Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not going to repeat what the clause does, but it establishes only a passive role. The council must “keep under review” and “make representations”, but it has no proactive duty to investigate or intervene. That is quite a big omission, and it contrasts with what the Minister said in answer to written parliamentary question 76652. The Minister gave an assurance that the new watchdog will deliver clear and robust oversight, but the co-operation duty is narrowly drawn, excluding wider consumer and accessibility organisations.

As drafted, the council lacks a clear purpose—in fact, it does not even have a purpose clause—and the practical tools needed to act as the strengthened passenger watchdog the Government have promised. Without a purpose clause, there is no direction as to what the council should be making representations about. Even the title of clause 37 is anodyne: “Keeping matters under review and collecting information” is hardly a strong description of a watchman for the interests of the passenger. Having kept matters “under review”, its only power is to “make representations”, which of course is meaningless.

The Urban Transport Group expressed similar concerns in its written evidence to the Transport Committee:

“The Bill must ensure that the Passengers Council exercise their powers in relation to GBR as they would any other operator and that these hold weight. It is not enough for GBR to only be held meaningfully to account by the Secretary of State, who has varying responsibilities outside of rail, and who may not have the time to investigate instances of poor performance to the relevant level of scrutiny.

Further consideration should be given to the explicit powers and levers the Passengers’ Council will have”—

they are going to split the infinitive—

“to meaningfully hold GBR to account on behalf of users.”

There is a risk that the passengers’ council will be just a busy talking shop, with no ability to effect change. As drafted, it rather feels like an afterthought. For example, there are no enforcement powers, save for referral to the Office of Rail and Road. Under clause 37(1), the council will have the authority to

“make representations to…such persons as they think appropriate”

on

“matters affecting the interests of the public”.

In reality, that will mainly be to the Secretary of State and GBR, but there is no corresponding duty for either the Secretary of State or GBR to respond in any way to those representations. Consider that for a moment: there is a duty to make representations, and no duty to respond at all. It could not be more toothless if it tried.

Amendment 65, in my name, would go a modest way to rectifying the toothlessness of this representative body. It would simply require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the passengers’ council makes under this clause. Surely members of this Committee and the Government would agree that that is a reasonable expectation for the passengers’ council and the passengers it represents.

Amendment 235, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the passengers’ council to assess levels of satisfaction with public passenger railway services and report these in a manner that enables GBR to fulfil its functions. Any amendment, and this is one of them, that ensures greater transparency and therefore a better service from this organisation—

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

If the shadow Minister is talking about 235, that is one that he tabled, not me.

[Jerome Mayhew]

No wonder I agree with it so strongly. I put “LD” by it, but that is being unduly generous to the Liberal Democrats. It is an excellent amendment. As I was concluding, it would ensure greater transparency and, therefore, a better service from this organisation, so I have no hesitation in supporting amendment 235 and I hope that the Liberal Democrats join me in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not going to reheat the discussions that we have already enjoyed on clause 37, and clause 38 simply replicates the 1993 Act. We are happy for the clauses to proceed without amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Investigations

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 39, page 21, line 19, at end insert—

“(1A) The Passengers’ Council must not investigate a matter unless the matter has been considered first by Great British Railways and is subject to an appeal for further consideration.”

This amendment makes Great British Railways the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the Passenger Standards Council the appellant body should the complainant not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Olly Glover]

I can be very concise, Mrs Hobhouse. We consider the provisions on the passengers’ council to be among the stronger components of the Bill. Some sound thinking is involved.

Amendment 142 is a very basic amendment that aims simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. All it would do is ensure that when a complaint is submitted, the first stage is for GBR to look at it. It will be a GBR issue, because GBR is going to run everything. If the appellant body is not satisfied with the response from GBR, the complaint can by all means go to the passengers’ council for investigation.

