Railways Bill (Third sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—but I hope you have plenty of water. We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.

A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first; other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendments in the group, which includes grouped new clauses, that will be at the Chair’s discretion.

My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses, following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful, but you may seek advice when we are not sitting.

Clause 1

Great British Railways

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(2) A body corporate may be designated under this section only if—

(a) it is limited by shares, and

(b) it is wholly owned by the Crown.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—

(a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and

(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable.

(4) The designation of a body corporate terminates—

(a) if the body corporate ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown, or

(b) if the Secretary of State revokes the designation.

(5) Any notice of revocation under subsection (4)(b)—

(a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and

(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.

(6) For the purposes of this section a body corporate is wholly owned by the Crown if each share in the body corporate is held by—

(a) a Minister of the Crown,

(b) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown, or

(c) a nominee of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b).

(7) Great British Railways is exempt from the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to the use of ‘limited’ as part of its name.

(8) In this section—

‘company’ means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;

‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

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.”

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.

New clause 38—Ministerial statements on functioning of Great British Railways—

“(1) Once every three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make a written ministerial statement in each House of Parliament summarising progress towards Great British Railways becoming fully operational.

(2) Should any day on which the Secretary of State must make a written statement be on a day when either House of Parliament is not sitting, the Secretary of State must publish a statement in similar terms.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament quarterly on progress in establishing Great British Railways.

[Laurence Turner]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the outset, I wish to declare that I am a member of Unite.

It is a privilege to speak at the start of these proceedings. I do so as a believer in public ownership of the railways not as an end, but as the best means of realising greater economies for taxpayers and improvements for all those who rely on the railways for livelihood and leisure. I am conscious that the Committee has much work ahead of it, so I will keep my explanation of the amendment brief.

Public ownership is the ballast of the Bill, but its clauses make only limited reference to ownership, although the drafting logic for that may be good—the Bill must, after all, be read alongside the previous enabling legislation passed by Parliament, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 and the now much amended Railways Act 1993. In 2024, Parliament’s decision and intent were clear: passenger services are to come under public ownership as franchises expire. I must admit, however, that I start our proceedings under the shadow of a doubt. On my reading, there is a risk that the requirements of public ownership that sit outside this Bill may be time-bound, designed for the specific circumstances of transition, and dependent on definitions in statutory instruments that are themselves at risk of amendment or repeal without full parliamentary scrutiny.

I freely acknowledge that some members of the Committee may take a different view of the merits of the ownership question, and I am sure that we will have good and respectful debate on the Bill’s provisions in the weeks ahead, but surely we can all agree on one point: such an important decision as public or private ownership should be taken only through primary legislation. To put it another way, were a future Government to seek to return to a privatised model, they should be obliged to seek majority consent in the full House. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

The amendment would require Great British Railways to be a wholly and nationally owned public sector entity. Indeed, it would cease to be GBR if it were sold in whole or in part. The amendment would also, I think, prevent a future Secretary of State from taking the extremely perverse step of removing GBR’s designation as a public sector body and transferring it to a private or semi-private entity.

If the wording of the amendment seems familiar to hon. Members, it will be because they have been paying close attention to other legislation. Clause 1 of the Bill is effectively identical to section 1(1) of the Great British Energy Act 2025. The amendment is a near carbon copy—I am sorry to all members of the Committee, but we are only at the start of our descent; I cannot promise that the puns will improve as we go on—of the subsections that follow in section 1 of that Act. I note that in the equivalent Committee debate for that Act, the sponsoring Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), said:

“The clause protects the principle of public ownership by making explicit that the company would terminate if it ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 10 October 2024; c. 91.]

I accept that we are seeking to build on a complex body of legislation; the railways are the accumulation of two centuries of history, and so are the laws that govern them. If—I emphasise that word—a drafting issue has been identified, we also need to identify the right solution for this specific legislation. I am grateful to the Minister in the Commons and to the Minister of State, the noble Lord Hendy, for their thoughtful conversations on this matter. I am also grateful to the officials who have worked hard to prepare this commendable Bill. My motivation in tabling the amendment is to establish beyond doubt that the Bill will achieve its aim: that Great British Railways will be run by and for the nation. If we can assure ourselves of that, I believe that this legislation will set out a permanent way for reform. I will listen carefully when the Minister responds.

