Railways Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

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.

Road Safety: West Midlands

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, at the heart of this debate is changing the culture from local government to national Government. We need to have education and behavioural change, and I will say a bit about that, but the culture also needs to change. We need to be proactive, and we can be, because only then will we save lives.

Speeding near schools an issue. The children of Mappleborough Green primary school have written to me as they are experiencing fear and anxiety when crossing and walking along a very busy road that still has a 40 mph limit. We have a 40 mph limit outside a primary school. We are not getting any support in keeping those young children safe on their journey to school—and I am not even going to touch on the air pollution that the children are experiencing. What does the Minister say to those children?

Constituents have contacted me about speeding on the A3400 through Wootton Wawen village, which is making it difficult for elderly residents to cross the road to go to the post office or the shops and, again, for children to go to school. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned, we need a shift from reactive to proactive enforcement. We need that cultural shift. We cannot keep waiting for collisions to occur and then investigate the wreckage.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. It is striking how many of the issues she describes ring true for city constituencies as well. In Birmingham, the number of collisions has fallen over the past decade, but the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads has remained remarkably stable, at around 500 a year. That indicates that if someone is unlucky enough to be in a smash, the risk is actually greater. Many of our roads were not designed for the wider and heavier vehicles that now use them. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more adaptations for historic roads, and better and more up-to-date guidance on what interventions are effective in this age of wider and heavier vehicles?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree with the hon. Member’s points. With the road safety strategy consultation and review, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make changes to the culture and assess the situation. If we want to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, we need to be bold and make sure that local authorities have better, bolder guidance on interventions for urban as well as rural areas.

For example, every time I ask for cameras, I am told that there have to have been five fatalities. There had been one fatality when I started campaigning for road safety in my village. I could not cross my road with my children—holding a little one by the hand and pushing the pram—so I started campaigning on road safety measures in my village. I was told, “You need to wait for five fatalities before automatic number plate recognition cameras are installed.”

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 General Committees

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this secondary legislation. As he knows, there is a need to improve the diversity of the driving workforce and to address the challenges of an ageing workforce, so this is a much-welcomed change and a fantastic example of industry, Government and unions working together to deliver for workers and the travelling public. Will he join me in recognising the role that ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, played by working with industry and with the Labour party in opposition to help secure this important change?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are proud to be able to contribute towards diversifying the occupation of train driver and giving more people access to becoming drivers and working on the railway. Lowering the age of driving is just one step in the process, of course, and moves us closer to delivering a railway fit for the future. We are grateful to ASLEF for drawing this needed legislative change to our attention, and for working with us in Government to lower the driving age and to deliver the Railways Bill.

For the reasons that I have set out, on 7 May 2025 my Department confirmed that we will proceed with lowering the minimum age to be a train driver, bringing Great Britain in line with many international counterparts. To ensure a smooth transition, we asked the industry to prepare an implementation plan, which was used to inform a timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group gathered industry specialists, who confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, reconfirming that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely.

The Department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December 2025 and published it on gov.uk on 19 March 2026. The plan proposed improvements that industry will implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment, management and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. The improvements include preparing formal guidance for operators to ensure recruitment, training, safeguarding and management practices are updated to support line managers and younger drivers, strengthening entry routes and training through revisions to the train driving level 3 apprenticeship standard, and the development of a new foundation apprenticeship.

Other proposed improvements include developing a communications plan to raise awareness of the new opportunities afforded by the change in law and how applicants can prepare, developing a new recruitment portal with resources and information to support applications for train driving roles, working with pathfinder operators to identify and share best practice, and running a long-term study to monitor the effects and experience of the change to help to refine the system over time. The industry has assured us that the arrangements will be in place by June of this year, which is why we have scheduled this legislative change to take effect on 30 June 2026. From that date, young people will be eligible to apply for train driving positions.

I turn now to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages, particularly in train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce are expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken. It is imperative to address that retirement cliff edge, which risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels; indeed, operators are already reliant on overtime for sustained timetables. Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve train driver shortages—it is the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure their workforce—but it is an important first step. The current minimum age of 20 acts as an arbitrary barrier to entry to the profession. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession.

