Railways Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Graham Stuart]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

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

Thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what is essentially a pickle of the Government’s own making. We will not divide on the regulations because we recognise that there is a real problem that has to be solved. But rather than fiddling around with emergency statutory instruments to plug a gap, the real problem is the Government’s running down of the domestic energy sector and our ability to refine jet-grade oil and supply our airline industry.

We need to rejuvenate our energy sector, encouraging the investment and business conditions that will allow refineries to reopen. That is essential to manage the challenges posed by fuel shortages—I am thinking of Stanlow, Fawley, Pembroke and others. We have the ability to refine jet fuel in this country; we just need to expand it. The problem with the Government’s other policies on energy is that they are making it so expensive to operate energy-intensive businesses such as oil refining in this country that the industry has voted with its feet and left in a large percentage. We do not actually need less jet fuel than before the conflict in the middle east began. In fact, the spiralling cost of the carbon tax has meant that refineries are struggling to remain open. That will only increase our reliance on imports and make us vulnerable to geopolitical concerns around the strait of Hormuz.

If we want to support our oil refining sector, we must start by removing the additional costs, such as the carbon tax, while backing our North sea oil and gas industry to support the energy ecosystem that we rely on. That includes licences for new exploration and drilling. However, we have seen little evidence of that—in fact, quite the opposite in the case of the North sea, with the Government’s baffling legislative proposal on new licences.

Given the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling the fundamental issue, they have turned to these regulations, which have had the unfortunate consequence of dividing the opinions of airlines and airports. While airlines broadly support the proposals, we should acknowledge—as I hope the Minister will—the ongoing and significant concerns of airports. Those concerns have increased over the near two years of this Government’s rule, because of their mix of anti-business mandates and enormous increases to business rates, which have imposed significant costs on airports, even if they have managed to avoid the preposterous increases that were originally set out. The increases will create further challenges for regional airports, which face some of the steepest charges. We only have to look at Heathrow, which had an initial proposal of a 350% increase in its business rates.

The combination of measures has made airports wary, so it is unsurprising that they have concerns about the concept of an increased number of flights being cancelled under a new regime, with the cost of those empty slots being borne by the airports. I understand that this goes to the winter of 2027, though I think the Minister said June 2026. I may have misheard him, so perhaps he could clarify—

[Keir Mather]

Winter 2026.

[Jerome Mayhew]

If we could have a bit more clarity on that, I would be grateful.

The director of the Airports Council International Europe went so far as to say:

“The UK Government is effectively handing airlines a carte blanche to cut services and not deliver their schedules, leaving passengers, communities and airports to bear the full brunt.”

Although I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, that is a strong argument and deserves a direct response from the Minister about how he will maintain the balance through these regulations.

We all appreciate the importance of airport slot alleviation, particularly if there are significant fuel shortages, so I will not oppose the regulations today. Nevertheless, the proposals have been introduced in such a way that I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a few of the issues. That includes whether there are sufficient protections for travellers under the 14-day window, and whether he is confident that the system will work as intended and we will not see people’s holidays more disrupted than necessary over the summer period. In addition, I would be interested in hearing his rationale for extending the period into the winter when the peak period for flights is during the summer. Would it have been feasible to make changes at a later date, particularly if the Government get around to passing their Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill in a more timely manner than they appear to be doing at the moment?

Ultimately, the Government are right to ensure that there is flexibility when there is a crisis, but we have been repeatedly told that there is not a jet fuel shortage. That is always liable to change, but those comments raise fair questions from the sector about the appropriateness of the regulations that the Government propose. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the concerns of airports, and, frankly, my concerns about the risk posed to the travelling public, so that there can be clarity about the necessity of these measures beyond the existing alleviation rules.

High Speed 2 Reset

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Secretary of State’s comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons that action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2, but the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. It is true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns, with HS2 Ltd failing to maintain tight control of the budget and, frankly, the Department for Transport allowing it to get away with it. It was for that reason that the previous Government appointed Mark Wild OBE as the new chief executive of HS2 Ltd with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee the project. It is apparent from today’s statement that HS2’s leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try to achieve that.

Where there are actions that can reduce costs in the long run, the Opposition will clearly support them, but given concerns about trust in the project, I hope that the Government and HS2 Ltd will set out in detail how they believe these measures will save money and deliver even on this new extended timetable.

In addition, we have to acknowledge the deep-seated infrastructure challenges we face in this country. When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals, but they completely foundered when they came into contact with reality. That is why the Opposition propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red tape, both for business and large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a £100-million bat tunnel—does the Secretary of State?

This issue must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements. If she is angry, as she says she is, those statements must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that prevent cost overruns from occurring in future.

Turning to the specifics, I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector have indicated they want assurances. For example, what do the new project cost figures include? Do they include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is funding for Euston included in the new estimates, and do they include signalling? Do the Government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered under their new timetable? Can the Secretary of State also explain what steps the Government have taken to improve HS2 Ltd’s performance on settling claims with those impacted by construction, since she has highlighted separately that this is an area that requires improvement?

Of course, HS2 does not operate in a vacuum. On the same day that this statement is being made to the House, it has been announced that Government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one of Avanti West Coast’s routes following a Government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that services on the west coast will offer fewer services to passengers?

Ultimately, the Government are right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be rectified, and I am glad that the Government continue to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the shadow Rail Minister for his questions and the tone in which he presented his case. He was not quite as bombastic at the Dispatch Box as he normally is, so I can only assume that perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous Government left this project in. I did not hear one, but I accept the manner in which he made his points. I do question where the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), is today. This is not the first time that he has run scared from an oral statement, and I can only assume that it is because he is embarrassed by his party’s abject record on transport.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous Government. I gently say to him that it is a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for calling the fire brigade. Let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days after he started in his job:

“we are in a completely unacceptable position…we have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed in its mission to control costs.”

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I will answer them directly. He asks how reducing the speed to 320 kph will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, that will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We are making three scope changes in this announcement today: first, reducing the speed; secondly, reducing automatic train operation; and thirdly, ensuring that the signalling we put in on HS2 is aligned with the European train control system that is being rolled out on the trans-Pennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies; we are not taking a punt on world firsts. That is the way to reduce risk in the delivery of this programme and potentially reduce cost as well by up to £2.5 billion.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bat tunnels. I can tell him that we are building no more bat tunnels on HS2 and that this Government have changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which could mean a different approach to protected species in future. I gently ask him who was overseeing the project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the bat tunnel. It was not this Government; it was his Government, and we have taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas. I can confirm that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston, though we have also gone out to market to attract private investment, given that in the 10-year infrastructure strategy we set out our ambition to deliver the new HS2 station through a public-private partnership. The signalling costs are also included in those cost ranges.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked me what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance on settling claims on land and property. I know that there are very many hon. Members in this House whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in that regard. In the letter I recently wrote to the chair of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast has made recently to its summer timetable. It came to me with a proposition to better optimise its service pattern to meet the demand in the summer months. If we can save money because we are not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible Government I think it is reasonable for us to look at that. On the timetable introduced on Sunday, we have seen significant enhancements, including additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We are seeing the most regular Mid Cornwall Metro service in 60 years. Where his Government failed to invest in Britain’s rail network, this Government are doing exactly the opposite and ensuring that people across the country have the trains they need and deserve.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and on making a very important contribution, which has been supplemented by speech after speech right across the Chamber identifying a common theme around medical cases, as well as other issues. I will come on to those shortly.

The DVLA’s role in upholding the licensing system is essential for maintaining driver safety—that is a truism—and ensuring that the correct people are behind the wheel. We should not underestimate the scale of the task; it is a huge one. Last year, the agency collected £8.4 billion of vehicle excise duty for the Exchequer. It maintained 53 million driver records, as well as 47 million vehicle records, and it processed getting on for 100 million customer transactions. That is no mean feat. If we want to keep our country moving, it is vital that the DVLA processes its work efficiently, reaching the correct answers and doing so quickly.

The huge disruption caused by the covid pandemic saw the operation creak and exposed its weaknesses, with systems unable to cope with, among other things, staff distancing. Thanks to important work under the last Government, backlogs were brought down and longer-term efficiency improvements began to be implemented. Changes were made to streamline existing processes. For example, the law was altered to enable healthcare professionals other than doctors to respond to DVLA medical questionnaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), when he was a Minister in the Department—he is now the shadow Secretary of State for Transport—launched an independent examination of the DVLA in 2023 to establish what the Government could do to provide genuinely customer-focused services. We had hoped that that reform process would continue with the new Administration after the election in 2024, and some of it has, but as we have heard in the debate today, the data suggests that in many instances that reforming zeal has not continued.

The DVLA’s business plan tells us that the average waiting time for licensing decisions on medical cases will be within 50 days—a long time in its own right. However, the Government now admit that in October 2025 the waiting time was over 78 days. By November, the delay had increased further to over 80 days. That has real consequences. We have heard that from Member after Member, and I shall pick out one. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in a powerful speech, referred to a constituent who has stage 4 cancer and has been waiting nine months and counting for a decision. That is totally unacceptable. Across 2025-26 the overall average was over 56 days, missing the Government’s already slack target of 50 days. That is not acceptable, because it leaves drivers hanging, uncertain of what their fate will be. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could explain whether the position has improved since November last year—the last date for which figures are publicly available. Have the Government met, or are they closer to meeting, the target?

The DVLA has said that it is completing the migration of its digital driver licensing services from its old digital platform on to a new strategic cloud platform. While that is welcome progress, it does not appear to align with the scale of the reform programme set out by the Treasury in its 2025 departmental efficiency plans. The Department for Transport plan listed:

“AI initiatives to increase automation and self-service at its contact centre”,

“expanding the use of Robotic Process Automation software”,

“automating Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) refunds”,

and

“wider organisational and workforce restructure.”

It claimed that, taken together, those changes would secure net efficiencies of £39 million by 2028-29.

However, the actual business plan from the Department for 2025-26, published in March, makes no mention of AI initiatives to bring forward automation and self-service, or to automate refunds for customers. What happened to the plans? Has the Minister changed his mind? Has he told the Treasury? Will he tell us? Without that focus in the business plan, how can we ever expect to see improvements in efficiency and service for the customer?