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

It is very nice to have you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I think this a conversation among Labour Members, and I do not want to get in the way of a private dispute. I might just sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you.

We have this generational change in the organisation of the railways; the Government, with their majority, have taken a political decision to nationalise the sector. We know that nationalisation of the railways has been tried before. They were nationalised in 1950 or 1951—

[Laurence Turner]

It was 1948.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. From 1950, we had the high point of post-war passenger numbers on the railways—about 1 billion passengers. From that period of nationalisation, the number of passengers choosing—I use that word advisedly—to use the railways started a long and seemingly unstoppable decline. It went from 1 billion in the early 1950s all the way down to about 735 million in the period of privatisation—1993. It seemed like that was due to the public changing the way in which they chose to live their lives. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South, suggested from her seat on Second Reading that it was obvious that people did not want to use the train so much, even during a period of increasing population, because they were increasingly affluent and they bought more cars. That is a possible explanation.

But then something very odd happened. In 1993, the then Conservative Government legislated to privatise the railways. Now, we can debate—and I am sure we will multiple times over the coming days—whether that was a good or a bad thing in principle and whether the way the privatisation was done, through the Railways Act 1993, and subsequently amended was perfect or whether it could have been improved upon, but if we consider that the primary objective of a railway—leaving freight to one side for a moment—is to carry passengers, the data shows that the privatisation of the railways in the United Kingdom was an unqualified success. The seemingly inevitable decline in passenger numbers changed direction immediately. It was not just a slow bottoming out; that long-term decline immediately turned in the other direction, and then continued to grow until covid meant that all bets were off from 2019. Those numbers did not just grow to recover all the lost work of the previous 40 years—they did not go back up to 1 billion customers; they increased to 1.75 billion. That was a period of increased affluence, when the number of cars available to passengers increased enormously. The only explanation for the absolute reversal in passenger numbers is the decisions taken through privatisation—the profit motive and the incentive to focus on passengers rather than on the organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

May I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the fact that so far I have not made a single rail pun in the course of this debate—and I intend to keep it that way?

The hon. Member made a really important point about both parliamentary accountability and the general public being able to understand more about how GBR works and what it constitutes. Throughout the establishment of GBR, there are concurrent process that will allow the Secretary to State to outline more properly the long-term future of the railway and GBR’s role in it, including the long-term rail strategy, as well as work that we are already advancing on the accessibility road map and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.

Existing parliamentary structures in our Westminster democracy provide ample room for us to hold Government Ministers and the Secretary of State to account on the establishment of GBR. We have oral questions for Transport, as well as the ability to ask urgent questions on GBR’s establishment. Through both Lord Hendy in the other place and Ministers in this House, we have a real ambition to explain GBR’s provisions and ways of working to the general public, because we are confident in its ability to revolutionise how the railway runs on behalf of passengers, but I take the hon. Lady’s point.

Establishing GBR is the primary purpose of the Bill, and clause 1 provides the Secretary of State with the power, by regulations, to designate a body corporate as GBR. The clause enables wider provisions in the Bill relating to GBR to apply to a body corporate, such as the statutory functions and general duties set out in it. Following Royal Assent, a company will be designated as GBR, and it will consolidate Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, DfT Operator, train operators and parts of the Rail Delivery Group into one organisation to ensure that GBR can be mobilised as quickly as is practicable.

The clause is essential for the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to reform the railways by establishing GBR as the directing mind, bringing track and train together. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

[Laurence Turner]

I must start by slightly disagreeing with the Minister on his approach to railway puns. The shadow Minister referred to the discussion on amendment 257 as a dispute; I reassure him that this is not a case of pistons at dawn—[Laughter.] It is going to get so much worse. Before I come to the Minister’s substantive response, I will briefly respond to a few other comments that have been made in the debate.