This policy is about not only creating new opportunities for young people, but taking decisive action to ensure that the railway remains resilient, safe and properly staffed for the future. Alongside this measure, we will be working with industry to support an increase in training capacity to ensure that more train drivers are trained into roles and put into service. The policy’s aims are therefore clear: to lower the average age of the driver workforce, increase the number of train drivers in the industry, and create a more stable and diverse profession that reflects the communities it serves.

I now turn to questions raised by the scrutiny Committees in their consideration of the draft regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft regulations on 4 March and did not draw special attention to them. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had some questions concerning implementation and policy aims. and wished to draw the special attention of the House to them in its 52nd report, published on 26 February. I will outline and respond to those questions in turn.

First, the Committee asked how regulations will support 16 and 17-year-olds into train driving, and whether the minimum age for the train driving level 3 apprenticeship could be lowered. Since our announcement, my Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group, Skills England and the Department for Education to explore that. As a result, the minimum entry age for the train driving apprenticeship will be reduced from 18 to 17 and a half, with the intention that that should take effect alongside the regulations. The practical effect of that is to allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier, while remaining fully compliant with the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Secondly, the Committee asked when the implementation plan would be published. The plan was issued on 19 March and is available on gov.uk. The period between the laying of the regulations on 10 February and 19 March was needed to finalise the apprenticeship offer and ensure that it aligned fully with the new licensing arrangements.

Thirdly, the Committee asked whether there will be a clear pathway for 16-year-olds, so that the train driving apprenticeship becomes a viable option for school leavers. Alongside lowering the eligibility age for train driving apprenticeships, the industry is developing a rail foundation apprenticeship for 16-year-olds, providing a structured skills route into driving. Additional access courses have also been developed to help school leavers to build the non-technical skills needed for driver assessment and selection.

Fourthly, the Committee asked for assurance on operational safeguards and oversight. I can confirm that all existing testing and competence requirements will remain in place. In addition, the implementation plan specifies that operators will update internal procedures and safeguarding arrangements for younger trainees. We expect operators to share learning and best practice to support long-term implementation. That will be formalised through a 10-year longitudinal study to monitor the progression, wellbeing and performance of younger drivers, providing a clear mechanism for oversight.

Fifthly, the Committee asked about the timetable for wider reforms to the train driver licensing regime, noting concerns about training capacity and projected shortages. Reasons for projected shortages and capacity issues vary across operators and across the country. The Department is developing proposals to reform the 2010 regulations to address those issues and intends to consult on them between 2026 and 2027, as part of the transition towards Great British Railways. We will look to GBR to provide strategic leadership on this matter in the long term.

Finally, the Committee asked whether the findings of the longitudinal study will be published. The study will be led by the industry through the Train Drivers Academy, and the Department has been assured that the results will be published annually, ensuring transparency and continued scrutiny.

In summary, these regulations lower the minimum age at which an individual may be issued a train driving licence from 20 to 18, provided that they meet the same rigorous licensing conditions that apply to all drivers, which will remain unchanged. The change in law is scheduled to come into force on 30 June 2026, enabling young people from across Great Britain to apply for train driving positions from that date. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

Amendment 86 would prevent section 65 from coming into force until GBR has published the performance scheme and laid it before Parliament. However, we will not seek a Division on that amendment.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. As in previous sessions, I draw the Committee’s attention to my membership of Unite the union. I will speak briefly on the amendments. I welcome the opportunity to talk about an area of narrowly gauged interest of long-standing, although I hesitate to call it tunnel vision: schedule 4 and schedule 8 compensation for planned and unplanned disruption on the network.

The delay attribution scheme has remained essentially unchanged since privatisation, and the clause is a welcome opportunity to look again at how it works in practice. Attention has been drawn to the fact that, under the present system, approximately 400 people are employed across the rail industry to attribute delays to either operators or Network Rail. That sometimes happens in ways that defy any common-sense interpretation of good value for money, and there have been eye-catching examples of expensive lawyers gathering in a room to argue about whether a dead pheasant or a dead peacock was a small bird or a large one, for the purpose of the scheme. Depending upon that determination, the costs may be picked up by the taxpayer or by private operators, and I think we can all agree that that is nonsense.

