carry passengers, any rational observer must conclude that privatisation beat nationalisation hands down. Why? Profit is made only by attracting customers. Train operating companies focused on new and more trains, more services, innovative ticketing and customer service, and people voted with their feet.

The railways are a complex system where capacity is limited and costs are high. It is absolutely crucial to drive efficiency, maximise the scarce resources of track access and drive value for money with dynamic management. Can hon. Members think of a nationalised organisation that is a byword for management dynamism and efficiency anywhere, in any country at any time? I cannot either. If poor railway management is the problem, nationalisation cannot be the solution. Why is it that socialists and the fag packet party are such bad learners?

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister responding to this debate represents Selby. One of the great successes of the open system has been Hull Trains, which provides a fantastic service from Hull, through Selby, down to London, and then back again. Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that open services such as Hull Trains will be crushed by Great British Railways and the Minister, despite whatever he may say?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend is right. If Members read the Bill properly, they will see that it spells the death knell for open access.

It is true that the last few years have exposed serious weaknesses in the train franchise model. The separation of track and train created perverse incentives—I accept that. Too often a lack of effective competitive tension allowed there to be poor services. Changes to the DFT contract meant that franchises were encouraged to overbid, leaving them financially vulnerable to any downturn. This Bill was the golden opportunity to address those issues, but the Government have messed it up. Instead of keeping the best and fixing the rest, we have a damaging return to 1970s state control, with 1970s industrial action likely to follow.

The Government are already finding out that money does not grow on trees, that merely saying that they are in favour of growth does not make it happen, and that funds from hard-pressed taxpayers are not limitless. Their plan replaces private investment with taxpayers’ money, drawn away from schools and hospitals and Labour’s ever-growing welfare bill. Their plan replaces railway management teams with civil servants, increasingly micromanaging operations, who will have powers to direct GBR across all its functions.

Then there is that trademark socialist arrogance: gone is the independent economic regulator, for the gentleman from Whitehall knows best. GBR will mark its own homework, save for a toothless passenger council that has no enforcement powers. It will not just mark its own homework but decide whether to allow any competition against itself. It will decide how much to charge its competitors, limited only by how much it thinks they will be able to pay. GBR, on the other hand, will pay no charge at all. The right of appeal is not to be allowed on the merits of a decision, only on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

The Bill marks the end of competition on the GBR rail network, and it is such a shame. This could have been transformational. It could have solved the tensions between the operation of track and train. It could have refined concession and franchised contracts, removing the micromanagement of DFT officials. It could have solved the stop-start funding approach by National Rail and its dysfunctional control periods. It could have focused relentlessly on benefits to passengers and the taxpayer.

Instead, we are seeing a Government floundering at 14% in the polls, whose Back Benchers are in open revolt against their own leader, and whose union paymaster, Unite, is discussing disaffiliation in the press. This is a Government desperate to shore up their fading support. They are sacrificing the future of our railways on the altar of left-wing ideology. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members demonising profit as a motive for economic activity. Do they have any idea how the productive economy works? Ideology before practicality, state direction before dynamic management, and union demands before passenger demand—no, no, no.

I ask colleagues to support the reasoned amendment in my name and help put this bad Bill in the bin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that

“the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?

[Keir Mather]

On no subject is the hypocrisy of the Conservative party laid out more clearly than that of rail. We did not have a competitive rail system when the Conservatives were in charge; we had a fragmented and broken rail service that did not offer passengers the service that they deserved. By having Great British Railways, we can integrate track and rail services together to ensure that these services are run in the interests of passengers. Competition can of course continue through open access, but we want to centralise the service being provided in the interests of passengers right across the United Kingdom.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman should know that, through the Railways Bill, we are building a system that will ensure that passenger accountability sits at the very heart of how this railway operates. I would be grateful if he could illuminate to me how constituents of his and constituents across the country are served by the previous system, under which people could not get a train where they needed to go, were plagued by strikes and had ticketing systems that did not work. We are setting up, through Great British Railways, a tough passenger watchdog that can have minimum standards and statutory advice for the Secretary of State and put passengers back at the heart of our railways.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 October, and their purpose is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within their scope, introducing a new equivalents provision and removing Government ships from the scope of the legislative regime.

In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counter-pollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the United Kingdom implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-USA mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thereby opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.

The draft regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations, and will make three changes to the UK’s marine equipment regime. First, they will bring the type approval of ballast water management systems into the scope of the regulations. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organisation requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. Those regulations included the type approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the marine equipment regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.

Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalents provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.

Thirdly, the regulations will remove Government ships from scope of the marine equipment regime. That is due to the broader change in approach to Government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post-EU exit. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is being done using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. That will facilitate the amendment of the regulations in future if required.

Since the UK’s departure from the EU, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies that are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other Departments and maritime trade organisations. That provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which respondents expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report including responses to comments received.

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

The Minister is describing a really good example of draft regulations being shaped by responses to a UK consultation. Is that a Brexit benefit?

[Keir Mather]

Throughout the legislative process, both before and since Brexit, we have always worked hard on a departmental basis to engage with a broad range of stakeholders. We do so through this process as with any other, but if the hon. Member wishes to designate this as a Brexit success, I certainly will not stand in his way.

The MCA issues industry guidance through marine notices to assist the industry in understanding the requirements of the regulations, and new notices will be published alongside the regulations.

I have set out the purpose and scope of the regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, thereby bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring our legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU-exit context. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is lovely to appear before you today, Ms Vaz. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on securing this interesting and important debate. She rightly focused on the three main issues, one of which, of course, is safety—a potential enormous benefit of the developing technology. Another is accessibility, which I will talk about in my comments. She also spoke of the potential for significant economic growth, while accepting that through any economic and technological transition, there are losers as well as winners. A responsible Government ought to take proper account of that.