The shadow Minister spoke about changes in passenger numbers over the years, which is a good illustration of why it is important to look across a whole time series, and to bear in mind the old maxim that correlation is not causation. After all, passenger numbers were already falling by the time that we got to vesting day in 1948. The railways were exhausted after years of war—indeed, passenger numbers halved between 1920 and 1947. In fact, the actual nadir in passenger numbers was not in the early 1990s but in 1983. I thought that Opposition Members might have wanted to take pride in the successful sectorisation experiment under the Thatcher Government, perhaps aided by some benign neglect from that Administration, which was sadly not repeated by the subsequent Major Administration.

We have some good explanations for why exactly passenger numbers rose so dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. For a long time, I think we could have all substituted our political explanations for why that happened. However, in 2018, a very good study, led by eminent modellers and academics, was published by the Independent Transport Commission on precisely that question. It found that passenger growth was overwhelmingly driven by changes in the job market—the types of roles being created and the areas of the country in which they were being created. It was also aided by changes to tax incentives for company cars in the early 2000s, which led to an additional increase in rail traffic.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. For my constituents, in the period since the railways were privatised they have twice needed to be brought back under public ownership: once in 2003, when Connex failed, and again in 2021, when Southeastern failed. However, on both occasions, there was no impact on passenger numbers; rather, the factors that my hon. Friend is describing correlated and led to those passenger numbers. Does he agree that over the last 30 years, whether the service has been under national or private ownership has had no impact on the passenger numbers on trains in my constituency?

[Laurence Turner]

I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory.

I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Crown status etc

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) This section is not to be read as preventing the exercise of functions by Great British Railways on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers under arrangements made by the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”

This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers may enter into agency agreements for the performance of functions on their behalf. For example, this may be required to assist with winding up of ongoing franchises, as they transition to GBR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

In which case, I will speak first to amendment 2, as that is first in the grouping, and then proceed to the others.

Amendment 2 would make explicit the duty of Great British Railways to promote a thriving, competitive retail market, and align the Bill with the Government’s stated aim of delivering a system in which competition drives better outcomes for passengers. The retail market in the UK is currently one of thriving competition, as we can all recognise, and shows UK tech at its best. Trainline is—I think I am right in saying—a FTSE 250 company, and a tech growth story for the United Kingdom, being Europe’s leading train and coach app. The amendment is therefore key to ensuring that the landscape continues to thrive and that we do not drive Trainline and its competitors out of the country.

Members will remember that in written evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline asked that Committee

“to recommend that the Bill be amended to require structural separation of GBR online retail from the rest of the GBR organisation and to publish information that enables the ORR, CMA and other regulators to assess compliance with competition law, subsidy control rules and non-discrimination duties. This should not be left to the Code of Practice alone”—

and, by the way, we have not seen the code of practice.

Trainline also said:

“We ask that the Committee recommend that the Bill include a statutory duty that all retail market participants—including GBR online retail—are treated fairly, equally and non-discriminatorily, and that GBR online retail be subject to the same Code of Practice as all other retailers…We ask the Committee to recommend that these economic parity safeguards, including structural separation of GBR’s online retail business, be written into the legislation and the forthcoming Code of Practice…We therefore ask that the Committee recommends…An explicit ORR power to impose binding orders or financial sanctions if GBR breaches its licence or the Code. ORR’s competition duty should explicitly apply in respect of these functions and GBR’s licence…Provision for an appeal body (for example the CMA or the Competition Appeal Tribunal) to hear merits of disputes…The Code development process must be led by ORR, independent of DfT and GBR. It must ensure full stakeholder consultation, clear timetable, transparent publication of decisions and mechanisms for future amendment.”

