Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026.

The draft order will assist in the replacement of the ageing and increasingly obsolete vessels belonging to the general lighthouse authorities by increasing the amount of borrowing they can access under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is the second of an anticipated series of 10 similar orders.

As arm’s-length bodies of the Department for Transport, the GLAs perform a vital role in meeting the UK’s obligations under the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The UK has some of the busiest and most dangerous waters in the world, and the potential for calamity is clear. With over 85% by volume of UK imports and exports transported by sea, the importance of the work of the GLAs cannot be overestimated. They have been doing this work for hundreds of years and are world-class experts, but expertise is not enough. It is equally vital that they have modern, efficient equipment to support them.

The GLAs work their vessels extremely hard. Their average economic service life is 25 years. Replacement on these timescales is therefore business as usual. I am delighted to note that the first of a new generation of GLA vessels, the Northern Lighthouse Board’s Pole Star, was delivered on Christmas Day 2025. This represents a sea change from her predecessor, as she is a significantly more capable, greener and more comfortable ship. That is a tangible demonstration of the Government’s continuing investment in the GLAs to ensure they continue to have the right tools to deliver their vital statutory duties.

The cost of new vessels is what brings the draft order to this Committee today. The GLAs are funded by light dues, which are an hypothecated tax paid by commercial and other shipping interests. The GLAs are not paid for by general taxation and make no call on the UK Exchequer to meet their day-to-day operational costs. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 recognised that GLAs would occasionally need additional borrowing to afford large capital purchases, but it also set a cumulative limit of £100 million on the amount that all three GLAs could borrow. That figure was first included in legislation in 1988. It was not changed until the first of these orders, approved by Parliament in 2024, increased the limit to £133 million. However, it did not recognise inflationary or other pressures, or changes in international financial reporting which resulted in other costs, such as fixed-price elements of contracts, being treated as “borrowing” in accounting terms. That figure also included all borrowing, regardless of source—commercial or Government.

In real terms, £100 million in 1988 is equivalent to £197 million today. The GLAs were able to keep comfortably within the original £100 million limit until the need to purchase new vessels meant that it is now insufficient to meet forecast borrowing requirements. However, the 1995 Act places restrictions on how and when the power to increase the limit can be used. First, increasing the limit requires advance approval from His Majesty’s Treasury. My colleagues accepted our case and have provided that approval. Secondly, the limit can be increased only by order, hence the statutory instrument before us today. Thirdly, the limit can only be increased by a maximum of £33 million at a time—that is, in a single order—as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments advised.

Given those legal constraints, we need to increase the limit by the maximum £33 million once again. Additional orders will be required for future increases to ensure that the limit aligns with forecast GLA borrowing. We will submit these orders for parliamentary approval in due course.

I must stress that increasing the borrowing limit does not represent a commitment to new funding. Every vessel replacement project will remain subject to the highest levels of scrutiny under Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury spend controls and approvals. However, these orders are essential to enable the GLAs to fund new vessels through borrowing when they need them. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman left off and send everyone involved in the maintenance and continued use of Happisburgh lighthouse my sincere congratulations on keeping it going strong. I hope it continues to do so long into the future.

Responding to the points the shadow Minister made, I have met all the GLAs and remain confident in their capacity to manage this financial programme. I believe that they will make sure that when borrowing is undertaken, it is in a financially responsible way, and that they have the capacity to pay back borrowing in good time, owing to the close and thorough work Department for Transport officials have done with them on this programme. One vessel has already been brought to fruition in a cost-effective way, through a procurement process that I believe the authorities think worked well and served their interests, providing the vessel in a good timeframe. I have no concerns about the financial security of the GLAs, but if any arise, I will be sure to inform the shadow Minister, whom I thank for his general support.

We are an island nation, but I think we do not appreciate shipping’s importance to our economy and thus the importance of keeping seafarers safe. I hope you will indulge me, Sir Desmond, and allow me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all seafarers and the staff of the GLAs, who go above and beyond to ensure that our vital marine aids to navigation remain operational. With the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, our GLAs are recognised around the world for their world-class standards and expertise. The draft order and the others to come will support the purchase of vital new, modern vessels and other equipment they need to perform their statutory duties, and enable them to continue the work they have successfully done for hundreds of years of ensuring the safety of all mariners in UK waters.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Mather Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with stakeholders on improvements to the Calder Valley train line.

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker, and most importantly, I wish you a very happy start to the super league season.

Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the biggest transformation in travel in the north of England in a generation. Under NPR, officials will assess options to improve Bradford to Manchester connectivity, including consideration of the Calder Valley line. I know my hon. Friend has been a great advocate for electrification, and the Rail Minister will be keen to work with him on this issue.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Plans for a disabled access lift at Todmorden station were first announced in 2019, yet six years later we are still waiting, with no lifts, no date and no accountability. When I knocked on doors at the weekend, a disabled constituent said she can get in a lift to travel only in one direction, because the promised upgrade has not come. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene, and to help me and local councillors finally to get this project delivered, so that stations in Calder Valley work for all my constituents.

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on accessibility, and I would be glad to engage with him further on this matter. The project to which he refers was originally remitted to Northern Trains for delivery, but the contractor was stood down from works in August 2024 due to unsafe behaviours. Network Rail has taken over delivery of the project, the funding remains available, and it is currently undertaking survey works and option selection to provide an accessible route to and between platforms. I look forward to engaging with him further on this important issue.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

3. What steps she is taking with public transport providers to help improve the safety of commuters.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This Government know that many people across the country are struggling with the cost of living. That is why we are taking historic steps to improve affordability for rail passengers, including freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving commuters up to £300 per year, and delivering another Great British rail sale in January, with over 1 million discounted tickets sold.

[Sarah Green]

A parent has been in touch with me about the rising cost of rail travel for her daughter. Despite holding a railcard, the cost of her weekly travel to college increased overnight from £27.80 to over £40. She is worried that this will affect her daughter’s ability to attend college, as she may no longer be able to travel at peak times. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that increases in rail fares do not restrict access to education, and would he, for example, support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill, which would ensure that fare increases do not exceed inflation?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that our railways need to serve as a catalyst for young people to access the educational opportunities they need. I have already explained that we are freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which we hope will have a benefit for constituents across the area that she represents. Ultimately, the only way that we can get fares down in the long term is to have a railway with a single guiding mind and a single point of accountability, and that is through Great British Railways.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, I had a very productive meeting with representatives of Greater Anglia about my campaigns to improve connectivity at Roydon station and improve safety at Harlow Mill station. Does the Minister agree that the move to Great British Railways and renationalisation will mean a better-connected rail service that is safer and will bring prices down for commuters?

[Keir Mather]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who continues to be a determined advocate for his constituents in Harlow. GBR will allow us to rationalise the way the railway is run, think about it holistically and make sure that passenger services are run in the interests both of the passengers who use them and of the British taxpayer.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Keir Mather]

Better late than never, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister is becoming exercised about rail fares now, but fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2014 under his Government, and there was an £850 million strike cost to the taxpayer. For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares so that passengers can have money back in their pocket and continue to use the railway. If the shadow Minister wants to bring down costs for passengers in the long term, the only way is to get behind our move to create Great British Railways.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of the progress of upgrades to the energy coast train line.

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

My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I thank her for her efforts to push the project forward; the energy coast train line has great potential to boost the local economy. Cumberland council is rightly leading the development of proposals, and my Department will continue to work with it, and to facilitate engagement across Government.

[Michelle Scrogham]

People in Barrow-in-Furness have had to put up with an increasingly unreliable rail service, which is having a huge impact on lives and businesses locally. From our work together so far on the energy coast rail upgrade, the Minister is aware that we have cross-Government support, and that the technical case for the project is well advanced. Does he agree that the meeting that we have been working towards, bringing Ministers and Departments together with Cumbrian MPs, will be an important milestone as we progress this work?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend continues to be a determined champion both for the project and for the economic benefits that it could bring to her constituents. I agree that a meeting with the Rail Minister is the right way to progress the matter; I give her an assurance that that meeting will happen in short order.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the rail transport system supports economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

13. What steps she is taking to improve railway services for passengers.

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

Rail performance is improving following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. Those include timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Network Rail’s Wiltshire strategic study identifies a clear strategic and economic case for upgrading the railway through Melksham, with a new passing loop unlocking capacity for an hourly passenger service, increased freight movements and improved network resilience when other lines are closed. The study also highlights how the proposed gateway station would deliver economic growth for Devizes and boost connectivity for towns and villages along the Kennet valley. Does the Minister—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. The question is too long. I have all your colleagues to get in—they are going to be upset. I am sure the Minister has a good idea of what the question was.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am aware of both the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. While there are currently no specific plans to deliver on those aspirations, we would encourage both him and local stakeholders, including local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network Rail to continue to work together to develop those plans, including sourcing funding opportunities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play his part as they do so.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are overjoyed that this Government are investing in the midlands rail hub project, but they are eager for more. Will the departmental team look again at the south Staffordshire line, which would reconnect Lichfield to Burton via Alrewas, and the potential merits of a station to serve the National Memorial Arboretum?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

14. What recent progress her Department has made on Heathrow expansion.

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

The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.

[Munira Wilson]

The Environmental Audit Committee recently found

“that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.”

Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Hard-working men and women in the coastguard, such as Bembridge resident Martin Groom, do vital work securing our borders, including, in some cases, intercepting small boats. The coastguard treats them as volunteers, but the Court of Appeal has disagreed and said that they are workers. Will the Government do the right thing and afford them all the rights, protections and fair payment that their worker status entails? The security of our nation relies on them.

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

The Government are currently considering the judgment handed down in the Groom case and the next steps that we will take with His Majesty’s Coastguard. In the meantime, we are grateful for the contribution of volunteers across wider society. They are a crucial part of how this country comes together and delivers for the common good.

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

Last month, my Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley issued a press release stating that DFT data showed that it has the seventh best roads in England. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data shows that it has an amber rating and does not say that it has the seventh best roads in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister has referred to a local transport grant that is of course not available to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, because it is not deemed to be a local transport authority. Attending medical appointments for my constituents from off-islands on a day like today would cost them £120 return. The Secretary of State has said that she is meeting fellow Members from Cornwall. Will she ensure that that meeting is on a cross-party basis, so that I can raise the serious transport problems on the Isles of Scilly?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is right to raise the transportation issues on the Isles of Scilly and in his constituency more widely—I would be very grateful if he wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter. I understand that the Rail Minister will be meeting the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly to discuss further some of the issues that the hon. Member is campaigning on.

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 187 to 199.

Schedule 3.

Clause 88 stand part.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 200.

Clauses 90 to 93 stand part.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by thanking everyone personally for the way that they have conducted themselves and approached the Bill? As a relatively new Minister taking on my first major piece of legislation, I have appreciated enormously the constructive approach of Members across the Committee. I want to read into the record my personal thanks, in particular, to those on the Government Benches: my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and Penge, for Bexleyheath and Crayford, for South Dorset, for Truro and Falmouth, for Wrexham, for Derby South, for Hyndburn and for Birmingham Northfield, as well as the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South.

I extend my thanks to the shadow Minister, who has worked assiduously to bring forward a number of constructive proposals, which, by virtue of us having had the opportunity debate them at length, I think have teased out interesting questions about how the Bill will progress, provided an important buttress against pre-conceived notions and allowed us to explore some of the issues in depth. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has engaged in the process.

Although he is not in his place, I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who approached the Committee in his good-natured way, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon, who made many valid and respected contributions. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage certainly kept me on my toes on all aspects of railway nerdery—buttressed by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset—and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East was characteristically forensic in his scrutiny of specific aspects of the Bill, and I thank him for his hard work.

May I also thank my Bill team, who have done an incredible amount of hard work over many months, predating my occupancy of this role, to make this piece of legislation possible? It is enormously appreciated. I thank all the Doorkeepers for facilitating our Divisions and keeping us safe; the Clerks for their assiduous work; and all the Chairs who have been in charge of our proceedings.

It falls to me finally to say that regardless of individual Members’ perspectives on the merits and demerits of certain aspects of the Bill, it is one of the most consequential pieces of railways legislation that have come before this House in the last century. I am very proud to have been a part of it, and I have enjoyed it very much because of the contributions of everyone in this room. Thank you, all.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 184, 162 and 163.

Clause 84 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

The Government are committed to a more locally focused railway under GBR, and provisions in the Bill, and ongoing engagement with local government partners, demonstrate the strength of that commitment. The amendments are primarily technical in nature, but will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. I will briefly summarise their purpose and effect.

Amendment 161 widens the scope of services about which relevant local government bodies may be required to provide advice to GBR under clause 83. This is achieved by including reference to services between places in the body’s area and those outside it, rather than only services operating exclusively within the body’s area. Amendment 162 has the same effect in relation to Greater London. All the amendments are consistent with the original policy intent of the Bill and simply clarify the drafting. Amendments 163 and 184 include important and relevant definitions from other primary legislation, namely the Railways Act 1993 and this Bill.

Clause 83 introduces statutory requirements on mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This duty ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State can have access to advice from local authorities, which have detailed knowledge of their areas, including in relation to local transport. Ultimately, that will support GBR and the Secretary of State in obtaining relevant local insights.

Clause 84 replicates that approach for Transport for London by amending the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert a new section 176A after section 176. The new section introduces a statutory requirement on Transport for London to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This change ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State will have access to Transport for London’s expertise and its detailed knowledge of transport in the Greater London area.

[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.

[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 ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 201 and 202.

[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.

[Keir Mather]

Later in the Bill, we will turn to different forms of traction, but I doubt whether we will cover the horse-drawn variety, so I am glad that the shadow Minister found the opportunity to weave that into our debate. We support the aspiration for every single part of the United Kingdom and Crown dependencies to realise the full benefits of a reformed railway, with regulation that is fit for the future and that allows them to realise their aspirations, however they see fit, to make rail more accessible and more efficient for passengers. That extends to the Isle of Man, so we were pleased to table amendment 201, which will extend those powers to it. I hope that the Isle of Man can benefit in its own way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 23

Charging for removal etc of road vehicles

“(1) Costs incurred by the operator of a network or station in relation to removing or storing a road vehicle that has been parked or left—

(a) on land or other property comprised in the network or station, and

(b) in contravention of bye-laws having effect in relation to the land,

are recoverable by the operator from the person in charge of the road vehicle, where removal or storage is carried out in accordance with bye-laws having effect in relation to the land.

(2) In this section ‘road vehicle’ means a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause provides that, where road vehicles are causing an obstruction on railway land, charges may be imposed for the removal etc of those vehicles.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

[Keir Mather]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 62—Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers.

Government new clause 63—Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers.

Government new clause 64—Further provision about transfer schemes.

Government new clause 65—Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council.

Government new schedule 1—Transfer scheme.

Government amendment 263.

[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]

Before I go into the detail of new clause 10, let me say why we think it is important. Passenger safety on our railway is important not only in absolute terms—it is absolutely right that people who are paying to take the train be safe, have their safety taken seriously and feel safe—but because, as always, public transport is competing with the private motor car, which is often associated, rightly or wrongly, with safety. Many people feel that it is a safer option, particularly late at night.

Our new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to undertake, within six months of the Act’s passing, a comprehensive review of passenger safety, with a particular focus on the safety of female passengers and passengers with disabilities. It would need to look at staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly for services that run late at night or that could give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety, such as services around special events. Lighting is a key consideration, as are opening hours and accessibility of health points. CCTV coverage is already significant across our railway, but the processes in place to access it and obtain evidence promptly are not always there.

We want to look at the merits of ideas such as real-time reporting applications for incidents in which a passenger is harassed. There are such initiatives at the moment—I really ought to know the number by now, given the endless announcements: 61016, perhaps—but there is more that can be done. I have just made the point covered in our proposed subsection (3)(f): that public awareness of the methods to report concerns should be promoted. Perhaps they are working better than I thought.

There is a lot to be done on making sure that travel connections from the train for onward journeys are strong, particularly bus waiting points and points to pick up taxis. Staffing is also a key consideration that requires some thought. If the review were to recommend any action to improve safety, it would be down to GBR to make efforts to implement those actions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

New clause 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), would mandate some provisions on train guards. It has been tabled because, alas, the current general customer experience of the visibility of guards, conductors, train managers or whatever we want to call them, where they are present, is patchy at best—that is the most polite way I can put it. New clause 48 is a modest, practical proposal that puts passenger safety and accessibility at the heart of our railways.

Guards, train managers, conductors, senior conductors and all the other job titles—including on-board supervisors on Southern; I must not forget those—are uniquely placed to provide reassurance to passengers and to identify problems at an early stage, whether that is vulnerable passengers needing assistance, antisocial behaviour escalating or obstructions that compromise the safe operation of the train.

By placing a clear duty to patrol where practicable, at reasonable intervals, this new clause would support staff in doing what many already strive to do, while giving passengers reassurance that someone is present, visible and responsive. That visible presence offers peace of mind, particularly for those who may feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and helps to build confidence in the rail network as a public space. The benefit is a safer, more inclusive travelling environment, with early intervention preventing minor issues from becoming serious incidents and providing a safer, more welcoming environment.

New clause 57 would deal with antisocial noise. This is a very grave matter. Passengers are frequently plagued by the imposition of people’s often dubious taste in music or TikTok videos, which may sometimes include the soothing sound of cats miaowing but quite often takes the form of a great deal of other raucous things. It may seem disproportionate to suggest legislation to counter the problem, but sometimes our own human weaknesses let us down. That is why new clause 57 would require regulations to be made to

“prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.”

I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

New clause 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to undertake a review of passenger safety within six months of the Act passing and to make all reasonable efforts to implement any actions identified. I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause—passenger safety is of the utmost importance as we transition the railway into public ownership—but I do not think the new clause necessary, as the Government are taking action even before the Bill is passed.

As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will be aware, we already have a range of security measures and guidance in place across the railway and the wider transport network, addressing the issues raised. Those will be maintained under public ownership and are kept under continuous review to ensure that they meet the challenges of the day.

I highlight the recently reviewed and updated long-running public security campaign, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, which increases public awareness and makes clear how to report suspicious activity to the British Transport police via the 61016 text reporting service; I am not sure I need to remind Members of that, as it will probably be seared into every one of our minds from travelling on the railway. I am confident that in giving GBR strategic responsibility for rail workforce planning, we will create more resilient staffing and provide greater visibility and assurance to passengers, both on trains and at stations.

As part of the Government’s safer streets mission, we have already committed to reduce violence against women and girls by half over the next decade. That will be tracked by Government through the violence against women and girls strategy, recently published by the Home Office, which includes ambitious measures to enhance the safety of women and girls on the rail network. That includes improving live access to CCTV images by the British Transport Police, and establishing consistent personal safety criteria across the rail network.

We are also already working to improve Passenger Assist and to support staff with better tools and more consistent training across the network. The ORR also monitors and reports on Passenger Assist and releases statistics quarterly. Finally, the ORR already has general safety duties that include carrying out inspections to ensure that the train and freight operating companies and Network Rail manage passenger and occupational health and safety risks appropriately. Those remain unchanged by the Bill. Given that, a further review of safety requirements would only serve to drive attention and resource away from the action that is already being taken.

Similarly, I fully agree with the principle of new clause 48, which aims further to ensure that passengers experience journeys free from disruption, harassment and criminality. I pay tribute to the train managers and guards across the network who work tirelessly in the interests of passengers to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I know the friendly and reassuring faces of the train manager on my regular trips between Parliament and my constituency. However, as I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, changing the role of train managers and guards through a legal duty could be a change to the nature of individuals’ contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. It would be up to GBR to consider what is appropriate at the time. Consequently, I do not agree with the new clause.

Finally, new clause 57 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the use of electronic audio devices on rail services. I cannot begin to express the depths to which I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. The Government recognise the nuisance that irresponsibly used personal electronic devices can cause to other passengers, and I appreciate the importance of ensuring that passengers are not disturbed by excessive noise while travelling on the railways.

I am pleased, however, to confirm that the matter is already addressed under existing national railway byelaws. Railway byelaw 7 states that people “on the railway” shall not “to the annoyance of” others

“sing; or…use any instrument, article or equipment”

to produce sound without

“written permission from an Operator”.

Any person who breaches that byelaw commits an offence and may be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000.

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

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to reassure us that the methods that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage wants to implement already exist, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tabled new clause 57 if those byelaws were being routinely implemented on trains, which is what he seeks. We have all been on trains where no one around is empowered, equipped or minded—because they are not confident enough, or are intimidated by the person—to act in that way. Can the Minister spell out a little more what the statistics are for that byelaw being used, and whether it is utilised to its fullness? Will he commit to see whether it is adequate? Ultimately, if train staff do not feel empowered, we can have all the byelaws in the world that we like—we have them on buses and in the streets, too—but they need people to feel empowered, able and confident to take action under them. I am not convinced that we have that at the moment.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that challenge. It is important that the byelaws are in place, but we have all experienced them being flagrantly disregarded on the railway network. I believe that the answer is to ensure that the byelaws that exist are regularly and robustly enforced. I do not believe that we need to add more to the statute book to solve the problem, because the principle of making enforcement work is the more important and operationally demanding one. That needs to be done in the shortest order. I am happy to take that away and to engage with officials about how we can more robustly enforce the byelaws.

GBR having a holistic responsibility for the network will grant it the opportunity to think in a more holistic way about how byelaws can be enforced across the piece, I am sure in close collaboration with the British Transport Police. The Government consider that the issue is more appropriately a matter for train operators to manage and enforce at an operational level, rather than through additional Government regulation. As such, it is better dealt with through the existing railway byelaws rather than through regulations.