Those are not the only reforms that the DVLA is struggling with. There are challenges around fee deficits. The Government have promised efficiency savings, but it is not clear how they plan to deliver them. The shadow Transport Secretary asked about the £2.50 fee charged for the release of vehicle keeper details. Unfortunately and ironically, the Department’s written answers were later acknowledged to be partially incorrect, as they included inaccurate information about the requirement for legislation. Will the Minister take this opportunity—I am sure he will—to explain whether he plans to change those fees and, crucially, whether he is confident that he can make those changes effectively, given that he was unable to provide accurate information on the process in the first place? When there are questions about efficiency savings, it appears that there is a gap between the rhetoric and the actual delivery.

Cloned number plates are another problem of increasing concern that must be tackled, as was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). The DVLA has to be supported in its work with the police to crack down on the issue. In her important speech, she referenced the example of a manufacturer who had been caught and received a £5,000 fine and a non-permanent ban—a five-year ban, from memory—from the registration list at the DVLA. That is madness and she is absolutely right to highlight the issue.

We have to tackle the supply and use of cloned plates. Current legislation does not properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Conservative party is proposing new legislation so that manufacturers and online retailers of cloned plates would face a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. On top of that, any driver caught using a plate that does not match their vehicle’s registered data would incur a driving ban of up to two years, up to a year in prison and a £5,000 fine. These are not accidental infringements of driving laws; it is express criminal activity, often to facilitate other crimes, and it should be treated as such.

Ultimately, we need to have laws in place that clamp down on criminality. It is an oddity that it is much harder to scrap a car than it is to buy one. To scrap a car, people need ID, a vehicle licence and a UK bank account, whereas to buy one they can just turn up and pay in cash. That is a gateway for thousands of uninsured vehicles to be used for criminal purposes. The different approaches make no sense. Why do we not tighten up the rules, so that if a person wants to buy a car, at the very least they have to record their driving licence? Will the Government consider working with the DVLA to support our proposal to tighten up that method of removing uninsured vehicles from the road?

The DVLA is ripe for further reform. Its services our ideal for use of AI to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Instead of being paralysed by the Mandelson affair, the Government need to focus on driving through reforms to serve the driving public and clamp down on vehicle-related crime. I am concerned that the current data appears to be going in the wrong direction, but there is still time for the Government to turn this around. We have a plan for improvements and I look forward to hearing that the Government have one too.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on the reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee facilitating it.

The DVLA touches almost every household in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most advanced and large-scale digital organisations in Government, handling billions of interactions each year. Over 84% of transactions are now completed online and the system works well for most drivers. A standard non-medical driving licence application is typically processed in just two to three days, which demonstrates what a modern public service can achieve at scale. However, I want to focus on where the service has not worked well enough—in drivers’ medical services—and explain what it is being done to put that right.

Drivers’ medical services have been a source of significant concern for Members across the House and, more importantly, for our constituents. For many people, the ability to drive is essential. It supports independence, employment, caring responsibilities and access to healthcare. When a licence is delayed because of a medical investigation, the impact is immediate and personal. People can face lost income, isolation, missed appointments and prolonged uncertainty.

The Government are clear that the service levels in the drivers’ medical services have fallen below expectations for far too many drivers who are waiting for a licensing decision, often, as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate, after doing everything they have been asked to do. I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and make excuses or point at the previous Administration for the mess that we inherited, but I am going to say that I am sorry. I am sorry to all those who have been impacted by the delays. We are going to put things right—we are putting things right. Peoples’ frustration is justified, and it deserves both explanation and action.

It is important to understand the scale and complexity of the challenge. Demand for medical licensing decisions has risen sharply and consistently. In 2024 to 2025 alone, the DVLA made more than 830,000 medical licensing decisions, the vast majority of which did not involve MPs, and nor should they have to. Demand continues to rise, driven in part by an ageing population who quite rightfully wish to remain mobile and independent for longer.

As has been pointed out, not all medical cases are the same. Many straightforward cases such as those notified online for well controlled diabetes can be resolved quickly—sometimes within days—but an increasing proportion are complex and require detailed clinical evidence from NHS professionals or specialist reports and examinations, all of which, I will add, should be paid for by the DVLA. Those decisions cannot be rushed. The DVLA’s overriding duty is to protect road safety, and every decision must be based on sound medical advice.

That evidence is informed by six independent medical advisory panels covering key conditions that affect safe driving, including cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric and visual disorders. The expert panels ensure that decisions reflect modern clinical practice and support the introduction of new treatments. A good example is the recent change allowing drivers with diabetes to use continuous glucose monitoring, removing a significant burden for drivers while improving efficiency.

Despite the dedication of DVLA staff, at times demand has exceeded capacity. That pressure was compounded by the need to replace a legacy IT system. Introducing a modern casework system was essential, but it required investment, experienced staff input and training. In the short term, that has contributed to longer decision times, which rose to 71 working days, alongside increased complaints, call volumes and, of course, correspondence from hon. Members. What matters now is progress, and progress is being made.

Since September 2025, all new and renewed medical cases have been processed through a single modern digital casework system. Legacy cases have also been migrated, meaning that all driver medical teams are now working in one digital environment.

On 31 March, the DVLA launched its new digital medical services platform, which allows far more drivers to notify conditions, apply for new licences and renew licences online. It reduces errors, improves accuracy and enables staff to focus on the most complex cases. Initial case actions can now be taken within 24 hours. Staff are supported by decision-tree logic, and customers can be contacted by email, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that communication is flowing. On the email point, some sections of the law stipulate that communication must still be done in writing. The system will continue to be developed. Further automation of letters and medical questionnaires is planned, and more customers will be brought on to the platform over time, driving further efficiency.

Alongside digital reform, the DVLA has also increased staffing capacity. An additional 43 medical caseworkers are already in training, with a further 22 joining shortly. The steps that we are taking are already delivering results. So far in April, the average time to make a licensing decision in medical cases is 56.6 working days, which is a significant reduction from 71.4 days in February.

The DVLA will continue to prioritise cases where drivers need their licence for work or other urgent purposes. Hon. Members may also be aware that in many cases drivers are legally able to continue to drive while applications are being processed—when it is safe for them to do so—under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as has been mentioned. While the delays in the return of those licences, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), should not be happening, drivers should be covered by that section 88 ability. However, I am happy to pick up specific cases for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber.

Some delays remain unavoidable, particularly when information from healthcare professionals is outstanding. The DVLA issues automated reminders, but safe licensing decisions depend on adequate medical input. That is why the DVLA is also working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through the CustomerFirst programme, which is exploring further reforms to the drivers’ medical processes, including secure digital links with the NHS.

Those changes sit within a wider transformation of the DVLA. The new driver and vehicles account allows motorists to manage their details digitally and to self-serve more easily. By 2030, the DVLA intends to operate as an even more digital insight-led organisation that is faster, fairer and more consistent, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable drivers. No one underestimates the impact that the delays have had, but it is right to acknowledge that real action is under way and that real progress is now being delivered.

Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy. Younger drivers are disproportionately involved in serious road collisions. Drivers aged 17 to 24 make up just 6% of licence holders, yet they are involved in nearly a quarter of all fatal and serious collisions. Those figures are stark and demand action. That is why the Government’s road safety strategy includes a consultation on minimum learning periods before a learner driver can take their practical test, which would allow learners greater exposure to various conditions, such as driving in poor weather, at night or in heavier traffic, helping them to develop essential skills and judgment while preserving the freedoms that come with passing a test. We are also consulting on lowering the drink-drive limit for newly qualified drivers, alongside continued investment in the THINK! campaign, which targets those most at risk—particularly young men—by focusing on speeding and drink-driving.

Road safety is not only about young drivers, though; everyone deserves to feel safe on our roads, including older drivers and families. Around 24% of the drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or over. Although many older people drive safely well into later life, it is right to address risks linked to eyesight and cognitive change. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye testing for drivers aged 70 and over, and developing options for cognitive testing, recognising that fitness to drive is about capability, not age. I encourage Members to ensure that their constituents engage with the consultation that is under way.

I will pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) made about optometrists. They are able to inform the DVLA of a medical condition, including eyesight issues, if a patient cannot or will not do so. It is important to point that out.

I turn to the growing concern around ghost plates and other non-compliant number plates, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) mentioned and which undermine road safety and enforcement. Let me be clear: it is already illegal to sell or display ghost or non-compliant number plates. Only DVLA-approved registered number plate suppliers may supply plates, and they must meet strict standards and keep records. Drivers who use illegal plates can face fines of up to £1,000.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will address that point in a moment.

Enforcement at the roadside is a matter for the police. Supported by the DVLA, enforcement officers are working closely with trading standards to tackle illegal supply, so the Government are not standing still. We are working with policing partners to strengthen enforcement, including by funding the roads policing innovation programme. We are reviewing the registered number plate supplier scheme, considering a new British standard for plates and exploring how technology can identify illegal plates more effectively. We also understand the importance of accurate records. Although the vast majority of vehicle records held by the DVLA have up-to-date and traceable registered keepers, we are always looking at ways to improve their accuracy.

Drivers deserve timely and safe decisions, staff deserve modern systems that support their professional judgment, and the public deserve to have confidence that safety and fairness remain at the heart of our licensing system. Acknowledging where services have fallen short matters, but so does recognising the progress that has been made. I commend these efforts to the House.

Local Transport: Planning Developments

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Epsom and Ewell has the highest accommodation costs in England. That pressure is being addressed by building new housing, but the challenge is that in one development in my constituency, residents had to wait nearly a decade after moving into their new homes to get a bus route and new school, with additional pressure on train services. Although housing and some development is essential, does the hon. Member agree it should reflect community needs and the capacity of local transport services?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention.

In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.

We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.

In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.

The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.

Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.

Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.

Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.

Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.

That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.

In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:

“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”

It highlighted that that could

“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”

Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.

Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.

In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.

The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When these Ministers came to power, they promised that they would act to reduce the waiting time for a driving test, and not just by a little bit; they said they would get it down to seven weeks. A year later, the waiting time is now 21.9 weeks. In fact, it has gone up by three weeks since they came into power. That is not really a sign of competence, is it?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have to say, the shadow Minister has some brass neck in criticising our Government on this issue. The National Audit Office, in its December report into driving test waiting times, was very clear:

“DFT had limited involvement in helping DVSA tackle driving test waiting times up to mid-2024. Prior to 2024, DFT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.

