Railways Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

The opportunity to solve the problem was presented to this Government on a plate, and they could have looked competent. It has been deeply frustrating to watch them take a good idea, then sow the seeds for its ultimate failure by insisting on the ideological imposition of nationalisation on to GBR and losing the focus on what the customers and taxpayers need. The Government have decided to replace market forces with top-down state direction. That is a mistake, but if they insist on it, the top needs to tell GBR what it is for and what it is to do.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Through these amendments, Parliament has the opportunity to send a clear cross-party message that this upgrade is essential and further delay is not acceptable. Given the compelling benefits—the £5 for every £1 invested—I hope Ministers will accept my amendments.

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue.

Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation.

I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue.

I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20.

In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench.

Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue.

We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.

[Olly Glover]

Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.

[Wendy Morton]

The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.

[Laurence Turner]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.

[Andy McDonald]

What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

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

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

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue.

On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute.

Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality.

On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.

New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train.

The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend will have heard representations for ensuring that, under clause 5, devolution agreements must not be unduly limited, either by the Bill or its implementation. Is he able to offer any reassurances to Transport for West Midlands and other bodies that they will continue to be part of the conversation about how the Bill is implemented?

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.

As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.