[Rebecca Smith]

The point is that responsibility currently sits with train operators to enforce the byelaws. Just yesterday, I was sitting in a quiet carriage, and it did not say anywhere that making noise would break byelaws. If the Minister is suggesting that the operators will maintain that responsibility, I do not see how the status quo will change with the existence of Great British Railways.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to give the responsibility to Great British Railways rather than the transport operators, and to improve signage to ensure that people know that violence against women and girls or adverse noise will not be tolerated. We cannot just have posters; it has to be in places where people can see it and understand it. A simple “Please be quiet” does not seem to be doing the job at the moment.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady raises another valid point. It is right that train operators manage and enforce the byelaws and that GBR will have the added benefit that I have identified of holistic responsibility across the network, but she is right to point out that there is much further to go. Sometimes, there are complexities around subjectivity, where somebody on the train will have to determine what they believe constitutes an unreasonable level of noise, but that does not stop the fact that there are clear incidents in which the noise is totally unacceptable. We have further to go in this space, and the signage issue that the hon. Lady raises is interesting and something that I will reflect on. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clauses.

[Olly Glover]

I will press new clause 10 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Olly Glover]

We would like to press new clause 11.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I had not planned to speak to the new clauses, but as they are pertinent to things going on in my constituency, I will make the most of the opportunity to have the floor.

In principle, new clause 12, on the restoring your railway fund, is a good idea. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was cynical about the scheme, but it has had some significant successes. It reallocated money that was being spent exclusively in the north of the country to other parts of the country, such as the south-west.

I believe the Minister will admit that the Dartmoor line has been hugely successful. The latest statistics show that 775,000 journeys were made between its opening and March 2025, so I assume we will have probably hit the magic million mark by now. The line goes from Exeter to Okehampton, which is slap bang in the middle of Dartmoor and not very easy to access by road, and has allowed people who live there to get to work, leisure and whatever else in Exeter.

The Dartmoor line is also why the reopening of Tavistock station was being looked into, as part of the restoring your railway fund, before the new Government scrapped it, with the money being put back into HS2 and the Manchester to Crewe line. The restoring your railway fund was a success, even if it was not as successful as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would have liked—but it only existed for a few years. Knowing what we do about the timescales for railway works, it was very good.

Whether we call it restoring your railway or not, I call on the Minister to ensure that we continue to look at branch lines, particularly for Tavistock, which would link Plymouth dockyard, and all the defence work going on there, to the wider population, and enable cars to come off the road. Yesterday, the A386 in my constituency was closed for the majority of the day because of a car that flipped, meaning that commuters, schoolchildren and people going about their daily business were trapped and could not get in or out of Plymouth, which is the 15th or 16th largest city in the country. I do not think that is acceptable. All we need is an additional railway station.

Let me turn to the rails to trails programme, which I did not think would be relevant but unfortunately has become so. Plymouth city council is eager to install a cycle path in my constituency, but because it will use an old railway track, the road will have to be closed for 14 months. I was unable to attend a public meeting in my constituency last night at which more than 50 constituents turned up to say how unimaginative the council is being about the diversion required.

In principle, rails to trails is a good idea, but let us not be naive about the impact on communities where we seek to turn old infrastructure into a path suitable for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse riders. There is always a cost to taxpayers and a physical impact on their daily life. Although I am not against rails to trails—indeed, there are similar successful schemes in my constituency—such projects can be deeply inconvenient to develop. I wanted to be able to tell my constituents that I raised that with the Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to the new clauses. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the restoring your railway fund, which was set up by the previous Government and wound up in July 2024. Unfortunately, I do not believe it would be a good use of time for the Secretary of State to publish reports about the previous Government’s policies instead of getting on with the business of reforming the railway.

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

Will the Minister gently give way on that point?

[Keir Mather]

Gently? Yes.

[Edward Argar]

I gently take the Minister to task on that. Were not some of the first actions of Secretaries of State of this Government, when they came into office, to publish reports in which they—one can question how accurately—sought to look backwards over what the previous Government had done?

[Keir Mather]

Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.

[Olly Glover]

If the Minister’s Wikipedia profile is correct, he studied history and politics. As an historian, does he not agree that to get the future right, we must learn from the past, and that we should therefore review the activities of past Governments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come.

GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true. We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators.

New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield. The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments.

I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land.

The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration.

New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations. The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund.

With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

I enjoyed the debate with the Minister, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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.”—(Olly Glover.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 19 would make sure that the Bill takes account of our requirements for decarbonisation and rail climate resilience. It would require the publication of a framework that showed how GBR would manage objectives to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to identify sections of the network that are most vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, flooding, heat, cold or soil moisture deficit, and how to manage that. That is more than enough from me; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer.

In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types. In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy.

New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network.

As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made. Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty.

When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

[Olly Glover]

I am content to not to press new clause 14—we will save that battle for another day—but I will move new clause 19 formally when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Access for All programme: review

“(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the Access for All programme.

(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must identify the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.

(3) Accessibility improvements as set out in subsection (2) include ensuring step-free access to all—

(a) platforms;

(b) entrances to stations;

(c) exits from stations.

(4) The review must identify all stations with fewer than 1,000,000 entries and exits a year, as recorded by the estimates of station usage published by the Office for Rail and Road, that do not have step-free access as set out in subsection (3).

(5) The review must set out an explanation for spending decisions on the Access for All programme between the period 25 October 2022 and 24 May 2024.

(6) The review must set out recommendations with the objective of facilitating the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would mandate a review of the Access for All programme. The review would seek to ensure that step-free access at railway stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain spending decisions on the programme under the previous Government and set out recommendations for future spending.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Great British Railways Board

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (“the Board”).

(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—

(a) Great British Railways,

(b) open access passenger operators,

(c) freight operators,

(d) The Office for Rail and Road,

(e) The Passengers’ Council, and

(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.

(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.

(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.

(5) Any—

(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or

(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to,

Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.

(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.

(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—

(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;

(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.

(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Leagrave Station: Step-free Access

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.)

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

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on the potential merits of step-free upgrades at Leagrave railway station. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing it, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents on this very important matter. I know well how deeply she cares about her community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport and safer, more accessible stations.

For many residents, Leagrave station is not simply a station. It is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers, or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility that they expect. She is also right to say that the travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive for all. That sits at the heart of this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network.

Many stations across Britain were constructed long before modern equality and accessibility standards existed. While around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is just not enough. I may be one of the younger Members of Parliament, but I doubt that even I will see the full realisation if we carry on at the rate that was expressed by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). There is a lot more hard work to do, and that is why we remain committed to improving accessibility through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map, and through long-term reform of the railways as we move towards the establishment of Great British Railways.

In May 2024, the previous Government published a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work as part of the Access for All programme. As my hon. Friend will know, that included a nomination for Leagrave station. However, those feasibility studies were announced without clarity on how projects would ultimately be funded and significantly raised stakeholder expectations in a way that was not fair. This Government have taken a more rigorous and disciplined approach, ensuring that only affordable and deliverable commitments are taken forward. Our approach seeks to ensure that the maximum number of Access for All schemes can be delivered, and the risk of schemes overrunning on cost or encountering unforeseen engineering challenges is greatly reduced.

With that wider national picture in mind, I would like to speak directly about Leagrave station. I regret that it does not currently offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and those travelling with luggage, this remains a real challenge and a deeply frustrating reality. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point to the human experience of dealing with a lack of accessibility. It is something we experienced at Selby station when our lifts were out of order and only had a barrow crossing. If there was no member of staff available to take people across it, they would have to get the train to Leeds to then come back towards Hull. It is not a dignified way to travel, and it does need to change.

We have been clear, though, that the commitments we make must be affordable and represent value for money for passengers and taxpayers. As my hon. Friend knows, we have unfortunately decided that accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station will not progress at this stage. In reaching that decision, we assessed nominations against a clear set of criteria, including the number of passengers who would benefit, the need for a good geographical spread across Wales, Scotland and different parts of England, the extent to which schemes could build on existing technical developments, and the availability of third-party funding. Stations that performed most strongly against those criteria are the ones that are now progressing to delivery or design.

As we know, Leagrave station meets some of the criteria, including being a busy station and contributing to geographical balance. Indeed, my hon. Friend correctly highlights that Leagrave station sees over 1 million users a year, and other stations in better connected areas and with fewer passengers were chosen to progress; however, footfall was only one of the criteria used in assessing Access for All nominations. In the case of Leagrave, there was little prior technical development work in place.

My hon. Friend is also right that no third-party funding contribution was identified. I would like to make it clear to the House that the absence of that third-party funding was a key factor in the decision not to take the scheme forward at this time. Indeed, this was the case in relation to 22 other projects nationally for which no third-party funding contributions were identified, none of which, unfortunately, are progressing at this point. As we look ahead, local third-party funding contributions will remain an important consideration in future Access for All funding rounds. That reflects both the limited public funding available to the Access for All programme and the substantial economic, social and accessibility benefits that these schemes deliver beyond the rail network itself.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Specifically on third-party funding, does the Minister agree that when it comes to infrastructure projects such as airport expansion, noting Heathrow’s proximity to my constituency, airports really should be a key target in terms of further funding, in order to improve accessibility on our railways?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member pre-empts me, as I will turn to how this particular issue to do with the rail service intersects with the needs of the aviation sector. He is of course right to point to the fact that surface access must play a really important role in the considerations around how we grow our aviation sector in a way that is sustainable but meets the accessibility requirements of which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North spoke so powerfully.

It is reasonable that organisations and developments that benefit directly from improved step-free access—such as local authorities, major employers, developers and transport hubs, including Luton airport—should play a role in contributing to their delivery. Even partial local funding would significantly strengthen a future case for accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station and demonstrate shared local commitment to the scheme.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for noting how important Luton airport is to our wider community. Would he be open to facilitating greater collaboration between the Department, Luton airport and our railways to ensure that we see greater surface travel through public transport and our railways?

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. The Government want to realise the benefits of the aviation sector—its economic potential, but also, as my hon. Friend pointed to so powerfully as it pertains to rail, the human benefit of being able to be connected to loved ones and to access new places. The two things need to work in tandem. I would be glad to engage in those conversations further.

Local partners are also encouraged to develop a local funding package, drawing on opportunities such as section 106 developer contributions and city region sustainable transport settlements. These can be used to match-fund Access for All projects and are another way to bring forward accessibility projects. Further detail on this matter is set out in the written ministerial statement published on 15 January 2026.

I recognise that this decision will be disappointing to my hon. Friend and her constituents; however, funding for future rounds of Access for All may be available as part of the next spending review. That could provide an opportunity to fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station. Positive accessibility work is already under way in the neighbouring constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire. At Luton station, an Access for All project is currently under construction, which will provide step-free access across the station and make a tangible difference for passengers. Nearby Luton Airport Parkway also provides full step-free access to all platforms, less than a 20-minute drive from Leagrave station.

[Sarah Owen]

rose—

[Keir Mather]

However, we have heard powerfully from my hon. Friend about how dealing with Luton traffic is a key barrier to people accessing those accessibility benefits. I will give way to her to add some further context.

[Sarah Owen]

If anybody can get from the north of Leagrave to Luton Airport Parkway in 20 minutes, they must be travelling in some vehicle that I have never travelled in, because it will take at least half an hour to 45 minutes in bad traffic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is really pleased, as are many of us in the town, to finally see work taking place in Luton South, but it has been over 10 years in the making. Please can the Minister tell me that it will not be over 10 years until Leagrave sees the same?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to enlighten me as to the reality of motoring your way through Luton to access certain areas. She sets me a formidable challenge, which I dare not take on, given her advice. Likewise, I congratulate and respect the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on securing those improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North is right to point to the fact that the people in her constituency who need to benefit from that accessibility at their doorstep need those improvements to come faster and further. That is why, through Great British Railways and the work we are progressing through the Railways Bill, as well as through the next spending review and other ongoing work, we hope to ensure that those accessibility improvements are available to people across the country. I can understand her impatience and I thank her for it, because it keeps our feet held to the fire.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister knows this is coming. He has just mentioned the Railways Bill, so would he care to comment on my new clause 69, which would require the setting out of an accessible rail strategy, not only on step-free access but on lift downtime? I feel a bit guilty in a sense, because we have lifts in Weybridge in my constituency, but one of the biggest problems is that they are not functional a lot of the time, so people who are travelling play a sort of Russian roulette as to whether the lifts are going to be available, with all the disruption that follows. Could the Minister please comment on the strategy that I am proposing?

[Keir Mather]

I appreciate and respect the sentiment that lies behind the new clause that the hon. Member has tabled to the Railways Bill. I would say to him that, through clause 18 of the Bill, we give Great British Railways a specific legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, particularly passengers with disabilities. We also have a tough new passenger watchdog to enforce consumer standards and to put accessibility at the heart of the railways. This intersects with the long-term rail strategy. That should provide him with the assurance he needs that accessibility is at the heart of the future railway under GBR.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also shared her concerns about the current state of the footbridge at Leagrave station. Let me reassure her that Network Rail carefully monitors the condition of its assets and that whenever the rail industry installs, replaces or renews station infrastructure, the work must comply with current accessibility standards. I would be happy to talk with her further if she feels that those standards are not being met.

My hon. Friend also noted that the plan for Luton airport expansion was likely to increase overall demand on local transport networks, including rail. That point was very well made. At this stage we have limited evidence to confirm the scale or certainty of the impact, but, as I have mentioned, a future round of Access for All might be funded as part of the next spending review, and this could provide an opportunity to fully or partly fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station.

Let me close by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thanking her for her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. I am aware that the Rail Minister will meet her on 16 March to explain the decisions made in relation to accessibility at Leagrave, and I look forward to continuing to work with her, with Govia Thameslink Railway and with Network Rail to ensure that Leagrave station is well placed to serve its community now and into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is not much to say, except that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage raised a question about our amendments and what he called phantom paths. I think he may have been referring to ghost trains, as opposed to phantom trains—if you google “phantom trains”, all sorts of weird films come up, and they are far too scary for me to watch. He is not here to disagree with me, but I think he was alluding to the issue of trains running entirely empty through stations where people would have quite liked to get on them.

The point I think we are making with our amendments is more about where issues that it is within Great British Railways’ responsibility to fix mean that services cannot run, and about not believing that the operators, which have no responsibility for the infrastructure, should still be expected to pay a fee if they are not able to run their services. I think we would have been alluding to that, rather than where they are running empty trains. There may well be empty trains as well, but I think we were talking specifically about where GBR had the responsibility—

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to piggyback on her response to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I want merely to say that, from the Government’s perspective, having one centralised body accountable for access to and use of the railway and for determining best use is a good way to avoid the phantom train scenarios she describes, such as the 7 o’clock service from Manchester Piccadilly to London. I am grateful that she has given me the opportunity to row in behind her on this point.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the Minister for that. Yes, absolutely; I believe our amendments are much more about the infrastructure that GBR has responsibility for and about operators not having to pay if they are un able to operate their services. A natural disaster is probably a bit too extreme, but if, for example, a train is running through to Dawlish and the line gets closed, I think it is fair to suggest that the operator should not have to pay the fees for that train. We will press some of these amendments to a vote for that reason, but I just wanted to clarify that point. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert

“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”—(Rebecca Smith.)

This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rebecca Smith]

Amendment 254 is good in so far as it goes in relation to rail freight, but other rail operators also provide public benefit and should receive a similar level of protection. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment, but we do not think it goes nearly far enough.

Amendment 255 would give the ORR the power to order GBR to revise a charging scheme if it found, on appeal, that GBR had not dealt fairly with the appellant. With the current constraint on appeals, the amendment would make no practical difference. The Government need to go much further by providing a genuine appeals process to assess appeals on their merits, with an independent body, not a direct competitor, taking the key charging decisions.

[Keir Mather]

I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed all the points on these amendments, and I have nothing further to add at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Keir Mather]

How can I top that? I am not going to try.

This group of amendments concerns performance schemes, which, as hon. Members are aware, are designed to improve the performance of the railway network by incentivising operators and infrastructure managers to enhance punctuality, reliability and overall service quality, underpinned by compensation, bonuses and penalties. For example, performance schemes can require operators to pay penalties if their services cause unplanned disruption, or can offer bonuses for better-than-planned performance.

The performance scheme provided for by clause 65 will apply to GBR itself, both in its capacity as a service operator and as the body responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. The clause supports one of the overall goals of the Bill: to dramatically improve service performance for passengers and freight operators, and to make a railway that really works.

I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which I will speak to in turn. Amendment 85 seeks to remove the provision that protects GBR for liability for performance scheme payments or penalties where the disruption is not its fault. To be clear, that provision is not designed to prevent GBR from ever paying penalties or compensation. Clause 65(2) clearly provides for GBR to pay penalties, compensation and bonuses. Where it is at fault for disruption, there is no question but that it must compensate other operators.

GBR will have the flexibility to design a bespoke performance scheme for its network. The Bill is intentionally broad, including at clause 65(3)(b), which does not define what constitutes disruption outside GBR’s control. Instead, GBR will consult the industry on its policy on the extent to which disruption after an unplanned event has occurred, and whether it is or is not outside GBR’s control. It will consider any legal requirements before publishing all agreed terms for transparency.

[Edward Argar]

The Minister says that GBR will be able to design a bespoke performance regime, but does that not go to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon highlighted, which is essentially that it will be designing a performance regime against which its own performance will be managed? It gets to set the rules, determine what the parameters are, and then decide whether it meets those criteria. Subsection (7) says:

“A person aggrieved by provision contained in a scheme…may appeal to the ORR.”

Will the ORR have binding powers to make an adjudication, and will GBR be compelled to follow it?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts my later comments about the role of the ORR in this process.

On the principle of whether GBR should be able to design a performance scheme for its own network, that is completely in keeping with the aspiration of the Bill to create a single uniting mind for the railway. We are cognisant of the fact that GBR has a threefold obligation in this process. First, it must create a scheme that it can use to deliver the efficiencies and operational realities of the railway in a way that suits the interests of the travelling public. Secondly, operators that use the service need to be able to ensure that they can have fair service under it. That is why consulting with the industry is so important.

Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, GBR must protect taxpayers’ interests where it is reasonable to do so. A scheme is being created that directs GBR to run the railway in a purposeful way but with robust consultation and enforcement mechanisms, which I will come to in a moment, embedded within it. I believe that strikes the right balance. We are giving GBR control over the system but not allowing it to mark its own homework in every way, as the Opposition might see it. I will go into that in more detail in a moment.

[Rebecca Smith]

To build on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made, clause 65(3)(b) says that compensation may not be paid by Great British Railways

“in relation to any disruption that is outside its control.”

It strikes me that that relates to what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said happens already: people have to decide what constitutes significant disruption, and what is inside its control. If I were an outside operator looking at this, I would be thinking, “Hang on a minute. Where’s the definition of what is inside GBR’s control?” There is a whole long list of options that I will not even begin to bore the Committee with for what could be said to be outside its control, but where is that conversation? It strikes me that it might be like trying to claim for a bag that was stolen on holiday on insurance—you have to literally prove that you were mugged to get reimbursed. I would be interested in a bit more information on how “outside its control” will be defined.

[Keir Mather]

That is why the point about designing the scheme in close consultation with industry partners is so important. The hon. Member has read my mind, as I am about to turn to specific instances or potential demarcations with respect to what does or does not constitute being within or outwith GBR’s control.

It is probably important to briefly explain what happens if an unforeseen situation arises and operators believe it is GBR’s fault but GBR disagrees, and the role of the ORR in that process. That brings us back to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The Bill will include in the future scheme a clear route to appeal, to protect all parties in instances that are disputed, but the risks will be mitigated by requirements for GBR to clearly publish the details of the performance scheme, including criteria for when GBR would be liable to pay compensation. That goes back to the public law point about transparency and fairness. The ORR, as the independent appeals body, will have a legal obligation to review the situation impartially and advise on appropriate action where necessary. In addition to the ORR, to further mitigate the risk, operators will be able to seek other means of resolution though the Access Disputes Committee where matters relate to a contractual dispute.

We believe that the clause is important, as there is a need to balance rightly protecting operators whose services have been disrupted with protecting taxpayer interest where it is reasonable to do so. For example, in instances of trespassing, we would not expect the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) to apply, as the disruption that it causes should be within GBR’s gift to mitigate through investment in defences, and GBR would have significant opportunity to influence how quickly services are restored. In such an instance, therefore, we expect that compensation would be payable. However, where disruption follows events in extremis that are clearly not within GBR’s ability to mitigate against or control—for example, an act of terror—we envisage that the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) might apply.

I reiterate that formulating the scheme in consultation with industry will allow us to flesh out in far greater detail the demarcations, and make sure that private sector operators and rail freight have the surety they need that the scheme has been designed in the right way. The ORR will play a key role in the process in ensuring fairness, acting as the independent appeals body if GBR does not act in line with its duties.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that third party operators do not face penalties for disruption outside their control. The Bill stipulates that only GBR is protected from paying penalties or compensation for disruption outside its control, because GBR is the only party that bears responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of its network. There is no responsibility for that placed on third party operators, including freight.

On that basis, we do not see how the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon that a freight operator could face penalties for, say, infrastructure failures or planned engineering works would arise in practice, other than in extremely unusual circumstances —perhaps where an operator’s faulty train had caused damage to the infrastructure. Such events could only be the responsibility of GBR, as today they are not the responsibility of the infrastructure manager or the operator, so it is GBR that would pay the penalties for such issues.

It is right, therefore, that the Bill pursues a policy that protects the rights of third parties to reasonable compensation when disruption occurs as a result of another party’s actions or inactions, while also mitigating the risk of unjustified costs to the taxpayer when disruption is not reasonably in GBR’s gift to avoid or resolve. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, as we believe the Bill already achieves the intended effect.

Amendment 86 would prevent the performance scheme set out in clause 65 from becoming operational until it has been laid before Parliament. Such provisions for parliamentary scrutiny are a well-trodden path at this stage of the Committee’s proceedings, and we again believe that the amendment would add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy to what is effectively a technical industry process. In reality, the expertise about what specific incentives should be set for different operators on different routes is within the rail industry, and those experts are the ones who need to review and help GBR to develop the performance scheme.

That is why the Bill includes requirements for GBR to consult on its performance scheme and requirements for what GBR must include and consider as part of its design, with clear rights to appeal to the ORR in the event of disputes. The amendment would add little practical value. It would delay the new access regime and the benefits it will bring to passengers.