The hon. Gentleman does not have a leg to stand on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Government claim to be simplifying rail fares, but we are beginning to see what they mean by that. London North Eastern Railway is scrapping off-peak and super-off-peak tickets, doubling the price of some journeys; it says that that is in the name of simplification. c2c has cut a 40% off-peak discount, straight after nationalisation. Elsewhere, analysis by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that rail passengers are now spending 40% more on some journeys than before the general election. Does the Minister accept that removing the cheapest fares in pursuit of a political slogan is not always in the best interests of the travelling public?

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Clause 87 points towards schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments arising from the Bill. The Bill has broadened its scope, and much of the related previous legislation will need altering slightly. These minor and consequential amendments allow for the necessary changes and updates to be made, and will help propel the Bill forward. I therefore commend the clause and schedule 3 to the Committee.

Amendments 188, 191 to 193 and 196 to 199 in my name are consequential amendments to the Railways Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that reflect the removal of franchising. The new provisions about railway passenger services and the creation of GBR. For example, it was necessary to make some amendments to the closures regime in the 2005 Act as it was aligned with the franchising system in the 1993 Act, whereas we now need it to align with the Bill. Importantly, there is no change to the outcome to the closures process, and the role of the ORR and Ministers is not changing.

Amendment 190 ensures that documents sent in accordance with the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill can be sent electronically. It is a common and standard amendment to reflect technological developments. Amendments 187, 189, 194 and 195 remove provisions that are no longer necessary.

The last thing I will address in this group is clause 88, which I commend to the Committee. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make amendments that are consequential to the Bill. That will ensure that the statute book is tidy and appropriately reflects the changes the Bill makes. I stress that this power cannot be used to make policy changes and is intended only to ensure that the outcomes of the Bill are not hindered or confused by existing legislation that should have been consequentially amended.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert—

“7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).”

This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary.

Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

“8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’.

8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.”

This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill.

Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert—

22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’.

(3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or

(b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.”

This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill.

Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.”

This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary.

Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert—

“24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’,

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and

(c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’.

(3) After that subsection insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’

(4) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’

(5) At the end of subsection (5) insert—

‘“working day” means any day other than—

(a) a Saturday or a Sunday,

(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

(c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’”

This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill.

Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert—

“25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit paragraph 1(aa).

(3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’.

25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.”

This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes.

Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert—

“27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4A)—

(a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’.

(3) In subsection (8)—

(a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.”

This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR.

Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert

“for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”.

This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2).

Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.”

This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements.

Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert—

“32A Omit sections 3 and 4.”

This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill.

Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert—

“33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8).

33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8).

(3) In subsection (2) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.

33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11).

(3) In subsection (4) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.”

This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system.

Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert—

“34A Omit section 16.

34B Omit section 18.

34C Omit section 20.

34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (10).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (8).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’.

(3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’.

(4) For subsection (9) substitute—

‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’

(5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’.

34G In section 32(12)—

(a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’;

(b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’;

(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’.

34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34J For section 36(7) substitute—

‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’

34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’.

(3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’.

34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3).

34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows.

(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—

‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is—

(a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State;

(b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers;

(c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers,

and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’

34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’.

(3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’.

34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) at the appropriate place, insert—

‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’

(b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert—

‘(da) a mayoral combined authority;

(db) a mayoral combined county authority;’;

(c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a).

(3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert—

“35A For section 48(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means—

(a) a Scotland-only service;

(b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’

35B For section 48A(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means—

(a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert—

“36A Omit Schedule 4.

36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority;

(eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them.

Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on.

Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities. However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it.

I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026.

For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Before I respond to that, Mr Western, is this my last opportunity to speak in the Committee?

[The Chair]

No.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In that case, these are all straightforward ancillary parts to the Bill, and I have no comments to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 90

General interpretation

Amendments made: 200, in clause 90, page 53, line 12, at end insert—

“‘Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area’ means a body which is the Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;”

This amendment defines Passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 263, in clause 90, page 53, line 31, at end insert

“, except in relation to the expression ‘wholly owned by the Crown’ (as to which see section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993)”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment provides for the meaning in the Bill of “wholly owned by the Crown” to be that given by section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993.

Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Extent

Amendments made: 201, in clause 91, page 53, line 32, at end insert—

“(A1) This Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only, subject to subsections (A2) to (1).

(A2) Section 86 and this Part extend also to Northern Ireland.

(A3) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of section 86 and this Part, or any regulations under that section (whether made before or after the making of the Order in Council), to extend with or without modifications to the Isle of Man.

(A4) The power under subsection (A3), so far as relating to regulations, includes power to provide for the regulations as amended from time to time to extend as mentioned in that subsection.”

This amendment allows clause 86 and regulations under it to be extended to the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Amendment 202, in clause 91, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 201.

Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him.

I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning. That must make me a very slow learner.

Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole.

With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.

Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper.

Clause 80

Duty to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers

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

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 80, page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Scottish Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 104, in clause 80, page 47, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Great British Railways must inform Welsh Ministers before making a decision within subsection (4), and if, in the view of Welsh Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Wales’ economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Wales, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Wales’ economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Wales.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 105, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform a mayoral combined authority prior to making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of the mayoral combined authority, the decision would significantly affect the economy of the authority’s area or of persons living in, working in, or visiting the area, Great British Railways must consult the mayoral combined authority before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting the authority.

Clause 81 stand part.

Amendment 106, in clause 82, page 48, line 25, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform Transport for London prior to making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Transport for London, the decision would significantly affect Greater London’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Greater London, GBR must consult Transport for London before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Greater London.

Government amendments 158 to 160.

Clause 82 stand part.

New clause 25—Local infrastructure change reporting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every five years, publish a report assessing long term-changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure.

(2) The Secretary of State must consult local authorities prior to the publication of any report under subsection (1) and ensure that any such report considers proposals made by local authorities.

(3) A copy of a report published under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament and sent to—

(a) the Transport Committee of the House of Commons,

(b) the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons.

(4) Reference in this section to the Transport Committee and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of either Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of either Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”

This new clause requires collaborative strategic planning between central government and local authorities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That will teach me to go away for a day; the Committee finished off half the Bill without me. Anyway, we will go back to the usual slow progress today!

Clause 80 is pretty straightforward. Great British Railways will have a duty to consult Scottish Ministers before making decisions that relate to cross-border services designated under clause 25, where—this is the important bit—

“the decision will significantly affect…Scotland’s economy or…persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland.”

Similarly, the clause requires GBR to consult Welsh Ministers where its decisions relate to services designated by the Secretary of State that are provided in Wales under a similar process.

Most of the clause is pretty unremarkable, but there is one glaring issue with it: it asserts that GBR will decide for itself when a decision will “significantly affect” the Scottish or Welsh economies. The Minister will recognise that GBR is not an economic forecasting or policymaking body and cannot credibly assess national economic impact internally. The clause therefore makes the duty discretionary and risks major decisions proceeding without any meaningful consultation of either Welsh or Scottish Ministers. How is it sensible for GBR to have the duty to assess whether a proposed action is likely to affect the economies of either Scotland or Wales?

That brings me neatly on to amendments 103 and 104. Amendment 103 would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland. Surely that is the correct approach. Similarly, amendment 104 would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, took the decision. Effectively, instead of GBR having the responsibility to say, “This affects Scotland and/or Wales, and therefore we should consult,” the amendments would give the power to the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to call in a decision on their assessment of their own economy. Surely that is the better approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rebuttal.

Clause 81, which introduces a duty to consult mayoral combined authorities, is pretty similar to clause 80. In the interest of speed, I will skip straight on to amendment 105, which would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, and not GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy. I am repeating a similar argument, but it is an important one—one of process rather than any political issue. Again, we are talking about a rail body making an assessment of the impact of its activities on an economy that it is not a specialist in.

Clause 82 creates a duty to consult Transport for London. Again, we have the same concerns as we had regarding clauses 80 and 81. Under the franchise system, the Mayor of London, and other mayors for that matter, were able to drag in rail operators to question them about their performance and standards; however, that right of consultation seems to have been removed. Is this a deliberate decision by the Minister to reduce the rights of mayors and mayoral combined authorities in relation to consultation? If it is, I would be grateful if he could explain why he has reduced powers, as opposed to increasing them.

Amendment 106 would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Greater London. I am sure the Minister will speak to Government amendments 158 to 160 in a moment, but to anticipate his comments, they provide a duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. The Opposition have no objection to these clarifying amendments.

Finally, I understand that new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is intended to facilitate collaborative strategic planning between central Government and local authorities, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report every five years assessing the long-term changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure. We support the principle of the new clause, but I recognise that a five-year reporting requirement is an onerous task to impose if no concrete improvements follow. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say in support of his new clause.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir Alec. Before I speak to new clause 25, let me make a few comments about the Government and Conservative amendments. I see nothing to object to in the Government amendments, which seem to tidy up some aspects of the Bill surrounding interfaces relating to TfL; I await the Minister’s comments. We support the Conservative amendments, which would strengthen the role of devolved Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral authorities and TfL in relation to GBR’s decisions. That is the right principle because, as I shall argue, for too long decisions about our rail network have been focused on London and the south-east, sometimes to the detriment of regional development.

Our new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report at least once every five years on the long-term rail infrastructure changes needed at a local level. It would force the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and would ensure that those views are properly considered, reported and laid before Parliament. Local authorities understand where infrastructure is holding back growth, connectivity and reliability. Whether it is the need for additional passing loops—were my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset present I am sure that he would talk about the west of England line—station upgrades or better integration with local bus services, such issues are often well known locally but struggle to be given a proper voice under our current arrangements. The new clause would create a formal mechanism to surface those priorities and ensure that they are not overlooked.

The powers in the Bill are not just for this Government and this Parliament, so it is important that appropriate checks and balances are put in place. The new clause would restore balance by embedding local government and parliamentary scrutiny into long-term rail planning, while making sure that local people’s voices are heard by the Government on the changes that they want to see. By requiring reports to be shared with relevant Select Committees, new clause 25 would strengthen accountability and transparency. It would support joined-up, evidence-based planning and help to ensure that Great British Railways delivers the improvements that reflect local need.

