Railways Bill

Lord Bradshaw Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

It will perhaps not surprise the last speaker that I find her remarks so far from the truth about what is really happening on our railway. Before and since the Bill was published, I have been approached by a number of lobbyists and companies seeking to inhibit Great British Railways organising a railway which works for the majority of users.

The aim is for a railway that operates express services to and from the capital; fast inter-regional services; local services planned together with regional mayors; better connections; an ambitious freight growth target; and some elbow room in the timetable to cater for the occasional aberrations, together with some engineering work.

All this can be achieved and still leave room for open-access operators which are able to pay a fair price for access, and that abstraction of revenue from other operators must be compensated for. Paths in any timetable, particularly on our congested network, are a scarce commodity, and running short trains on busy routes gives rise to opportunity costs, which means, for example, that running two short trains coupled together over the busiest sections may commend itself.

I hope the Minister will underline the fact that this does not give the regulator power to determine the basic structure of the railway, as that was what nearly caused the crisis in compiling the 2025 timetable, to which he has referred, and was resolved only by executive action, leaving many loose ends behind it. The regulator may hear claims of unfairness which are clearly demonstrated and recommend that these be corrected. It will be for Great British Railways to demonstrate that it has been fair, bearing in mind the pressure on a constrained network.

Great British Railways will have many other aims, and among these is to keep one major route open between important hubs so as to avoid, as far as possible, the need for bus substitution. People prefer to stay on a train on a diversionary route, provided that they are informed in advance of a longer journey. We want to see faster Anglo-Scottish journeys and internal journeys by air and freight reduced, in the interests of reducing congestion and improving air quality. If we add desirable features, such as a passenger growth target and incentives to use rail more, this will require faster, larger and more frequent trains and better freight facilities and depots.

All this can be achieved by the early 2040s, which, in railway terms, is where we should be aiming. We need vision to achieve this, not a lawyer-driven nightmare overseen by a legalistic regulator.

There is one issue on which I shall press the Minister to provide an answer. As I understand it, the future Great British Railways will have a five-yearly allocation of funds. This will be contained in a statement of funds available set by the rail regulator after considering the proposed expenditure submitted by Great British Railways. My question concerns the words which permit the Secretary of State to reduce the amount of money set aside for the railways.

Railways and their supply chain are a long-term industry that needs some certainty about future levels of investment. If the Secretary of State interferes with the process, he should refer the matter back to the regulator so that he may be advised how the industry will be affected, particularly the operation and maintenance of the railway and the likely effect on the agreed business plan.

I remind the House that the two major developments which have affected the railways in recent years concern HS2 and the intercity express programme. Neither of these were carried out by railway professionals but were dictated by government and have proved costly and have vastly outrun their timescales. Great British Railways needs to start with a clean sheet and be able to make its own decisions about how the money is spent.

Railways Bill

Lord Bradshaw Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bradshaw]

54: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of rail funding settlements(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State proposes to make a material change affecting an agreed multi-year funding settlement for the railway (“the settlement”), whether by—(a) reducing the funding provided under the settlement,(b) altering the outputs, or the scope of works, specified under the settlement, or(c) making any other decision, whether or not framed as a change to the settlement, which materially affects the cost or deliverability of the outputs agreed under it.(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the Secretary of State must refer the proposed change to the Office of Rail and Road before it takes effect.(3) Where the proposed change would reduce funding available under the settlement, Great British Railways must set out how the reduction would be accommodated, including which works would be deferred, which activities reduced, and in what sequence.(4) The Office of Rail and Road must assess and publish a report on the proposed change. The report must include— (a) an assessment of the effect on—(i) delivery of the outputs agreed under the settlement,(ii) the supply chain and the skills required to deliver the programme, and(iii) whole-life cost and asset condition,(b) any statement provided by Great British Railways under subsection (3).(5) Where Great British Railways has given the Secretary of State advice on the proposed change, that advice must be published alongside the report under subsection (4).(6) A proposed change to which subsection (1) applies may not take effect until the report under subsection (4) has been published.(7) The function of the Office of Rail and Road under this section is limited to assessment and publication; it does not include determining where reductions should fall, directing the activities of Great British Railways, or the structure or content of the timetable.(8) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from making a change to a settlement; this section requires only that the change be assessed and published before it takes effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to refer any material change to an agreed rail funding settlement to the Office of Rail and Road for independent assessment, and to publish that assessment, together with any advice given by Great British Railways, before the change takes effect.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

The amendment that I am moving is almost self-explanatory. I think that most people in the Room will have witnessed arbitrary cuts in expenditure on the railway. These cuts probably emanate from the Treasury but come through the Department for Transport, which says that it must cut 10% of rail services or cut certain staff—or maybe have a recruitment ban. I am seeking to ameliorate that process somewhat so that if a Government—not necessarily the Minister’s—propose to make an arbitrary cut in the money available to the railway, whether that is the money available now or at some time in future, instead of leaving the railway to make the best of a bad job, a proposal can be made to the regulator. It would give the regulator a real job.