Clause 65 requires GBR to provide for and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise it, its subsidiaries and other train operators to minimise disruption to other train services and to the network itself. The scheme may include provisions for GBR and other operators to be required to pay penalties for causing disruption, receive compensation for disruption caused and receive bonuses that reward better-than-planned performance. The scheme may not provide for penalties or compensation when one train service causes disruption to another but they are both operated by the same person. The clause also prevents GBR from having to pay penalties or compensation in relation to disruption outside its control.

The clause gives GBR the power to require operators to provide information necessary for the scheme to function and offers no right to compensation or bonuses for parties that do not comply with those rules. The clause allows any person aggrieved by a provision in the scheme or any replacement or revision to it to appeal to the ORR. The clause is vital to create an efficient and reliable railway. It equips GBR to design a scheme that safeguards operators, forces accountability across the network and promotes continuous improvement. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Clause 67 provides a route of appeal to the ORR for a person aggrieved by a GBR decision about access, capacity allocation and charging, including decisions made under those schemes. Clause 68 then sets out the principles for how appeals to the ORR will operate and empowers the ORR to issue a document setting out the detailed practice and procedure to be followed. Together the clauses establish the ORR’s reformed and independent appeals role, providing a clear, credible and accessible route of redress against GBR’s access and charging decisions.

Opposition Members have consistently raised the view that basing the appeals role on judicial review principles is not strong enough. However, the rationale for the ORR deciding appeals based on judicial review principles is simple: we do not want the ORR to opine on best use. That is GBR’s job and if the ORR could simply disagree with GBR because it had a different opinion, we would be leaving the system as it is today, with parallel decision makers and unclear accountability. We would not gain the benefits of a body that is truly in charge of rail. That is precisely how we ended up with mistakes like the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. The ORR admitted it did not have the adequate information or resource needed to make an informed decision on the operation of that service. That is exactly why we need a consolidated directing mind for the industry that can take decisions confidently and with passengers and freight users at its heart.

Basing the appeals system on judicial review principles ensures that appeals are considered independently and on a recognised basis of fairness, legality and rationality, and without the fragmentation of decision making that plagues the current system. The appeals process will provide a robust accountability framework to ensure the railway delivers for passengers and freight customers. It is not judicial review principles that are weak; perhaps the hon. Member for South West Devon would suggest it is the powers available to the ORR to act on any wrongdoing that are flawed. I will turn to that next.

[Edward Argar]

Does the Minister not see the challenge that if GBR is the single directing mind, we need to ask how it is held to account for individual decisions that it makes? Where is its accountability to the public, be it through this place or others? Secondly, the Minister talks about judicial review principles. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know just how high that judicial review bar is when people wish to challenge a planning decision, or something else. It cannot consider the individual merits of the decision, merely how it has been reached and whether due process has been followed. It is also incredibly costly. Is the Minister not concerned that in setting these principles, he is setting that bar at an unattainably high level, rather than striking the appropriate balance between being able to appeal and challenge something, but not unduly burdening the day-to-day decision making of the railways?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for that contribution, because he gets to the nub of the principles. GBR will be held accountable through compliance with its duties as set out in legislation, which ensures that it has to have regard to passengers, including passengers with disabilities, and regard to the need to promote rail freight. It also has public law accountability built into it, through its legal obligation to act in a manner that is transparent and fair. The right hon. Member asks a broader question about whether the JR principles threshold is too high. We would argue it is not too high, precisely because of what it unlocks if we get to the stage where an appeal is upheld.

The ORR will have strong powers to dismiss the appeal or remit the decision to GBR for reconsideration, with legally binding directions that GBR cannot ignore. It is right and it is the stated principle both of the policy and of the overall notion of nationalisation that GBR can be a directing mind for the railway and have the power to do so, but there is a strong buttress against it if it is found that it has acted incorrectly as a matter of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will respond first to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The point about confusion does not pertain to confusion created through arbitration in the courts on the principles of access decisions as a matter of law. I think that that is fundamental to making sure that GBR works within the boundaries of the legislative framework we have created, as well as, via public law principles, operating in a way that is both fair and transparent. The point about confusion is having two decision-making bodies on what constitutes best use of the network and access to the network. That is where we want to avoid confusion, because that is the system we have inherited, and it does not work for passengers.

The shadow Minister raised a point about fees, and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned costs. Any appeals will be made against JR principles and not processes. It is not that each case will be brought before the courts, with the associated costs that that would bring, so I am confident that the costs of appeal would not be a significant factor under the new system as opposed to the old one.

On the matter of European systems, the shadow Minister tests the boundaries of my knowledge of the operation of rail systems overseas. There are systems in Europe in which a body similar to the ORR has too dominant a role in having charge over access and decision making in relation to it. That is not working in the existing system, and that is what we are trying to change through the Bill.

Amendments 88 and 89 seek to remove the requirement that appeals be made on judicial review principles and replace this with a requirement that appeals are determined

“on the facts and the law.”

As I set out in my opening speech, judicial review principles will ensure that the ORR focuses on the legality and fairness of GBR’s decision making, not on retaking the decision. Replacing this with a requirement to determine appeals on the facts and the law instead would convert this to a merits-based system, which would require the ORR to rerun strategic judgments and exercises on best use of the network. That is not the role we intend for the ORR. The framework is designed to provide strong, independent oversight while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.

We have discussed repeatedly in Committee that what is wrong with the railway today is the fact that there is no one decision maker. There has to be just one, or the railway will continue to stagnate. GBR is the body with the expertise to be that decision maker, and the ORR is the body that should check that it has acted fairly and proportionately. Judicial review principles strike the right balance between accountability and effective decision making.

Amendments 90 and 91 would extend the ORR’s powers to substitute its own decision for one of GBR’s. As I have mentioned, the Bill deliberately distinguishes between types of appeals and the powers available to the ORR in each circumstance. For appeals concerning provisions within GBR’s strategic documents, such as the access and use policy, infrastructure capacity plans or its charging and performance schemes, the ORR may remit the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, and may do so with binding directions, but may not substitute its own decision. That is because these are not yes or no decisions—they are not simple decisions—but rather complex and comprehensive policies that govern the railway. It is not appropriate for the ORR to rewrite strategic policy documents, and that is not what regulators are meant to do. The ORR should be checking that GBR has acted consistently with its procedures and policies, not substituting them with its own.

However, for operational decisions, for example about charges for operators or about whether someone should be included in the timetable, the ORR has stronger powers. The ORR may quash all or part of the decision and may substitute its own decision in cases where there has been an error of law and, without the error, there would have been only one decision that Great British Railways could have reached. The amendments would remove these carefully drawn distinctions, potentially allowing the ORR to step beyond its oversight role and into decision making on best use of the network. We cannot have that. The amendments would allow the ORR to make decisions on best use without decisions going back to GBR to correct, removing GBR’s ability to learn from and correct its mistakes, and adding duplication between two decision-making bodies. The Bill already provides robust remedies where an appeal is upheld, including the power to remit with binding directions, even when substitution is not available, which ensures effective redress while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.

Amendments 92 and 93 would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing either regulations or practice and procedures for appeals under this chapter. The Bill already sets out a clear and proportionate consultation requirement, and the current formulation is deliberate to provide flexibility for the ORR to engage industry and stakeholders, including open access operators, without creating an inflexible statutory list. It may also be helpful to emphasise that the ORR’s appeals role exists precisely to ensure fairness, transparency and lawful decision making for operators, including open access operators.

The ORR has already begun engagement on its approach to developing its appeals process and has published a discussion document setting out its emerging thinking, which is publicly available and open to comment and views from industry and other stakeholders, including open access operators. The work is intended to inform its final appeals process, and there will be a formal consultation once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Open access operators will therefore be able to provide views as part of the consultation without the need for an explicit mention in the Bill. The process already provides a clear and appropriate route for open access operators to have their views heard.

I also note that the Secretary of State regulations relate to process matters only, such as steps that must be taken before an appeal is brought, time limits, and fees. They do not determine access rights or decision making on capacity allocation or charging. It is therefore appropriate that the statutory consultation requirement focuses on bodies with system-wide responsibilities and oversight roles, rather than individual categories of operator.

As with other consultation provisions in the Bill, singling out one category of operator will create a precedent for others to request to be added to the statutory list, and we will risk making the framework overly prescriptive. The current drafting already achieves the right balance, ensuring engagement and maintaining flexibility. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South West Devon not to press the amendments, and commend clauses 67 and 68 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Appeal procedure

Amendment proposed: 88, in clause 68, page 38, line 11, leave out subsection (1).—(Rebecca Smith.)

This amendment removes the requirement that appeals may only be made under Judicial Review principles.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 203 to 205 seek to do two things: to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations relating to the appeals process; and to remove the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers as statutory consultees on the ORR’s appeals procedure. I support the ambition to ensure that the appeals framework works independently and commands confidence across the industry. However, the amendments are not necessary or appropriate to achieve that aim.

The ORR will establish its own appeals process and engage with industry on its development. In fact, it has already published a discussion document seeking views from interested parties on its policy choices. That was published on 3 December and can be found on the ORR’s website. The Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers are intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that the appeals framework operates effectively, and are not expected to play a routine role. The powers may be used only for matters of process—for example, the setting of legally binding time limits for bringing appeals and, if appropriate, providing for the charging of fees.

The powers cannot be used to interfere with the ORR’s independence in deciding and assessing individual appeals, or used to dictate the outcome of any appeal. Other procedural arrangements will be set by the ORR as it develops its appeals process. The power ensures that the framework can be set and adjusted, if required, to maintain effective operation over time while fully preserving the ORR’s independence in determining appeals. The Secretary of State will, of course, be required to consult the ORR, GBR, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making any regulations under the power.

In a similar vein, when the ORR issues, revises or replaces its appeals practice and procedure, it is important that it must consult GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons it considers appropriate. That ensures coherence across the railway network, particularly where services cross borders. Removing these provisions would reduce flexibility and resilience in the appeals framework without materially strengthening the independence of the ORR’s appeals role. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw the amendment, and not to move amendments 204 and 205.

--- Later in debate ---

Access agreements

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 69, page 39, line 25, leave out “17(1)” and insert “17”.

This amendment and amendment 176 restrict the power of the Office of Rail and Road to give directions to Great British Railways so that it will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 176 to 183.

Clause stand part.

Clause 70 stand part.

Amendment 146, in clause 71, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment prevents regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements.

Clause 71 stand part.

Government amendment 186.

New clause 67—Abolition of open access rights—

“Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to—

(a) prevent the granting or renewal of licences for open access passenger services;

(b) where such services cease to operate as a result of paragraph (a), require Great British Railways to operate equivalent services following their cessation.”

[Keir Mather]

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

[Edward Morello]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

We will therefore vote against clause 71 in order to prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts. The implications of the clause are of great concern for freight operators, and, as they have been informed, if it is not the DFT’s intention to change the terms of existing contracts, why does it need the clause at all? Briefly, amendment 146 tabled by the Liberal Democrats would prevent regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements, which we support.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister and others for their contributions. It is a small point, but the shadow Minister raised international obligations and treaties, and I want to reassure her that infrastructure managed and operated by parties other than GBR, including High Speed 1, will continue to be governed by the existing access and management regulation. There will therefore be no impact on international obligations and treaties. Hopefully, that will instil confidence throughout the rail supply chain as to how seriously we take those obligations.

I will speak first to clauses 69 and 70, before turning to the amendments. Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to exempt GBR from the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. In short, the clause prevents the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. Amendment of the existing provisions is vital to allow the Government to fulfil their commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind responsible and accountable for making best use of the railway. Retaining the role of the ORR as the decision maker on access is not the answer.

Under the current ORR system, decisions on the timetable are plagued by delays and disagreements between ORR and Network Rail, and require ministerial intervention for timetables to be finalised. As the regulator, the ORR does not have the ability to review the system holistically, create more routes and optimise the overall use of the network—it can only respond to the specific applications that are submitted to it.

If we keep the current system, we will continue to see disruption and delays caused by timetabling problems, and inefficient use of the network that is no one’s best interests. We will continue to see problems, such as trains running without passengers on them, purely because of the systematic issues that govern access and timetabling decisions. Retaining the ORR as the access decision maker would not lead to better performance, and would not benefit passengers. The only way to achieve the high-performing and high-quality railway that this country needs is to put one body—GBR—in charge of the railway and of granting access to it. It is only GBR—not Ministers or the ORR—that will have the level of expertise and the detailed knowledge of the whole railway system that is needed to make the right decisions for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Clause 70 makes technical changes to the body of law that currently governs access, to exempt GBR and make some other consequential changes, so that the existing access and management regulations will no longer apply to GBR in relation to its infrastructure. The technical amendments in the clause are necessary to enable GBR to become the single decision maker and directing mind for its infrastructure. The existing regulations will continue to apply for adjacent infrastructure managers, such as Transport for London and Core Valley Lines in south Wales.

Clause 71 provides the Secretary of State with a time-limited power to ensure that contracts can continue to operate effectively, following the establishment of Great British Railways. The Government have made the commitment that, following its establishment, the existing access rights held by operators, known as schedule 5 rights, will be honoured, as will the charges set by the ORR for the remainder of the current control period. The clause does not change those commitments. However, the power is needed to prevent contracts from becoming inoperable because they are reliant on the previous legislative framework in the Railways Act 1993, which will not be applicable once the Bill is enacted.

In a similar way to how the ORR provides notices for contracts today, the Secretary of State will, if necessary, and only as a last resort, use the power to make technical changes to existing contracts, simply to ensure smooth transition to the new access and charging regime under GBR—for example, to account for the establishment of GBR and address the changed roles of the ORR and GBR, so that contracts still operate as they should.

Without those changes, operators with access rights would potentially not be able to provide the services that they have contracts and rights to run, because the contracts will become inoperable. However, recognising the need for reassurance, and to offer certainty for third parties, the Government have also committed publicly to ensuring that operators with existing contracts in scope of needing that power will be engaged with and consulted, to identify inoperable clauses and agree on replacement wording.

Amendment 146 would take away the ability to amend or terminate contracts. However, it is necessary for the clause to be drafted widely, including with reference to termination, in case the best way to effect the technical changes to the contract is to terminate and immediately replace the contract with one that is aligned to the new legislative framework, rather than making numerous technical amendments throughout that would otherwise render the contract unusable or unwieldy. As stated earlier, that will not affect any operators’ schedule 5 rights, nor will it impede the existing charging determination set by the ORR until its natural expiry in April 2029, which the Government have confirmed both publicly and in writing. Not including that provision would be a risk to the smooth transition to the new regime, which the Government are not prepared to risk.

Given all that I have discussed, I urge hon. Members not to press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendments made: 176, in clause 69, page 39, line 26, leave out from “after” to end of line and insert—

“subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Where the facility owner is Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road may give directions under subsection (1) only for the purpose specified in subsection (2)(e).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 175.

Amendment 177, in clause 69, page 39, line 32, leave out—

“to which this section applies”

and insert—

“of the description specified in subsection (2)(e) unless one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is satisfied; and any such contract is void unless one of those conditions is satisfied.”

This amendment replaces the general restriction on Great British Railways entering into access contracts with one that will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.

Amendment 178, in clause 69, page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (4)(c).

This amendment removes the restriction on Great British Railways as a facility owner entering into installation access contracts.

Amendment 179, in clause 69, page 40, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) In section 21 (model clauses for access contracts), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(6) The powers of the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (5) may not be exercised in relation to an access contract where the facility owner is Great British Railways unless the access contract is of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”

This amendment provides for the ORR’s model clauses powers to be exercisable in relation to access contracts entered into by GBR only where the access contract is a “facility to facility” access contract.

Amendment 180, in clause 69, page 40, line 6, leave out “if” and insert “where”.

This amendment and amendment 181 provide for ORR approval to be required for amendment of “facility to facility” access contracts entered into by Great British Railways.

Amendment 181, in clause 69, page 40, line 7, at end insert—

“unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 180.

Amendment 182, in clause 69, page 40, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—

“(5A) Directions may not be given under this section in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).”

This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.

Amendment 183, in clause 69, page 40, line 12, at end insert—

“(7) In section 22C (amendment: supplementary), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Directions may not be given under subsection (1) in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22C of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement Great British Railways in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.

[The Chair]

I propose that we suspend the meeting for 10 minutes so that everybody can have a comfort break.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I think he probably would have said it, to be perfectly honest.

Clause 73 marks the end of a very significant chapter in the Bill, with many poorly drafted or simply ill thought through clauses. I am sure the drafting has been done with the greatest attention to detail; it is just the “thought-through-ness” that we are struggling with. But we end on a positive note, with no objections to clause 73.

[Keir Mather]

I am pleased to speak to this group of provisions, which concludes the scrutiny on the access chapters of the Bill.

Clause 72 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to amend the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 via the affirmative procedure. The access and management regulations are the existing body of secondary legislation that sets out the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers, train operators and the role of the ORR in relation to access, capacity allocation, access charges and performance. At present, those regulations can be amended only using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, but those powers will expire on 23 June 2026, which means that, after that date, there will be no means other than an Act of Parliament by which those detailed and technical regulations can be amended.

Great British Railways infrastructure will not be subject to the regulations, as the Bill establishes a new access framework to enable GBR to be the directing mind, which we have discussed over the last few groups. However, alongside Great British Railways there will be a number of rail networks, such as Transport for London, London St Pancras Highspeed and the Core Valley Lines in Wales, that will continue to be subject to the access and management regulations. Those “adjacent infrastructure managers” will therefore not be part of GBR’s access regime. The purpose of the power in clause 72 is to ensure that the legislative framework governing the other infrastructure managers can be updated to address any inconsistencies between networks—to “keep pace” between the two different regulatory regimes. Without this power there may be disruption to the smooth passage of train services across different networks—which the Government have a duty to protect.

For example, the power might be used to secure alignment on the date when a new working timetable must come into effect. The access and management regulations currently stipulate a date in December, but given the risk of weather-related events, staff absences during the Christmas season and the engineering works that usually take place between Christmas and the new year, GBR will likely want to move away from that. If it did, it is not unreasonable to think that other infrastructure managers might want to follow suit to avoid being affected by the same risks and to ensure consistency in the timetable change date. To achieve that, it would be necessary to amend the regulations for the other infrastructure managers who wish to align with the date that GBR chooses in the future. The regulation-making power would enable that simple change to be made without needing an Act of Parliament.

There may also be opportunities for adjacent infrastructure managers to seek further simplifications to the current regulations in a way that meets our ambitions to reduce regulatory burden and support growth, while maintaining a sustainable and predictable framework so that businesses have confidence to plan and invest. The Government consider regulations, rather than primary legislation, as a better way in which to achieve that.

Regulations made under the clause must be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Before exercising the power, the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties, ensuring full transparency, that industry has the chance to comment and that Parliament approves the regulations before any changes can be made. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 all seek to narrow that power in some way.

Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings and terminals; amendment 231 would similarly exclude freight-only facilities. Those amendments are unnecessary, as the purpose of the power is to ensure alignment and remove inconsistencies in the regulatory regimes that will apply to GBR and non-GBR infrastructure and to enable simplifications where they align with the objectives of adjacent infrastructure managers.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Minister just said that the amendments are completely unnecessary, because the stated concerns are not real, effectively. That does not answer the very real concerns put forward time and again in the Transport Select Committee and in this Committee’s evidence session—the written and oral evidence—by businesses that are experts in the field. They are not reassured by the Bill as it stands. How can the Minister go back and say, “No, we’re right and you’re wrong,” to those experts in the industry?

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward Morello]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Me too, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for placing such confidence in me; we will see in due course if it is justified.

I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to amendment 222, which would require the ORR to monitor KPIs. My response will be brief, to avoid repeating myself, as the amendment is heavily linked to new clause 2, which we have already debated.

We expect GBR to have KPIs, as I have said before, but the right place for them is in GBR’s integrated business plan, alongside the detail of the activity that GBR will carry out over the five-year funding period. No sensible business would ever set its KPIs in stone, potentially for generations to come.

It is important that the ORR, in its role scrutinising GBR’s proposed business plans and monitoring its delivery of them, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious and realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR will have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s KPIs. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is already ensured by legislation.

Amendment 97 would require the ORR to monitor whether GBR is implementing safety recommendations and standards set by industry bodies. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. Britain’s railways remain some of the safest in the world, which is why we are maintaining the roles of the statutory bodies in this area—the ORR and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch —and preserving the legal duty on all public bodies, including GBR, to give due regard to the investigation branch safety recommendations addressed to them.

Existing safety legislation already gives the ORR broad powers to monitor GBR’s safety management, including its implementation of investigation branch recommendations, and to take enforcement action if it finds that GBR is not managing safety effectively. The amendment risks confusing or duplicating well-understood roles and responsibilities in relation to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety best practice. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member that this suggestion is already covered.

Amendments 99 to 101 would require the ORR to audit GBR’s statutory functions when undertaking its monitoring role. That is unnecessary, and would distort the clear and distinct roles set out in the Bill for both GBR and the ORR. The Bill retains the ORR’s important role as sector regulator and creates an enhanced monitoring function through which it will monitor GBR’s statutory functions and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State.

The ORR’s role as sector regulator is rightly separate to the role of an approved auditor. The annual accounts of GBR will be audited by the National Audit Office in the usual way. We do not propose to change that effective system, and cannot agree to an amendment that would layer it with unwarranted and inappropriate duplication, given that the ORR will already be monitoring GBR’s delivery of the KPIs within its business plan and GBR’s consideration of its duties when doing this.

Oversight of GBR will be proportionate, risk-based and focused on the outcomes that matter most to users of the railway, taxpayers and the wider public. The ORR will have a crucial part to play in providing this oversight, including by undertaking its enhanced monitoring role in the way it, as the independent regulator, considers appropriate. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member not to press those amendments.