To address the shadow Minister’s point, I understand where he is coming from, but were somebody to be punished by being required to tot up the reports that would have to be laid before Parliament under amendments that he and I have tabled, I think it is possible that he might win. In that context, we do not think that this is overly onerous, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the local authority voice can be strengthened.

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

Good morning, Sir Alec; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendments 103 to 106, which would require GBR to inform the relevant devolved Ministers and bodies before taking a decision that affected them, and the relevant Minister or body to decide whether consultation is necessary, if they deemed the decision to be significant. Each of the amendments does the same thing, for Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL respectively. They would reverse provisions in the Bill as drafted that require GBR to consult the relevant devolved Minister or body if it considers a decision significant.

The Committee has heard that GBR will be the directing mind of the railways. I fully recognise the need for Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL to be suitably informed and consulted on decisions of GBR that relate to them. GBR is already required by the Bill to have regard to the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, statement of objectives, and directions and guidance; to the Welsh Ministers’ transport strategy; to the local transport plans of MCAs; and to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Furthermore, in the case of Scotland and Wales, the memorandums of understanding required by the Bill will ensure that any significant decision affecting Scotland or Wales is not made without the proper engagement of the relevant Government and transport body. In the case of mayoral combined authorities and TfL, there is a clear intention for GBR to work closely in partnership with mayoral authorities including TfL. An industry-developed practitioner guide on how GBR could work in partnership locally was published on 13 January, and GBR will be a proactive partner with all those bodies.

Clauses 80 to 82 already require consultation on significant decisions. Rather than improving the Bill, amendments 103 to 106 would fundamentally hamstring GBR’s decision-making powers by creating unnecessary additional requirements. Decision making would become inefficient and less responsive to passengers and freight. Consultation will ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers can share their views, perspectives and expertise on the economic impact of GBR’s decision making.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister asserts that the amendments would make the process inefficient. Will he please explain why giving mayoral combined authorities or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers the power to call in consultation would make the process less efficient?

[Keir Mather]

Enabling mayoral combined authorities to be consulted on GBR’s proposals creates a basis on which MCAs and GBR can engage with each other to explore challenges as could relate to economic impact. The issue with calling in consultation in every instance is that it might not always be appropriate to do so. Where a more iterative process is possible, and Scottish Government and Welsh Government colleagues, for example, are best able to feed in and solve problems through consultation, it is not necessary to layer more formal processes on top.

It is worth restating for the benefit of the Committee that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are pleased with the basis on which the devolved arrangements have proceeded in the creation of the Bill. Clauses 80 to 82 as drafted will ensure that GBR engages on issues of importance, and that it consults Scottish and Welsh Ministers, rather than drowning in irrelevant detail. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw amendment 103 and not to move amendments 104 to 106.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report

“at least once every five years…assessing long term-changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure.”

Across this Parliament, the Government are making a record £120 billion capital investment in long-awaited infrastructure projects—including road, rail and green energy projects—that will generate the jobs of the future and drive growth. The Government also hugely support collaboration to encourage a more locally focused railway. Insights from local communities, who know their areas best, will play a significant part in achieving that.

The Bill requires GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and to have regard to their local transport plans. GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable effective collaboration and local influence. That will mark a change in approach in how the railway engages locally, providing single-point accountability and enabling GBR to better meet the needs of areas and wider communities. Furthermore, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward-facing and engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. Such engagement and partnerships will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities to be collaborative with GBR on their priorities and to consider proposals.

Government amendments 158 to 160, which are a continuation of the technical amendments that we debated when considering the group led by amendment 165 to clause 6, will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. They clarify the definition of a London passenger railway service to provide consistency in geographical scope with other duties and powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They expand the scope of the duty on GBR to consult with TfL so that it applies to passenger services to, from and within Greater London, and not just those within it.

In summary, clauses 80 to 82 introduce statutory duties on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, MCAs and TfL before it makes a decision about services or infrastructure that would significantly affect the interests of their areas. The rationale for the clauses is compelling. They provide assurance to the relevant people and organisations that they will be properly engaged when GBR makes decisions that significantly impact their areas. By embedding such a broad duty in legislation for the first time, we ensure that engagement is not optional but a requirement. That will lead to better decision making, stronger relationships and outcomes that take account of the needs of communities across Great Britain.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister has heard my submissions. In the interest of time, I will not press my amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Duty to consult Transport for London

Amendments made: 158, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “a” insert “London”.

This amendment and amendments 159 and 160 provide for the duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London.

Amendment 159, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “service” insert—

“(within the meaning of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 158.

Amendment 160, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, leave out

“which is provided in Greater London”.—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 158.

Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Advice from relevant local government bodies

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 83, page 49, leave out line 11 and insert—

“(a) railways in the body’s area, or

(b) railway services—

(i) between places in the body’s area, or

(ii) between places in the body’s area and places outside that area.”

This amendment provides for advice to be given by local government bodies to GBR about railway services that operate to, from or within their areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

These are two unremarkable clauses. We have no objections to either of them. As for the Government amendments, they are technical in nature and we also support them.

[Keir Mather]

While I reject the charge that the amendments are unremarkable, I thank the shadow Minister for his support.

Amendment 161 agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Advice from Transport for London

Amendments made: 184, in clause 84, page 49, line 30, after “function” insert

“(within the meaning of the Railways Act 2026)”.

This amendment defines GBR’s statutory functions in the new section 176A(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Amendment 162, in clause 84, page 49, line 31, leave out

“railways or railway services in”

and insert—

“(a) railways in Greater London, or

(b) railway services—

(i) between places in Greater London, or

(ii) between places in Greater London and places outside”

This amendment and amendment 163 provide for advice to be given by Transport for London to GBR about railway services that operate to, from or within Greater London.

Amendment 163, in clause 84, page 49, line 31, at end insert—

“(4) Expressions used in this section and in Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.”—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 162.

Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Licensing etc of train drivers

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 85, page 50, leave out line 3.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences certificates so that it remains the ORR.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 85 relates to the licensing of train drivers, and other matters relating to them. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 and related assimilated law through regulations. The Secretary of State, by interest, has also been empowered to appoint a person or a body to publish and maintain technical standards in a document separate from the regulations.

The regulations set out the requirements that ensure train drivers are competent, medically and psychologically fit, trained on the infrastructure, rolling stock and routes that they are to be deployed on, and generally able to drive trains safely. The power to amend that legislation is required to ensure that the train driver licensing regime can be updated to reflect technological, clinical and medical advancements. The ability to update the legislation on an enduring basis will help to modernise the framework and support health and safety outcomes for train drivers, as well as avoiding operational impacts such as train drivers being unable to be deployed on account of not passing outdated medical tests. The ability to designate a person or body, for example the Office of Rail and Road or GBR, to publish and maintain technical standards will allow the train driving regime to remain adaptable and effective. We are therefore support that.

Subsection (2)(b) does not confirm the ongoing role of the ORR to issue licences or certificates. That is much bigger. Through its omission, it opens the door to the removal of the ORR’s role on this important issue. Unions would clearly fall under the definition in subsection (6)(a), but the drafting effectively ringfences them as the primary consultees while shutting out operators, GBR, passenger groups and safety bodies from the mandatory list. There is a non-mandatory ability to consult, but it seems very odd to identify unions but not any of these other very important organisations as part of a mandatory consultation list. That creates an odd imbalance for regulations that directly affect service delivery and safety, giving one group a guaranteed seat at the table while everyone else is included only at the Secretary of State’s discretion.

Amendment 107 would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences and certificates, so that it remains the Office of Rail and Road, once again restoring power to the independent regulator with experience and expertise in this space. That is a small but important point. It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters that the ORR is not mentioned. If the intention is to remove that responsibility from the ORR, and that is the Government’s ambition as a result of the clause, perhaps the Minister could make that clear? If not, amendment 107 makes it clear that the ORR is the anticipated body.

Amendment 108 is not part of this group but would affect the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to consult passenger and freight service operators, groups representing passengers and railway rail safety organisations before making regulations about the licensing or certification of train drivers. That would mean that not just Labour’s union colleagues would be consulted. I mention the amendment in passing because it is relevant to the discussion of this clause, and I see the Minister nodding sagely.

I intend to seek a Division on amendment 107 if the Government are not minded to accept it.

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by attempting to assuage some of the shadow Minister’s concerns in this space as it relates to the ORR and licensing. There are no plans to transfer the train driving licensing and certification functions from the ORR, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to other bodies. However, while there are no plans to transfer functions at this stage, it is possible that changes may be needed or sought by future Governments to reflect wider changes to the structure, responsibilities and roles in the rail industry—as has happened before. For that reason, these powers are vital to ensure the regime for train driving can function as intended and with the appropriate bodies responsible for issuing licences and certificates.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and understand the importance of what he is driving at when it comes to the all-important issue of safety. His amendment would ensure that only the ORR may issue train driving licences. It would remove the ability to update the arrangements for issuing train driving licences and certificates in the future, for example, to reflect a change in the name of the issuing authority or a transfer of functions from one body to another. It is important that the licensing and certification regime can be adapted and changed if needed, including who issues that documentation, because it may be needed to reflect future changes to industry structures, roles and responsibilities.

The Government’s position is supported by the ORR, which is the current licensing authority. Removing the power to change the arrangements for issuing licences and certificates could undermine our ability to ensure driver licensing and certification arrangements stay fit for purpose as the industry, technology and ways of working evolve. If such proposals were brought forward, the clause as drafted would ensure that any changes are subject to a full public consultation followed by parliamentary scrutiny under the draft affirmative procedure before becoming law. That process affords multiple opportunities for stakeholders’ views to be considered. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 85 allows the Secretary of State to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 by means of secondary legislation. Those regulations establish the requirements for train drivers in Great Britain, which presently cannot be updated regularly without primary legislation, which is a lengthy and inefficient process. The powers in the clause are critical if the Government are to ensure that the framework for train driving remains robust, responsive and fit for purpose in the years ahead.