Members may say, “Well, they’ve got skin in the game, haven’t they? They’re a commercial organisation trying to compete with the future GBR, so it will be in their interest to try to fix the corporate structure in a way that gives them an unfair advantage.” But if we look at what Trainline is asking for, we see it is not seeking to gain an unfair advantage. It is merely asking GBR to create a level playing field. Trainline is not the only organisation making that argument; it is joined by others.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Trainline and other online retailers are not seeking to make ill use of their market position, but the Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Trainline to amend its adverts, and the ORR ordered it to amend its practice of not showing booking fees at the start of the booking process. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline accepted that its market share was significantly above the 25% test that the Competition and Markets Authority applies for a potential monopoly position. Does that concern the hon. Gentleman at all?

[Jerome Mayhew]

That demonstrates that the current system is working to hold Trainline to account, and that where there are abuses—if what the hon. Gentleman outlined amounted to abuses—effective systems are in position and they have been corrected.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention did not speak to the overriding point: what do the Government want when they are applying this new structure to retail? Do they want a level playing field? Is that their intention, or do they want a systemically biased system in which GBR retail is given an unfair advantage over independent competition? Both answers are credible—it is possible for the Government to form one decision—but they should not pay lip service to a level playing field but, in design, achieve the opposite, which appears to be the case at the moment.

In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, essentially agreed with Trainline’s position. He said:

“We think that because the independent retail market has produced significant benefits for customers in the time that it has been in existence. It is heavily used by rail passengers. The critical question in relation to the Bill, and the other mechanisms that will be in place once the Bill has been passed, is how we ensure that there is genuine fair and open competition between GBR ticket retailing and the independent retailers currently or potentially in the market.”

This is a key point: the Government need to stop and think about what their intention is. If it is to have a fair market, the evidence, and all the feedback they are getting from the sector, is that they have not yet achieved that objective. They need to put their money where their mouth is and decide what their objective is. I hope the Minister will be clear in his response as to the Government’s thinking on that.

A second concern is that the sector is nervous about the apparent lack of hierarchy and detail in the functions. GBR is assigned multiple duties under the clause, but with no hierarchy, so it paves the way for potential confusion—or, worse, it gives GBR the ability to pick and choose which function it thinks is important in relation to any decision. It can quietly demote the importance of others so that it can serve itself and thereby reduce the power of the clause.

Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said in oral evidence to the Transport Committee:

“To lead from your further question: with the very broad powers for the Secretary of State and a certain lack of specificity on what will happen, what we are looking for is more key performance indicators, like in business. I realise it is a governmental entity, but the quantitative KPIs are not really there.”

I would go further than that: they are not there at all.

As well as amendment 2, which I have spoken to, we have also tabled new clause 3, which sets out GBR retail requirements. As I have said previously, this is a critical issue given the evidence that the Select Committee received, and the oral evidence that we heard on Tuesday, that the Government have built a structural conflict of interest into the Bill as currently drafted.

We also heard on Tuesday about international examples where a similar concern has been addressed in a different manner. SNCF is a state-owned railway in France that has unification of track and train. It also has a retail function, through which is competes with the wider market. SNCF, or, I presume, the French Government—I do not want to claim greater in-depth knowledge that I actually possess—have taken the decision to have a structural separation between SNCF retail and SNCF operations, the equivalent to GBR. The very obvious reason why they did that was for fairness and to have a level playing field. We are not talking about SNCF, but an improvement on the current position, which I fully accept is not perfect.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

Q Gentlemen, do you have anything to add?

Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions.

John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail.

As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Q As I did in this morning’s session, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I have a few short questions, primarily to Ms Simpson to start with. We heard from some of our witnesses in this morning’s panels that they would like to see a passenger growth target in the Bill on an equivalent basis to the freight growth target. I am interested in your reaction to that proposal.

Maggie Simpson: It is not my business to talk about the passenger railway. We see two things as important in having a freight growth target: first, it is a statement of Government commitment to growth, which is hugely powerful; secondly, and importantly, the people who are going to be running GBR are going to spring out of bed every morning and say, “It’s my job to make my trains run on time,” and the freight growth target makes them say, over their Weetabix, “Yes, and I must make freight run on time as well.” It is the incentive effect of having a growth target.

