Railways Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.

The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.

However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour.

The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.

[Helen Maguire]

On passenger experience, will my hon. Friend extend my thanks to the Minister and Lord Hendy—I have made them aware of my intention to mention this today—for taking forward new clause 36 via operational arrangements, which will permit a bereaved family member of the armed forces to a fare exemption on Remembrance Sunday?

[Olly Glover]

I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday.

New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today.

New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding.

Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour.

Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee.

Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said:

“It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.”

On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Melton Constable in my constituency has a proud railway heritage—the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway steam train adorns its village sign. New clause 5 would make provision for the exploration of the reinstatement of the orbital railway. Does my hon. Friend agree that being connected to the rail network could bring immense benefits to towns such as Holt? Government support for such a scheme being explored would be very welcome.

[Olly Glover]

The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity.

I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.

[Helen Maguire]

Post covid, the number of trains from Epsom and Ewell was halved. My new clause 37 would ensure that there is community consultation on the frequency of train services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sensible thing to do would be to consult the community?

[Olly Glover]

I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.

New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.

Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.

Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.

Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.