If the complaint goes first to the passengers’ council, what will happen in pretty much every case is that the council will have to go to GBR to find out the facts. How else will it know them? I hope that the amendment is uncontentious, but if the Minister does not agree I am sure he will give a typically eloquent explanation.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The clause sets out the circumstances in which the passengers’ council must—that is “must”, not “may”—investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. I could provide a long description of the clause, but I will leave that to the Minister, who I know will want to explain it to the Committee.

Essentially, the Bill largely lifts the current framework into the GBR model, so I can see why no amendment would be needed, although Ministers should clarify how the national and London watchdogs will co-ordinate on cross-boundary issues. I will be grateful for an explanation of how the Minister will undertake the balancing act between GBR and the London Transport Users Committee.

There is, however, a big issue with the current wording of the clause. It requires the council actively to

“investigate any matter relating to the provision of railway passenger services”

put to it by members of the public, as well as others. That sounds great, but from a practical perspective, there are 1.75 billion passenger journeys each year. The potential issues with the service that passengers receive will run into the tens of thousands every year, yet the drafting of the clause will impose a legal duty on the passengers’ council to investigate every single one of them, unless they are “frivolous or vexatious”.

“Frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms. To demonstrate that something is vexatious is a very high bar for the passengers’ council: it would typically have to provide evidence of multiple previous complaints on a similar subject that came to nothing. That is what “vexatious” means, and “frivolous” is not far off it. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, is creating an enormous a legal duty and a vast workstream for the host organisation that is becoming the passengers’ council, which has fewer than 30 members of staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. Perhaps, in slower time, he can walk me through each specific provision and we can come to a determination as to the intent that he outlined, but for the moment—at your discretion, Mrs Hobhouse—I will proceed with the matter at hand.

I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate. The watchdog will already be working closely with GBR to ensure that GBR can respond to its own passenger issues effectively and according to best practice and will not duplicate investigations unless it is necessary to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw amendment 142.

Clause 39 will enable the passenger watchdog to investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to conduct investigations in certain circumstances. For example, the watchdog must investigate any matters referred to it by passengers, potential passengers or organisations representing passengers provided that the matters are not vexatious. It must also investigate any issues referred to it by the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or the ORR, and anything that it appears to the watchdog that it ought to investigate.

If the matters fall wholly within the London railway area, the passenger watchdog must refer it to the London Transport Users Committee. Transport Focus, the body out of which the watchdog will be built, has a duty to investigate matters referred to it, but the clause expands the list of people who may refer cases for investigation, to reflect the central role of the watchdog, its role in the reformed railway and the importance of passenger experience to this Government.

[Olly Glover]

I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Power to obtain information

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 40, page 22, line 11, leave out subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) and insert

“the Passengers’ Council may take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate.”

This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council enforcement powers when its requests for information are not met.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover to move amendment 138.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will do the honours.

[Edward Morello]

I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 43, page 23, line 21, leave out

“may prepare a report of its findings”

and insert

“must publish and lay before Parliament a report of its findings”.

This amendment requires the Passengers’ Council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensures any report is laid before Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 46 gives the passengers’ council a power to set consumer standards for operators of rail passenger services and station services, which will be imposed on them via licence conditions. Of course, we have not seen any of those licence conditions, so we will just have to take it on faith. The clause sets out matters that the standards may cover, including passenger assistance, provision of travel information, a process for compensation if services are disrupted, and complaints about passenger services. The council must seek the Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s consent before setting new standards or varying existing ones, and it must publish them, and any variations or revocations of them, and monitor how operators are complying with them.

In summary, the clause gives the passengers’ council a standard-setting role in areas such as assistance, information, compensation and complaints. What about standards on core passenger priorities, such as punctuality, reliability, crowding, staffing, cleanliness, safety and ticketing transparency? Would the Secretary of State be minded to grant consent for such standards, and if not, why not?

Requiring both the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to any new standard creates two veto points, limiting the council’s independence. The result is a standards framework far weaker than the broader watchdog model described in the consultation. As we have discussed, subsection (2)(a) makes no direct reference to general users of the railway; the only reference is to disabled people. While I understand the additional focus that disability access requires, the current wording risks a wholly unbalanced approach for the new organisation.