We have seen that effect really powerfully with the freight growth target that the Scottish Government and Whitehall have set, in that it changes the dynamic and the culture. I think—perhaps you would say I am biased— that people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary—but in terms of other factors, I leave that to others.

John Thomas: May I add to that? I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Returning to freight, I understand there is a problem at the moment with the ORR refusing longer-term applications, which presumably has a dampening effect on investment—at least, I would assume so. Do you think there is least the potential under GBR to take a longer-term view, and hopefully to reflect that in longer-term access agreements?

Maggie Simpson: There are two parts to that question. Certainly, the provisions in the Bill allow for a core contract to be longer, because it removes the cap in law today. For that contract to be meaningful, though, it needs to have some committed capacity in it, because there is no point having a contract to run if you have no paths. That comes back to the access and use policy, the capacity commitments and how they will work out through those capacity plans. We simply do not have the detail on that yet to know whether we will be able to get meaningful, long-term capacity commitments. That is an open point.

[Laurence Turner]

Q I turn to clause 64 on the charging scheme. Subsection (4) allows GBR to levy lower charges for the purpose of introducing new services, including for the carriage of goods. How would your members like to see that power applied?

Maggie Simpson: We very much welcome that clause; it is a broadening of the provision in the current law, which is quite tightly worded. There are some areas where we think it could be particularly powerful, such as incentivising a greater uptick in use of electric traction, where those units exist, and making sure that people are using them wherever they can. We have just seen the first fleet of digitally enabled wagons arrive in service. That is something that can help to reduce track damage, but it is expensive, so helping the introduction of more digital technology would be another area.

We are looking at novel markets for rail freight—moving new fuels, for example, and supporting green energy. Often, it is quite difficult to get new flows up and running in new markets, so incentivising growth through the uptick of those sectors would be another area.

[Laurence Turner]

I have one final question, if there is time.

[The Chair]

Very quickly, please.

[Laurence Turner]

Q I will make it very quick. Mr Montgomery, I saw a document that rail partners published a few years ago called “Working together for a better railway”, which suggested that the ideal mix of passenger contracts would be concessions for commuter services and franchising—I do not think it used the word “franchising”, but maybe something similar—for longer-term services. Is that your personal point of view?

Steve Montgomery: Yes. We believe that the Bill does not give enough power to the Secretary of State to put out contracts and devolved parties—whether that is Greater Manchester, Liverpool, and so on—to give them out. The concession model is something that we have continued to support.

[Laurence Turner]

Q But for inter-city, something similar to franchising?

Steve Montgomery: Yes, you can put it out.

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

Q I have a question about GBR’s licence. What can we glean from the provisions for that licence in the Railways Bill, without having seen a draft of the document?

John Thomas: It is really difficult. As I said earlier, all we can glean is that, given the reduced powers that ORR will have, it will be a slimmed-down licence; ORR will not have the power that it currently has to enforce business performance. Until we see it, we cannot really comment on it.

I am a bit surprised that we have not seen a draft of the licence yet. We have seen the access and use policy discussion document, but not a draft of the licence. It has been a long time in the making, so I am surprised that we have not seen it yet. I was told that we might not see it for some time. It is a key part of the overall framework, so until we see it, we cannot really comment on that framework. We are having to—we are having to comment on the Bill—but until we see the licence it is difficult to determine what our position will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

Q I hear the merits of having different retailers, but where you have one operator—as we see in London with the TfL Go app—do you see benefits in having all the accessibility information in one place, because that operator is able to collate it and pull it together?

John Davies: I think it is a bit like there being one central seat reservation system that every train operator uses. Every customer who books a ticket, via whichever operator, accesses the same seat reservation system—there is one definitive record. The same could be true of passenger assistance bookings.

Rail Delivery Group, or its successor, which will be part of the retail industry and management function in the future, could have a system—a definitive record—of all availability of assisted services on offer in the industry. That could be accessed by any retailer, so that customers can book assistance as they need it, for stations or on board trains, and the staff at those stations and on those trains know who to expect and the kind of assistance that is needed. It would all be aggregated in one place, but drawn upon by as many retailers as needed.