The only other contributor who I will reference specifically is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has never missed an opportunity to contribute to a debate. I have never heard a more heartfelt elegy for the diesel motorcar than his. I say it was elegiac, because there is, I think, a fin de siècle element to this technology, as we move towards more fuel-efficient cars, then ultimately to self-driving cars. It is so unlike the hon. Gentleman to be hesitant about boldly going where no passengers have been before. I am sure he will catch up when he gets the opportunity—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich has done, having already had the experience of going in a driverless car. I look forward to the opportunity myself.

The last Conservative Government took a clear decision to support the introduction of autonomous vehicles on our roads, and to pass the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 to establish the regulatory framework to allow AV technology to flourish in the United Kingdom. The Act defined the legal framework for the authorisation of AV use on our roads through the creation of the concept of the statement of safety principles, as well as subsequent legal responsibility that would be used to govern AV actions—for example, the imposition of a legal liability on a corporate entity, the provider of the technology, as opposed to it being on the driver of a car. That is a novel legal concept on our roads that will clearly be necessary for autonomous vehicles, because who is in command? Who is in control? It is no longer the driver, and that has a knock-on impact on insured risk. The Act also sought to deal with that because it included appropriate sanctions for situations in which a vehicle fails to drive either legally or safely.

The Act set out the ability for the Government to set regulations—secondary legislation—requiring organisations to report certain safety-related data to the authorisation authority, of which it anticipates the creation, and the in-use regulator. It sought to protect customers by prohibiting misleading marketing: only vehicles that meet the safety threshold can be marketed in the future as “self-driving”. Finally, it set out the approach to the policing and seizure of non-compliant AVs.

As far as they went, the last Government did a great job. They brought forward practical, legislative proposals, which generated confidence in the sector, and they set out the structure that allowed the sector to grow and invest in this country. Modelling put forward by the Government suggests that there is the potential to create 38,000 jobs in the sector in the next nine years, generating value of £42 billion—I always have a healthy degree of scepticism when we are told that future industries will be enormously valuable, and I slightly wonder how people come up with such figures. Nevertheless, that optimism is shared by serious organisations such as Goldman Sachs, which has predicted significant increases in ridership, particularly in the US, following considerable growth over the last few years. It is therefore right that the UK, at the very least, does not block such technological advances and supports its tech sector as it seeks to develop AVs and the software behind them.

The Opposition recognise that these developments go well beyond merely economics, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich said. Automated systems can help improve driving quality, reduce congestion, increase the more efficient use of fuel and help with elements of accessibility. Rural pensioners may not have to move into a town when they are too old or infirm to drive. Vehicles as a service can reduce costs for lower-income families. Efficient fuel use and lane discipline can reduce congestion and the environmental impact of driving. On safety, we are told that 88% of all road accidents are contributed to by human error. If AVs can improve that statistic, the societal benefits of this technology could be profound.

Waymo, the market leader in the US, claims that compared with the figures for the average human driver over the same distance in its operating cities, the reduction in crashes resulted in 91% fewer serious injuries, with 80% fewer injury-causing crashes of any description. Those are startling statistics. Even though we are at an early stage, those assertions, backed by millions of miles of AV driving—albeit in US conditions—do create cause for optimism. We want to see this technology benefit the British people by making our lives on the road both easier and safer.

So far, so good—we all agree—but this is where the consensus is at risk of ending. When technological development is at stake, time is the issue. The 2024 Act was enabling—it anticipated a host of secondary legislation to put meat on the statutory bones—but we are yet to see concrete action from this Government. Where is the secondary legislation around data sharing for insurance purposes? Does the Minister have a timeframe for the introduction of that regulation?

While the Minister is looking through his notes to see if he has the answer to that question, where is the legislation on cyber-security? We only have to look at the recent experience at JLR to realise that this is not a theoretical threat—it could be absolutely central to the viability of this technology and its adoption in this country. Where is the secondary legislation on data integrity and resilience against hacking or system failure? That is anticipated in the 2024 Act, and the Government need to take the next step. They have not yet.

I do not want to throw too many bricks—well, I do really, but I will restrain myself and ask the Minister for an update: where is the detailed definition of the statement of safety principles? Where are the regulations allowing for competition within the sector, while still maintaining robust safety standards? That is not going to happen by itself; it requires the Government to act. We need an update from the Minster.

We have the Government’s industrial strategy, which was published in June. It commits to making AVs commercially viable in the UK, but it did not say when. Perhaps the Minister can provide that answer. The Government are supposed to be seeking to harmonise international regulations on self-driving, and enabling pilots of self-driving vehicles by the spring of 2026. We have some movement on that, but can the Minister update the House on his progress?

We all agree that AVs represent a big opportunity for society and business. I welcome the Government’s wholesale adoption of the Conservative approach to this sector. The issue is not party political; we all appear to agree on the same objectives. But there needs to be a sense of urgency from this Administration, and I look forward to the Minister’s response demonstrating that urgency.

International Rail Services: Ashford

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition.

As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate.

It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant.

It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers.

It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency.

I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills.

Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that

“the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.

[Ms Billington]

The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.

[Tony Vaughan]

On competition, why did it take a Labour Government to press the Office of Rail and Road to revisit the question of access to Temple Mills, which is key to unlocking competition? Unless other operators use Temple Mills, there is no competition. Why did it take this Government to do that? The hon. Member referred to a debate some years ago after which nothing seemed to happen.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector.

We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs.

The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.

I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Kentish.

[Keir Mather]

Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.

[Jerome Mayhew]

A good Conservative approach.

[Keir Mather]

Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.

[Keir Mather]

Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.