The regulator would have already approved the business plan of the railway at some time previously. If an arbitrary cut was made in future, that cut should be referred to the rail regulator and, as it were, deferred for three months, during which time the regulator would have the opportunity, together with the industry, to come forward with better solutions than have been proposed under the arbitrary cuts. For example, it could seek to postpone some work or alter the scope of the work. Instead of having a crude ban on recruitment, it could ensure that it applies only to staff who are not absolutely essential to running the railway. In this amendment, I seek to make a change to the way in which the Treasury and the Department for Transport handle their relations with the industry.

That would be a good thing that would give the rail and road regulator a chance to propose an alternative. As its remit also includes roads, it might also consider the terrible amount of money that has been wasted on smart motorways. It might propose that some form of taxation is levied on heavy goods vehicles, which I am sure most people would agree do enormous damage to our roads. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. Obviously, I have not heard my noble friend’s exposition of the purpose of his amendment, which I look forward to listening to shortly, but I understand why these amendments have been tabled. I think that they are both intended to make it more difficult to change funding for railways, as opposed to other areas of public expenditure, but I am not sure that that is entirely a good thing. I completely understand why that would be a good thing if you were looking at it through the railway end of the telescope, but if you look at it from the point of view of a taxpayer or a citizen, I am not sure that tying the hands of Ministers in that way is entirely helpful.

I will take the two amendments in turn. In terms of background, it is worth saying that, if I have understood the Bill correctly, in part 1 of Schedule 2,

“Funding by the Secretary of State”,

the structure for setting the budgets in the first place is broadly the position now. The Government set out a plan for funding over a multiyear period, they notify various people of that funding and the funding is set out, as are the things that are expected to be delivered by the funding, so that it is all transparent for us to see what is going on. As far as I understand it, the Bill as drafted requires the Secretary of State purely to notify the ORR if they propose to vary the financial assistance—the Secretary of State has to tell the ORR in various circumstances. It is very clear that only notification is required; there is no requirement for the Minister to await the ORR doing anything before the Minister is able to proceed with the funding change. I am content with that set of circumstances, if I have understood them correctly.

My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which I understand is a probing amendment to test this, would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to change that funding settlement, except in two cases: if the things they required GBR to do had changed and therefore the funding was different; or there was an emergency in the country at the level of what is set out in the Civil Contingencies Act. We do not have those very often, but there are lots of circumstances in which the Government have to make changes to public expenditure, for all sorts of reasons, without the country being in an emergency situation at the level defined in the Civil Contingencies Act. It is the proper role of Ministers to have that flexibility and the ability to set budgets, make funding decisions and even to choose within the departmental allocation that they have. Even if the Treasury is not changing anything in terms of the money that the department has, it is the job of Ministers to decide how that money is allocated between the different parts of the department’s expenditure, whether it is a—

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

May I just say that three months’ notice is not a long time and any arbitrary cut cannot possibly take place in three months because timetables, trains and rosters have to be altered? Three months is a very short amount of time to give the rail regulator to make decisions.

I am not talking about giving the rail regulator lots of extra powers to alter the timetable. I am quite satisfied with where we have got to on that. I am saying that, if any future Government wish to reduce the money, they should have the grace to have the matter properly considered by people who are professionally competent. That does not always include Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

I start by saying how much I disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. His idea that parliamentary scrutiny is carried out properly in the House of Commons is absolutely false, because the whipping system there does not permit a full and frank discussion such as we are having now. He is yesterday’s man in respect of his remarks.

I am quite content to leave my amendment in the hands of the Minister. I reiterate that I am not asking for much. I know that the ORR will be consulted about a lot of things but, in the event of what I call an arbitrary cut, I believe that three months’ notice would not affect the eventual savings and that better savings would result from further scrutiny by the ORR together with the players in the industry. With that, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, and I look forward to it appearing on Report.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.