Amendment 71 would solve that drafting imbalance and encourage the passengers’ council to set standards for all users and potential users of the railway. In drafting it, all I did was take the Government’s own words in clause 18, which, in describing the general functions, refers to all users, both able bodied and disabled. It does not seem to be an enormous stretch to require the passenger watchdog to have a similar functions scope as the organisation that it is watchdogging.

Amendment 72 would require the passengers’ council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort, onboard experience, and affordability of railway passenger services. These are the key issues of importance to passengers. Why do the Government not allow their key champion to tackle the real problems and not just the peripheral ones? Instead of focusing on information provision and complaints processes, let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us have a watchdog that can actually draft and implement standards, and enforce improvement on a large nationalised organisation in the interests of passengers—that is what they actually want—rather than tipping a cap towards it and saying, “Oh yes, we’ve got a watchdog but it has no enforcement powers. It can write standards, but only about what information you receive, not about the really important stuff.”

If the Government really want to put

“passengers at the heart of the railway”,

why do they not vote for these amendments and enhance the powers of the passenger watchdog? They cannot have it both ways. At the moment, it looks like they are just pretending; they have a superficial watchdog that ticks a box but has very limited practical use for passengers.

Amendment 73 would remove the passengers’ council’s need to obtain the ORR’s consent to set, vary or revoke standards. A truly effective passenger watchdog needs to have its own real powers, and the ability to set its own standards without the consent of another organisation. Why does the Minister not have faith in his own passenger watchdog to do that? If his answer is that such an objection from the ORR would relate to safety-critical functions, why does the Bill not just say that? The Government are planning on stripping most of the competences away from the ORR, save for the remaining aspect of safety, but they do not say, “If the watchdog has a standard that has an impact on the safety-critical application of the railway, it needs to get the permission of the ORR.” That would make sense. Instead, the ORR has a blanket veto.

Amendment 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would remove the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State and the ORR before the passengers’ council sets, varies or revokes a standard—a similar approach to that which I have put forward. I would be minded to support it, were it to be pressed to a Division.

Amendment 144 comes from a similar quarter. I am sure it is unintentional, but it contains a drafting mistake. The notes to the amendment make it clear that it seeks to delete subsection (5), but the wording as it stands relates to subsection (6). I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what has happened.

New clause 16, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, would require a review of the Access for All programme. It seeks to ensure that step-free access at stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain historical spending decisions and set out recommendations for future spending. I will leave new clauses 17 and 53 to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

New clause 69, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would mandate GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years, to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and to report annually on its progress against that strategy. I welcome that approach to transparency and the focus on accessibility. It deals with the Minister’s arguments about imposing onerous reporting targets on GBR. Given the number of stations involved, the requirement is limited to once a decade, which would be a reasonable compromise. Without such data, how can GBR expect to allocate resources efficiently? The Minister needs to set out how GBR will address accessibility investment without such data. I anticipate an argument that it would be imposing onerous conditions on GBR for it to have an idea as to accessibility around the country. Every now and again, it should know what its own business is up to.

[Olly Glover]

The shadow Minister is right to say that our amendments have similar intentions to his; we may have taken slightly different avenues but we are heading in the same direction.

Amendments 141 and 144 are intended to reduce the Secretary of State’s role in the passengers’ council’s abilities to set standards and go about its work. The shadow Minister is quite right to point out that there is a typo in amendment 144, which I had not spotted—the intention is to delete subsection (5) and not subsection (6). I thank him for drawing our attention to that.

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The shadow Minister; you are the spokesperson.

[Olly Glover]

Apologies. One recognises one’s status.

We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.

I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.

The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.

Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.

Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.

The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.

Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?

[Keir Mather]

These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled.

The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards.

Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice.

Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue.

Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick.

I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see.

Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity. 

The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice.

On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.