I commend clause 74 to the Committee. It will provide the ORR with enhanced monitoring powers, in line with its new role in the reformed sector. It will ensure that the ORR can effectively scrutinise GBR and provide independent expert advice for the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on its performance. As set out in the Bill, GBR will be required to produce an integrated business plan that demonstrates how it will deliver its priorities across the breadth of its statutory functions, including passenger services and the management of the GBR network.

Although GBR will report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of the plan, the ORR will be required to monitor the performance of GBR and independently advise the Secretary of State. The clause sets out that the ORR will monitor how GBR exercises its functions, including whether the commitments in GBR’s business plan are being met, how costs and income compare with estimates in that plan, and the extent to which GBR is ensuring safety on the railway. On an ongoing basis, the ORR will be able to escalate concerns to Ministers as it considers necessary, enabling the Secretary of State to make informed decisions in line with her responsibilities as funder of GBR. Given that the Secretary of State is democratically responsible for the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy invested in the railway, it is right that she has the final say on how it is used, with proper, comprehensive advice from an expert independent regulator to support her.

To fulfil its new role, the ORR must have the ability to gather information, conduct investigations, and assess whether GBR is fulfilling its statutory functions and business plan commitments. Clause 74 provides that statutory basis. It will allow the ORR, where it deems appropriate, to publish any information or advice it provides to the Secretary of State in connection with this monitoring function. That will ensure that the public can see how GBR is being held to account for its performance and how it is delivering in the interest of its customers, taxpayers and the public.

The policy rationale is clear: the Government are committed to preserving an independent expert adviser within the rail system and are providing the necessary tools for that body to operate and scrutinise GBR effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Rebecca Smith]

I have indicated that we want to press amendment 99 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Miscellaneous functions of ORR

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 271, in clause 75, page 43, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 55 (orders for securing compliance), after subsection (7C) insert—

‘(7D) The Office of Rail and Road may not, by a final or provisional order, require the payment of a sum by Great British Railways.’”

This amendment would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 212, in clause 75, page 43, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment removes the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches.

Clause stand part.

[Keir Mather]

I will first speak to Government amendment 271 and clause 75 as drafted, which is essential to ensure that the accountability arrangements for GBR reflect its status as a publicly owned body, as well as enshrining the strategic role of Ministers.

The clause will make two changes to functions of the ORR that would otherwise apply to GBR. The first is to prevent the ORR from issuing specific directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities, such as stations or depots. However, we expect that the GBR licence will include a condition relating to long-term asset management to ensure that the ORR retains oversight of infrastructure in the new system. As Members are aware, GBR’s licence will be subject to formal consultation.

The direction power was originally included to ensure that improvements were made when it is was clearly in the interests of the railway generally, but a railway operator might have no commercial incentive to make them. In the new system, GBR will be incentivised to improve its own infrastructure, and the change in legislation recognises that it is for Ministers, as funders, and GBR itself—not the regulator—to set the strategic direction for GBR.

GBR should then make decisions and improvements as part of its business planning, and the ORR should be able to monitor against the agreed business plan, supported by a licence condition that ensures that it can enforce long-term asset management in case anything goes wrong. If the ORR identifies a failing that constitutes a breach of that condition, and dialogue or early intervention have not proved effective, it will be able to escalate issues to the GBR board, require GBR to create and publish improvement plans and issue an enforcement order, which is a legal instruction that would require GBR to take action to meet its responsibilities.

The second change is to remove the ORR’s power to fine GBR. Imposing financial penalties on a public body would not align with the aims of maximising the benefits of public ownership. It would simply mean recycling public funds between two public bodies, continuing the money-go-round that is pervasive in today’s system. It would also add an administrative burden with only a limited effect on incentivising the right behaviours.

Amendment 271 is a technical amendment to ensure that when the Bill removes the ORR’s power to fine, it refers to all the correct parts of the law, including section 55 of the Railways Act 1993, to achieve that aim. The ORR will retain the ability to issue fines for breaches of licence conditions by non-GBR licence holders where that is an effective tool because those organisations will not be wholly funded by Government money. GBR can still be subject to a financial penalty if it violates health and safety or competition laws, as we are not changing the safety regime that will apply to the railways, and competition law will still apply in full to GBR. I look forward to hearing from hon. Members about amendment 212.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Clause 75 prevents the ORR from issuing directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities. It also prevents the ORR from imposing a fine on GBR for licence breaches. We think those are both terrible ideas.

The Transport Committee asked Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group:

“What is your view on the ORR’s downgraded power merely to ‘advise’ the Secretary of State on GBR’s performance, rather than having actual powers of enforcement?”

She said:

“I am quite worried about this.”

To the same question, Steve Montgomery from First Rail said:

“Following on from that, the independence element of it—marking your own homework—is a big concern for us. How do we ensure that we do not see a perverse behaviour where GBR looks after its own operations to the detriment of others?”

Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:

“I can only echo that. With GBR writing the rules, controlling capacity and being linked to the main operator in the country, there is a structural conflict of interest, unless there is a clear duty of fairness and non-discrimination. I do not know of other European countries that do not have a strong independent rail regulator, across the EU and beyond. To be the judge and the jury at the same time is somewhat worrying.”

Emma Vogelmann, the co-chief executive of Transport for All, told the Transport Committee:

“Our recommendation on the role of the ORR is to retain its independent authority. We are definitely interested to see how that transition of powers, as Ben mentioned, plays out, and how enforceability plays into that.”

For once, the Government need to stop and listen. The sector is speaking with one voice and telling them that this is the wrong approach. The clause needs to be removed in its entirety. It is common for regulators to be able to issue financial penalties to private utility companies that are in breach of their statutory duties. Why should that consumer protection not also be applied to a public body like GBR? Removing clause 75 would restore the ORR as a strong, independent economic regulator.

Government amendment 271

“would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.”

The Conservatives are against the whole clause, but, to save time, we will not seek a Division specifically on this amendment—I am sure that everybody will be pleased to hear that. However, as somebody who serves on the Transport Committee and sat through a lot of those evidence sessions, one of the key things that concerned me and some other members of the Committee was the breakdown of the relationship between the ORR and GBR and the weakening of the ORR’s powers. When I heard that evidence, I certainly felt that it was a compelling argument.

Liberal Democrat amendment 212 would remove the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. That is okay as far as it goes, and we will support the amendment, but we think that it does not quite go far enough. As I am sure Members expect on the basis of what I have just said, we will vote against clause 75 as a whole.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would retain the ORR’s power to fine GBR in the event of a licence breach. He will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I made in my opening remarks. However, as I suspect he knows, I cannot accept his amendment, because in creating the ability for the ORR to fine GBR, it would simply lead to the recycling of public funds, which he so ably outlined as being an issue.

On the subject of licence breaches, the ORR can issue an enforcement order to direct a different outcome from GBR. There is also a point to be made about accountability for GBR’s executives. That kind of relates to the penalties for Network Rail today: the ORR already recognises its public sector status and scales penalties accordingly. The chair and board of GBR will be responsible for ensuring that the CEO has in place robust performance management for senior staff, inherent to which will be not defying the ORR when it has issued legally binding directions. There will be a clear expectation that any significant failures will have a material impact on performance-related pay, and where the failure is sufficient to demand it, an individual should be at risk of dismissal. Put simply, removing the ORR’s power to fine will not cause the executive of GBR to be remiss in their duties.

Although the hon. Member asks me to speculate on potentially extreme cases where GBR could defy the ORR, I believe that, in the round, sufficient safeguards remain in place, with the ORR retaining its existing ability to issue mandatory and legally binding enforcement orders to GBR on matters within the licence; it is only the monetary aspect that is targeted here.

Amendment 271 agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 77 to 79 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 76 updates the Office of Rail and Road’s information duties by inserting a new section into the Railways Act 1993 under which the ORR must proactively publish documents and information about key regulatory matters, including licences, access contracts, closures and railway administration orders, in whatever manner and form it considers appropriate. At the same time, the clause removes the ORR’s duty to maintain a formal statutory register under section 72 of the 1993 Act and repurposes that section so that it better reflects modern expectations of transparency, while retaining strong safeguards so that information that would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals, businesses or the wider public interest is not disclosed. The clause is not retrospective: it does not compel the ORR to publish historical material, but it allows it to publish information already held on the existing register where that is appropriate.

The main purpose of clause 77 is to replace the Secretary of State’s duty to keep a statutory register under section 73 of the 1993 Act with a focused duty to publish information, in keeping with the Government’s commitment to ensure appropriate levels of transparency on the railways. Clauses 78 and 79 do the same but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

These clauses retain strong protections for individuals, businesses and the wider public interest, making it clear that material that would seriously and prejudicially affect those interests must not be published. They allow Ministers to publish material currently held on the existing register, so that there is no gap in transparency during transition. The clauses deliver a modern, proportionate and more accessible publication regime, in keeping with the Government’s ambitions for a reformed railway.

[Rebecca Smith]

Clauses 76 to 79 change the current duties on the ORR, the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to maintain a register, in sections 72 to 73B of the Railways Act 1993, and put them under duties to publish certain information. The ORR must publish documentation relating to licences; access agreements; access contracts, other than those using GBR infrastructure, for which GBR will be responsible; experimental passenger services; closures; and railway administration orders, except where that would affect individual public or commercial interests. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers must publish determinations that a closure is a minor modification, and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. Each clause contains restrictions about publishing information that would affect individual, public or commercial interests. Each clause also allows for the publication of documentation that was previously contained in the registers.

Clause 77, which is very similar to clause 76 and, indeed, clauses 78 and 79 on the devolved Ministers, amends section 73 of the 1993 Act, on the publication of a register by the Secretary of State, so that they are under duties to publish information—in particular, determinations that a closure is a minor modification and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. However, proposed new section 73(5) of the 1993 Act is interesting. It states:

“The Secretary of State may not publish particular information or documents under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State that publication of that information or those documents would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of any person.”

Can the Minister outline under what circumstances not being transparent is not in the public interest? What determines public interest? I would be grateful to hear the methodology in this instance. Further, the only person with commercial interests in the railway will be the guiding hand of the Secretary of State herself, as it is all public money.

I am sure that proposed new subsection (5) is standard practice in statute, but it raises an interesting point about transparency that I ask the Government to spend some time thinking about. Public trust is low—perhaps it is even lower today than it was when my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham wrote this speech—and any part of any Bill that allows the Secretary of State to get away with not publishing information under a perceived public good would look most suspicious indeed. I do think that, in the light of yesterday’s events, my hon. Friend will see the irony in the words that he wrote there.

Clause 77(2) allows publication of anything that was in the register before the Bill’s commencement. What is the timeline for publication, and will the Minister commit to publication? Those queries aside, Members will be pleased to hear that we have tabled no amendments at this time.

Clause 78, which relates to publication of information by Scottish Ministers, mirrors clause 77. As I mentioned, it amends the 1993 Act, and aside from my query about the ability that it provides to not publish information against a perceived public good, we have no objections to the clause—unless it falls outside the devolution settlement, but presumably the Minister can reassure the Committee that it does not.

Clause 79 relates to the powers of Welsh Ministers, which are similar to those enjoyed by Scottish Ministers. The rationale behind allowing Ministers to not publish information over a perceived public good remains interesting to me, but I see no need to revise the clause.

[Keir Mather]

The intention of these changes is not to reduce transparency, but to modernise what is published and how. The new duty focuses on determinations under the Railways Act 2005 and the exercise of key enforcement and closure powers, which are among the most significant decisions the Secretary of State takes in relation to the railway. Other publication requirements—for example, on designations, directions and guidance, and the long-term rail strategy—are dealt with in other clauses, so the transparency framework should be viewed as a whole, not just through the lens of these changes to the 1993 Act.

The shadow Minister raised an important point about how commercial and public interest protections interact with freedom of information and scrutiny. The clauses preserve a carefully balanced approach that has long existed under the 1993 Act. This is not a wholesale change in how that process works. The Secretary of State must not publish material where it would be against the public interest or commercial interests, or where it would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals or particular bodies. Those protections sit alongside and do not displace the wider legal framework, including freedom of information legislation and parliamentary scrutiny, which of course continues to apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan.)

Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Smith]

It is a privilege to work under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I start by conveying the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, who is not able to be present today. Instead, I am standing in on his behalf.

The clause sets out that Great British Railways must issue documents explaining the policies and procedures for access to and use of GBR infrastructure. Policy must cover procedures for applying for access, the criteria that GBR will apply to its decision making, and a procedure for resolving disputes. Subsection (3) permits GBR to set out the terms—that is, the rights and obligations —that a train operator can expect to receive where it has been granted access to GBR infrastructure. Subsection (6) allows a person aggrieved by a provision in the document to appeal to the Office of Rail and Road.

That is crucial information for all open access operators, and yet the Bill has no detail at all. It just makes reference to a future “document or documents”. In our view, that is a totally unacceptable approach, and it leaves the industry in the dark on mission-critical issues. Furthermore, no draft has been published, no direction of travel set out and no assurance given to the sector. We feel that to be a slightly arrogant approach from the Government and not a good sign of the approach that GBR itself will take to the independent sector.

Under the Bill as drafted, GBR can make the application process as one-sided as it likes, favouring its own services over those of other competing operators—in the interests not of passengers, but of GBR. The key issue is that the Government’s approach to the legislation is an assumption that the interests of GBR are synonymous with those of passengers, but we do not believe that that is always the case. Every organisation seeks to remove competition, which is uncomfortable—it exposes failures and weaknesses, and ultimately will show GBR up—but competition is crucial to improve service to customers, because organisations are forced to respond. That is why we believe that it needs to exist.

The Bill gives GBR the power to design out competition to itself, with no checks or balances save what we consider to be a pathetic appeals process, where the Government’s position is that the appellate body should not second-guess the decision of GBR, only errors of law. That is a core problem with the Bill and something that we feel is akin only to what a judicial review can do in other areas.

The clause gives GBR sweeping control over access rules, with very few safeguards. GBR sets both the access criteria and the timetable dispute procedure, so the body compiling the timetable also controls challenges to its own decisions. Subsection (3) makes the publication of access terms optional, allowing for opaque or preferential conditions. Subsection (4) lets GBR change the rules at any time, with no duty to consult. Overall, the clause lacks the transparency and checks promised in the consultation and risks embedding clear conflicts of interest to the disadvantage of non-GBR operators.

Lumo and Hull Trains, in their written evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, stated:

“Maintaining a fair, evidence-based, and independent process for access to the network is fundamental to ensuring continued growth and innovation.”

Under clause 59, however, the access and use policy will be developed and revised by GBR, setting the framework by which new services are assessed and defining the terms under which the ORR will judge appeals. Giving GBR exclusive control over that framework risks creating real or perceived conflicts of interest.

For more than two decades, the independence of access decisions has underpinned rail market growth. The continued involvement of the ORR in assessing applications objectively, balancing passenger, freight and performance needs, is essential to preserving that success. To ensure a transparent and fair access framework that the ORR can meaningfully enforce, it is important that private operators are involved in the development of the access and use policy and that appropriate statutory protections for open access are in place.

Without consultation or clear safeguards, the access and use policy risks becoming a document shaped solely by GBR’s priorities, which would potentially exclude private operators and leave them with no effective mechanism to challenge decisions that affect their ability to operate. A robust and independent access framework will also help to unlock further private sector investment in new services and rolling stock. By maintaining confidence in fair treatment and predictable regulation, the Government can encourage additional capital into the network, supporting the expansion of rail connectivity and the delivery of GBR’s passenger growth targets.

Freight operators currently benefit from statutory protections that recognise their environmental and national importance. Open access services deliver comparable benefits by driving modal shift, reducing emissions and supporting regional economies, and should therefore receive equivalent recommendation. They recommend that the Bill provide statutory protection for open access services, equivalent to that afforded to freight, and ensure that the ORR retains full authority to make access determinations independent of GBR. That would support the Government’s ambition for a network that is accountable, transparent and responsive to passenger demand.

I think that they are right. A core criticism of GBR is that it is a player and, now, the referee at the same time. Everyone must surely see that glaring conflict of interest. If His Majesty’s Government insist on changing the access and use policy to create a non-level playing field through the very tight capacity duty in clause 63, it should, at the very least, have an independent body responsible for applying the access and use policy. That is basic fairness in organisational structure.

We tabled amendment 76, which was not selected. We are not sure why, because it would ensure that the access and use policy would remain with the ORR by removing clause 59. That would mean sticking with the status quo and the existing access and use policy, avoiding the profound conflict of interest that clause 59 creates. If the Government decide to keep clause 59, which I assume they will, amendment 79 would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process. That would give open access operators a mechanism by which they could go to an independent regulator where necessary, giving them more assurance that they could survive in a new GBR world. That is a different point to the right of appeal under clause 59(6), which refers to the right to appeal the contents of a document. Amendment 79 requires a right of appeal to be included in the document itself.

Amendment 217 would place requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service or competition. At the very least, legislation needs to point GBR in the right direction so that other users can hold their decisions to account. The amendment gives such guidance. Without it, all that is left is clause 18, the general duties for GBR, and a bold reference to the public interest. It is inevitable that GBR will consider the public interest and the interests of GBR to be the same thing. The Government must think again on this, because the long-term damage to the wider rail sector will be profound.

Amendment 77 ensures that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. That ensures that we are not blindly creating law when we have not even seen important documents relating to how that law will work in practice.

Clause 66 lists the bodies that GBR will be required to consult before issuing its access and use documents: the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. That is it; they are the only ones that have that opportunity by right. There is no requirement to consult freight or other operators that might be affected. We think that that is an extraordinary approach. Amendment 87 addresses the shocking lack of consultation envisaged when GBR creates its crucial access and use policy documents by adding open access operators to the mandatory list.

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

Good morning, Mr Western. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for these amendments, which all seek to make changes to GBR’s access and use policy.

First, I will provide a brief explanation of what the access and use policy sets out to do. It will set out a clear and consistent process for any operator seeking to run services on GBR’s network. It will therefore provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators—such as freight and open access—on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with when seeking access to GBR’s infrastructure. It will be very similar in concept to the way the ORR publishes access processes and policies today. It will therefore follow a well-known path by which industry can engage with the access process, and like today, this engagement will be underpinned by legislation.

I can reassure hon. Members that the access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on the initial contents of the policy has already been published. It can be reviewed by hon. Members of this Committee and anyone else who wishes to contribute to its development.

I will turn to amendment 79, which seeks to add an appeals route to the working timetable after the dispute resolution process. I am delighted to start in a place of agreement with the hon. Member for South West Devon because the addition to clause 59 is, in fact, already in the Bill. The Bill provides, first, a mechanism for resolving disputes relating to the working timetable and, secondly, an appeals route to the ORR.

GBR will be required to set a dispute resolution procedure within its access and use policy for applications to be included in the timetable. That will allow parties to resolve disagreements collaboratively before escalation to the ORR, as detailed in clause 61(5). To be clear, the Bill already provides a subsequent route of appeal to the ORR for operators who have disputes over the working timetable. The amendment is therefore duplicative of that existing appeals route, and risks creating additional bureaucracy and confusion within the process. It would not improve the dispute resolution framework and, in our view, is redundant, but I am pleased that we have found at least one thing in these clauses on which the official Opposition and the Government can agree.

Amendment 217 would add requirements that GBR should use the access and use policy to promote high-quality service and competition. I cannot agree with this amendment. GBR’s duties under clause 18 cover the range of points that the hon. Member for South West Devon has suggested GBR must consider for its access and use policy. For example, I agree that GBR must promote a high-quality service, and this is already reflected in GBR’s duty to ‘‘promote high standards” of performance. We must remember that the clause 18 duties are the key decision-making criteria that GBR must apply at every stage—including when making its access and use policy—and so the requirement to drive towards a quality service is already embedded.

On competition, however, I must clarify that the Government support competition on the railways where it can add real value to passengers and farepayers. As the directing mind, GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network for all operators under a new and simpler legislative framework that ensures passengers and taxpayers are at the heart of decisions that are taken on the railways.

Where competition can support GBR in fulfilling its statutory duties—for example, to grow the economy and to provide improved choice and benefits to passengers —without undermining the vast investment made by taxpayers, we are supportive of the benefits of competition, and GBR must take those benefits into account. However, what the Government will not support is competition for competition’s sake. It is ideological and does not help us achieve the goal of making the railway work better.

The hon. Member for South West Devon seems to be equating promoting competition with fairness, but they are not one and the same. GBR must be fair to all third-party operators at all times. To ensure fairness for all parties, GBR will be bound by the Competition Act 1998, under which rules it cannot discriminate or abuse its dominant market position, and the ORR will continue to enforce this as the competition regulator. GBR does not need to actively promote competition to achieve that aim.

Amendment 77 would require GBR’s access and use policy to be laid before Parliament for three months before it can be implemented. GBR would be unable to implement any part of the access and use policy for a period of three months after it had been laid in Parliament. This would only result in delays for operators seeking to access the GBR network—a concept that is unlikely to be considered favourably by either open access or the freight industry.

The hon. Member for South West Devon should note that the access and use policy is a technical railway document. The purpose of this document is to provide a fair and transparent process for operators to apply for access. It sets out, for instance, the timings for applications, so that operators can prepare for the application window in advance. It also sets out what information applicants will need to supply and how applications will be assessed by GBR in accordance with its statutory duties. It is therefore right for GBR to develop it in consultation with industry and other railway bodies such as the ORR. This document should rightly be industry and expert-led. To reassure hon. Members about the content of the access and use policy, Network Rail has published a discussion document that sets out emerging thinking on a future access and use policy, with input from industry stakeholders. If Members of Parliament are keen to scrutinise the document, they are welcome to do so now, and I encourage them to engage with Network Rail’s external engagement process, or the usual processes in Parliament.

The industry has responded positively to the transparent and collaborative approach that has been taken in the development of the access and use policy. The freight sector has commented on how the discussion document acknowledges the key role of private investment. Network Rail’s engagement with industry will continue as the policy is developed, and there will be a further full consultation on the access and use policy with the ORR as a statutory consultee, which Members of Parliament are again welcome to contribute to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Something that the Minister said reflects back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on Tuesday. Not putting private operators, open access and freight on this mandatory list is making us nervous that it is not the Government’s intention to keep involving them in the future. I appreciate what the Minister is saying about them being consulted at the moment, but this amendment is important because it would keep them as a fixture of the future of GBR, rather than as an optional extra, where they can be useful, but if they are not considered to add any value to the railway, they will not be there any more.