I am glad that the Bill, as drafted, retains some degree of compensation scheme. My attention was drawn to the need for such measures recently in my constituency, where there has been a long-standing problem with road surface conditions, including what has become known, infamously, as “Northfield’s big pothole” under the railway bridge that connects Quarry Lane and Coleys Lane. Network Rail pointed out to me that a single bridge strike from a heavy goods vehicle would incur greater compensation costs for just one hour of disruption than the entire cost of resurfacing that stretch of road. Clearly, we need some degree of accountability in the system.

However, the amounts paid out through schedule 8 compensation, which is for unplanned disruption in particular, have been enormous. In theory, these schemes should be self-financing, but for all the attention that is paid to dividend payments and profits in the current railway system, the money that leaves the public part of the railway through these compensation schemes has in some years been in excess of those payments. There is a very good case for these changes.

I am not sure that amendment 85 is entirely necessary or desirable, on the basis that there may well be circumstances in which a private operator, whether freight or open access, is responsible for delays, for example if rolling stock had not been kept in the required condition. It is sensible for there to be some attribution in the system. As subsection (7) sets out, there is a right of appeal to the ORR. This is a sensible clause, and I am not sure that the amendments are necessary.

[Rebecca Smith]

Does the hon. Member not think our amendments could actually improve the system for GBR? We have talked, in this Committee and in the Select Committee sessions on the Bill, about the real gap in terms of the incentives for GBR to improve its services and improve itself. There is no reason why adding GBR as a body that would have to pay penalties and compensation would not introduce an incentive, in the same way we expect for operators, to ensure that the service provided on the taxpayers’ behalf and using taxpayers’ money is improved. At the end of the day, GBR is paying itself, but our amendments would at least give it an incentive to make sure that it does not need to pay compensation in the first place.

[Laurence Turner]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s point correctly, the key is openness and transparency. We need some degree of understanding that, if GBR itself is responsible for delays, that information should be recorded so that improvements can be made. I am not convinced that GBR paying money to itself in a legal or quasi-legal process is the best use of public resources.

That transparency is lacking under the current system. The Delay Attribution Board does not publish any records of its proceedings. Some months ago, I made a freedom of information request for the minutes of the board, and the response was that they were too commercially confidential to disclose. Given the vast amounts of public money that are spent through this process at the moment, I think that is a severe limitation of the current system. This is a real opportunity to do things better.

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

I will not get into whether a peacock or a pheasant is a large or small bird—it takes me back to my days as a Health Minister, when we had a debate about whether a scotch egg is a substantial meal in the context of the regulations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon made a very valid point: even if the money is going back to GBR, there needs to be some degree of transparency so that it can be seen where the attribution is, whether it is GBR that has caused the problem, and whether it is improving or going backwards. Does the hon. Member agree that, even if actual cash is not transferred in and out, a notional payment or a schedule of payments that would have been paid should be published to give the travelling public transparency as to where the challenges lie and give GBR an incentive to improve its game?

[Laurence Turner]

I think I agree with at least most of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The issue is whether actual payments are made, but we questioned the noble Lord Hendy in the Transport Committee on this matter, and he agreed that there needs to be some data accountability where there are delays.

I am sorry to detain the Committee on this matter. As is sometimes said, man is born free and everywhere he is in trains—I just wanted to get that one on the record. I thank Committee members for their time.

[Hon. Members]

More!

Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am thinking about the hon. Member’s arguments about clause 64(3). Does she not think that there may be circumstances where higher charges actually help to get private investment into the railways? For example, GBR could agree to fund infrastructure improvements in exchange for an operator paying higher access charges over an agreed period and, through that mechanism, recoup at least some of the costs of that welcome upgrade to the network.

[Rebecca Smith]

I can appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. It sounds like a good idea; however, it could still be in the legislation directly, and the illustration he gave still leaves a huge number of questions about what happens if there is more than one user of that bit of infrastructure. Why should the private operator be the one that has to pay for the infrastructure? If anything, there is an issue, which I may come to, about the impact on fares, because ultimately, by the sound of it, GBR is going to have far fewer costs than other operators. In principle, I can see why the hon. Member made that point, but I think it is not clear enough at this stage.