The Committee may be aware that legislation is due to be laid today to lower the minimum age for train drivers. However, that is being done using time-limited powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which will expire in June 2026. Without this clause, such changes to the law, which will help us to address the shortage in train drivers, will not be possible. The power will allow the regime to evolve in line with best practice, incorporating advances in technology, innovation, operations and safety knowledge, for instance by regularly revising eyesight and hearing requirements to reflect advances in corrective technologies, improved testing methods and emerging medical conditions. Without those powers, the industry will be less effective at integrating new technologies, scientific methods or innovations into the train driving regime as they emerge. I therefore commend clause 85 to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As I mentioned, we support the intention behind these clauses, but I stand firm in defending the need for the ORR to be the issuing body, so I will press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 201 and 202 in my name will allow the Government to extend clause 86, on the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol to the convention as they relate to railway rolling stock, and part 4 of the Bill to the Isle of Man. We have consulted the Isle of Man and the other Crown dependencies on whether they would like us to extend this section of the Bill to them. The Isle of Man alone asked that we extend the protocol and these provisions to it. Given that the Government traditionally agree to such requests, we have tabled these amendments.

Extending this section of the Bill will grant the Isle of Man power to make regulations under clause 86. Alternatively, regulations made by the UK Government can be extended to apply to it with appropriate modifications. That would eliminate the need for the Isle of Man to legislate for itself, but it would still have the benefit of having the convention and protocol applying to it. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Clause 86 will allow the United Kingdom to implement and ratify the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg rail protocol, as they relate to railway rolling stock, via secondary legislation. The convention and the protocol aim to provide more security for creditors financing rolling stock by reducing the risk to those involved in such transactions and providing greater security over their interests.

The agreements establish an international legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock and make provision for legal remedies in the event of default or insolvency. Implementing the agreements will therefore make the UK a more attractive place for investors to hold financial interests in rolling stock with UK-based lenders, who will also be able to benefit from the protection of the protocol when they invest in overseas markets.

The UK signed the Luxembourg protocol in 2016. That power allows the UK to meet its international obligations, especially now that the protocol has come into force as a number of states have ratified it. These agreements are supported by the industry and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As we have just heard, the Luxembourg protocol is designed to provide access to cheaper rolling stock in the UK and overseas, as finance can be secured and/or rolling stock leased from non-UK sources, and UK rolling stock companies can lease abroad at lower risk.

I learned an interesting fact over the weekend. I thought that this proposal would affect only ROSCOs operating in this country, but it actually affects the Government too. I learned that the Government own the freehold of one train in the UK, which is on the Canvey Island miniature railway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was very keen to point out to me that the Government have skin in the game on this clause. I have read that into the record, so I hope she is pleased with that.

We have no objections to the clause. As for Government amendments 201 and 202, which deal with the Isle of Man, I was slightly surprised by them. I am sorry to say that I have never visited the Isle of Man, so I had to do some research on its rail infrastructure, and it turns out that it is entirely heritage in nature, with Victorian rolling stock including a horse-drawn tramway. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why Victorian rolling stock and horse-drawn tramways need the benefit of the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol. I am sure that he has that at his fingertips.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause will ensure that network or station operators can recover the costs of removing a road vehicle that is causing disruption or presenting a safety risk on the railway. It applies in situations where a car or bicycle must be removed from an access road, level crossing or any other location that is critical to the safe operation of the railway or the movement of passengers around the network. Any recovery of costs must reflect the actual expenses incurred by the railway operator in resolving the obstruction.

Passengers should be able to use the railway without disruption caused by obstruction on railway land. Network or station operators must be able to ensure that such obstructions are removed promptly, and the cost of doing so should rightly fall on the person in charge of the road vehicle involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have no objection in principle to the new clause, but, as we have learned to our cost as consumers in the similar approach taken to car parking charges and the removal of vehicles badly parked elsewhere, this will all come down to the operators contracted by GBR to undertake that function. It is merely asserted that the costs are related to those incurred in the removal, but we all know that such costs can be inflated by unscrupulous operators. Although we do not object to the new clause in principle, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that reputable companies will be used and that this measure will not be used as a secondary source of income for GBR or its contractors.

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister is right to champion the interests of users of the railway and to ensure that the people who enforce such charges are scrupulous. Network and station operators, including GBR, will be required to use their judgment to determine whether the person responsible for a vehicle should bear the cost of removing the obstruction from railway land in the first place. I am happy to commit that we will engage closely to ensure that is done in a proportionate way that protects the interests of passengers and users of railway services.

By including this provision in the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the proposals. As part of that process, the shadow Minister is welcome to hold my feet to the fire to make sure that the interests of consumers are protected.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 61

Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State

“(1) The Secretary of State may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Secretary of State, a government department or a company wholly owned by the Crown, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, or a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, to—

(i) the Secretary of State,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to—

(i) the Secretary of State,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR to—

(i) another such company,

(ii) Great British Railways,

(iii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iv) a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR;

(e) from the Secretary of State or a government department to a company wholly owned by the Crown, or vice versa.

(2) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent—

(a) of the Scottish Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and one or more other persons, and

(b) of the Welsh Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and one or more other persons.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

All the provisions in this group relate to transfer schemes. New clause 61 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to make one or more transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities, including contracted employment between public entities. The new clause is important, as it will enable transfers to and from GBR. Transfer schemes are regularly used for highly complex transfers and can avoid undue delay and costs in getting the right assets into the right place at the right time.

Transfer schemes will provide a framework for the consistent treatment of workers, in line with Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) principles. GBR will bring together activities from more than 17 existing organisations, including Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, DfT Operator and 14 separate train operating companies, into a single organisation. It is therefore important that transfers be managed in the simplest, clearest and most efficient way possible to protect the staff involved and the taxpayers’ investment.

New schedule 1 provides further detail on transfer schemes. The schedule is important, as it sets out the scope of what may be included in a transfer scheme. This follows standard drafting practice and will prevent individual or piecemeal issues from slowing down the delivery of an integrated railway that better serves the public as a whole.

New clauses 62 and 63 will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make one or more schemes for the transfers involved to enable GBR to run devolved services on their behalf. The provisions require the consent of the Secretary of State to protect their interests and the transfer of liabilities or assets in or out of GBR that they wholly own. The provisions also provide for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make transfers between companies that they themselves wholly own. That will enable a smooth transition between delivery models for devolved services by devolved Governments. Such transfers would not require the consent of the Secretary of State, as they only involve companies owned by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.

We have worked in partnership with the devolved Governments to ensure that they can share in the benefits of an integrated railway and, if they so choose, use GBR for the delivery of devolved railway services. These transfer scheme provisions reflect the approach that we have agreed with Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

New clause 65 will allow for the transfer of employment contracts from the ORR to the new passenger watchdog. The watchdog will take over most current ORR consumer roles, including the setting and oversight of standards. The new clause is important as it allows for the transfer of contracts of employment, provides protection for impacted ORR staff in line with TUPE principles, and will allow the watchdog to have the expertise that it needs to get up and running as soon as possible.

Finally, new clause 64 and amendment 263 make further provision for transfer schemes. New clause 64 introduces new schedule 1 and will allow transfers into GBR to begin before GBR is fully designated to allow for sensible operational preparation ahead of establishment. Amendment 263 is required to ensure consistency of terminology with other railways legislation and to ensure that the definitions of “wholly owned” and other similar wording are accurate and make sense in the context of previous Acts.

Taken together, the provisions are essential to ensure that GBR can be established quickly so that we can bring the benefits that we have promised to the public. They will allow the Government to minimise the cost of the transfer to the taxpayer and ensure that staff are protected. I commend them to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have nothing to add.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 61 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 62

Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers

“(1) The Scottish Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Scottish Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, a company wholly owned by a former GBR or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a former GBR, to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers to another company wholly owned by them;

(e) from the Scottish Ministers to a company wholly owned by them, or vice versa.

(2) The Scottish Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Scottish Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 63

Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers

“(1) The Welsh Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Welsh Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways to—

(i) the Welsh Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to—

(i) the Welsh Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers to another company wholly owned by them;

(e) from the Welsh Ministers to a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, or vice versa.

(2) The Welsh Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Welsh Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 64

Further provision about transfer schemes

“(1) Schedule (Transfer schemes) contains further provision about transfer schemes under sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers).

(2) In sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers) and Schedule (Transfer schemes)—

(a) ‘a former GBR’ means a body corporate formerly designated as Great British Railways under section 1;

(b) ‘a proposed GBR’ means a body corporate that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Railways under that section.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause makes supplementary provision about transfer schemes under new clauses NC61, NC62 and NC63.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 65

Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council

“(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment in the civil service of the State become employees of the Passengers’ Council (but this is subject to any provision contained in the scheme that allows a person to object to becoming an employee of the Council).

(2) A scheme made under this section—

(a) may make provision for giving full effect to a person’s transfer into the employment of the Passengers’ Council as a result of the scheme, and

(b) may (in particular) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause makes provision about transfers of staff from the civil service to the Passengers’ Council.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Purpose of Great British Railways

“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—

(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,

(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,

(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,

(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,

(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,

(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,

(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,

(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,

(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,

(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,

(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,

(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and

(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.

(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Our new clause 11 would create a fund for future railway improvement, which would have multiple intentions. First, it would create a stable pipeline of enhancements in infrastructure for the years and perhaps even decades ahead, which the supply chain is so loudly clamouring for, given that the rail networks enhancements pipeline has not been updated for many years. During Transport Committee visits around the country, we talked to supply chain businesses. Many of them reported never feeling quite so despairing about the outlook for their trades given the uncertainty with railway investment and enhancements. The fund would also create hope for communities. It would create a mechanism for them to submit their ideas for consideration, so they form part of the pipeline.

In anticipation of the Government or the Conservatives accusing me of being fiscally reckless, careful observation of the wording highlights that the new clause does not stipulate an amount for what should go into the fund. That is for the Government of the day to decide, but the principle is clear: there should be a longer-term process and mechanism for local authorities and communities to get their ideas on the table.

What would the fund involve? The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the fund, which could be for new or reopened railways or just stations. We would call it the tomorrow’s railway fund. Local and regional transport authorities would have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund. That could be simply to develop an idea to the next level or to implement construction of something that has already gained support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

I would also be inclined to support the Conservatives’ new clause 35, which would explicitly intend to create a long-term pipeline project. As I have alluded, we think that is a good idea for our railway and our supply chain, and it is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should welcome, given their oft-stated but rarely implemented commitment to economic growth and getting our country moving.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I seek a bit of advice here, Sir Alec: I presume this is the right time to talk about new clause 35 as well.