[Laurence Turner]

Q In Trainline’s written evidence—possibly to the Transport Committee rather than this one, or possibly to both—there is a reference to a view that there might be some particularly sensitive data within GBR that Trainline believes should be firewalled off from any ticketing function. I think the suggestion is that there may be some operational information to which GBR’s ticketing function should not be given privileged access. I was wondering whether you could expand on that point and explain what types of information we are talking about. John Davies: What we are advocating for is that whatever flows of data or information are necessary for, say, a GBR online retail function to do the work of helping customers engage with the rail industry—to book tickets, to travel and to do all those things—all those sources of information should be made available equally, at the same level and without discrimination, to whoever has a legitimate cause to use them.

One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.

[Laurence Turner]

Q So the concern is about potentially losing access to some data flows that currently exist.

John Davies: Potentially. There are already moves within the industry to restrict those data flows. Again, if it goes to the point that this is not entirely a theoretical risk, then yes, we would—

[Laurence Turner]

Q Does that data flow come through Rail Settlement Plan at the moment?

John Davies: It does not. It comes from the Rail Delivery Group, through its provision of RAAS, which is the rail availability and reservation service.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Finally, I will continue a line of questioning from the Transport Committee. As you know, we had an exchange about executive remuneration; in the subsequent written evidence that Trainline provided, it referred the Committee to the annual reports of published information. It also said that that salary or package was set in comparison with similar, comparable companies. Are you able to provide that information and name which companies you are talking about?

John Davies: No I am not, because the benchmarking is done by Trainline’s board, consistent with the processes that it has published.

[Laurence Turner]

So that is privileged information.

John Davies: It is certainly information that I do not have access to.

[The Chair]

Thank you. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We move to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Bill Reeve and Peter McDonald gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

[Laurence Turner]

Q I must say, I think I must have been listening to a different set of evidence today than the shadow Minister, but there we are.

I want to raise devolution, and specifically clause 5. There is a lot of history to the clause, and a line of continuity with the old section 20 of Barbara Castle’s Transport Act 1968. A lot of great things were accomplished under that legislation, including the creation of a cross-city line in Birmingham, but then privatisation came along. There was an attempt to do something similar under section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, which frankly did not work; there was never a single agreement signed. What lessons have been learned about what went right in the past and what went wrong with the 2005 legislation, when it comes to clause 5 of the Bill?

Keir Mather: I suppose that, in the 2005 Act, section 13 was not only really narrow in scope, in that it covered only franchised services, but represented a significant watering down of relationships between the rail industry and passenger transport executives. The difference with clause 5 of the Bill is that it is significantly wider in scope, to ensure that partnerships under GBR cover the full rail offer, rather than focusing only on services.

There is an important point around corporate structure. It is right that the corporate structure is not laid out in the Bill—no piece of rail legislation in 113 years has done that—but what has come out quite consistently in the testimony of the mayors, and in the broader points made around devolution, is that, whether it be on the MCA basis or on the local authority basis more generally, people want GBR’s structure to be flat, and responsive to dynamic changes both in demographics around housing and your ability to get to Everton stadium when the rugby league is on, which is of personal interest to me.

I think the point is very well made, and it is certainly taken by me as the Minister, that democratic accountability means that the operational reality of GBR should be diffuse wherever possible. People do not want to see a replication of a centralised model of the past.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Picking up on a point that was made by witnesses on our devolution panel, the geography of, say, West Midlands Rail Executive does not overlap entirely with the geography of the combined authority. Similarly, there might be a case for reaching a clause 5 agreement with more than one mayoral authority at the same time. Does the clause as drafted allow the flexibility to reach an agreement directly with, say, West Midlands Rail Executive, or a combined agreement with the East Midlands combined county authority covering the cross-country service?