Clause 64(8) allows a right of appeal, but only under judicial review-type provisions, which is no right at all. Any of us who has worked with anyone who ever wanted to get a judicial review knows that it is incredibly difficult. It is also incredibly expensive, so it is certainly not a level playing field.

The industry has rightly been outspoken on clause 64. In evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Freight Group stated:

“The Bill sets out the future framework for access charges for freight. In headline terms the charges will be calculated in a similar way to today (costs directly incurred by running the train) which we welcome. However, the Bill provides for extra costs to be levied on freight services

a. Through a mandatory reservation charge for capacity which is booked and then not used (for example, if a customer cancels a train due to poor weather) (Clause 64)

b. Through a general clause 64(3) which allows GBR discretion to charge more if ‘an efficient operator can pay it’. This is a very broad test and far wider than the test in current law ‘if the market can bear it’. This raises the prospect of far higher, and potentially uncapped charges being levied.

Increasing the costs of rail freight will simply make using rail too expensive for customers when compared to road freight, and will reverse modal shift and undermine growth. It is essential that the powers to charge more than the standard charge are strictly limited for GBR.”

The key point there is about reversing modal shift. On the one hand, the Government want to promote modal shift. Indeed, there is a scheme coming in— I mentioned it on Tuesday, but now I cannot remember its name—that will look at different types of transport, and one of the plans is to ensure modal shift. Anything that undermines that is potentially contradictory and a backwards step.

The Transport Committee also heard evidence from Nick Brooks of ALLRAIL, who said:

“I was just going to say something about privately owned investors and privately owned operators, specifically privately owned investors that want to invest in our sector rather than in other sectors—aviation, the road sector, or even completely different sectors. There is a certain risk. There is a commercial risk, of course, and ultimately they are looking for lower fixed costs and higher variable costs. The worry with GBR is this: who determines what the market can bear? Is GBR an independent entity, or not? I think the Bill says it should be GBR itself that determines that, if I am not mistaken.

It is a little bit like another conflict, or potential problem, with track access fees. Who decides the size of the track access fees? If you are a privately owned operator, is it your competitor—GBR—that decides your track access fees? That is a potential cause of worry.”

Lumo and Hull Trains also had similar concerns, which they raised in their written evidence to the Transport Committee:

“A transparent and proportionate charging regime will be critical to ensuring the financial sustainability and competitiveness of the railway. If GBR were able to set and revise access charges without independent oversight (as suggested by clause 64), it could create uncertainty and deter private investment. Independent regulation of charging is therefore vital to maintain investor confidence and ensure fairness between different operators. Open Access operators already make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of the network while receiving no public subsidy. The charges paid by Open Access are calculated independently by ORR to encourage investment, sweat the railway asset and deliver connectivity and the associated economic benefits. It also acts as an additional income stream to Network Rail. These arrangements demonstrate the sector’s willingness to invest and its commitment to supporting the network’s long-term health.

Ensuring that access charges remain proportionate and independently regulated will help reinforce the Government’s objective of crowding in private capital to support network growth. Confidence in a fair charging regime is essential for the continued profitability of private operators. Reinforcing a transparent and proportionate charging system will also help deliver the Government’s wider fiscal priorities by attracting and retaining private investment. By giving investors certainty that network costs are predictable and fairly allocated, the Bill can ensure that private operators continue to play a central role in funding innovation and expanding passenger capacity across the UK.”

Lumo and Hull Trains recommend:

“The updated charging regime must be developed in consultation with private stakeholders, appropriate for the markets being served and regulated with independent oversight from the ORR. This will sustain confidence in a fair and transparent access regime and ensure that private investment continues to play a central role in delivering a successful railway.”

Amendment 83 would prevent GBR from charging any sum it liked without notice. Instead, it would be required to follow the standard pricing structure set out in clause 64(2), based on actual costs incurred as a result of the activity. Does the Minister agree that any serious business case for private investment in our railways will need to have the certainty of fixed costs? How does the clause achieve anything other than the opposite?