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you, Sir Alec. On new clause 11, I hear what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says about fiscal responsibility, but it seems a bit strange to set up a fund with no funds in it. Although, as Committee members have seen in the new clauses I have tabled, I support the principle of having a long-term approach to infrastructure development and investment in rolling stock and skills in this country, I cannot support the creation of a new fund without fully understanding where that money would come from.

[Olly Glover]

Given the shadow Minister’s criticism of the new clause, is he willing to condemn the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund for the same reasons?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success.

New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development.

That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements.

In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling the new clauses, which relate to enhancements on the rail network or the impacts of other projects on rail.

New clause 11 would establish a fund for future railway improvements. Local and regional transport authorities could then bid for funding from the pot for their local areas. I certainly share the support the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has for improving the railway across the whole country, and I believe that the railway can bring benefits to the places it serves. However, it should be for GBR, as the organisation run by experts and charged with running railways, to maintain close relationships with local and regional authorities, including the local commissioning of infrastructure projects where agreements can be reached.

The fund the hon. Member proposes risks removing GBR’s opportunity to organise, design and implement enhancements, which is a job that it is best placed to do, as the directing mind. Of course, GBR will engage closely with local and regional authorities when planning, and should invest where real benefits would be gained. Enhancements funding should continue to be set at the spending review; that is appropriate where projects are discretionary. GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery.

I also expect the publication of GBR’s integrated business plan to provide further transparency on the enhancements GBR plans to undertake, and the associated funding. That should help set the roadmap for the five-year funding period. I hope the hon. Member can agree that such decisions should be made by GBR, working with local authorities and with mind to the long-term rail strategy.

New clause 35 would establish a report on a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work, on a line-by-line or service-by-service basis, and with considerable detail on the specific timing, scope and sequencing of works over a 15-year period. I share the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to create transparency around GBR’s spending, and certainty for the railway supply chain. We are already working to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and supporting infrastructure, such as electrification, that will provide clear direction for the supply chain. As I am sure he already knows, the Bill contains a duty for GBR to consider certainty for railway service providers. However, I disagree that this needs to be in statute and that a pipeline containing the level of detail proposed in this amendment, over 15 years, would be a good way of achieving the goals of transparency and certainty for GBR.

GBR will have a five-year integrated business plan, backed by five years of funding for infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewals. That has been established as the appropriate balance between long-term planning and the realities of a changing operational environment. Forecasting specific infrastructure works beyond five years becomes increasingly unreliable, potentially leading to instability for the supply chain and for GBR—the exact thing this amendment is trying to avoid. Enhancements funding will continue to be set at the spending review, while GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. That ensures that larger projects have longer term certainty. The current process has resulted in £2 billion being invested in the railway network every year, from 2019 to 2024. I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can understand that creating a stable long-term rail strategy and business planning environment will do more to achieve these aims.

Finally, I turn to new clause 71, which raises the importance of understanding rail impact when considering major infrastructure projects. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for raising this issue, but I do not agree with it primarily because the matters that the amendment seeks to mandate are already comprehensively addressed in the existing statutory framework. Under the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statements applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the transport, energy, waste and water sectors, the Secretary of State will consider requirements to mitigate adverse impacts on transport networks arising from any developments. For transport projects, promoters must provide detailed assessments of the impact of their proposals on transport networks, including rail capacity, demand and operational implications. These assessments are a routine and established part of the development consent order process, which the Secretary of State must consider. This amendment would introduce an entirely new statutory reporting step before an application could be examined, which would go against the Government's reforms to streamline the consenting regime following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aims to make the system quicker and more efficient. Instead of adding value, this new requirement would instead risk adding delay in introducing uncertainty, which could hinder timely progress on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Having laid out the Government’s arguments to these amendments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require a review of public road level crossings. It addresses similar themes to those raised by the new clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have previously discussed.

We are seeking an annual review of high-delay level crossings, such as the one at Thatcham on what is known as the Berks and Hants line between Reading and Westbury and beyond. That is because we need to undertake proper analysis of the local economic cost and social impact caused by congestion, which admittedly is often necessary to facilitate railway services. It is sometimes perceived—whether the perception is accurate is another matter—that level crossing down times can be excessive. There may be opportunities to improve that, although ultimately to alleviate the local impact of the railway going through those communities, the high-delay level crossings would need to be replaced with an alternative means of crossing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and other signatories to the new clause are concerned about the wasted time and fuel resulting from long periods of idling traffic while the barriers are down, which can also lead to lost time for commuters, shoppers and business travellers. Road congestion across the UK is estimated to cost the economy tens of billions of pounds a year—some estimates exceed £30 billion—and high-impact level crossings are major contributors to local congestion hotspots, which can result in increased operating costs, particularly for commercial vehicles, such as delivery vans and lorries, and tradespeople. That, in turn, can reduce business productivity, leading to supply chain disruption, and can undermine labour productivity. Of course, there can also be a significant impact on emergency and public services.

The presence of a highly congested level crossing can act as a physical constraint on local planning. Local authorities are often unable to approve major housing or commercial developments that would increase local road traffic, as that would exacerbate the existing gridlock. That therefore stifles economic and housing growth. The Government have been very clear about their commitment to economic growth and highly ambitious housing targets that some consider to be undeliverable, so I hope that argument holds some weight with the Minister if none of the others do.

Let me say a bit more about Thatcham as a case study. Local reports and studies frequently say that the Thatcham level crossing is typically lowered for more than 30 minutes every hour at peak times, leading to significant congestion. The crossing is known as an MCB-CCTV. I have an ongoing commitment to waging war against acronyms, so let me say that that means a manually controlled barrier with CCTV monitoring. It is located on the busy Berks and Hants line, with approximately 133 trains per day passing over it. The line speed is high, at 100 mph—it is definitely an example of a railway that has benefited from full electrification—which requires the barriers to be lowered earlier than on slower lines, to allow sufficient warning time and ensure safe signal clearance.

Thatcham town council and West Berkshire council have formally acknowledged the serious traffic delays at the crossing. These delays have been specifically noted in the development of the local transport plan and the local plan review—the issue of the level crossing delays is identified as a critical factor that must be addressed and mitigated before any major new developments can proceed.

A study assessing the viability of replacing the level crossing with a new road bridge over the railway and canal estimated the cost to be in the region of £16.5 million, with that proposal ultimately declared not financially viable as a stand-alone public project. We do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause, but we will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue that it highlights.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which would require GBR to produce annual reports and technical studies relating to road crossings, with the aim of easing congestion. It is our view that the new clause would add highly disproportionate administrative and reporting burdens on to Great British Railways that we do not believe are necessary to manage level crossings and mitigate any of the impacts on communities that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage so powerfully described.

The new clause would require GBR to undertake an annual review of every public road level crossing in Britain, assessing the social and economic effects on each area, and would mandate feasibility and engineering studies for any site judged to have high levels of congestion. That would create a substantial and ongoing workload that would divert time, staff and funding away from the core functions of managing the railway, including by requiring GBR to develop proposals for engineering solutions even when there is no clear business case for intervention. That would increase costs, reduce flexibility and limit GBR’s ability to prioritise investment where it delivers the greatest benefits.

Network Rail has a statutory duty to minimise risks to the public and keep level crossings safe. I reassure the hon. Member that GBR will continue to be bound by those duties, while also taking full account of the wider economic and social impacts that level crossing down time can have on local communities. In support of that, as is the case now, GBR will be expected to keep level crossing operations under review, support continuous improvements in safety, and reduce unnecessary disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.

GBR will remain directly accountable to the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road, the independent rail safety regulator on this work. As is the case now, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that decisions are well informed and responsive to local needs. Through that approach, GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local priorities and is firmly grounded in evidence. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 32—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (“the Framework”).

(2) The Framework must include measures to—

(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;

(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;

(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;

(d) end practices including—

(i) short-notice holiday approvals;

(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;

(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;

(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;

(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;

(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;

(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;

(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in a specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;

(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—

(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or

(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.

(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.

(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.

(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.

(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—

(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;

(b) data on—

(i) workforce productivity,

(ii) cost savings,

(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and

(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).

(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”

This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.

New clause 55—Mutual and co-operative structures—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual or co-operative corporate structures.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.

(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”

This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider mutual and/or cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.

[Jerome Mayhew]

New clause 31 seeks to reimpose minimum service levels. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose minimum service levels on passenger rail services, and for GBR to enforce them. The previous Government passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023, and the new clause essentially makes the railways subject to those regulations once more.

The purpose of the new clause is to reduce the impact of rail strike action on the ability of passengers to access their place of work and essential services, and to reduce the negative impacts on the wider economy, by setting minimum service levels—MSLs—for passenger rail during strikes. The intention is that the new clause will lead to an improved and more consistent level of service for passengers during rail strikes, when work notices are issued by employers to secure MSLs.

Public transport is critical for the everyday lives of citizens in Great Britain. The transport system supports all sectors of the economy and is a crucial enabler of economic growth. Rail is an important public transport mode as it enables passengers to make vital journeys, such as commuting to work or accessing essential services. Strike action on the passenger rail network can lead to disproportionate disruption to millions of people who rely on these services. A survey conducted by the Department for Transport in 2022 found that most rail users’ journeys were impacted by strike action, with some passengers reporting an adverse financial impact as a result.

Strike action usually takes place when there is a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the dispute cannot be resolved by other means. It is intended to cause disruption to the employer and, in some cases, the wider economy. Strike action in the rail sector, however, affects ordinary rail users, who are not party to the dispute. In December 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that rail strikes between June ’22 and January ’23 would result in a loss of UK economic output of around £500 million due to people outside the rail sector not being able to work. Several sectors, including hospitality, have reported loss of revenue directly from the impact of rail strike action.

Government intervention is intended to mitigate disproportionate impacts of strike disruption on the railway, rail users and the wider economy. While the rail industry has put in place contingency plans to run a limited number of services during previous strike action, the level of service that it can deliver varies. Setting MSLs for passenger rail services will provide an important tool for employers to be able to deliver an overall improvement on the service levels that are typically seen during strike periods, and provide passengers with more certainty and consistency, which is just as important. This is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of passenger rail strike action on users’ access to their place of work and to essential services, and the impact on the wider economy, while balancing that with the ability of workers to take strike action.