As we have already alluded to, industry certainty and assuredness needs to be there for private investment to come forward, some of which I know the Government will welcome. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: if we do not have them in the framework at the beginning, they are not being encouraged to stay involved and have that confidence. Does the Minister agree?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is of course right to be wary about the involvement of open access in the railway, because although such provision forms a comparatively small proportion of railway journeys, we have discussed at length how certain access operator services provide great inter-city connections. There is of course a role for open access in the system being created by the Bill.

With GBR having regard to its duties when creating its access and use policy, it will have to factor in how users of the railway, both current and future, are able to make best use of services, whether they are provided by GBR or anybody else. Being bound by competition law, and the transparency and fairness inherent in it, will ensure that those that already provide services on the railway, and those that seek to provide services in the future, will have the opportunity to do so. I understand the hon. Member’s point about making sure that something is prescriptively listed in the Bill so that it is given due regard, but I would say that, whether through existing open access entitlements or the two rail freight targets that exist, there are sufficient assurances that there is scope for the inclusion of those services in the future of the railway, and that the access and use policy has to reflect that. I will turn to that in more detail soon.

All of the work on the access and use policy so far has happened without the need for a long and ever-expanding list of operators in the legislation, which would be the likely result of the amendment. If we name open access operators, we should presumably also list others, such as freight operators and devolved operators. Clause 66 currently requires that GBR must consult

“such other persons as it considers appropriate”,

and that formulation is deliberate; it ensures that consultation can be targeted, relevant and proportionate. Network Rail’s actions so far clearly demonstrate that open access operators are considered to be other appropriate persons in the reading of the clause, so both the reality and the future can be accounted for.

I reassure the hon. Member that there is no world in which GBR will create an access and use policy without consulting the relevant industry bodies that are affected. The amendment would add complexity, without delivering additional practical benefit. Although I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, for those reasons, I urge that she does not press them to a vote.

Clause 59 requires Great British Railways to publish an access and use policy. That key document will provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators, such as freight and open access, on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with. For example, the policy will set out how operators should apply to access and use GBR tracks and infrastructure. It must set out the criteria Great British Railways intends to apply, in accordance with its statutory duties, when making access decisions, as well as its procedures for resolving competing demands and disputes. That will include, for instance, details on the economic and performance assessments GBR will undertake to determine best use. The policy must also include an explanation of how GBR will carry out maintenance and improvements to GBR infrastructure, and other necessary provisions, to ensure that the network works effectively. That exists in today’s system, within the industry network code, and we would expect GBR to draw on that when developing its policy on these key points.

The access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on initial content has already been published, and can be reviewed by the Committee or anyone else who wishes to input into its development. We hope that the extensive engagement being undertaken will ensure that a robust and effective document is produced that industry will be content with. However, as a backstop, any person aggrieved by a provision in this policy may appeal to the ORR.

Clause 66 will make it a legislative requirement that GBR must consult the ORR, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and such other persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its access and use policy, which is dealt with in clause 59. That is in addition to GBR being a public body bound by public law principles. GBR must behave in a fair and transparent way, and therefore must consult interested parties, including rail freight and open access. The clause also ensures that GBR consults such persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its infrastructure capacity plan, before issuing a working timetable and before making, revising or replacing a charging or performance scheme. Those issues are dealt with in clauses 60, 61 and 62.

Clause 66 is essential to provide reassurance to industry and our Scottish and Welsh counterparts that key parts of the new framework—GBR’s policies and processes—will not be designed in isolation, but will be underpinned by a transparent and consultative process. The clause provides the essential framework for collaborative and strategic planning by GBR across the rail network. I therefore commend clauses 59 and 66 to the Committee.

[Rebecca Smith]

I think I have said everything I want to say, but we would like to press amendment 79 and then amendment 217 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It is my pleasure to speak to this long-awaited group of amendment to what are arguably some of the most critical aspects of the legislation. Clause 60 will require GBR to set out its proposal for the best use of its infrastructure, while clause 63 will require GBR to retain sufficient capacity to run its own passenger services and carry out engineering work.

First, I will explain how the Government have reached that conclusion. We are here because the current system for allocating capacity is clearly not working; it is designed so that each part of the railway acts and takes decisions in isolation. There was a four-year delay to the implementation of the new east coast main line timetable that was finally achieved in December 2025. Meanwhile, there is no single body with a clear vision for the best use of the network, and therefore no clear statement of the capacity that can be made available for different users of the railway. As a result, open access operators have expended considerable effort and resources in developing proposals for access to the network, many of which have ultimately been rejected by the ORR.

Both freight and open access operators would benefit from a single body empowered to provide that clarity about future opportunities for them to grow their presence on the railway. The only possible answer to fixing that is GBR, which can take decisions strategically, making the very best use of the limited capacity that we have. Only GBR can review the network holistically with a view to creating more space, which will benefit open access operators where they can show that their new services constitute best use of the network. That will benefit every hon. Member’s constituents, because there will be more opportunity for connectivity and more co-ordination to avoid disruption and delays.

In our new system, the process of allocating capacity starts with clause 60. The infrastructure capacity plan will set out GBR’s view of the best use of the network, showing how capacity can best be allocated between GBR’s own services, freight services and open access services. In creating that plan, GBR must have regard to the need to accommodate all types of services. The clause is one of the most crucial in the Bill, because it is where GBR—having consulted carefully with existing and prospective operators and other interested parties, and taken account of its statutory duties—will set out its view of the best use of the network. Once established, the plan will provide much-needed certainty for operators contemplating investment in new services.

I will be crystal clear for the benefit of the Committee: the capacity duty mentioned in clause 63 does not apply to the creation of the infrastructure capacity plan. Under clause 60, GBR will make its best-use assessment on the basis of the duties in clause 18 and other general duties in the Bill only. At this stage, it will not have any basis to refer to the duty as described in clause 63. It will take the decision fairly and transparently, in line with its duties, with the need to allocate paths for freight, open access and itself in mind.

There is absolutely no intention for other operators to be unfairly pushed out or disadvantaged by GBR. We want the best service for passengers, freight users and the public on every part of the route, to enable the best possible connectivity, quality of service and overall economic benefit. That is the goal, regardless of who provides those services. Were GBR to mistakenly apply the capacity duty at the capacity plan stage as part of its determination of best use, that would be grounds for appeal to the ORR.

[Joe Robertson]

I note the Minister’s assertion that there is no intention to squeeze out other operators, but given the way in which the Bill and the clause are drafted, that surely is an inevitability regardless of whether he intends for that to happen. It is the outcome that matters. If it will not enable open access and competition, that is in itself a problem, notwithstanding he might not intend that to be the case.

[Keir Mather]

I take fully on board the hon. Member’s point that we need to ensure services are not squeezed out. The process I am outlining is specifically to ensure that that does not happen. Where GBR has regard to its duties under clause 60 when deciding best use, it has to have regard to the freight target and the need to grow freight, but also the need to accommodate a range of services on the railway. That best use policy is locked in. It is under clause 63 that the capacity duty comes into effect, and GBR can make practical operational decisions about how to effectively actualise those proportions being allocated on the railway.

GBR will have to have regard to open access and freight under its duties in clause 60 when making the macro decision about what constitutes best use, which at the end of the day is not a binary yes or no question. The capacity duty in clause 63 merely ensures that it can provide the services it has been allocated. I will come to that in a bit more detail and set it out further. The hon. Member is welcome to intervene again if he feels my subsequent detail is insufficient.

On the capacity duty more broadly, the Government have been nothing but consistent. Put simply, the services that offer the genuine best value proposition for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer, consistent with GBR’s duties, should be allocated capacity. Clause 63, meanwhile, creates a legal duty for Great British Railways to ensure there is enough space in the timetable to run the services funded by the Government and taxpayers. To reiterate, clause 63 is a requirement for space in the timetable. It is not a requirement for space in the capacity plan. It does not apply to the capacity plan and it therefore does not and cannot undermine the best use decisions taken at the capacity planning stage. That is because the Government are paying for certain GBR services and must not waste public funds. The clause 63 duty is about managing taxpayers’ money after best use has been determined. It is not about keeping anyone out.

Amendment 78 would require GBR to consult open access and freight operators in preparing the infrastructure capacity plan. Amendment 80 would require GBR to have regard to its key performance indicators when preparing the plan, and amendment 81 would amend clause 63 to require GBR to retain capacity for open access and freight operators. Amendments 253 and 229 would both give freight operators more weight in the capacity process.

Adding a further consultation requirement to clause 60 is unnecessary as there is already a separate requirement in clause 66 for GBR to consult affected operators when developing or amending the capacity plan. Were GBR to publish or amend a capacity plan at any point without consultation, that would constitute a breach of its duties under the Bill and present strong grounds for appeal to the ORR. Amendment 78 is therefore duplicative of the provisions already in the Bill.

As for amendments 80, 81, 253 and 229, the intended effect of clause 63 is to create a statutory duty for GBR to ensure that there is enough space in the timetable to run its own passenger services, which are funded directly by taxpayers. That is because taxpayers spend many billions of pounds subsidising the railway. Any responsible Government would be obligated to protect that investment and ensure that taxpayers get full value from it. The clause is therefore needed to ensure that where GBR considers its services constitute the best use of the network, and where it then allocates capacity to itself, it will actually run the trains that it is proposing to run and which it will be funded for. I do not believe anyone on this Committee would be delighted to find that, following GBR being paid several billion pounds to run services, it was unable to do so. Clause 63 is therefore an essential legal safeguard to prevent that from happening.

The interests of freight and open access operators are protected by GBR’s general duties under clause 18, and freight operators are further protected by the duty on GBR to have regard to the rail freight target set by the Secretary of State under clause 17. Those duties will apply when GBR establishes best use at the capacity planning stage for all operators, including freight. The existence of not just one but two statutory duties is a clear signal of this Government’s view that freight must be front and centre of GBR’s decision making. This will give freight much greater prominence in capacity planning and allocation decisions than the current system, in which capacity is too often allocated on a first come, first served basis without reference to any coherent view of the best overall use of available capacity. The clause 63 duty exists only to protect the Secretary of State’s investment in the railway; it is not intended to influence GBR’s capacity planning or to keep anyone out of the network. The amendments are therefore not compatible with the intended purpose of the clause.

Amendment 80 draws a link to the concept of key performance indicators. As I have set out in previous debates, the Government do not accept the need to make statutory provision about KPIs and so cannot support the proposed reference. As I have consistently said throughout these debates, KPIs should be in GBR’s business plan and not in legislation.

Amendment 211 would require GBR to publish a statement on any decision not to provide access on the basis of capacity. As a public body, GBR is bound by public law principles to behave in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. That means that GBR must set out its decisions transparently, including when granting access, with robust evidence that shows how it has acted in accordance with its duties, access and use policy and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. If GBR failed to do that, it would be grounds for appeal to the ORR. The amendment is unnecessary because GBR is already required to transparently account for its access decisions, whatever the reason for them.

Finally, new clause 56 would require GBR to report on the merits of a centralised train planning and auctioning scheme, with high-yielding services being operated by private sector operators rather than GBR. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with responsibility for passenger services and infrastructure brought together in a single organisation, is the only way to make the railway run better. It enables everybody to focus on a single set of objectives centred around the needs of railway users and the interests of the taxpayers who fund it, rather than shareholders and private profit. Public ownership of passenger services will save the taxpayer up to £150 million a year in fees to private operators alone. Therefore, GBR, rather than private operators, must be responsible for operating the services that taxpayers will fund it to deliver. Making GBR responsible for essential services also avoids the costs of maintaining a public sector operator of last resort function ready to step in if a private operator suffers financial failure or chooses to withdraw from operating the services.

While I fully support the provision of services by open access operators on the network where they add value and where there is capacity on the network, the model set out by the new clause is not compatible with the mandate that this Government were elected on: to bring franchised passenger services back into public ownership. It is not compatible with the regime set out in the Bill, which already provides clarity about the role of private sector operators and the opportunities for them to run services.

Given what I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon feels able to withdraw the amendments. I commend clauses 60 and 63 to the Committee.

[Rebecca Smith]

I have listened to the Minister’s comments. As I said earlier, we will not press amendment 80 to a vote, but I wish to press the others to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The rest of the amendments that we have just debated will be decided at the appropriate point.

Clause 61

The working timetable

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 61, page 34, line 38, at end insert—

“(4A) Agreement under subsection (4) may be general or specific, and the ways in which it may be given include it being given—

(a) in accordance with the terms set out as mentioned in section 59(3);

(b) by means of, or in accordance with, provision contained in an agreement or other document to which Great British Railways and the operator are parties.”

This amendment ensures that changes to the working timetable can be agreed in advance and in general terms, and sets out various of the ways in which agreement can be given.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 62 stand part.

New clause 52—Train frequency duty—

(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must—

(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;

(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.

(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).

(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—

(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;

(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.

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

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.

[Keir Mather]

Amendment 174 will provide greater clarity for all parties that the agreement GBR is obliged to have under clause 61(4) can be made in advance in a contract or other document between GBR and the operator in line with the terms set out in GBR’s access and use policy under clause 59(3). The amendment broadly replicates the current industry practice of making changes to the working timetable through contractual arrangements, so it is familiar to industry and was always the intended approach. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment, tabled by the Government in my name.

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for tabling new clause 52, which would require the Secretary of State to publicly consult on and publish a report that recommends an appropriate train frequency that would meet local need and which GBR would then be obliged to deliver. Although this Government support the principle of designing a train service that meets passengers’ needs and local needs, the new clause would embed that responsibility in Government, and not with GBR. That would serve only to continue Government’s micro-management of the railways, under-mining GBR’s intended role as an empowered, directing mind that is enabled to take decisions on the best use of the network.

To take access decisions and plan its passenger services —which GBR will do in accordance with its duties, which are clearly defined in the Bill—GBR, and not the Department, must be able to design its own passenger train services. GBR will also be legally required to consult devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities before making certain decisions, such as service frequency decisions that will significant affect their local areas. The Government and GBR will also have to consult the new passenger watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer. The Secretary of State will set the long-term strategic objectives of the railway through the long-term rail strategy, which GBR will need to consider when taking decisions about service frequencies. The Secretary of State will also have to approve GBR’s integrated business plan, which will cover both track and train activity.

That framework represents the right balance between an empowered directing mind that can independently weigh up its duties in a considered and rational way when delivering its statutory functions, including developing the timetable, with appropriate consultation requirements and proportionate Government oversight. We do not want to continue the current system, under which stifling Government interference hampers the efficient running of the railways. I therefore urge members of the Committee not to move new clause 52.

Clause 61 requires GBR to issue a timetable that defines

“all planned train movements which will take place on GBR infrastructure during the period for which it is in force”.

Enabling GBR to establish a working timetable is fundamental to running trains safely and reliably at their published times. The current system cannot deliver significant timetable changes, even where there is a strong public interest case for doing so with significant taxpayer investment. That is because the process for revising the timetable is dependent on different organisations taking, at different points, different decisions that affect the timetable’s production. That creates complexity and challenges that can result in significant delays to the implementation of a new timetable being implemented and passengers and taxpayers losing out.

Despite the significant efforts made by Network Rail and the ORR, the new east coast main line timetable was delayed for over four years, which resulted in delayed benefits to passengers. Ultimately, until the current Rail Minister was appointed no one was willing to make a final timetabling decision. That cannot happen again: GBR must be empowered to take decisions or passengers and taxpayers will not see improvements.

Under clause 61, as the directing mind GBR will be responsible for taking decisions on timetabling in a process overseen by the ORR. A person whose application to be included in the timetable is rejected or who disagrees with the terms and conditions of their inclusion may appeal to the ORR. The clause ensures that GBR will deliver an achievable, reliable timetable that the network is able to deliver. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce cost. GBR’s holistic review of the whole network can also improve connectivity for passengers. Without the clause, the current unacceptable system of timetable delays, disagreements and ministerial intervention will continue, which serves no one.

Clause 62 sets out the steps that GBR must follow before issuing a working timetable, as previously described in clause 61. It is a critical provision as a timetable is the backbone of a safe and efficient railway operation. Without a clear and structured timetable, trains cannot run reliably at their published times. GBR must invite applications for inclusion in the timetable from operators other than GBR’s own passenger services. The invitation must specify the period within which applications must be made and the information that must accompany an application. GBR must prepare and send a draft of the working timetable to those applicants. A person who has had an application rejected by GBR may appeal that decision to the ORR. The clause ensures that the process for developing the timetable is fair and transparent. I commend clauses 61 and 62 to the Committee.

[Rebecca Smith]

Clause 61(1) sets out that GBR must issue one or more timetables covering all train movements on GBR infrastructure for the period that GBR intends the timetable to cover, to be known as a working timetable. Subsection (3) allows GBR to alter a working timetable, for example to add new train movements, change a planned train movement, allow for maintenance works, deal with disruption, or change the duration of the timetable. Subsection (4) allows GBR to alter a planned train movement of an operator other than GBR only with that operator’s permission. Subsection (5) provides a right of appeal to the ORR for an operator who applied for a train movement to be included in the working timetable by GBR but was refused, or where the inclusion was made subject to conditions. The duty to consult and appeals provisions in clauses 66 to 68 also apply to the working timetable, but not to alterations of the working timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

Amendment 174 agreed to.

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

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Capacity duty

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

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response.

A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run.

Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.

[Keir Mather]

I will briefly turn back to the debate on the previous clauses; because the Opposition spokesperson asked me to provide an example of the motion of consent in general as it relates to timetabling and I was remiss in my duty in not doing so. To give more context, the network code currently sets out the circumstances where train service timings need to be adjusted by a few minutes without requiring specific consent. GBR will follow a very similar process and that is a normal process that industry would expect us to follow.

I now turn to the amendments at hand, all of which seek to make changes to GBR’s charging scheme. I confirm to the hon. Member for South West Devon that the charging regime broadly replicates the one that is in place today. That is intentional, so that all of the charges and discounts referenced will be familiar to industry to achieve a smooth transition to the new framework.

Furthermore, given that GBR will be bound by public law duties, which require fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination in actions and decision making, there is no reason to think that GBR will behave unreasonably. Rather, when making or amending its charging scheme, GBR will be required to balance the various duties set out in clause 18, which include promoting the interests of passengers, promoting the use of the network for carrying freight and enabling operators to plan the future of their businesses. GBR will also be required to consult with industry through the development of its charging scheme, and will be held to account via a clear route to appeal to the ORR on the scheme’s design and application.

Given that existing competition law and applicable subsidy rules will automatically apply to GBR, GBR will not be able to treat other operators unfairly or start levying excessive charges that would undermine their ability to operate successful, profit-driven services. That will be further supported by the ORR’s continued role as competition regulator for the railway. I hope that gives hon. Members some assurance to begin with.

I now turn to amendment 242, which proposes to remove the provision at clause 64(1)(b) that enables GBR to charge operators for services that do not run as planned. In today’s system, that mechanism is called a reservation charge, and the Bill replicates that for GBR. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate that a reservation charge must be issued in all instances where services do not run. Instead, GBR will have discretion regarding how and when to use it. That is particularly important for taking into consideration different industry operating models, especially freight, which is market driven and therefore has to live with less certainty over the services that it needs to run to serve its customers.

A routine and technical example of when a reservation charge is used today, and likely to be replicated in the future, is one affecting passenger services, not freight. Where a passenger service is allocated to a path that is expected to stop at eight stations but—for reasons of its own making and not GBR’s—it terminates short of its final destination and stops at only seven, it could still be charged as planned for the full service. In addition, with finite capacity on the network it is important that, when passenger operators are granted access, they provide those services they said they were going to run and are disincentivised to simply hold on to capacity.

To use a different example, if an operator consistently failed to run a service in its entirety, it would disadvantage passengers seeking to use that train and other operators that might wish to operate a passenger or freight service on an unused path. It could therefore be charged in full. As I have outlined, the purpose of the measure is to encourage operators to use the capacity that they have been allocated. Therefore, the ability to levy a reservation charge is an extremely useful tool to drive the right behaviours on the network. It ensures that best use is made of capacity and that operators remain accountable for providing the services in the timetable that they agreed to deliver.

Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I hear the Committee made very good progress this morning. I am sure you will share my ambition to get through part 2 this afternoon, but that will depend very much on how much progress we make. The official stop is 5 pm but if we have to go over, we have to go over. I also intend to have a comfort break at a convenient point.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 2

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve yet again under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 35 provides definitions for key terms used in chapter 1 of part 2, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpretation. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

I agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

General duties of the Council

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clauses in the group, he will see that there are significant issues that the passengers’ council needs to take into account for all passengers, which come to the door and—as I know, having sat on a watchdog for four years—come in the form of casework and meetings. I am sure that I will talk later about why nationalisation, and having trains, signals and rolling stock under one operator, is much better for a passengers’ council, but those issues come to the organisation’s attention anyway.

I fully support the need to look at the issues for disabled passengers who come to the council’s door, and I will hear what the Minister has to say, but I believe that how things are investigated and brought to the organisation’s attention are set out in the legislation, just as they are, in many regards, for Transport Focus and for the London Transport Users Committee. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, but also right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee for their contributions on this important point.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is correct that I intend to argue that the passenger watchdog will focus inherently on the needs of passengers. I believe that that is self-actualising, to an extent, in creating one in the first place. But he is also right to push me further on specific provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made some really important points, first about the fact that the duties and responsibilities inherent to the passenger watchdog demonstrate how it will serve the interests of passengers. Having an independent monitoring power for the passenger experience, investigation powers, enforcing minimum consumer standards—this is inherent to representing passengers on the railway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister has come up with an ingenious argument, but if he takes the trouble of actually reading the opening sentence of clause 36, he will find that it says, under “General duties”:

“When exercising its functions relating to railways and railway services”—

So, arguments about buses and other modes of transport are clearly outside the scope of this clause, are they not?