[Daniel Francis]

I will briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 does not have many of these components. Yet the Mayor of London allows a number of discounts, including for veterans, care leavers, apprentices and people who are unemployed and seeking work. They are not on the face of that legislation, but those exemptions do exist, including for veterans, and I am sure the Minister will cover those points in due course. However, there is other legislation where that is the case. At no point in their 14 years did the previous Government attempt to amend that Act to provide that exemption for veterans, so that is the position that remains.

I remind Members of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 causes some concern with its reference to fares being “one third lower” because in many cases that would represent a fare increase for wheelchair users and blind passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

This may shock the Committee, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and his expertise has exposed a lack of knowledge on my part. I was not aware that the discount in that circumstance was in excess of one third. Given that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful for his contribution.

[Olly Glover]

I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do.

On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense.

I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport.

Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.

[Edward Argar]

Is the hon. Member aware that, although not in a domestic context, there have in the past been schemes in which, instead of air miles, points or miles have been available—for example, with Eurostar—and they were extremely popular?

[Olly Glover]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.

[Rebecca Smith]

It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.

[Edward Morello]

I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.

It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for clarity on what the this is and what it is not. It is welcome that it is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and its Manchester to Liverpool core—a scheme that the Liberal Democrats continue to support. We hope this time that the dreams for Northern Powerhouse Rail will become a reality, given the very slow journey they have been on since 2014, when first proposed.

I understand what the Secretary of State said about this not being about Birmingham to Manchester, but I hope she agrees that we will eventually need to find an effective solution for transport between the west midlands and the north-west, given the very congested rail network and the M6 being something covered by Chris Rea in one of his songs. I appreciate that that is a debate for another time, but perhaps I can tempt the Secretary of State to reveal when the Government intend to bring forward proposals for Birmingham to Manchester improvements.

I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and thank him for his work. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has a concern that the Bill advocates a similar legislative approach as the rest of HS2 to consent, planning the route, mitigations and so on. I wonder what lessons have been or will be learnt to ensure that the existential despair that is HS2 will not be repeated when attempting to use this procedure to advance Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to speak in support of amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, and amendment 261, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The two amendments attempt to deliver the same thing: better integration between rail and other modes of transport. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is a man of great attention to detail, but it was perhaps a little sloppy of him on this occasion not to include in his list of trains, buses, trams and cycling the word “ferries”. Of course, ferries are fundamental in my constituency; we cannot get off the Isle of Wight without using them.

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

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to rebuke me, albeit very politely and gently. I should have worded the amendment in a non-exclusive manner, to make sure that I did not forget any other form of transport. He is right to highlight, as I know he is about to, the critical importance of the integrated transport terminal in Portsmouth harbour for access to and from his wonderful island. There are many other examples of such terminals, including the one in Ardrossan harbour for getting to and from the Isle of Arran in Scotland. I am sure that, if I had had the Government’s resources at my fingertips rather than having bashed away at this over Christmas, I would not have made that error.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.

I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.

The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.

Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.

The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.

[Olly Glover]

We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover—Mr Glover?

[Olly Glover]

I apologise, Mr Western; I had forgotten I was due to speak, because we started to discuss this group the other day.

I do not have too much to say. I can understand some of the Minister’s points, but I certainly disagree with others. There is, of course, a balance between being too prescriptive and something being so woolly that it ends up being—this is a very tenuous analogy, but it could end up being like a glass of Ribena for a two-year-old, or predominantly water. That is the debate that we have been having, but I shall not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to press these two amendments to a Division, as I stated on Tuesday.

Also, I have a thought for our subsequent proceedings. We talk a lot about preserving things in aspic, but for the interest and attention of the Committee we may need a different analogy. Perhaps we should preserve things in stone, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) did in the 2015 general election. Perhaps we should turn to that analogy a bit more.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not.

As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well.

New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain.

The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base.

There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise.

New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states:

“Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”,

which we have already considered, and it dictates:

“The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year”

and

“how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”.

At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include

“freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”,

which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted,

“integration with housing and local transport”

and

“the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.”