Amendment 82 would remove the right of GBR to charge its competitors costs, basically at any time and without notice, on grounds that they have access to more money that they could pay. Instead, it would impose a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum of 12 months’ notice of changes to the charging scheme, so at least they can react to the change and seek any appeal before the event rather than after it.

Speaking to amendments 82 and 83, the Rail Forum has said:

“We strongly support these amendment, access and other charges should be reasonable and operators should have sufficient warning of changes to be able to plan accordingly.”

The amendments are not just a nice idea being suggested from the Opposition Benches, but something that the industry would like to see as well.

Amendment 84 would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways can take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. Once again, that would put accountability and transparency back into the system—something the Government seem hellbent on ignoring.

The second impact would be to allow affected organisations time to prepare an appeal. Judicial review requires a very short application process of just 12 weeks. This amended clause would help aggrieved parties to prepare a complex challenge in time for a JR timetable. Amendment 84 is more a probing one, so it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. The reflection on the judicial review process is particularly important, because we do not want to crowd people out of the opportunity to appeal. Anything he can offer in response would be appreciated.

Amendment 230 would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions—a case of natural justice. Does the Minister accept that the existing wording of the clause would allow GBR to profit from a cancellation of services caused by GBR’s failure to provide infra-structure? If so, will he explain how that could be a fair result?

Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains that are planned to use GBR infrastructure, but do not operate or do not operate in full. Again, that is in effect a probing amendment, or a making-a-point amendment, as it were. With that, I shall sit down.

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the hon. Member for his apology, if that is what that was; it is accepted. My argument for integration between rail and all modes of transport, although I will use ferries as a particular example, is important. The Minister is also the Maritime Minister, and is well aware of the specific issues that my constituency faces.

The two amendments seek to deliver integration through strategy. If we think back to the evidence given to this Committee last week by the future Prime Minister who is currently apprenticing as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he said that integration is essential—and he would know, being in charge of a combined mayoral authority. We are due to get a combined authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the amendments can be viewed as mirroring the strategic responsibilities put on combined mayors, who have responsibility for travel and the interoperability of transport connections in their areas.

What the amendments—and particularly amendment 137 —seek to do is ensure that the Minister and the Government also have the responsibility to ensure co-operation. That is explicit in amendment 137, which calls for

“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”.

The amendments would end situations such as, for example, the one where, if I was to travel home on the 3.30 train from Waterloo down to Portsmouth Harbour station, the train would arrive five minutes after the ferry had departed. I imagine those are frustrations across pretty much every constituency in the land between trains and other forms of transport. If that situation is not addressed in the explicit way set out by the two amendments, it will continue to be a significant problem that will never get dealt with. Giving more attention and powers through the Bill will help to deliver improvements even for modes of transport, such as Isle of Wight ferries, that are not regulated by the Government and where they do not have explicit and express powers.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The Transport Act 1981, which privatised British Rail’s ferry operations, including the Sea Link service to the Isle of Wight, contained no passenger interest provisions of the type contained in this Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that such an omission was an oversight and an historical missed opportunity?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard. I do not see how that would be contrary to what is going on in London.

I will briefly speak to the new clauses and then bring my comments to a close. It is worth looking at the rolling stock leasing framework, and I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about pursuing a leasing framework. At the end of the day, let us be real: the Government and the country at this point in time are not in a position simply to buy new rolling stock just because GBR comes into ownership. Forgive me if I am wrong—I am not an expert on this—but ultimately there will be some requirement to continue leasing. As much as it would be great to have brand-new trains that all look identical and all do the same thing, realistically we are just not in that position.

That leads me to one point that has come up in some of the evidence sessions I have sat in, which is accessibility. I know that a lot is being done to ensure that accessibility is central to the Bill and that people who need access to trains are considered. The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised this issue specifically for those outside the disabled community, including people of particular ages who have mobility needs. We heard from Lord Hendy that it could actually be decades before we see an improvement to accessibility because of the rolling stock. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham would give due regard to putting some system in place to ensure that that those accessibility improvements are looked at strategically and on a rolling basis—so to speak. I believe that the amendments add something, given the argument for accessibility.