[Keir Mather]

But they are not outside the scope of the passenger watchdog as a whole. We would not want to be prescriptive in one place, only for us not to be able to make the passenger watchdog agile and adaptive in dealing with the needs of other modes. There could be unforeseen issues in which the passenger watchdog will need to represent passengers, or new developments, for instance those arising from new technology, where we would want the council to be able to advocate for passengers in the future.

The Bill already gives the council a purpose: via a combination of the functions and duties set out in the Bill and the Railways Act 2005, the council’s purpose and railways functions are set out sufficiently and are rightly broad.

Amendment 64 replaces the passenger watchdog’s duty to make efficient use of funds with a duty to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis. The revised duty being suggested by the shadow Minister and the duty in the Bill are to all intents and purposes the same. The watchdog will need to conduct some form of analysis to ensure it is making efficient use of funds when deciding which issues to investigate. Therefore, the amendment is duplicative and in my view unnecessary. With all this in mind, I urge the shadow Minister not to press these amendments.

Clause 36 places two general duties on the watchdog, which it must consider when carrying out its rail functions. The first is a duty to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, which is designed to ensure that the watchdog will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled passengers. The second is a duty to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds when it exercises its rail functions, which will ensure that the watchdog takes the overall cost of the railway into account when carrying out its functions—for example, when advising GBR or the Government. This will ensure that its recommendations are realistic and actionable, and therefore carry more weight in the industry. These duties will enable the watchdog to be an effective passenger champion, with the needs of disabled people at the heart of its priorities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

You will not be totally amazed to learn, Mrs Hobhouse, that I am not persuaded by the position that the Minister has taken. The obfuscation, chucking in other modes of transport when that is clearly excluded by the wording of the clause, does not persuade me and I wish to press both amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I will speak in support of amendments 208 and 209, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 208 would guarantee representation for rail passenger groups within the passengers’ council. In West Dorset, we are fortunate to have active and committed groups such as the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group and the west Dorset western area transport action group—they do have snappier acronyms. These organisations bring together passengers, MPs, councils and local communities to push for better services, improved stations, more resilient timetables and new trains. They lobby operators, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and others. They understand in detail what is working and what could be done better. Groups like these exist all over the country and their expertise and insight should be embedded in the passenger watchdog from the start.

Amendment 209 would strengthen that further by removing the vague caveat that representation should be included only

“so far as it appears expedient”.

The Bill promises a powerful new passenger champion that sets standards, investigates poor performance, and holds operators and GBR to account. We envisage that amendments 208 and 209 would do exactly that. I hope the Government will see the logic of supporting them.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling these amendments, and the hon. Member for West Dorset for speaking to them. They seek to make changes to the governance and obligations of the passenger watchdog.

I will turn to amendments 208 and 209, which seek to ensure that rail passenger groups are represented within the passenger watchdog. The passengers’ council currently operates under the name Transport Focus and is led by a board of non-executive directors, including members for Scotland, Wales and London. These are statutory appointments as defined in the Railways Act 2005, and we are not amending those arrangements via the Bill.

Although we are not mandating specific representation of rail passenger groups on the board, the watchdog is a body that represents passengers, just like other rail passenger groups, and will directly engage with them. As mentioned, to ensure that happens, the Bill already requires that the watchdog must consult anyone who it thinks is appropriate and co-operate with other bodies representing the interests of passengers, including other rail passenger groups.

Amendment 209 seeks to delete the words

“so far as it appears expedient”

from the watchdog’s requirement to keep matters under review. Although the watchdog will be a powerful champion and will have resources to reflect that, we must ensure that it can focus its time and resources on the matters that have the most impact on passengers and prioritise its work as it sees appropriate. Without that caveat, it would be required to keep all matters affecting passengers under review, no matter how minor or trivial, which is not a reasonable duty to place on the watchdog.

Amendment 65 would set a deadline of one month for the Secretary of State and GBR to respond to any representations made by the passenger watchdog under clause 37. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that it is important for representations from the watchdog to be responded to efficiently, but more complex issues raised by it need careful consideration. Setting a uniform deadline could have the effect of rushing that consideration, which might not lead to the best outcomes for passengers. In fact, allowing more time to consider representations would increase the chances of actions being taken that might require a commitment of funding, so I do not think that such a deadline necessarily serves passengers. Additionally, having a duty to respond within a time period in the Bill that would be enforceable only through the courts could result in issues taking much longer to resolve. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.

Finally, amendment 235 would require the passenger watchdog to assess and report on passenger satisfaction at least once a year. Assessing passenger satisfaction is currently a well-established practice of the passengers’ council, which operates under the name Transport Focus, and that will not change with its transition into the new passenger watchdog. Transport Focus has a long record of collecting passenger feedback in the form of its rail user survey. 

In addition, a new rail customer experience survey has recently been introduced. This is an industry-wide survey of customers’ experiences. It provides a crucial insight into rail customers’ experience, supporting the industry to achieve a better understanding of where it does well, where improvement is needed and what elements of the journey matter most to passengers. New survey data is provided every four weeks and the passenger watchdog will have access to the raw survey data to enable it to carry out its own independent analysis of the results. 

The watchdog will publish its own analysis on a regular basis, as Transport Focus does currently, in the form of rail operator scorecards—including a GBR scorecard—that will be found on their websites and that will demonstrate to passengers which operators are performing well on passenger matters and which are not. Given Transport Focus’ long-established role in assessing rail passenger satisfaction, and the introduction of the new rail customer experience survey, I believe continuous monitoring of passenger experience is well established without this amendment. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.

[The Chair]

We are now slightly out of sync because the Minister has responded before the shadow Minister could make the case. I remind Members to bob after I put the question, even if the amendment itself is not mentioned when I put the question. I know it is slightly difficult. I will call the shadow Minister, then the Minister will respond very briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

No wonder I agree with it so strongly. I put “LD” by it, but that is being unduly generous to the Liberal Democrats. It is an excellent amendment. As I was concluding, it would ensure greater transparency and, therefore, a better service from this organisation, so I have no hesitation in supporting amendment 235 and I hope that the Liberal Democrats join me in doing so.

[Keir Mather]

The Committee will be glad to hear that I do not intend to re-rehearse the argument that I pre-emptively set out in response to the amendments. On the broader point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham about the passenger watchdog and its capabilities, I am of the view that having independent monitoring powers for the passenger experience, having investigation powers, having the ability to demand information by a deadline, enforcing an independent dispute resolution service, and making sure that minimum consumer standards are protected with the ability to escalate to the ORR for enforcement is a suite of measures that will allow the watchdog to fully account for the passenger experience. That relates both to this clause and ones that I am sure we will arrive at in short order. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw his amendment.

[Edward Morello]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Keeping matters under review and collecting information

Amendment proposed: 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 38 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

I am pleased to speak to clauses 37 and 38 relating to the passenger watchdog’s duty to keep matters under review and its power to collect information. Clause 37 ensures that the passenger watchdog proactively monitors any matters affecting passengers, whether they relate to passenger services or stations. It also requires the watchdog to consult relevant people and to co-operate with other bodies that represent passengers, such as London TravelWatch. Clause 37 also gives the watchdog the power to collect information so it can effectively monitor the passenger experience.

The clause will ensure that the watchdog is proactive and has a good overview of any emerging issues that may impact passengers. It will also ensure that the watchdog engages and co-operates with relevant bodies and seeks information to effectively address potential issues with the passenger experience. I hope hon. Members will agree that that power is fundamental to the effectiveness of the watchdog as a passenger champion.

Finally, clause 38 will enable the passenger watchdog to enter into agreements with other public bodies so that, if necessary, they can perform the functions under clause 37 instead of the watchdog itself. The Secretary of State’s consent is required before entering into agreements under the clause. The clause replicates section 76A of the Railways Act 1993, which we wish to retain for cases where another body could keep certain passenger matters under review more effectively than the watchdog. That could, for example, happen in a certain geographical area where there is an effective devolved body with specialised local knowledge. The clause supports the watchdog to operate as an effective passenger champion by ensuring that it can flexibly co-operate with local bodies to the overall benefit of passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a sequence of complaint. Before going to an external body, one would typically be expected to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the organisation against which one is complaining. It would be perfectly reasonable for the passenger watchdog’s first questions to be, “Have you complained to GBR? If so, what did it say?” In fact, that might be its working definition of frivolousness: going straight to the watchdog without having made a complaint.

I warn the Minister that the current wording is an open chequebook. It could lead to a huge amount of work for an organisation that is not currently set up to deal with it, and which would require significant funds from somewhere to do so. What assessment of demand has been undertaken for council investigation powers? What budget has been earmarked for the huge increase in workload? Transport Focus, the host organisation, currently has fewer than 30 staff—I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but when I visited there were something like 22 staff. To what size does the Minister anticipate expanding Transport Focus or the new passenger watchdog?

Amendment 142 would make GBR the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the passenger standards council as the appellant body should the complaint not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways. I doubt whether it needs an amendment to primary legislation, but it would be the right sequence for any complainant to exhaust the in-house complaints procedure first. Does the Minister not mean the passengers’ council to have the authority to pick and choose its investigations? If he does not, he should stick with the current wording; if he does, he should think again.

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister asked about the interaction between Transport Focus and London TravelWatch in instances in which cross-border services might need active deliberation between the two organisations. They currently operate under a memorandum of understanding, and I understand that they are planning to update it when the Bill becomes more mature, which will allow them to develop a consistent framework for dealing with cross-border issues. Where a case is under investigation and is fully within the London railway area, it falls within the remit of London TravelWatch: rightly, the passenger watchdog must refer the case to London TravelWatch as the independent expert on travel in the London area.

The shadow Minister also asked some operational questions about the passenger watchdog’s budgetary planning and the size of its staff. Those matters will be actively developed later in the process, once we have set the legislative foundation for the organisation to be created.

The shadow Minister made a fair point about the principle of investigation, but intensive investigations are one thing, and the ability to have regard to complaints that are not vexatious is quite another.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is all very well, but it is not the wording of the Bill. The text does not say “have regard to”; it is a mandatory requirement to investigate every single allegation. I totally understand where the Minister says he is coming from, but unfortunately his Bill does not agree with him.

[Keir Mather]

My point is that the shadow Minister’s interpretation of the term “investigation” might diverge slightly from mine in respect of what we expect the passenger watchdog to do in relation to each individual complaint that it may receive, and especially to those that are vexatious or frivolous.

On the broader point, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would require the passenger watchdog to wait until GBR has considered an issue before investigating it itself. He is right to point out that individual passenger complaints should go to operators, including GBR, in the first instance. If the passenger is unable to get a satisfactory resolution to their complaint, they can raise the issue with the watchdog through the service provided by the rail ombudsman for independent dispute resolution. As the amendment suggests, that is a very sensible process.

However, there are times when the watchdog will need to investigate issues before or instead of operators. For example, if an issue falls outside the scope of the ombudsman service, or if the issue is systemic and persistent and cannot be appropriately dealt with by a single operator, the watchdog may decide to open its own investigation.

We expect the watchdog to actively investigate a wide range of issues beyond individual passenger complaints and GBR services. They could include systemic or cross-industry issues in the provision of passenger assistance, such as the issues that we have unfortunately seen on the railway in the past, or persistent issues with punctuality, open access or devolved services. The amendment is therefore not appropriate, as it would unnecessarily restrict the watchdog’s ability to act freely on behalf of the passenger. I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I recognise that the Minister has his line to take and that there will be lots of angry people sitting behind him at tea time if he makes any concessions. However, a simple amendment to the wording of the mandatory requirement in clause 39(1), paragraphs (a) to (e), would give the passenger watchdog the ability to pick and choose. Changing “or” to “and” at the end of paragraph (d), before

“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate”,

would surely provide the flexibility that everyone probably thinks is necessary.

[Keir Mather]

I will happily let the shadow Minister intervene again, because I would like to seek clarity on how inserting “and” would allow the watchdog to choose whether it has to investigate something in the first instance.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In the wording of clause 39(1), at the moment paragraphs (a) to (e) are additional. If the “or” in

“or…it appears to the Council”

at the end of paragraph (d) were replaced with “and”, there would be a two-part test. The council would receive complaints from all the kinds of people in paragraphs (a) to (d), and the second part of the test would be that

“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate.”

That would give agency to the council to monitor and choose the most important things for it to investigate.

[Keir Mather]

I see.

[The Chair]

I remind the Minister that this is not part of the amendment that has been proposed. Could he therefore wind up? The shadow Minister is welcome to table a new amendment, but his proposal is not relevant to this afternoon’s discussion.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just trying to be helpful.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. Perhaps, in slower time, he can walk me through each specific provision and we can come to a determination as to the intent that he outlined, but for the moment—at your discretion, Mrs Hobhouse—I will proceed with the matter at hand.

I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate. The watchdog will already be working closely with GBR to ensure that GBR can respond to its own passenger issues effectively and according to best practice and will not duplicate investigations unless it is necessary to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw amendment 142.

Clause 39 will enable the passenger watchdog to investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to conduct investigations in certain circumstances. For example, the watchdog must investigate any matters referred to it by passengers, potential passengers or organisations representing passengers provided that the matters are not vexatious. It must also investigate any issues referred to it by the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or the ORR, and anything that it appears to the watchdog that it ought to investigate.

If the matters fall wholly within the London railway area, the passenger watchdog must refer it to the London Transport Users Committee. Transport Focus, the body out of which the watchdog will be built, has a duty to investigate matters referred to it, but the clause expands the list of people who may refer cases for investigation, to reflect the central role of the watchdog, its role in the reformed railway and the importance of passenger experience to this Government.

[Olly Glover]

I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Power to obtain information

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 41 deals with the “Protection of confidential information” and does what it says on the tin: it protects confidential information if the passengers’ council obtains it under clause 40. That is a sensible requirement to which I have no improvements to suggest.

[Keir Mather]

I turn first to the shadow Minister’s point about either diffusing enforcement capabilities between the ORR and the passenger watchdog or seeking to double them up as part of legislation that is designed to rationalise and simplify notions of accountability and enforcement within the railway. Under the system outlined in the Bill, the ORR can use the findings of the watchdog; the watchdog just has to make its own assessment of the materials given to it by the ORR. In my view, that does not constitute the same thing as reinvestigating a matter. The intention is for the ORR to be made aware of the passenger watchdog’s work at every step toward referral by the watchdog itself. There is therefore a low risk of the ORR having to retake steps, given that it is actively consulted as that process unfolds.

I will now speak directly to amendment 66 and clauses 40 and 41. As the shadow Minister has outlined, amendment 66 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when its requests for information were not met. The Government are creating a strong passenger watchdog that will have powers to monitor passenger experience, and to hold GBR and others to account. Although it will not have full enforcement powers, it will be able to demand information from operators to a deadline, investigate problems, demand improvement plans and refer cases for enforcement action to the ORR. It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers creating additional bureaucracy would be too high.

The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will enforce all other railway licences to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. We expect our licence proposals to include a condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog. That will help to ensure that other licensed operators co-operate with requests from the watchdog. That type of provision is typically found in operator licences. For example, there is a similar requirement for operators to co-operate with Transport Focus today. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary.

Turning to clauses 40 and 41, clause 40 gives the passenger watchdog the power to request the necessary information to effectively carry out investigations into issues affecting passengers. That information could be requested from train or station operators including, of course, GBR. The information must be provided to the watchdog within a reasonable timeframe, unless the person did not have, or could not reasonably obtain, the information. If the watchdog did not receive a satisfactory response to its information request, it could refer the matter to the ORR, which will continue to act as the enforcement body for the rail sector. The watchdog’s power to request information from operators to a deadline is a new one, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to a strong passenger champion that can make an impact on the railway. That will ensure that the watchdog can carry out its investigations effectively and in a timely manner.

Clause 41 protects any information where the person who provided the information has requested that it be held in confidence. That will ensure that confidential or sensitive information is not published or disclosed by the watchdog, with some sensible exceptions such as ensuring that the watchdog can refer the matter to the ORR for enforcement and that relevant law is complied with. Clause 41 also ensures that information held by a rail operator that may help an investigation but is sensitive or confidential—due to its commercial nature, for example—will not be published in any investigation reports. That will encourage operators to share information and ensure that the watchdog can carry out any investigation effectively while protecting confidential information.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister’s argument is clearly—is it parliamentary to say nonsense? I hope it is. His argument, that the industry will be confused if the passengers’ council is able to enforce its own deliberations, is ridiculous; he just has to think about it. The ORR has its areas of competence on which it enforces, and the passengers’ council has its areas of competence; they are discrete. Where confusion might really arise is if the passengers’ council thinks it is trying to get information and is stymied by the ORR taking a different view, which is the position the Minister has put forward. I have no hesitation in pushing the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The amendments relate to clause 42, so I will explain what that clause seeks to achieve. Its title is “Representations and referrals”, and its focus is on introducing a power so that

“the Passengers’ Council may make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate for the purpose”,

such as train or station operators, to resolve a matter under investigation.

If the passengers’ council believes that an operator

“is contravening, or likely to contravene”

its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly, as we will discuss further when we consider clause 47, and/or refer the matter to the ORR and notify the Secretary of State. There are various other things that clause 42 does, but those are the main things.

The clause makes it clear that even after a passengers’ council investigation has identified a licence breach, the ORR retains complete discretion on whether or not to act. Once again, that will create a two-stage process in which the council must refer breaches that it cannot resolve itself, but the body receiving the referral is not obliged to act on it, or to intervene. Therefore, the watchdog investigates, but only the ORR can enforce, which it can choose not to do. That structure falls way short of the supposed strengthened passenger accountability model described by Ministers, and it serves only to risk causing prolonged delays for passengers who face ongoing harm, to the extent that a licence provision is breached, without a guaranteed remedy.

Thus far, we have not seen a clear rationale as to why the Government would create a watchdog only for it not to have any enforcement powers. It prompts the question: “What’s the point?” Evidence to the Transport Committee was very clear—the passengers’ council needs to have enforcement powers of its own to do the job envisaged for it. At the very least, if the ORR is to remain the enforcement body, there should not be a weeding process between the decisions of the passengers’ council and the ORR; the ORR should at least get on and enforce. That is what amendments 67 and 68 would achieve, by requiring the ORR to take action when a contravention had been referred to it.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which would require the ORR to take action in the event of a referral from the passenger watchdog.

First, I will point out that enforcement actions by the ORR are not the only way in which problems can be solved. The Bill gives the watchdog the power to request improvement plans, to allow operators to explain their planned improvements and agree them with the watchdog before issues are referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action. That is likely to be a faster way to get improvements for passengers than going straight to enforcement action.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that the watchdog will be listened to; it is an intention that the Government support. However, it is also important that the ORR, as the sector regulator, is able to take a broader view before deciding whether enforcement action is appropriate. That is because the passenger watchdog is only a passenger champion—it has a sole focus—and, by comparison, the ORR is the regulator for the whole sector and has to take into account a wide range of matters. If that were not the case, enforcement decisions could be taken that were good for the passenger but had a negative impact on the network as a whole. Each time that the ORR makes a decision, it must transparently explain its rationale to the watchdog on that basis. Therefore, in our view these amendments are unnecessary and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw them.

Clause 42 will give the passenger watchdog the power to:

“make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate”,

in order to resolve a matter under investigation. If the watchdog believes that an operator is currently

“contravening, or likely to contravene”

its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly to request an improvement plan or refer the matter to the ORR and inform the Secretary of State that it has done so.

If the case is referred to the ORR, the ORR can choose whether to take enforcement action or not. It must then inform the watchdog and the Secretary of State of its decision. That will ensure that the watchdog can act independently to resolve problems through engagement with operators and by directly engaging with the ORR when necessary. Without clause 42, the watchdog would not be able to effectively resolve matters that it had investigated and follow up on them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not persuaded by the Minister. There are two amendments. In order to save time, I will press the first one to a Division, and the outcome of that will determine whether or not I press the second one to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Under clause 43, the passengers’ council can prepare, send and publish a report of its findings in an investigation, but it must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral. Similar provisions exist for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The wording of subsection (3) makes publication discretionary even after a full investigation and subsection (4) requires ministerial consent before publishing any report arising from a referral.

As the explanatory notes confirm, that structure gives Ministers an effective veto over publication. Why should the Minister have a veto over publication when the organisation being investigated is their own creation? If the state has created a toothless investigation watchdog body that, despite its lack of enforcement powers, has managed to do an investigation, write a report that is no doubt critical of the state, GBR or perhaps even the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State, or the Scottish or Welsh Minister can, for whatever reason they like, veto its publication. They can muzzle the watchdog at whim.

That risks undermining the whole process—where is the transparency?—and weakens the credibility of the new watchdog. If the aim is to strengthen passenger oversight, investigation reports should be published as a matter of course, with only narrowly defined exemptions for confidentiality or commercial reasons. Transport for All explains in its written evidence to the Transport Committee how that will affect passengers:

“Clauses 42-47 empower the Passengers’ Council to receive complaints, investigate issues, and identify potential breaches of licence conditions. However, the Council has no power to compel corrective action, issue penalties, or enforce compliance. If it identifies significant accessibility failings, it must refer the matter to the ORR, which retains full discretion over whether to investigate or take enforcement action.

Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and this indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability. We worry that it will create further delays, weaken enforcement, confuse passengers, and result in inconsistent redress. A watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passengers’ rights or drive accessibility improvements.”

Amendment 69 requires the passengers’ council to publish any report on a matter investigated under clause 39. That will create greater transparency and accountability in the new watchdog. Frankly, if the Government are serious about supporting the rights of passengers, rather than designing in an ability to hide embarrassing conclusions, they must support this amendment.

Amendment 70 would require the passengers’ council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation. Having in statute a specific timeframe in which a report must be published would create a sense of urgency, or at least of purpose, and a culture would develop within the organisation that placed high importance on those reports—exactly as it should.