The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector.

Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action.

This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.

[Olly Glover]

I should have said earlier, Mr Western, that it is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship as we debate another exciting group of amendments. I want to make some brief remarks on the Conservative amendments in this group. I eagerly await the Minister’s polite but withering put-down.

Amendment 26 is a matter of wording. Alas, unlike the shadow Minister, my only experience of the law is occasionally watching “Kavanagh QC”, a reference that no doubt reveals my age. I shall await the Minister’s comments on that amendment and shall reach a view in the no doubt incredibly nail-bitingly tight Division on it. On amendment 218, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to get mayoral consultation right, and to have plenty of it.

New clause 33 seems sensible, given the Conservatives’ and Labour’s total obsession with rolling stock leasing rather than purchase, which I find utterly bizarre. Rolling stock leasing can make sense, particularly when gilt prices or the cost of capital is high, but it is quite expensive on a whole-life cost basis. Otherwise, why would rolling stock companies do it? There are some very nice people in them, but they are not charities. Rolling stock leasing happens elsewhere in Europe, but it is not as universal as it is here. However, that feels like either yesterday’s war or tomorrow’s—probably not today’s.

On new clause 36, I note that the shadow Minister has tabled amendments about the private sector to similar effect in group 36. I politely suggest to him that, in the same way that members of the governing party can sometimes be too ideologically committed to the idea that public sector is automatically better, the evidence does not necessarily support the view that private sector is automatically better in the rail context. It is context-dependent. ORR benchmarking from 2012 showed that our train driver and rolling stock maintenance costs, both of which have been in the private sector for some time, were generally significantly higher at that time than those of our European counterparts. I do not believe that those trends have changed significantly.

I would be interested to hear from the shadow Minister and from the Government the evidence that private sector is automatically better than public sector, or vice versa. I think it depends on the context. Perhaps more important is getting requirements and specifications for tenders right or deciding in each individual context the best way to get value on a whole-life cost basis. We definitely have a problem on the railway, and perhaps as a nation as a whole, with being obsessed with getting up-front capital costs down, but there is not quite the same level of attention for a decent appraisal of whole-life costs and deciding how to move forward on that basis.

On new clause 37, I understand the intention of an annual business plan, but my slight worry is that it could undermine the logic of the five-year funding review period. Perhaps the shadow Minister can address that when he sums up.

Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

I want to make a few remarks about the Conservative new clauses, on which we have mixed opinions. New clause 34 perhaps has some merit in terms of its intention to strengthen protections for the five-year funding review period process. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will speak to our new clause 26 shortly.

We feel that some of the other Conservative new clauses have not necessarily been fully thought through or recognise the reality of how railways work. For example, new clause 40 seeks to end GBR’s reliance on taxpayer funding. Of course, in an ideal world we would love all public services to end their reliance on taxpayer funding—that would be paradise because we would not need taxation—but the reality is that extremely few railways in the world are entirely independent of taxpayer funding. We invest public money in railways because they are significant enablers of all sorts of economic and social benefit, so we have some concerns about new clause 40.

Some of the other Conservative new clauses have good intentions. For example, new clause 41 seeks to require the publication of data on financial performance. But it also seems to be over-fixated on GBR needing to reach a self-financing state, which seems somewhat unlikely.

I have said enough. I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on his new clauses and of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset comment on ours.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I wish to speak briefly to new clause 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. In simple terms, the new clause would ensure that Great British Railways’ funding is reviewed, published and scrutinised by Parliament halfway through each funding cycle, so that there is transparency and accountability on public money and it is spent effectively.

Any long-term rail strategy, particularly one that involves large sums of public money, must be open to proper scrutiny, regularly reviewed and accountable to Parliament. This is especially important as the Bill in its current form gives the Secretary of State a significant concentration of power over the future, shape, funding and direction of the railways. If Parliament is to be asked to confer that level of authority, accountability should increase alongside it. New clause 26 provides a sensible and proportionate mechanism to do exactly that without dragging Ministers or officials into day-to-day micromanagement.