Keir Mather: I think we have been really clear, and the provisions in the Bill support this, that GBR needs to be organised locally so that it can work really collaboratively with local leaders, and it is through the business units that it has to devolve that responsibility to as close to decision-makers as possible. MCAs are the right level, in terms of being a catalyst for economic and housing growth, but you are right that the challenges around rail infrastructure and service provision, even though the solution to a lot of them may be set by MCAs, are inherently cross-border. I would expect GBR to be able to fulfil a role in facilitating the ironing out of those differences, for the good of everyone, on a cross-border basis.

[Edward Argar]

Q One of these questions will hopefully allow for a yes-or-no answer; the other might be just a date. First, we have heard a lot from witnesses about how much is in the Bill, but also how much is not, and how it is reliant on the building blocks. Will the Minister commit to publish a draft of the licence before the Bill leaves the Commons so that it can be considered by MPs?

Keir Mather: Yes.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

One of the things we have to achieve through Northern Powerhouse Rail is making sure that young people growing up in towns and smaller cities around the big conurbations can easily access the high-quality jobs in places such as Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle. I assure my hon. Friend that this Government’s approach is about investing in skills, investing in transport and investing in opportunities for the future.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

A little more than two years have passed since the last Prime Minister chaotically took the axe to HS2 north and east of Birmingham, and the mayor at the time, Andy Street, failed the test of leadership and failed to stand up for our region. There is an obvious link between the east-west connections the Secretary of State has been talking about, and the south to north connections along the west coast main line. Will she and her Ministers meet and engage with west midlands MPs about the capacity issue she has set out, and can we not lose sight of the importance of the west midlands to east midlands connection, which is as slow as the connections in the north?

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Members to discuss this matter further. I would also like to pay tribute to Mayor Richard Parker for working collaboratively with us in the west midlands, alongside Claire Ward in the east midlands, to make sure that we can improve not only inter-city connections, but the connections within big cities that are so important.

Railways Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

And now we turn, at last, to a fundamental question which has perhaps gone unasked in this House for too long: what is the mass and acceleration of an average-sized peacock? The question does not spring from the pages of a script for “The Goon Show” or “Monty Python”. It is a real case that came before the rail industry’s Delay Attribution Board.

A delay caused by a collision between a train and a small bird is the responsibility of a private operator, which pays the cost of compensation, but if the unfortunate bird is deemed to be large, then taxpayers are on the hook. And so it came to be that one day expensive lawyers gathered to compare calculations and precedent, and argue out whether the unfortunate peacock was more akin to a goose than a duck. Few incidents better illustrate the costly absurdities of rail privatisation.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that the cost of privatisation is borne by all taxpayers, whether they use the railway or not. The railways received nearly £700 million in subsidy in 1990-91. By 2018-19, before the pandemic impaired the industry’s finances, the net subsidy requirement had increased to £4.3 billion—an increase after inflation of some 236%; more than doubling, even after passenger journey increases had been accounted for. To this day, subsidy is lower in Northern Ireland, where the railways remained in public hands.

Everywhere, the railway’s contingent parts are divided and separated by contractual barriers. For passengers, that can mean station staff who cannot even board a train to help someone with mobility issues, because they work for different companies. There is a multiplicity of such unnecessary contractual barriers, and public money and public confidence drains through each one.

We should not expect a complete change of services on day one of operations under GBR, as there was not on the Attlee Government’s vesting day for nationalisation in 1948, but change over time it will, and for the better, including for my constituents who travel from Longbridge, Northfield and Kings Norton. The Bill is the instrument of that transformation.

Tonight’s vote is on the principle of establishing Great British Railways. In the weeks ahead, there will be time for detailed line-by-line scrutiny, to which I look forward to contributing, including through the Transport Committee. But for tonight, I just want to say that there can be no doubt that this is the right policy and the right Bill. It has been a privilege to have had the occasional view of the development of this area of transport policy down the years. I look forward to voting for it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurence Turner]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As I said in answer to a previous question, the work that the UK airspace design service will do to modernise our airspace will start with the London area. It will not be limited to the London area, but we need to make that a priority. I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes with respect to Bournemouth.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. As someone who worked on this issue the last time around, I was astonished to hear the Opposition’s flight of fantasy when they accused others of delay. On their watch, the airports commission was artificially delayed until after a general election, with three more years spent producing the current NPS and a further two years tied up in the courts. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the lessons have been learned from those eight wasted years?