Amendments 138, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats—presumably the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—would require the passenger’s council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensure that any report is laid before Parliament. It is another attempt to strengthen the reporting requirements from a different angle and should be supported because it is seeking to achieve a similar outcome to my own amendments.

Amendment 140, also in the name of the hon. Member,

“removes the requirement that the Passengers’ Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 69 is a mandatory requirement that they must publish every report. If that is not acceptable to the Government for whatever reason, then amendment 140 is a slight variation on the theme in that it takes the discretion away from the Secretary of State and leaves it where it properly lies, if there is to be discretion: with the passenger watchdog. That body, surely, having undertaken the investigation, written the report and come to a conclusion, are best placed to decide whether it is in the public interest to publish, not the owner of the nationalised industry that is being investigated.

[Keir Mather]

I thank hon. Members for these amendments, which all relate to the passenger watchdog’s investigation reports. I will begin with amendments 138 and 69, which both require the watchdog to publish its investigation reports. Amendment 138 also requires the watchdog to lay the reports before Parliament.

First, I would like to reassure the Committee that the passenger watchdog will routinely publish reports of all its investigations. The watchdog also has an obligation under the Railways Act 2005 to prepare a report of its activities at the end of each financial year, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. That obligation will remain unchanged and will ensure there is transparency and parliamentary scrutiny around the watchdog’s activities.

However, it is worth saying that, for matters referred to it by the Government and the ORR, there must be an opportunity for the referees to review the watchdog’s findings and consider next steps before reports are published. The watchdog’s investigations may also uncover issues that need to be kept confidential, for instance commercially sensitive issues that should not be shared publicly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. The existing transparency and security requirements on the watchdog are comprehensive enough to ensure that the public and Parliament have access to investigation results and general reporting without compromising sensitive information.

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendment 70, which would require the passenger watchdog to publish reports of its investigations within six months of completing them. Although we would expect the watchdog to publish reports of all investigations within a reasonable timeframe, it is important that it has some discretion. The watchdog’s investigation may uncover issues that need to be considered carefully and some investigations will naturally be more complex and time-consuming than others, for example investigations into persistent cross-industry issues involving multiple operators and regions.

Transport Focus has raised concerns that setting a deadline may force it to hasten or reduce the scope of investigations, which is not in the passenger’s interest. Transport Focus also has arrangements in place to raise urgent issues with operators, which would continue, so it can act quickly to solve problems for passengers in parallel with investigations if needed. In some cases, reports may benefit from being shared in draft, with time allowed for those impacted to consider improvements. The watchdog should have the flexibility, in that instance, to seek the best outcome for passengers. For those reasons, I do not support a statutory requirement to publish all investigation reports to a six-month deadline.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for amendment 140, which proposes to remove the requirement for the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State to consent to the publication of an investigation report on issues that they referred to the watchdog. Clause 43 is intended to ensure that Ministers have an opportunity to review the investigation report on matters they have referred to the council before the report is published. That is especially important where the matter under investigation is sensitive and needs some discretion to raise issues carefully and privately, as that may be the best and quickest way to get action for passengers. One example would be issues relating to availability of funding, where Ministers will need to weigh that up carefully against other priorities.

For those reasons, I do not support removing the requirement for ministerial consent before the council sends or publishes a report of an investigation resulting from a referral by the Secretary of State or by Scottish or Welsh Ministers. We are not expecting Ministers to refuse consent to publication, but the clause is a necessary safeguard to protect confidential information, to allow issues to be weighed up carefully and to ensure that problems are fixed for passengers as swiftly as possible. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Finally, clause 43 will enable the passenger watchdog to prepare, share and publish reports of its investigation findings. As I have already set out to the Committee, the watchdog must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the Secretary of State. Similar provision is in place if the investigation has been undertaken following a referral from Scottish or Welsh Ministers. If the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the ORR, the watchdog must inform the ORR before publishing a report of its findings. The clause will ensure that findings of the investigations are transparent and available to the public and Parliament, so that train operators, including GBR, can be held to account for the way they are treating passengers.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for West Dorset wish to put amendment 138 to a vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

With your permission, Mrs Hobhouse, I will speak to the clauses now and address the new clause once I have heard the shadow Minister’s remarks.

Clauses 44 and 45 relate to complaints and dispute resolution. Clause 44 designates the passenger watchdog as the body that will deal with complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. Retained EU law on rail passenger rights includes requirements on operators to provide travel information to passengers and assistance to passengers who need it to travel.

Transport Focus is currently the body designated to receive complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. The Bill consolidates the existing regulation to ensure that Transport Focus retains that role when it becomes the passenger watchdog. The clause therefore replaces the existing regulations on this matter. That will ensure that operators are held to the same, or indeed higher, standards for passenger experience, and that there is still a body clearly responsible for monitoring and addressing such complaints.

Cause 45 places a duty on the passenger watchdog to provide an independent alternative dispute resolution service to users and potential users of train and station services. The watchdog will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR to fulfil that duty, ensuring that the watchdog provides an independent service to rail passengers that can handle disputes between passengers and service operators fairly and impartially.

Transferring the sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman to the passenger watchdog will provide an effective independent service that has the appropriate third-party accreditation. That includes ombudsman status, which gives it the power to require remedial action from operators on passenger complaints that it upholds. The clause will ensure that the watchdog has the legal obligation to continue to provide an alternative dispute resolution service, even after the existing contract with the Rail Ombudsman expires in 2028.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have nothing to add on clause 44. Clause 45 provides a duty for the passengers’ council to secure independent dispute resolution arrangements. As the Minister just said, it is anticipated—according to the explanatory notes, at least—that it will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR in order to fulfil that duty.

I want to ask the Minister what powers the dispute resolution function will have, because the Bill and the explanatory notes are entirely silent. That is the modus operandi that we have become used to during the course of these Bill proceedings: there is endless putting off, and the detail has not been thought out—or, certainly, not shared. This seems to be a similar case.

New clause 46, in my name, would ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continued to publish data on complaints in the same manner as it currently does. During a significant transition such as the creation of GBR, it is crucial that data collection and publication are maintained in a manner that allows for accurate comparison—another small but important point. The new clause would achieve that objective. The alternative is to risk an inability to make like-for-like comparison, which of course would let the new organisation off the hook. Without continuity of data collection and publishing, GBR would be able to avoid comparative scrutiny.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. We consulted the industry and the public on the future of the content and functions of the alternative dispute resolution service, and identified that the transfer of the Rail Ombudsman sponsorship to the watchdog represents the simplest option with the least disruption to the passenger experience. That choice was supported by both Transport Focus and the Rail Delivery Group.

In the current service, decisions on disputes are made by legally trained staff. That gives passengers and operators assurance and confidence that disputes are handled fairly and correctly. The resolutions are binding, and the impartiality and neutrality between passengers and operators ensures that disputes are resolved fairly. Passengers achieve fair solutions, and operators are required to issue reasonable compensation. That places the balance of duty on operators while ensuring that the passenger experience is at the heart of what the ADR service is there to facilitate. If the shadow Minister requires any further information, I will happily seek it out and provide it.

On new clause 46, I assure the shadow Minister that the ORR will retain its role as the official publisher of rail statistics. As now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, which enables flexibility and allows the collection of data to be proportionate and needs-based and ensuring necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the ORR in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it is established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency and we do not propose to reduce that going forward.

The passenger watchdog will have access to the data collected by the ORR and be able to use it to identify issues in areas for improvement for passengers and to follow up. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will feel that this matter is already addressed by the Bill and existing legislation and will seek to withdraw his amendment. I also thank him for his contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Standards

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 46, page 24, line 26, after “for” insert

“all users and potential users of the railways including, in particular,”.

This amendment allows the Passenger Council to set access standards for all users and potential users of the railway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I will speak briefly to new clauses 16, 17 and 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, and new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. Accessibility is still inconsistent, poorly enforced and often treated as optional. If railways are to work for everyone, accessibility has to be planned, delivered and monitored.

New clause 16 would require a full review of the Access for All programme, including past spending decisions and future investment needs. Too many stations, particularly small and rural ones, still lack step-free access to platforms, entrances and exits. New clauses 17 and 18 focus on accessible passenger information on trains and at stations. Reliable audio and visual announcements on safety, stops and interchanges are essential for passengers with sight or hearing loss, and should be consistently monitored and enforced. New clause 53 would ensure that ticket machines are accessible, standardised and usable independently by all passengers. Machines must work for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments or limb differences, older passengers, and visitors without apps or digital access, offering the same tickets and interfaces across the network.

The new clauses are designed to deliver practical and enforceable accessibility that improves passenger confidence, independence and safety, and I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of them.

[Keir Mather]

I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which relate to the standard-setting role of the passenger watchdog and to accessibility. I will speak first to those related to the passenger watchdog.

Amendment 71 would allow the passenger watchdog to set accessibility standards for all users and potential users of the railway, replacing the current reference to disabled passengers and those needing assistance. It is important that all passengers can access the railway, and I support the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that that happens. However, clause 46 already covers both users and potential users of the railway who require assistance to access services. Furthermore, the list of areas in which the watchdog may set standards is not exhaustive; it can set accessibility standards for anyone it deems appropriate, potentially including passengers travelling with prams or some of the other examples that were outlined. Let me also clarify that the wording of the clause is not exhaustive, so as well as the examples given in the Bill, the passenger watchdog can set standards on any other matters relating to passenger experience, at its discretion. That allows it to be responsive to passenger feedback and passenger needs. For that reason, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary.

Amendment 72 would expand the list of example areas where the passenger watchdog may set standards. First, as I mentioned, the clause already allows the passenger watchdog to develop standards covering all areas of the passenger experience. The list in subsection (2) sets out matters that may be covered by the standards and is not exhaustive, so it does not prevent the passenger watchdog from developing further standards in other areas in time; in fact, we expect that it might do so, for some of the very reasons that the shadow Minister suggested. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as it would not make a practical difference to the watchdog’s powers. Let me also clarify that standards on safety and security would significantly expand the remit of the watchdog, and are best left to expert safety bodies such as the ORR.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I think the Minister may have misunderstood my point. I was not for a moment suggesting that the passenger watchdog should take over responsibility for safety-critical functions. I was anticipating that he might argue that the ORR needs to retain a veto right because there might be clashes with its safety-critical functions, in which case the clause could be redrafted to make it clear that that is the area of focus.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification.

Amendment 141 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to standards that may be set, varied or revoked by the passenger watchdog. Amendments 73 and 144 would both remove the requirement for the ORR and the Secretary of State respectively to consent to new standards. It is my view that the watchdog must seek the Secretary of State’s consent before the standards are referenced in associated licence conditions, and therefore before they becoming binding on operators, because that is one of the only ways to ensure that the standards are affordable and actionable.

Ultimately, the Secretary of State is funding GBR, and if the Government are not able to provide the funds to support a new standard, which could in theory add costs for operators, the standards are doomed to fail. Similarly, the ORR will remain the sector enforcement body, enforcing all licences. It is therefore important that it gives consent to standards before they become binding on operators. That will ensure that all standards are fair and enforceable. These measures are necessary to ensure that the new rail system will work effectively. The Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s input into the standards will provide constructive challenge, ensuring that all standards are high quality and serve the railway as well as possible.

All three bodies are subject to the duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled passengers, so they will share a common goal of improving the passenger experience. There should therefore be no concern that the process will weaken or undermine standards; rather, all bodies will be committed to improvements for the passenger. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage not to press their amendments.

New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to review the Access for All programme, which delivers step-free access upgrades at stations across Great Britain. I recognise that passengers with accessibility needs often find rail travel challenging, as facilities and assistance frequently do not meet expectations. Many of Great Britain’s 2,581 railway stations predate modern accessibility standards, making navigation difficult for disabled passengers. That is why the Access for All programme was introduced in 2006, and why it is so important. More than 270 stations have benefited from it so far.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has proposed a review of the programme, and I am delighted to inform him that the Government agree with him so strenuously that a review was already conducted in late 2024. The Department and Network Rail have acknowledged that the delivery of the programme from 2019 to 2024 was disappointing, which led to the late 2024 review. The national Network Rail Access for All team has now been strengthened to improve governance and financial control, and accessibility has been given a higher priority by all Network Rail regions. That review, and the associated changes, resulted in almost 34 projects being completed in the last 18 months, compared to 36 in the previous five years. I think that that demonstrates our commitment to improvement.

[Edward Argar]

Does the Minister also recognise that the review has led to cuts of about 20 individual programmes? That was not done on the grounds of accessibility—although the letter I received from his colleague the noble Lord accepts that there is clearly a significant accessibility challenge in the case of station in my constituency—but by imposing on the scheme a match funding requirement that was never, as I understand it, part of the original scheme.

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient with the Government’s pace in achieving accessibility improvements at stations in his constituency and across the country. He is right to point out that even though the number of stations that have been upgraded and improved has increased, that does not mean that all stations have done been, and the Government need to work at pace to deliver improvements across the piece. However, given that the review the new clause requests has already happened, and that measurable improvements have already been demonstrated by the Government, although there is more work to achieve, I encourage the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw new clause 16.

I thank the hon. Member for new clauses 17 and 18, which together would ensure that accessible passenger information is provided for those with hearing or sight loss. Our commitment to the outcomes sought by the new clauses is clear and unambiguous. Accessibility is at the core of what we are here to do, and it will be central to GBR from day one. Both legislation and the GBR licence will ensure that accessibility is always considered.

I also recognise the importance of ensuring that timely information is provided, and that it is provided in a format that all passengers can access. To that end, the Bill lays the foundation for GBR’s licence, and establishes a powerful passenger watchdog with a mandate to act in disabled passengers’ interests, setting licence standards and holding GBR to account. The objective of these new clauses is best achieved there, where licence conditions can set out the necessary detail about what accessibility standards are needed, rather than in primary legislation.

To acknowledge that, the Government have already committed that accessible travel policies will be included in GBR’s licence. Those policies will include requirements, as they do now, about accessible information, including specific mention of visually and hearing-impaired passengers. The standards for accessible information included in the licence will be monitored by the passenger watchdog and enforced by the ORR.

The Government’s proposals for accessibility build on the work of the accessibility road map, published in November 2025, which is taking clear steps to improve real-time information provision on the railways, and rolling out welcome points across the network in England. Those will include closed-loop and British Sign Language capability. Despite the positive measures we have committed to in the Bill and in the licence, we are not waiting: we are acting now to improve things for people with disabilities. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

New clause 53 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the accessibility of ticket vending machines. I reassure the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that all station operators are currently required through their station licence to comply with an accessible travel policy, which includes assisting disabled passengers in relation to ticket facilities. Subject to consultation, we expect GBR to have a similar requirement in its new licence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for amendment 74 and new clause 45. Amendment 74 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when it issues requests for improvement plans, and new clause 45 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the ORR.

We are creating a strong passenger watchdog, which will have real powers to monitor passenger experience and hold GBR and others to account. It will be able to demand information from GBR to a deadline, investigate problems and demand improvement plans to encourage improvements. Finally, it can refer cases for enforcement to the ORR.

It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers would be too high. The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new, streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will also enforce all other railway licences, to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. That is fair and rational.

If operators did not comply with their consumer licence conditions—for example, relating to accessible travel standards—the passenger watchdog would directly engage with them and request an improvement plan. We would naturally expect operators to comply with that request, because if they do not, they will be aware that the ORR can simply take action against them for the original licence breach. That mirrors what happens in practice today, where most compliance issues are resolved through direct engagement and improvement plans rather than resorting to enforcement.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am interested in the Minister’s repeated insistence that there would be confusion if there were more than one enforcement body for rail activities. What is his proposed solution to the Competition and Markets Authority and its enforcement competency for the railways, which currently is shared with the Office of Rail and Road? Is it his plan to amend the competencies of the Competition and Markets Authority? If not, why is the argument so overwhelming to prevent the passenger watchdog from having teeth, when he allows the CMA to have teeth?

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister previously made a point that related to whether the ORR and the passenger watchdog had an equivalent power when they sought to enforce against railway licences. My point there was that we could have contradictory steers arising out of these licences being in conflict with each other. That is where the route of not having dual licence- enforcing capabilities lies, and it is the argument against amendment 74.

Turning back to operators’ co-operation, we expect our GBR licence proposals to include a licence condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog, which will strengthen these provisions further. I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister that the system will work effectively to hold operators to account. I cannot support any amendments that confuse the enforcement landscape, as two enforcement bodies would be duplicative, burdensome on operators and potentially very confusing. That is not a system that would drive good performance. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to press his proposals.

Let me turn now to clause 47, which will give the passenger watchdog the power to require improvement plans from train and station operators where it judges that an operator might be breaching its standards and, therefore, the consumer licence conditions. Demanding improvement plans from operators will allow them to set out the steps they plan to take to address the issues and meet their licence conditions before non-compliance is referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action.

The clause will allow the watchdog to work with operators to seek improvements collaboratively. Improvement plans are a crucial element of this engagement, as they allow operators to set out a plan to achieve compliance and to have a dialogue with the passenger watchdog. The watchdog can represent the passenger by making suggestions for improvements and advocating sensible solutions. Enforcement is the last resort to ensure compliance, and it is important that the watchdog has sufficient means to encourage operators to do the right thing before it refers any persistent or serious issues to the ORR.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am unpersuaded. As I previously indicated, I will press amendment 74 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will speak first to the clause and then to the amendments, once I have heard hon. Members’ comments on them.

Clause 48 will establish the passenger watchdog as a statutory adviser, able to advise Ministers and industry bodies on matters of importance to passengers. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to provide advice to certain bodies, including the Secretary of State, rail operators and devolved Governments; they may also refer matters to it. The watchdog will also have a duty to provide advice without a referral if it considers it appropriate. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand passenger experience because of its research and investigations functions, as well as its access to complaints and core industry performance data.

We wish to establish the watchdog as the central body that Ministers, mayoral strategic authorities, the ORR, GBR and other train and station operators can go to for advice on passengers’ interests, needs and priorities. We also want to ensure that the watchdog is an authority on all passenger matters, so that Ministers and others take its advice seriously. This will be the first time that the rail industry has had a statutory adviser covering all passenger matters.

Clause 49 will place a duty on GBR to consult the passenger watchdog when developing or changing policies or procedures that significantly affect the interests of passengers. The clause sets out an indicative list of matters on which GBR should consult the watchdog. Those include passenger rights, handling disruption to rail services, determining fares, and arrangements for the sale of tickets. By feeding the watchdog’s insight to GBR when central policies and procedures are being developed, it will support GBR in creating better policies that prioritise passenger needs.

I return briefly to the official Opposition’s wise words about culture last week, because the Government absolutely agree that getting culture right is essential to the success of the railway. The watchdog’s role here will be critical in influencing the culture of the reformed rail industry, being involved in all relevant policymaking to ensure that the focus on passengers is at the heart of everything the railway does. I therefore commend clause 49 to the Committee.

Clause 50 will give the passenger watchdog the power to publish any information or advice it considers that passengers, or potential passengers, may find useful. For example, this could include publishing information on train operator performance to encourage improvements, such as league tables or the naming and shaming of poorly performing operators or routes. It could involve setting out complaint handling processes or advising passengers on their rights.

Before publishing information or advice, the watchdog must consider whether it is necessary to exclude any matter relating to an individual or body that would have a serious and negative impact on their interests. This could include sensitive, personal or market information. This power will be central to the watchdog’s ability to hold operators to account publicly.

I now turn to clauses 51 and 52. Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to exclude certain rail services from the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48. This power mirrors an existing power in the Railways Act 1993 and has been included because it is not appropriate, nor a proportionate use of resources, to require the watchdog to investigate services that are not part of the wider national network, are not licensed and mainly operate for tourism or leisure purposes—such as heritage trains. As service providers change over time, the clause can also be used to include new services in the watchdog’s remit, or to modify its duties in relation to specific services. In the future, there may be new services that the watchdog ought to monitor, or which it ought to monitor in a slightly different way. The power therefore exists to ensure that all relevant operators can be appropriately held to account by the passenger champion. The clause does not mean that the watchdog is prevented from monitoring any excluded services, just that the watchdog is not obliged to do so.

Clause 52 provides additional clarity by defining some of the terms used in this chapter. For example, the clause defines a “disabled person” as

“a person who is a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010”.

I commend clauses 48 to 52 to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister has described the function of clause 48, the lead measure in this group, but there is one notable exception from the list of bodies that can refer to the council for advice under clause 48(1)(a) as drafted. It includes mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London and Ministers—whether the Secretary of State, Welsh or Scottish Ministers—but there is no room for local transport authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is not in her place, because she made the point powerfully in previous sittings of the Committee that some areas of the country do not have mayoral combined authorities and never will, because of their geographic or demographic set-up—that is particularly the case in the south-west. Those areas still have local transport needs, and a local transport authority, yet under the Bill as drafted, those authorities are excluded from asking the advice of the passenger body. We have heard that there are many areas that will never have an MCA but that still have rail-related concerns and issues. I seek advice from the Minister: what is the thinking of the Government, that they have deliberately excluded local transport authorities from the clause?

Clause 49 deals with “Consultation about railway passenger services and station services”. Again, I have left it to the Minister to explain what the clause does, but it sets out the policies and procedures that GBR should consider consulting the passengers’ council on. It gives GBR discretion to decide whether to do so based on its assessment of the impact on passengers. That is, again, quite important. The clause creates a duty on GBR to consult the passengers’ council, but only where GBR itself decides that a policy change will significantly affect passengers. The explanatory notes confirm that that judgment is entirely for GBR. GBR, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will all owe consultation duties to the council, but the Bill imposes a duty only on GBR, and even then only on GBR’s own assessment of significance. There is no parallel duty on Ministers, meaning that major ministerial decisions affecting passengers could fall entirely outside statutory consultation. The list in clause 49(2) once again seeks to sideline the passengers’ council by limiting its remit. The list does not cover the issues that

“significantly affect the interests of the public in relation to…passenger services or station services”,

as described in clause 49(1)(b); far from it.