As currently proposed, Great British Railways risks becoming the rail equivalent of NHS England—a fear raised previously in Committee—a large, centralised body distant from accountability and with blurred lines between ministerial direction and operational responsibility. Transparency is the safeguard to protect against ending up with another unaccountable arm’s length body.

The new clause would require a statutory funding review halfway through each five-year settlement. That review would set out, in clear figures, exactly how much funding GBR had been allocated, how much revenue had been raised from fares, and how much Government subsidy had been received. Crucially, it would also be sent directly to the Transport Committee, thereby ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny. That matters because taxpayers are funding the railway twice: once through general taxation and again through ticket prices. Passengers and taxpayers alike deserve to know where their money is going, how it is balanced between subsidies and fares, and whether it is being spent evenly and effectively across the funding cycle, not just all at the start or at the end.

A mid-point review would also allow us to see what is working and what is not, particularly given that GBR will be a new organisation. It would give time to correct course when things are failing, and to continue or scale up when results are delivered. Above all, it is about hardwiring trust into the railway system, with clear information, published transparently and scrutinised by Parliament, with a focus on passengers. We believe new clause 26 would strengthen the Bill and hope the Government will give it due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 216, which would align the five-year funding cycles for services and for infrastructure, makes sense, and I am inclined to support it unless the Minister can explain why it is a bad suggestion. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 147 is an additional attempt to maintain funding certainty for the sector, and it is pushing in the right direction. Finally, their amendment 215 focuses on passenger services. I am not sure it is necessary, so I am not minded to support it, but I recognise the intent behind it.

[Olly Glover]

May I correct an earlier omission, Mr Western, by stating that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship?

First, I want to make some general comments about this part of the Bill, which appears to be based largely on the existing five-year control period framework for rail industry planning and funding. Overall, that is a system that has been felt by the sector to work reasonably well. I had intended not to bore the Committee too much with war stories from my own time on the railway, but perhaps the only drawback of the system is that there tends to be an enormous consultant bonanza halfway through each control period, when the planning starts for the next one even while some of the plans and good intentions of the current control period gather dust on a shelf without necessarily being reviewed. That applies not so much to infrastructure enhancement, but more to process improvements for making the railway better.

First, I will say a little about our amendment 147, and then I want to speak, at perhaps rather more length than usual, about amendments 216 and 215. If there is one hill that I would be willing to perish on when it comes to this Bill and its design, it is probably the decision to not include funding for passenger services as part of the five-year funding settlement.

Our amendment 147 is basically intended to support what the Government are planning to do on five-year funding settlements, but to strengthen and protect them by simply creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to reopen their funding should a major eventuality arise. The examples that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham gave are pertinent; it is a bit of an extreme example, and hopefully we will not be there, but I think it would be reasonable to review the five-year funding of the railway in case of the outbreak of war. Our amendment would not stop the Secretary of State doing that; all it would do is require them to consult the ORR and make sure that the ORR gives written consent. It is a simple step to provide that little bit of extra governance and peer review.

I agree with the hon. Member’s comments on the shortcomings of his own amendment 129 in this area. I admire his honesty and the reflective nature of those comments—that is commendable, and something to which we can all aspire. Compared with his amendment, which would prevent variations entirely, perhaps ours is a compromise. I agree with his amendment 119, which shows good intention to make sure that the planning and funding happens in advance of the next five-year period.

Before I talk about our amendments 216 and 215, which I really do feel are critical, I want to read a couple of extracts from the policy paper on how the Government plan to fund GBR, which was published on 5 November 2025 as part of the series of factsheets on the Bill, because it will set the context for what I am about to say. The first thing that the factsheet explains is how passenger services—now known as train services—are currently funded. It states that passenger services

“run by government contracted train operating companies, such as Thameslink, are funded differently to”

Network Rail. It continues:

“The overall money available for passenger services is set at the Spending Review and then allocated via an annual business planning and funding process. Train operating companies also receive money from other sources, such as ticket fares. The train operating companies set out what they intend to deliver in annual business plans, then they seek approval from government. When approved, the contents of these plans are reflected in service agreements with the government.”