[Heidi Alexander]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Let us be honest—it was not just eight wasted years, it was 14. I repeat what I said earlier: it comes to something that the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, went to such lengths to duck these decisions that he ended up in Kabul.

Regional Transport Inequality

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench.

I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes.

Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham.

Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward.

Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency.

Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery. That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension.

Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his timekeeping and the speed with which he included all that. That brings us to the Front Benchers, remembering that we would like to leave some time for the Member who introduced the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way.

I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people.

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

On that point, I will give way.

[Laurence Turner]

Does the shadow Minister agree with his predecessor—the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman—who said this:

“Whilst it’s legitimate to debate the terms of the deal, the demonisation of train drivers and those onboard and at stations, who carry out a difficult and skilled job for the safety of passengers, is completely unfair. These people work hard and should be shown more respect.”?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public.

On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit.

Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am very aware of the problems relating to Hammersmith bridge, and I know the Minister hosted that first meeting of the resurrected Hammersmith bridge taskforce. I do have some good news for my hon. Friend: we announced in the spending review a structures fund, to assist local authorities with repairs to bridges and tunnels that are beyond their financial capacity to fund. We will set out the criteria for access to that fund in due course.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree wholeheartedly. It is really important that local people are engaged when designing a network and making changes to it.

Road and Rail Projects

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to ensure that future transport projects are delivered on time and on budget. He asked about Northern Powerhouse Rail. As I said in my statement, we will provide further details about that in the coming weeks. He was right to mention the two new stations, Wellington in—forgive me—Somerset and Cullompton, which, being located between Exeter and Taunton, will provide vital new connections for those regional centres, supporting economic growth and planned housing in the area. As the hon. Gentleman has put the case to me directly before, I know that both towns have significant expansion plans, so those stations will be critical to giving local people access to jobs at major employment centres such as the one in Exeter.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and thank the Transport Secretary for all the positive engagement that she and other Ministers have had with the midlands rail project. At the heart of those works is the upgrade of Kings Norton station in my constituency, which is critically important for the cross-city line, and is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine. The Secretary of State will understand that we, as local MPs, are pressing for that next level of detail, so will she help to keep up the head of steam around this project, and leave commuters in my constituency feeling chuffed to bits?

[Heidi Alexander]

I cannot possibly compete with those railway puns, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents have such a strong advocate for public transport and investment in the rail network. He is right to say that the midlands rail hub can have transformative impacts, and I thank him for all that he has done in championing the scheme over the months. He has been such a positive Member of this House.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Laurence Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament.

It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off.

That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster.

The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from

“acquiring shares in existing bus companies”,

nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing.

There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre.

In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laurence Turner]

I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak.

A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living.

One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner, and she is right to continue to highlight this issue. It is already illegal to sell and display that type of number plate, but I recognise that there is more to do. The DVLA is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office, various police forces and trading standards on the supply and use of these illegal number plates, and implementing stricter penalties and fines will be considered as part of our work on the new road safety strategy.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

We are determined to end the pothole plague on our roads, which is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We have provided an extra £500 million for councils this year to allow them to make an immediate start on this.

[Laurence Turner]

In Birmingham, people are fed up, as they are in other parts of the country, of potholes and drains that go uncleared, after years of underfunding and short-term budgets, but unlike in other parts of the country, those services are provided under a historical private finance initiative contract. Will the Minister update the House on when a decision will be made about the future of that contract, and what steps she will take with the local authority so that Birmingham’s roads get better?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has been dogged in raising this issue with me and the Department, and I assure him that we will make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible. Following a consultation with the council, we have been carefully considering its formal representations on this matter, and we are committed to working together in the best interests of his constituents, the people of Birmingham and the taxpayer.