We have talked a lot about supply chain manufacturing, which amendment 36 is about. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Derby South. Ultimately, we need to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for our manufacturing sector. I have already mentioned the defence sector; we have a huge requirement for our advanced manufacturing at the moment and we need that certainty. We have seen the role that private sector investment plays in the development of rolling stock. That is not to say that the private sector is better than the public sector—I happen to believe that they are both important in the right proportions—but we have had so much investment from the private sector while the railway has been privatised. To just walk away from that on an ideological basis does not seem right.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.

[Laurence Turner]

Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety.

The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea. If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.

Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I had not forgotten the shadow Minister’s request for me to provide specific examples. In a sense, though, I do not believe that it would be wise to do so. I do not think that the purpose of this Committee is to speculate about what GBR may or may not do in future; it is important that we develop a suite of measures that create the accountability that is required.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

I will give way one final time, and then I really do want to make some progress.

[Laurence Turner]

I will not test the wisdom of speculating about future legal circumstances, but is it not the case that when Railtrack was in a state of advanced collapse, that particular case did end up in court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. When one’s children come and ask for something, the wise answer is always to ask first, “What did your mother say?” If we were able to apply that common sense to this situation, I would not be so concerned. What we have instead is stakeholder management culture seeping into the core aspects of GBR functions.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that progress has been made on the cultural issues and the micro-management that he describes? I note in passing that he dates that culture from 2012 onwards, which was, of course, entirely under the Government of which he was part. In the Transport Committee, we heard that until the election, Network Rail had to seek Treasury permission to do as much as put up a passenger footbridge. Is it not welcome that that has now come to an end?

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is certainly welcome, but we are still in the position in which an improvement to a line—something as small as the Haughley junction improvement, which costs roughly £15 million to £20 million—still needs ministerial sign-off from the Treasury before it can be authorised. The Government have some way to go to improve the situation.

This will leave us with a stakeholder management culture. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is entirely right that many organisations in the 60% of the railway that is not being nationalised as part of GBR will be intimately and hugely impacted by GBR’s decisions—or will they? Will they, too, have to wait for the all clear from the Department for Transport? If GBR gets on the wrong side of Ministers or the Department, its course is going to be corrected to all manner of different ports.

The combination of clauses 7 and 9 removes almost any semblance of operational independence from GBR. Clause 9(5) states that GBR

“must have regard to guidance given under this section.”

That sounds soft, but in practice it creates a standing expectation of compliance and makes it impossible for GBR to make dynamic tactical decisions that are free from day-to-day second guessing by departmental and ministerial intervention.

That brings me to amendments 19 and 21, which would help defend the operational independence of GBR. If the Secretary of State is concerned about an aspect of GBR’s performance, they may instead issue guidance to inform GBR of its failure to meet the key performance indicators. Additionally, under clause 10, the Secretary of State may give guidance only if

“Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator…and…Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

As a result, the amendments would apply to GBR in both England and Scotland.

Finally, amendment 20 repeats the argument made about directions or guidance given by the Secretary of State on the general level and structure of fares, and it would introduce new subsection (5A), which states:

“If the Secretary of State uses the powers in this section to give guidance to Great British Railways about the general level and structure of fares for travel on railway passengers services designated under section 25 or 26, then the Secretary of State must publish the assumptions, criteria, and objectives underpinning any guidance.”

That is self-evidently sensible, and I look forward to the Minister agreeing with me.

Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

New clause 39, tabled in my name, would set out Great British Railways’ financial duties. Its purpose is to provide focus for GBR on its long-term need to stand on its own commercially. A degree of state support is inevitable, and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that to remove state funding for the railways is highly unlikely, but it is nevertheless an aspiration, and we should work towards it through efficiency and revenue growth. I accept that a degree of state support is inevitable, but the aim must be to minimise the need for the taxpayer.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we have to consider the new clauses before us as drafted. Does he accept that almost no railways in the world run without subsidy on a net basis and that, where they do, there are unique geographical circumstances? The railways in Great Britain have operated with subsidies under all models since the early 1950s, and the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, if they were to be implemented as written, would be Beeching on steroids.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agreed with the hon. Gentleman until that last sentence, because new clause 40, which I will come to in a moment, would require not the removal of subsidy but looking towards it—it is aspirational. It would set GBR’s sights on minimising its costs to the taxpayer, not through penny pinching if that would be the wrong decision, but through growth in its revenue by becoming efficient and doing more for less. Those are all good incentives that a private business inevitably has because of the challenge of competition.