That is what the factsheet says about how things work today. It goes on to explain how things will work in future and in relation to the five-year funding review periods for other things. It states:

“Given the greater uncertainty of passenger services spend and income, due to changes in passenger demand which are difficult to predict, Passenger services will not be included within this commitment at this point. Passenger services and other activities outside of infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewal will be funded using existing powers, which will be updated to account for GBR. As these powers already work well in allowing the government to provide transparent and flexible funding to the railway industry, we have decided to keep them and continue to use the Spending Review for these aspects of GBR funding.”

Why does this matter? My real issue with the exclusion of funding for passenger services from the five-year funding review periods, and the failure to align it with infrastructure funding, is what the Rail Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy, says about the objectives of the Bill. He has said it on the record on many occasions, including in front of the Transport Committee and when speaking at the Rail Industry Association reception a couple of weeks ago. He says that one of the key aims of the Bill is to properly enable the alignment of track and train—of infrastructure and train operations. He is absolutely right about that; I agree with him very much. Having worked on both sides of the fence, for Network Rail and for train operating companies, I have seen the endless misaligned objectives, budgets and ways of working and can say that he is absolutely right in his diagnosis and his prescription. However, the omission of passenger services from the five-year funding period runs the risk of undermining that. Let me explain why.

The key issue is that critical elements of the running of the railway are included in passenger services funding. Those include staffing on stations, in rolling stock maintenance depots and, critically, of train crew—drivers, guards, conductors and so on—as well as train crew training, which for many train operators has been a complete mess since the pandemic. Often, the temptation is to paint those train operators as evil private sector ogres and figures of terror from whatever fantasy franchise one wishes to quote, but in reality, since the pandemic, they have been subject to very tightly prescribed contracts by the Department for Transport, and that has led to some very poor short-term decisions about train crew training that have, at times, led to serious service cuts. We are thankfully recovering from some of that, but not wholly: for example, CrossCountry is still running at a significantly lower level than before the pandemic.

There is also the key question of the impact on Network Rail delays. A figure is often cited by those who like to bash Network Rail—having worked there, I know that there are plenty of reasons for doing so, but this one is a bit spurious—that 60% of delays are caused by Network Rail and only 40% by the train operators. Therefore, they say, aren’t the train operators wonderful and isn’t Network Rail terrible? The problem is that, partly because of the way that train crew operations and train operators are funded, a lot of the delays counted in that 60% are fundamentally train operator delays—delays that they have the most ability to influence.

Very sadly, from time to time, people commit suicide on our rail network. That is of course terrible. It initially causes very significant delay and passengers are generally sympathetic to that. Generally speaking, the benchmark for clearing and reopening the line in a way that is safe for everyone, having done the scene of crime investigation and so on, is 60 to 90 minutes. Passengers are understanding of that. They are not understanding when 12 hours later the service is still in complete meltdown because the trains are in one place, the drivers are in another and the guards are in yet another.

A few months ago I was travelling from Didcot to Cambridge via London, because we still do not have East West Rail—maybe one day we will, but that is one for another time—and many hours after a fatality between Reading and London, Reading was a trainpark. Every platform was strewn with Great Western inter-city trains or commuter trains, because its train crew and rolling stock diagrams are so complicated that it is not able to recover during disruption. That has happened partly because there is not a whole-system focus on the alignment between infrastructure funding and train crew and train operations funding.