New clause 32, also in my name, would provide for a working practices and productivity modernisation framework. It would implement a number of provisions to make running GBR easier and more cost-effective for the Government and the taxpayer. Currently, there are a number of historical terms and conditions in train driver contracts that are outdated and allow drivers to hold their employers to ransom over pay. They make the railway inefficient to run and drivers slow to train, and end up costing taxpayers and fare payers more.

Let us look at some examples of improvements—this is a non-exhaustive list. We could get drivers to operate train doors without additional payments, and provide a train driving school with updated training methods to speed up route knowledge and training times. At the moment, it takes a lot less time to train a pilot to fly a jumbo jet from scratch than it takes to train a train driver. We could deal with the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails, and introduce multidisciplinary flexible maintenance teams that support other local teams when needed. We could permit driver managers to drive trains when required, and link general pay rises to productivity gains.

All those examples, which are listed in the new clause, are eminently sensible improvements to the ability of GBR to run an effective, modern railway. Most people agree that having a seven-day timetable with a six-day roster is ridiculous, because it means that the Sunday service is voluntary. As a result, drivers are always paid overtime even though the service is part of the standard schedule. That does not happen anywhere else in the public or private sector. The new clause would mean that GBR could be run more cost-effectively. Many train companies have historical disputes with drivers over this issue, and have been unable to remove it from their trip terms and conditions as the drivers would simply go on strike. Now is a perfect time to change approach, with the full backing of the Government, in primary legislation. This wholesale reform of the railways is an opportunity for the Government to reset the terms and conditions for train operation.

As I have said, it is currently quicker to qualify to fly a commercial jet than to qualify to drive a train, and once a pilot has their licence they can fly almost anywhere in the world, while qualified train drivers are restricted to a specific route. We want to make it quicker and easier to become a train driver so that more people have access to the job. That is why the new clause legislates for GBR to establish a train driving school with updated methods. It would decrease dependency on overtime for sick days and for leave. GBR would be directly accountable to Parliament on the success of the framework, which we believe to be important.

[Olly Glover]

Let me say a couple of words on the shadow Minister’s new clauses. I entirely understand what he is trying to achieve and he asks some valid questions about the nature of industrial relations in the rail industry and how they are managed. I gently suggest, though, that the complexity of those things is perhaps greater than it might appear. This is not the place for me to share my extensive war stories of negotiating on a whole range of things with ASLEF, RMT and TSSA—the three main railway trade unions—but on that basis, my view is that these are exactly the sorts of things that are best left to GBR, with appropriate support and leadership from the Secretary of State.

Our new clause 55 is a different way of tackling a similar problem. It would require GBR to examine the benefits of mutual and co-operative structures and what they might be able to achieve. It is true that industrial relations in the rail industry are often fraught and subject to frayed tempers. As well as continuing constructive dialogue with the unions, are there other ways of looking at things? Perhaps we could draw on experiences both here and abroad, particularly in Germany, where mutual and co-operative structures, making sure that the worker has a voice on boards, and so on, can create a stronger footing for positive dialogue and secure employee buy-in to the wider objectives of the organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Leagrave Station: Step-free Access

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I must confess that this is my first Adjournment debate, and I am gutted that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not here to intervene. Is it an Adjournment debate if he has not done so? Probably not.

I wish I could carry on in that jovial tone, but unfortunately I cannot. We all hate being let down—frankly, I think many of us have been let down quite a lot this week—but especially when we are led to believe that a problem is about to be fixed, only to have the rug pulled from beneath our feet. Thousands of users of Leagrave station in my constituency felt a huge sigh of relief, and thousands more would-be users who currently cannot use the station felt hope, when they were told just before the election that we were successful in gaining Access for All funding for Leagrave station—the funding, which is vital for our needs as a community, was for lifts at the station—only to have this cruelly snatched away from us when we found out that there was no money for the scheme and there never had been. To put it bluntly, we were lied to as a community, but people in Luton North do not give up, and we want to know what the reasoning was for the lack of progression via the Access for All routes funding. When and how can we work with the new Government to make progress on securing lifts at Leagrave station?

Leagrave station is a major transport hub for our town. Nearly 1.5 million journeys are made to and from the station every year. I do not begrudge the stations that were approved for Access for All funding—I am very pleased for them. I would love to live in hope that, before I am entirely grey, we will see all stations in every community entirely accessible for all, but I do wonder why it is that many of those stations that were approved for funding actually have fewer journeys than Leagrave station.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. This is an important debate. If she has been following the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee for the Railways Bill, she will have heard that at the current rate it will take more than 100 years to get step-free access across the full estate. Does she agree with the Opposition in this instance that that is too long?

[Sarah Owen]

A rare occasion! I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and yes, he is right, that is far too long. Not only will I be grey, but I will be dead, so progress is far too slow—[Interruption.]

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. I remind Members that the selection and grouping documents show the way in which amendment and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper.

Clause 25

Designation of services by Secretary of State

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

I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 227, in clause 26, page 14, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.

Clause 26 stand part.

Amendment 228, in clause 27, page 15, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, Welsh ministers must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.

Clause 27 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room.

Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.

The explanatory notes state:

“The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail. This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.”

The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State?

The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding. This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation.

The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight. Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it.

I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest. Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations.

In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales. It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee.

On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227.

Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228. It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland. Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales.

The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on.

Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales. It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.

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

Good morning, Mrs Barker, and to everybody—another day in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, which seek to ensure that the designation of passenger services does not negatively impact rail freight or undermine GBR in network capacity planning activity.

I hope it is helpful if I clarify that clauses 25 to 27, which set out designation powers of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers for passenger services, only describe a very high-level mechanism for assigning responsibility for passenger services. For example, the designation helps make clear who is responsible for the service. Further clarity is provided by exemption from designation to show where services have been devolved to other authorities, such as to mayoral strategic authorities or Transport for London. Designation is not a detailed service specification, nor does it determine network access or capacity allocation.

Last week, we published a draft of the Secretary of State’s designation letter to help clarify that, and copies are available in the room today. Ministers’ designation powers do not override or conflict with GBR’s role in determining network access. The access decision process requires GBR to balance passenger and freight needs. The safeguards in the Bill, including the statutory duty to promote rail freight or the ORR’s oversight and appeals body to protect fare freight access are also unaffected by designation. The amendment is therefore impractical and unnecessary and would not achieve its intended purpose in practice.

Protecting rail freight, which I fully endorse, is already enshrined within the Bill. For absolute clarity, I must emphasise that the access clauses in the Bill set out the stages through which network access is determined. It is not determined or affected by designation. The access clauses include producing the infrastructure capacity plan, which will set out GBR’s view of how best to use GBR’s infrastructure to accommodate freight, open access and publicly funded passenger services, as well as maintenance and improvement of the network. GBR will take into account its infrastructure capacity plan when allocating capacity. In comparison, designation is simply the method of determining whether a service should be devolved to, for example, a local authority, or maintained by the Secretary of State and run by GBR. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw the amendment.

Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism by which responsibility for who should run passenger rail services is determined. Clauses 26 and 27 replicate this, but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. The Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services which GBR or others—including Transport Scotland or Transport for Wales—may run for them. Designation powers will also assist in providing clarity about which Minister has responsibility to provide, or contract for, cross-border services. Ministers can also exempt services from these designations, which is the way that services can be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. That was the mechanism used to allow Transport for London to run its devolved service. As I have mentioned, the new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not include route level or timetable detail. Designation is therefore entirely separate from access or timetabling decisions.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As I intimated previously, I will put the first amendment to a Division and then we will take a view after that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Clauses 28 and 29 enable the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to exempt certain railway passenger services from designation. Exempting a service means that the Secretary of State or devolved Ministers will not be responsible for that service. Instead, responsibility can be devolved to someone else—for example, a mayoral strategic authority—for them to run or contract out the service. That mechanism preserves the existing approach for devolving services to mayoral strategic authorities and their transport agencies, such as Transport for London or Merseytravel, and for light rail networks such as in Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State cannot exempt Scotland-only or Wales-only services, because those fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Clause 29 allows devolved Governments to determine which services fall outside designation, offering flexibility in managing their respective networks.

These clauses are necessary to ensure that there is still a way to devolve services, where that can bring benefits and is the best outcome for the network. Exemptions must be made by regulations, ensuring that the allocation of responsibility for passenger services is transparent. Clause 30 provides supplementary provisions for exemptions under clauses 28 and 29. It allows exemptions to apply to specific persons, classes of persons, services generally or parts of services. Exemptions may be conditional or time-limited, so that decisions to devolve services can be tailored to the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

[Jerome Mayhew]

You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states:

“All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.”

That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted. It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement.

Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.

[Keir Mather]

I can start by confirming that existing exemptions from designation will be retained. I hope that provides an assurance to the shadow Minister. The powers could be used to allow devolved Administrations to determine which services fall outside of designations, and therefore give them flexibility in meeting the needs of passengers relying on services that otherwise could fall through the cracks. I hope that, having provided the shadow Minister with that assurance, he can support these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Provision of railway passenger services

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert

“by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.”

This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 170 to 172.

New clause 6—Repeal of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024—

“The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 is repealed.”

This new clause repeals the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 44, in clause 32, page 17, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment requires pre-award publication of public service contracts.

Clause 32 stand part.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023.

Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers.

Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty.

There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.

Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.

Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well.

Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner.

If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry.

Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity.

Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me.

New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services.

We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future.

I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.

Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards.

The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself.

Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The shadow Minister; you are the spokesperson.

[Olly Glover]

Apologies. One recognises one’s status.

We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.

I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.

The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.

Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.

Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.

The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.

Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister’s response demonstrates an extraordinary lack of confidence by the Government in the efficacy of nationalisation—the very thing that they are seeking to promote in the majority of the Bill. All that amendments 41 to 43 would do is give the Secretary of State flexibility by making them able by law, in certain circumstances, to give a contract for passenger services to the private sector. They would not require it; they are not saying that this is a battle between privatisation and nationalisation. The only ideological battle here is by the Government, who are saying that it is impossible to conceive of any circumstance in which a private business might be able to offer better value for money for the taxpayer and a better service for passengers than a nationalised part of GBR. They are so concerned that a private business might be offered that opportunity, because they are overwhelmingly better, that they are seeking to legislate to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Would the shadow Minister follow the logic of his argument as far as to say that the Conservative Government that passed the Railways Act 1993 were ideologically motivated and acted in an ideological manner, given that that Act barred the public sector from taking on franchises?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was 23 at the time, and I certainly was not following every clause of the 1993 Act as it went through the House—I accept that that shows a shocking lack of dedication to my future career. We can re-argue the battles of the early 1990s or we can seek to learn from the mistakes of the past, if the hon. Gentleman claims that they are mistakes, but let us not repeat them in the opposite direction, which is exactly what the clause is intended to do. If he is right that that was a mistake then, on his own logic, it is equally right that this is a mistake, and I look forward to him supporting me as we vote on amendment 41.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 148, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes the power to give binding directions over fares.