New clause 39 would require Great British Railways to focus on other opportunities for funding and on minimising operational costs, just like any other business. The areas of focus under subsection (7) are the revenue opportunities.

New clause 40, on non-reliance on taxpayer funding, would make the direction of travel for GBR clearer. It may be—in fact it is almost certain—that it will never achieve it, but it is a noble objective. It should be clear that GBR should aspire to reduce the need for the taxpayer to support the rail sector by making it as efficient and attractive to passengers as possible, thereby attracting more passengers and freight on to the railways. That would create a virtuous circle, rather than the opposite. We should start thinking about that, which is what new clause 40 is intended to achieve.

New clause 41, also tabled in my name, would require Great British Railways to publish an annual statement of its financial performance. The new clause builds on the theme, forcing Great British Railways to focus on its financial performance and reduce its reliance on the taxpayer. It may be the skimmed-milk version of new clause 40 that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might find more palatable.

It is important that we do everything we can to design into a nationalised structure, where there is no competitive tension, incentives for GBR naturally to seek to achieve efficiency and productivity enhancements. There is a very real need for that, because the taxpayer’s pound can only be spent once, and funds are needed in many areas of Government. Apart from anything else, we need to reduce the tax burden, which this Government have raised to the highest on record, so anything we can do to build a structure that incentivises GBR to reduce its dependence on the taxpayer is a good thing. It also forces public accountability.

Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to give GBR an annual savings target. Taking all the new clauses together, the intention is to allow GBR to focus on providing genuine value for money for the taxpayer, not just in abstract terms, and to cut away some of the existing inefficiencies in the infrastructure commissioning and decommissioning process, to provide a longer period of certainty for the supply chain so that it can pass on the resultant efficiencies to the taxpayer. That money can be either reinvested in accelerated infrastructure roll-out, rather like the ability of ScotRail electrification to do more for less, or—heaven forbid—used to produce tax cuts for the hard-pressed taxpayer. I hope the Minister will be bowled over by those suggestions, and look forward to hearing his response.

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

It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I will touch on three of the new clauses—one at greater length than the others—to follow up on the words of my hon. Friend.

For me, new clause 39 highlights something that is clearly missing from the Bill: what actually happens when these currently franchised, privately run rail services come into public ownership across the board. Over many years, unions have fought hard for terms and conditions for staff and railway companies, but these are not uniform across the board. There is a huge differential in the terms and conditions that staff are subject to.

I pay huge tribute to the men and women who work on the railway; they are a brilliant group of people. I am obviously on a train every week, coming up and down from my constituency. However, it is really important that we have this conversation about what the Bill will actually mean. As my hon. Friend pointed out, value for money is mentioned only once in the Bill. We are, in effect, writing a blank check for GBR to spend whatever it wants on bringing all these staff into its employment.

We were told very clearly when the Committee began that this is not a civil service; it is the public sector, so there is a difference there, but it is effectively a private body as well. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how staff are being brought across—obviously some franchises have been brought into Government control already—and about the Department’s plans going forward, because time and again, we see pay going up for public sector workers without that necessarily reflecting any changes in performance.

[Laurence Turner]

The 1992 White Paper that preceded the Railways Act 1993 said that, at the time, British Rail had the second highest workforce productivity of any railway in Europe. What does the hon. Member think went wrong in all the years under privatisation that followed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

When it comes to setting up the operational structure of GBR, including questions about workforce and staffing, it is fair to say that no piece of railway legislation for 113 years has specified in statute what the operational decisions will be. Those conversations are ongoing, as they have been while rail companies have been taken into public ownership through DfT Operator, and they are always held, I am pleased to say, in close consultation with the workforce and trade unions.

On the overall principle of cost, I would point out to the right hon. Member that the Department’s view is that establishing GBR is set to cost £200 million to £400 million overall—which is 1% to 2% of a single year of operating budget—but could unlock up to a billion pounds-worth of efficiencies across the rail sector. Value for money is not only baked into the legal duties under this legislation, but is part of GBR’s operational ethos.