Amendment 75 would require GBR to consult the passengers’ council when GBR is developing or changing its procedures, with reference to the passenger-focused KPIs outlined in proposed new clause 2:

“reliability, including punctuality…short-forming…key connections… safety and security…comfort and on-board experience”

and

“affordability and value for money”.

Those are issues at the heart of the passenger experience. Let the passengers’ council do a proper job.

Clause 50 gives the passengers’ council the power to publish information and advice for

“users or potential users of railway passenger services”.

The clause only allows the passengers’ council to publish information; it does not require it to publish information. That means the council can choose not to publish anything at all. The clause also gives no sense of what should be published, or how often. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the reasons he has not decided to require publication when it is about information and advice; that seems a bit odd.

Clause 51, which is on the power to make exclusions, will be watched by many, as it is really important to rail enthusiasts. Committee members should be careful when commenting on it, because people are keenly interested in this power. Actually, on this occasion I think the Government have got it about right. The clause replicates similar provisions in the 1993 Act—specifically, sub-sections (7B) and (7C) in section 76.

Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to exclude services from one or more of the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48 through regulations, or modify those duties for particular services. However, before making changes, the Secretary of State must consult the passengers’ council and the London Transport Users Committee.

There are currently two exemptions from the similar requirements in the 1993 Act in place, one of which excludes services without through-ticketing facilities and which are exempt from holding a licence. Charter and heritage railway operators fall under this exemption. The Government assert in the explanatory notes to the clause that,

“it would be burdensome and unnecessary for the Passengers’ Council to be required to investigate heritage railway operators,”

which only operate for tourism and recreational purposes, not for the mainline network. I agree that those potential exclusions are reasonable. The Government rightly point out that burdening heritage rail with unnecessary regulation when the hospitality and tourism sector is facing serious challenges—admittedly, because of this Government—would be disproportionate.

Very few constituencies do not boast a heritage railway, so I declare an interest, Mrs Hobhouse: the Bure Valley Railway and the start—or the finish, depending on which way a person is going—of the Wells and Walsingham Light Railway run in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I start by addressing two points that the shadow Minister made. First, on the publication of information and advice, I set out in my original arguments surrounding the new clauses that there might be instances where, for professional or personal reasons, it might be best not to publish confidential information.

On a broader issue, the shadow Minister asked why local transport authorities were not listed directly under clause 48. On the question of the devolution of rail services, the Committee has rehearsed at length the Government’s view that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right unit of economic activity to be able to engage with productively. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive list of those that might be consulted, and there is provision written into the Bill for the council, where it considers it appropriate, to consider consultation without such a reference as is listed in the clause. Local transport authorities could fall within that frame of reference.

Amendment 75 would ensure that GBR consulted the passenger watchdog when developing key performance indicators. GBR will set out its proposed activities over a five-year period in its business plan, setting KPIs for itself there based on how it intends to deliver the business plan and, through that delivery, meet the high-level goals in the Secretary of State’s funding objectives and her long-term rail strategy. The ORR will independently scrutinise GBR’s business plan and advise the Secretary of State on its quality, which will give the Secretary of State the right information to support her decision on whether to approve the plan. All advice on the business plan can and should be published, so the public can also be aware of how that is developing. This constructive challenge process will ensure that GBR’s KPIs are realistic, measurable and ambitious. 

Additionally, as we have discussed, there is already a requirement in clause 49 for GBR to consult the watchdog on policies or procedures affecting users or potential users of the railway. This would also cover consultation on any KPIs about passenger services. Therefore, this amendment is duplicative of the drafting already in the Bill, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to reduce disruption. First, it is clearly critically important that we reduce disruption for all passengers and stakeholders on the railway. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that GBR should collaborate with local authorities to reduce transport disruption across modes. I am aware of his efforts to campaign for more joined-up planning in his area, and I hope that the Bill will improve the system for him.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, however, that there are mechanisms elsewhere in the Bill that will enable the sort of collaboration and co-operation that the amendment envisages. The Government are supportive of a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, which is why GBR will be able to agree partnerships with MSAs to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.

Together, the provisions in the Bill create a framework for significant levels of co-operation between GBR and transport authorities. GBR will be organised to work collaboratively with devolved leaders, and I would expect that potential disruptions would be discussed between them as a result of those closer working relationships, enabling them to explore possible measures to reduce disruption and contribute to the effective operation of transport networks.

I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to new clause 70, which seeks to impose several requirements on GBR before it can make service changes, such as publishing a statement, publishing a notice of changes on stations or routes, providing compensation for passengers and consulting various stakeholders.

Let me address each of those elements in turn. It is redundant for GBR to publish a statement about whether service changes are compatible with its functions. The Bill assigns GBR the function of providing railway passenger services, and planning service changes is inherent in that. There is no need to affirm that separately through a published statement.

GBR will not plan service changes in a vacuum. Clauses 80 to 82 require GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and Transport for London before making decisions that will significantly affect the interests of the economy and people in those areas. GBR will also be required through its duties to consider local transport plans when making service changes.

As for publishing notices, it is for GBR to determine the best approach to communicating service changes to the public, and GBR should be able to adapt its communications approaches in line with stakeholder needs and technological advances. The consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog will cover passenger information. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister that appropriate information will be provided to passengers. The watchdog will have powers to request improvement plans and refer issues to the ORR for enforcement when GBR falls short.

I now turn to planned service changes. For clarity, as the new clause indicates, that relates to when GBR chooses to replan services in advance, for example timetables and stopping patterns. It does not relate to service disruption. I cannot see a feasible or a necessary solution to providing compensation to passengers affected by service changes of this nature. Clearly, the development of an effective timetable requires the need for service changes, for example to make the most of infrastructure enhancements for the benefit of passengers and communities. That will especially be the case under GBR, as GBR can review the network and timetable holistically and make joined-up decisions in a way that has been impossible in previous years.

In relation to compensation, quite apart from the undeliverable practicalities of funding and administering such a scheme, at the heart of this is the fact that GBR is being established as the expert-led directing mind of the railway, in charge of planning the best use of the network and balancing its statutory duties. Those duties include promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services and acting in the public interest. Any planned service changes by GBR will therefore be the result of that new system and guided by those duties. Forcing GBR to compensate all those affected by service changes would therefore cut across GBR’s ability to balance its duties in the round, and could create perverse incentives not to make changes and to allow services to stagnate.

I add one point of assurance: service change and service closure are separate issues. The Railways Act 2005 contains the specific processes that must be followed for full service closures, with a decision-making role for Ministers who are the relevant railway funding authority for a given service. Closure proposals must also be ratified by the ORR. The Bill does not change the fundamentals of this process, which protects our important passenger services. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[The Chair]

Do you wish to press amendment 75 to a vote?

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause 54 stand part.

Government amendment 173.

Clauses 55 to 58 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

Committee members will be very pleased that I have considerably less to say about this group than the previous one.

Government amendment 173 corrects a small naming error in the Bill: a clause for the London Transport Users Committee incorrectly refers to the passengers’ council. The correction ensures that the Bill is drafted correctly.

Clause 53 will place two general duties on the London Transport Users Committee, which has the operating name London TravelWatch, that it must consider when carrying out its rail functions: to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, and to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds. The aim of the clause is to align the duties of London TravelWatch with those of the passenger watchdog and ensure that both passenger champions will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled people. The duties also ensure that the passenger champions take the overall cost of the railway into account, such as when making recommendations for improvement. That will ensure that their recommendations are realistic and actionable and, therefore, carry more weight in the industry. Aligning London TravelWatch’s duties and powers with the passenger watchdog, as many of the clauses do, ensures consistent passenger advocacy across Great Britain.

I now turn to the remaining clauses 54 to 58. Clause 54 expands London TravelWatch’s powers under section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by giving it the explicit power to collect information that may be of interest to the public. Clause 55 expands London TravelWatch’s current investigation powers to align it with the powers the Bill grants to the passenger watchdog. That includes expanding the list of people who may refer matters to London TravelWatch for investigation, enabling them to obtain information from operators to a deadline, make representations on behalf of passengers and refer matters to the ORR for enforcement, as well as powers to publish investigation reports.

Clause 56 will designate London TravelWatch as the body to which complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights should be addressed within the London railway area. Clause 57 will give London TravelWatch the power to publish information and advice it considers appropriate for users or potential users of the railway in London. That could include information on operator performance—including GBR’s performance in London—such as league tables or naming and shaming, as well as passenger rights and complaint-handling processes. Clause 58 will ensure that London TravelWatch protects sensitive and confidential personal and commercial information obtained during its investigations or through its general power to collect information. I commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We are at the final furlong—for today at least. I will keep the pace up for the last straight. I am not going to make any comments on clause 53, the general duties of the LTUC, because there is nothing to be improved. Clause 54, which amends section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, mirrors the passengers’ council in many ways. We could take the opportunity to seek to apply the same improvements to the LTUC that we have to the passengers’ council, but I have resisted that temptation given the Government’s reaction to all other proposals to date.

Clause 55 designates the committee as the body to which complaints about potential infringements of retained EU law on rail passengers rights should be addressed. I see no issue with that other than in relation to the criticism we have already outlined regarding the passengers’ council. It is clear that the clause is designed to ensure consistency in London in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so we have no amendments there. I take on board the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 173 and make no further comment.

Clause 56, which is about complaints to the LTUC, again, allows the LTUC to be the official body in which complaints about retained EU law are handled. As the Minister has pointed out, that clause, like others in this group, mirrors the ability of the passengers’ council, so we have nothing else to add on that one.

I make no comments on clause 57 about the publication of information and advice by the LTUC. That brings us to clause 58—restrictions on disclosure of information by the LTUC. As we come to the last clause of the London Transport Users Committee, we also come to the last amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. For those keeping track of these things at home, we are now amending section 252DC. The clause outlines restrictions in a very similar fashion to that of the passengers’ council, so we consequently have no further amendments to suggest for that clause either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive approach to the remaining clauses and the Government amendment as part of this group. He and his colleagues have ably and comprehensively outlined any potential concerns that they have in relation to the passenger watchdog, many of which would map over to consideration of these clauses. Therefore, I have put our points in relation to this group on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Investigations by the LTUC

Amendment made: 173, in clause 55, page 31, line 30, leave out “Passengers’ Council” and insert “Committee”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment corrects a reference that was made to the incorrect body.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 29 and 30 stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

Can the Minister give a few examples of the exceptional circumstances that might cause the power to be used?

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

[Edward Morello]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?

[Keir Mather]

These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Minister says Great British Railways, not the Department for Transport, will run the railways. He says that is different from the set-up for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Was that not exactly the reason NHS England was set up, albeit not by his Government: to run the NHS so that the Department did not have to? I do not see the conceptual difference here at all; what I do is see the inconsistency in the Government getting rid of NHS England because that model does not work and bringing in GBR in the context of transport.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I remind colleagues that we are not debating NHS England.

[Keir Mather]

We may have to hash this out in our own time. There is a principle around the replication of functions between organisations. The principle of GBR is that once those decision-making powers are taken out of the Department for Transport—this is the single-mind approach to access decisions, charging and best use of the railway—there is not replication and burdensome inefficiencies in how those functions are designated and actualised by the different organisations. I believe that the difference lies in that point.

To return to my previous remarks, and on the basis of what I have explained, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage for the amendments, which are about discounted travel for members of the UK armed forces, veterans, their families and the police.

On amendments 46 to 55, first and most importantly, the Government fully recognise the enormous contributions made by members of the UK armed forces, UK veterans and their families. I am pleased to confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard, which also covers family members of serving personnel. Those are valuable discounts for people who have sacrificed in the public interest, and the Government are rightly committed to them.

In our view, however, it is not necessary to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill,. The Bill gives continued statutory protection to the discount schemes that are already protected by the Railways Act 1993 to ensure consistency for groups for whom cost has historically been a particular barrier to travel, to ensure that our railway continues to be inclusive and to be consistent with previous Acts. That does not mean that other discount schemes are not at the forefront of our mind and will not continue.

[Rebecca Smith]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.

[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.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the veterans scheme is incredibly important, that we all agree with it being there, and that there are absolutely no plans to remove it.

[Keir Mather]

Yes, I am very eager to agree with my hon. Friend.

This is a serious point. In my constituency, I see the difficulty that veterans have in attending Selby Abbey to mark the enormous contribution that people in our armed services have made across many conflicts. I would have thought that this is personal to every single member of this Committee, which is why I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend.

[Laurence Turner]

Does the Minister agree that there is a comparison with the disabled persons railcard, the criteria for which have been significantly expanded? That change is due to be implemented over the coming months, and that has been possible only because there was not a restrictive statutory definition in primary legislation. Our understanding of disability has changed since the legislation was passed, and we would not want to restrict ourselves unnecessarily for the future.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is absolutely right to note that we want the concessionary schemes to be able to evolve to reflect the needs and lived experiences of those they are designed to help. I will expand on that point in more detail later.

I will make some progress now. We are of the view that minimising the number of listed discounts on the face of the Bill will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements over time, reflecting passenger needs and other objectives. For example, in the future it might be desirable to rationalise the existing concessionary offer for current and former military personnel and their families to ensure consistent terms and conditions between the armed forces and veterans. GBR should be able to consider such options but, if we enshrine the schemes in primary legislation, it will become virtually impossible to amend and improve them.

The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community through travel discounts and other means. For that reason, while I sincerely understand the motivation behind the amendments, the Government do not believe they are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw them.

New clause 51 requires GBR to provide free travel

“to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.”

As I have said, the Government remain committed to all those who serve, and that includes supporting their attendance at events commemorating Remembrance Sunday. Last year, as in previous years, the Government worked closely with the rail industry to ensure that serving members of the armed forces and veterans were eligible for free travel to and from services of remembrance across the country. Likewise, Poppy Day volunteers and collectors—and their children—travelling to the London Poppy Day events were given complimentary travel to support their fundraising efforts on behalf of the Royal British Legion.

[Rebecca Smith]

I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.

[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 ---

[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 ---

[Edward Morello]

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

[Rebecca Smith]

It was Plymouth gin!

[Keir Mather]

Well, there we are.

Let me start by responding to what the shadow Minister described as a probing amendment. He asked me to set out a little more detail on how we envisage the use of conditions on discounts, and I want to reflect the intent that he described. We want to ensure that eligibility for concessionary schemes and discounts is kept up to date, is reflective and is rationalised where necessary. A good example could be changing terms and conditions to change the eligibility criteria for the disabled railcard to include non-visible disabilities, which we have committed to in the accessibility road map. The intent to make sure that discounts are reflective of the lived experience of those who rely on them very much lies behind the provisions.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 61, which would seek to remove GBR’s ability to set conditions on the use of discounted fare schemes. As drafted, the legislation will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements, if necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and passenger needs. More generally, it is worth noting again that the future framework on fares introduces clear and enforceable mechanisms that can be used to hold GBR to account, to ensure it delivers value for passengers and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers. Under this model, the Secretary of State will set parameters and guardrails aligned to GBR’s financial settlements. We believe that strikes an effective balance between strategic oversight and operational independence.

Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

I do. It is not difficult for me to agree and accept that the way Wightlink, which was part of British Rail, was dealt with was more than a missed opportunity; it was a bad decision. Locally, I work cross-party with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on that.

This Government have an opportunity. I thank the Minister for the work he is doing and I hope he will be prepared to intervene in a way no Government have done. There are clearly opportunities to make small improvements to the Bill, and accepting the amendments would do that not just in my constituency, but in others. I will leave the Minister with a question: if he does not support the amendments, how else might he use powers in the Bill, or would he be prepared to introduce amendments of his own, to improve connectivity for other modes of transport that do not have any formal regulation?

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

Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address.

Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed.

Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I just want to give the Minister some further clarity about what amendment 25 actually does. He is right that it says,

“The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods”,

but that should be read in the light of subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State express power to

“keep the rail strategy under review”,

and paragraph (b), which says that they

“may revise or replace it.”

Does he accept that it is quite clear that the amendment, read in conjunction with subsection (4), does not prevent reacting to new events?

[Keir Mather]

On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.

I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.

The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.

Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.

The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.

[Olly Glover]

We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his job in highlighting some of the practical challenges that the amendment might entail. The important bit is not so much the strategy; I think what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to get at is that, when Network Rail or GBR assesses the function of a level crossing, it also needs to take account of the impact on the society in which it is based: for instance, cutting a town in two or stopping vehicular access for multiple periods during a day. Does the Minister not agree that, if GBR did not consider that—it was not in the list of considerations that the Minister mentioned a moment ago—it would not be doing its full job?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I very much identify with the sentiment identified by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. This is something that impacts Selby town, much as it affects communities across the country. It is right that GBR has regard to managing the way in which level crossings impact road users as much as it does the way that railway infrastructure and passenger services do.

My question is whether that obligation is best placed in this part of the Bill. Network Rail already has a system for considering the impact of changes on local communities, and that will be mapped over into the way that GBR functions. I believe that the transfer of that process, in a way that is reactive and operationally agile, is probably the best way to ensure that those considerations remain integral to how GBR carries out that work.

On connectivity and multimodal journeys, I am happy to confirm that strategic objectives in the long-term strategy will already include supporting better connectivity between communities. This will provide direction on the long-term trends affecting the railway. However, as with others in this group, amendment 261 would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term assessments of passengers’ ability to change between rail services or different modes—things that could change frequently, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in a document that sets out long-term strategic aims.

However, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be pleased to hear that we will soon be publishing our integrated national transport strategy, which will set out the Government’s vision for domestic transport across England. It will focus on a transport network that works well for people across the country, including improving integration across modes, but I will of course take the sage advice of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about my personal role as part of that process.

Amendments 225 and 213 both seek to make the strategy subject to additional procedural requirements. Amendment 225 requires consultation with operators during preparation of the strategy. I can reassure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Government have already committed to consultative engagement with key stakeholders, including freight and passenger train operating companies, which will be essential for gathering evidence and informing the strategy’s development. Therefore, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 213, meanwhile, requires regular reporting from the Secretary of State to Parliament on delivery of the strategy. However, as GBR will be the principal organisation responsible for delivering the vision and outcomes that will be set out in the long-term rail strategy, it will be for GBR to report on its progress in delivering it. GBR already must have regard to the strategy, and will respond to it through its business plans, on which it will report regularly. Given that and other existing reporting mechanisms, the amendment would be duplicative.

The new clauses in this group all propose new strategies or reports—for example, on rolling stock, cyber-security and technology, Sunday working arrangements or signalling. Those all naturally cut across the long-term rail strategy and, if accepted, would, in my view, risk GBR being busier completing strategies than actually running the railway. However, I would like to take each new clause in turn to give them due regard.

On new clause 27, the Government absolutely agree with the principle of a long-term rolling stock strategy. In fact, we would go a step further and say that this strategy should cover not just rolling stock, but the related infrastructure as well, in a single integrated strategy. Such a strategy was sadly lacking during the last three decades of privatisation, with decisions about rolling stock and related infrastructure taken to meet short-term and route-specific needs of operators seeking to maximise their profits. It is this Bill, establishing GBR, that will put that right.

However, I do not agree that the Bill needs this as a duty on GBR. Rather than creating a duty for GBR to deliver at some time in the future, we are already working with relevant parties across the industry to develop a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy to be published this summer. GBR will inherit that strategy and act on it to deliver improvements for industry, taxpayers and passengers.

Likewise, there is no need for a reporting requirement relating to cyber-security and technology. Cyber-security remains a priority for my Department; we are committed, through both existing cyber legislation and policy, to ensuring that GBR operates safely and securely. While new clause 28 reflects priorities that the Government share, the measures it proposes, such as on artificial intelligence, digitalisation and innovation, are already being delivered without the need to include them in this Bill.

On new clause 29, relating to Sunday working arrangements, I would first like to say that I have no doubt that creating GBR to improve both the quality and dependability of train services on Sundays will drive up demand and allow more people to benefit from the railway. We want a railway that operates reliably and sustainably, seven days a week, on a lower net subsidy than today, with built-in resilience and a diverse workforce. However, this is not an overnight change, but a long-term one, and not a process that, in my view, needs to be set out in legislation. Rather, we will continue to work with staff, managers and unions across the future railway to deliver this change collaboratively.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is touching on a key issue that the railway will have to address if he is serious about achieving a reliable Sunday service, and that is operating a seven-day schedule with a six-day roster. Does the Minister intend finally to address the six-day roster issue and to move working practices on to a seven-day roster?

[Keir Mather]

We want GBR to be empowered to address and deal with all these questions relating to personnel and timetabling in a way that is consultative and in partnership with both unions and private sector operators. My point merely remains that it is not appropriate to freeze them in aspic as part of this Bill, in a way that might prevent GBR’s ability to work properly through those considerations with the workforce once it exists. Producing a separate report on the demand for Sunday travel would duplicate the work that GBR already has to undertake through its business plan, which will set out the outcomes and key deliverables for GBR, including train service levels, which will be agreed with the Government and published accordingly.

Finally, new clause 54 relates to a signalling strategy, and again there is no need to place such requirements in this Bill. Network Rail has released its approach to digital signalling for 2024 to 2029, setting out the routes that will be converted to digital signalling. GBR will take over that approach and would be expected to develop it in its future business plans.

To bring the focus of the discussion back to clause 15, the long-term rail strategy will ensure that the railway will always have long-term direction from this Government and future Governments. Such directions are vital for stability and confidence within the rail industry. The strategy will help to prevent the constant short-termism that has been called out by both the industry and its supply chain.

I hope that, following my response to these amendments, the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw them, and I commend clause 15 to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover—Mr Glover?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.

[Keir Mather]

I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them.

First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs.

On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR.

The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.

[Rebecca Smith]

On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate.

For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables.

We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway.

New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement.

New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements.

On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy.

Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments.

Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This is now a common refrain in our deliberations. The Minister says, “Don’t worry. All these things will be taken care of at some future date in documents that have not been drafted and certainly haven’t been shared with the Committee.” With the greatest respect to him, I do not take it on trust that the Government are looking carefully and in sufficient detail at these matters, so I will press the amendments to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.