Clause stand part.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services.

Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion.

If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions

“are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”,

or in other words,

“they are a last resort”.

The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”

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

Does the shadow Minister accept that in recent years, when Transport for London was negotiating its fare settlements, the previous Government dictated the level of fares that should be charged not just for the congestion charge, but for passenger rail services? The Conservative Secretary of State and Government were doing that very thing in negotiations with Transport for London for rail passenger services in London.

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The new approach will reduce complexity, improve transparency and reset the fares system that is currently failing this country. I therefore commend clause 33 to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am wholly unpersuaded. The Minister did his best, but he cannot hide from the huge disparity between setting up a stand-alone arm’s length business, which is meant to run itself efficiently and with dynamism, and taking away its revenue-driving function. It is ridiculous. We will end up with an organisation that is second-guessed by the Department for Transport. We all say it is the Secretary of State, but of course it is not; it is many hundreds of DFT officials. They will each no doubt do their best as they see it, but they will be second-guessing the role of the industry organisation. That is not a recipe for an effective management structure, and I will push amendment 45 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Discount fare schemes

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 47 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 51, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 52 to 55, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families.

Amendment 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 48, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 53, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 49, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 54, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 50, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 55, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Clause stand part.

New clause 51—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.

(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—

(a) is a member of the armed forces;

(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or

(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.

(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.

(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.

New clause 59—Police officer fare exemption—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PSCO) under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services.

(2) Regulations under this section must only make provision for police officers who—

(a) present a valid warrant card or PCSO designation card,

(b) are in full uniform or are undertaking such travel for operational purposes.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause requires all rail operators to permit free travel for police officers on all passenger services, subject to certain requirements.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled.

The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards.

Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice.

Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue.

Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick.

I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see.

Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity. 

The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice.

On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

As I have just mentioned, we want to carry over those schemes to provide consistency for those groups. We are carrying over the role of the discretionary schemes as set out in legislation. We think that consistency is important but, for reasons that I will come to later, we also believe it is important that GBR is able to move in an agile way and think about evolving needs when it comes to concessionary travel. It is important, in terms of legislative carry-over, to ensure that that remains in place.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister says that he wants GBR to remain agile, but does he foresee a situation in which it is agile by removing the veterans railcard? If he says no, as I suspect he will, why does he not put that on the face of the Bill and support our veterans?

[Keir Mather]

For the reasons I have just outlined. I have already confirmed that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, which include the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

While I do not anticipate provision around the specific instance the hon. Lady described—for example the poppy train being frozen into the licence of GBR—I do expect that GBR will be minded and motivated to continue to ensure that members of the armed forces community, veterans and their families can attend Remembrance Sunday services across the country. In our view, concessionary travel more broadly will improve the ability to do that. It will allow GBR to set provisions in an agile manner through an evolving concessionary fares scheme, rather than freezing them as part of the Bill—and, moreover, to set provisions that are not already locked into legislation and do not therefore need to be carried over, in the interest of consistency for the groups that they affect.

Turning back to my remarks on Poppy Day volunteers travelling to events with their children, I do look forward to that policy continuing in the years to come, although precise arrangements for how that will work will be confirmed closer to the time. All that being the case, we do not see the need for legislative amendments. These are things that the Government and rail industry already strongly support and have been providing for many years. A regulatory framework would only complicate delivery, which is more effectively facilitated at the operational level, so, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of new clause 51, I urged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw it.

New clause 59 requires GBR to provide a scheme enabling free rail travel for police officers and police community support officers who are in full uniform or who are travelling for operational purposes. The Government gratefully acknowledge the service of police officers across the country and all that they do to keep us safe. The speed, skill and professionalism of the response by British Transport police and other brave first responders to the horrific train attack in Huntingdon last year is just one example of how police officers and all our emergency services save lives every day across our country.

While I understand the intention of the new clause in supporting that vital work, the Bill is not the correct place to set out the requirements for such a scheme. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage knows, any new staff travel scheme should be the product of negotiations between the relevant organisations. To prescribe a scheme in primary legislation sidelines that process and risks the creation of a scheme that is not fit for purpose, as well as unfunded financial impacts to the railway. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of the new clause, the Bill is not the appropriate avenue to establish such a scheme, and I urge the hon. Member not to move it.

Clause 34 ensures that GBR will be able to provide discount schemes, such as those offered today as railcards. First, the clause continues the 1993 Act’s statutory protection for young, senior and disabled passenger discounts. Prices are historically more likely to be a barrier to these groups’ accessing rail travel, and they are covered by the protected characteristics of age and disability. Maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation supports equal access to employment, education and essential services. It is worth noting that, while other concessionary discounts are not included in the Bill, the Government recognise that they too are important, and there are no plans to withdraw any of the discounted schemes currently being offered.

Nevertheless, the clause also gives GBR the flexibility required to simplify and modernise discount schemes across the network, and to evolve the offer where that is considered desirable to meet passenger needs in the future. Finally, the clause ensures that devolved operators will still be required to offer the core statutory discounts, and that they will have flexibility over whether to participate in the GBR scheme or to create their own.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is extraordinary that the Government say, on the one hand, that age and disability need to be included in primary legislation, but on the other hand that it is totally unnecessary to have the same security for veterans. We on the Conservative side of the House do not accept that logic and we will be pushing amendments 46 to 55, individually, to votes.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 52

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

Noes: 9

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 57 to 60, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people aged 26-30.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 58, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 59, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 60, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This should be a short debate, since amendments 56 to 60 serve a single function: to defend the long-term provision of discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds. Although clause 34 refers to discounts for the young, there is potential for the definition to exclude discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds—and that is young to me, at least. Amendments 56 to 60 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people in this age group. Given the Government’s willingness to identify some characteristics as worthy of discounts in primary legislation—the young, elderly or disabled—what is the principled objection to including other, equally worthy groups? I will press the amendment to a Division.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments, which would place a statutory duty on GBR and on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to ensure that discounted rail fare schemes are available for persons aged 26 to 30—I do not know whether I should declare an interest, as a holder of one of those railcards.

The Government have stated that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the 26-30 railcard, but we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to list specific age ranges in the Bill in the way proposed. Listing specific age ranges would be unnecessarily inflexible. The Government are absolutely committed to retaining discount schemes for younger people; however, much of the current discount system is fragmented due to its origin in the franchising system, so GBR may want to rationalise the existing range of discount schemes currently targeting younger people to simplify duplicative and overlapping offers and age ranges between 16 and 30, for example, as part of introducing a modernised, more consistent offer for passengers.

Given that Acts of Parliament are drafted to last a generation or more, placing specific age ranges in the Bill would likely remove those opportunities and potentially limit opportunities for young people. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister says that he wishes to have flexibility. The whole point is that we are trying to remove flexibility, so that GBR cannot take away discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds in the future. The Minister’s argument actually increases my concern that that is a realistic prospect in the Government’s mind, and I feel even more strongly that we should divide in order to ensure that discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds are protected in the long term.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 53

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

Noes: 9

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 62, in clause 34, page 19, line 10, leave out “lower fare” and insert

“fare that is one third lower”.

This amendment would ensure that discounted fares remain at one third off the price of a standard fare.

New clause 13—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).

(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”

This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that.

Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it.

New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.

[Daniel Francis]

I again declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.

Amendment 62 appears to refer not to railcards but to all ticketing. As I have said, it would result in an increase for many tickets for wheelchair users and blind and visually impaired people. As the parent of a child who is a wheelchair user, I know that the discount on a ticket for wheelchair users is 75%, and it is the same for an adult day return. For blind and visually impaired users the discount on an adult day return is 50%.

Some discounts also apply to the carer or companion of the wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. That provision is not included in the Bill, yet the Opposition thought it was more important to table an amendment to introduce a discount for 26 to 30-year-olds than to table one on a discount for the carer of a wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. I anticipate that the Government will confirm that the discount remains for carers and companions, and in my mind that does not need to be included in the Bill. I certainly do not support amendment 62, as it would undo the current, more generous discount arrangements for wheelchair users and blind or visually impaired passengers, and cause an increase in their fare.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This may shock the Committee, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and his expertise has exposed a lack of knowledge on my part. I was not aware that the discount in that circumstance was in excess of one third. Given that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful for his contribution.

[Olly Glover]

I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do.

On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense.

I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport.

Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.

--- Later in debate ---

To achieve the benefits of establishing an expert body to run the railways, we are reliant on allowing it to have the scope to do so. The benefits will not be achieved by constraining GBR’s ability to consider the railway holistically or by developing ad hoc policy via amendments. But the points made by Opposition Members provide a lot of food for thought—or a lot of gin for thought, I suppose. I urge Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As I intimated, I am happy to withdraw amendment 61, which is more of a probing amendment, and I will not move amendment 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

We now come to amendments 47 to 50 and 52 to 55. Divisions are granted at the discretion of the Chair. Although I understand the importance to the hon. Gentleman of the principle of the amendments, the Committee has already made a decision on the principles, so I am not inclined to allow further Divisions.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In the normal course of events I would not seek to have repeated amendments on variations of a theme. However, this matter is politically salient because it deals with a live political issue between the parties on discounted fares, and whether the Government support veterans and veterans’ families. Each amendment deals with a separate part of the veteran community and also with veterans’ families. It is important that we hear the Government’s view through Divisions on every single one, so I ask you to reconsider your determination, Ms Barker, because of the political salience of the individual Divisions. I am sure you will have noticed that in other areas I have been co-operative, and that I do not cause Divisions just for the sake of it, but I ask you to allow Divisions on this occasion.

Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Question put, That the amendment be made.