[Laurence Turner]

I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite the union. Does the Minister agree that changes to terms and conditions, if they happen at all, often take place on a very long-term transitionary basis? Indeed, that is my understanding of what happened the last time that the railways came under public ownership, when many people remained under pre-1948 terms and conditions for several decades. I would not wish to make assumptions or pre-judge future discussions, but can he confirm that nothing in the Bill would prevent similar transition arrangements in future?

[Keir Mather]

As my hon. Friend rightly highlights, questions about the operational structure of GBR have been left outside the framework of this Bill. That is precisely to allow those conversations to continue and so that the legislation can be fit for the creation of a railway system that works for the long term.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, but would encourage them not to press their amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

That is a very important point. While the hon. Member points to a system that is simple in the objectives that it sets out for the railway overall, I see one that provides sufficient breadth to allow the organisation to develop over time and offer a system of operation that is closer to the communities it seeks to represent—and which, most importantly, is agile in adapting to changing socioeconomic circumstances and technological innovation.

The need for objectives that are not overly prescriptive, and the place for KPIs being in the business plan, allows a holistic approach to setting objectives for the railway, which can guide work overall for a national organisation, offering a single uniting mind, while at the same time not fettering GBR’s ability to evolve as an organisation in future.

In that sense, I believe we desire the same outcome: to make sure that the railway operates in the most effective way possible. In the light of the measures in the Bill that I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 125 would require GBR to include in its business plan information about how it will minimise costs to the taxpayer, while amendment 127 would require the ORR to advise the Secretary of State on this. I agree that it is important for GBR to deliver in the most efficient way that it can. That is why GBR, the ORR and the Secretary of State—all the people involved in the railway, and in the business plan—are all subject to a cost and efficiency duty, which is applied by clause 18. That will ensure that GBR aims to be cost-efficient at all times, which aligns with the intent of amendment 125.

Adding additional requirements for GBR in this space could create perverse incentives. For example, a focus on minimising costs, without other checks and balances, could drive GBR to cancel unprofitable lines even if they are important to local communities because doing so will save money. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for GBR to neglect connectivity in those important rural regions. GBR will also be robustly scrutinised from a value-for-money perspective by the ORR, and the Secretary of State will need to consider the ORR’s advice before approving GBR’s business plan. I hope that is enough to assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill can deliver the outcome he seeks without amendment, while allowing GBR the autonomy necessary to plan in the way it sees as most appropriate.

Finally, amendment 128 seeks to limit the information that GBR could redact from its approved business plan. I agree that GBR’s activity must be transparent, and that will be an important part of how we hold GBR to account. That is why the Bill already requires GBR to publish its business plans. The Bill provides for slightly more discretion for GBR to redact sections of the business plan than amendment 128 proposes. That is because it is important that all types of sensitive data, not just the commercially sensitive, are able to be protected. Personal data, security-sensitive information about stations or anything legally privileged are all examples of content that may need redaction from the final plan. A flexible requirement can be better used to navigate these nuances. However, let me be clear that GBR’s public law duties and wider accountabilities framework will ensure that GBR will not be able to hide information that is important and relevant to public scrutiny.

In the light of these considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press the amendments.

[Laurence Turner]

On amendments 125 and 127, I have full sympathy with the ambition of reducing costs to the taxpayer wherever possible. However, the word “minimise” is important here, because a natural reading would be to bring that cost to a minimum.

Each Government have recognised that there is a balance to be struck between the charges raised against the taxpayer, fare payers and other users of the railway. We heard evidence from Richard Bowker, the former chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority, who has contributed what is sometimes known as Bowker’s law—there are only two sources of income to a railways: passengers and taxpayers.

I fear that if these amendments were incorporated into the Bill, the natural outcome would be that fares would rise, as indeed may charges levied upon freight users of the railway. For that reason, I hope they are not supported.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Mr Western, you get what you measure. We on this side of the Committee are very keen that we measure the level of involvement for the taxpayer and that we do our best to look after the taxpayer in the design of this structure, so I intend to press all the amendments.

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.