There has been a lot of pressure, through the franchising process, to cut back on train crew costs, and therefore to diagram—forgive the jargon; I am trying to avoid using it. Diagrams are the daily allocations of instructions as to which trains drivers, guards and others work on. The way to reduce train crew costs, particularly given that there have been above-inflation pay increases, is to tighten those diagrams and squeeze every bit of productivity out of them. When the train service is working normally, it is fine if the train does one thing, the guard does another and the driver yet another.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, in the context of infrastructure and operating companies coming together—although it also applies more broadly—about the tightness of those diagrams and that scheduling. On East Midlands Railway, although normally the trains are short-formed, we regularly see a 10-car train that is packed in the front five carriages because the back five have to be locked, completely empty, and travel to London with no one sitting in them because there is not a member of staff to staff them. That is because the diagrams are so tight that there is no contingency to put extra staffing in place at short notice when someone does not turn up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

The right hon. Gentleman gives another good illustration of the problem, and of the foolishness of our current obsession with ordering five-coach inter-city trains, which no other serious western European country does. So often, they are either short-formed as five coaches or the other half is unavailable—or even, when it is available, no one knows, because they cannot walk all the way through and access the other half of the train. We should not be doing that anyway, but he makes a very good point.

There are many other examples of what I am talking about, but I hope that underlines why I really do think that amendments 216 and 215 are critical, and why the objectives in schedule 2 should include passenger rail services, which should be subject to the five-year funding period so that they are not subject to the short-term whims of the Treasury—dare I say that it has any influence on this—and so that the fulfilment of the Bill’s key objective of properly integrating track and train is fully enabled. We will press amendments 215, 216 and 147 to Divisions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister is right to point out that allocation of funding for passenger services, as opposed to other GBR activities, initially takes place through the spending review funding process. I am about to address his point, but I should say that the Bill contains the ability for Ministers to extend the five-year funding process to passenger services once GBR is set up and prepared to manage that. It would not be responsible to do that from the outset when GBR is still in the transition and set-up phase. Ministers need to feel confident that GBR is financially mature enough before they can consider integrating funding further. I hope that addresses both the shadow Minister’s point and the contribution from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but I am sure that in his line of work he has already encountered many instances where, despite noble intentions for something to perhaps happen at some point in the future, it ends up being years, if not decades, before it does. That is why it would be rather more sensible to enshrine the requirement in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support—slightly barbed support, but support nevertheless. I have nothing further to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Rail strategy

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 15, page 8, line 18, at end insert

“for the next 30 years for”.

This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

“(c) the support given to rural communities in accessing rail travel, and

(d) the co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities for greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”

This amendment would require the rail strategy to set out the long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options.

Amendment 207, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

“(c) the consideration of the national rail network as a whole, and

(d) the development of national and regional integrated timetables including—

(i) any infrastructure enhancements necessary to facilitate such development,

(ii) strategies at a local or regional level to deliver these enhancements in line with the 5-year funding periods; and

(iii) a system of prioritisation of connections between services, taking into account interchange times and overall end-to-end journey times resulting from those connections.”

This amendment introduces a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration.

Amendment 224, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

“(c) the development of rail freight network usage.”

This amendment would require the rail strategy to include developing rail freight.

Amendment 25, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods.

(1B) A control period as set out in subsection (1A) must be no shorter than five years.”

This amendment would require the rail strategy to remain in place for three control periods at a minimum.

Amendment 260, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (‘the level crossings strategy’).

(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”

Amendment 261, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—

(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and

(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.

(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”

Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—

(a) support the development of new international routes,

(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and

(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.

(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—

(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;

(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;

(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.

Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The rail strategy must include a network electrification strategy to—

(a) require that any new rail lines are electrified, and

(b) set criteria for determining which existing rail lines should be fully electrified, based on current and potential operation of those lines, and set a timetable by which electrification should be completed.

(3B) In preparing the network electrification strategy under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must take into account the current and potential future—

(a) maximum operating speed of,

(b) average number of trains in an hour using,

(c) average volume of freight transported on,

(d) maximum potential reliability of rolling stock using, and

(e) acceleration requirements of

trains using the relevant lines.”

Amendment 225, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, at end insert

“, and persons wishing to operate services for the carriage of passengers or goods on Great British Railways’ infrastructure.”

This amendment requires consultation with freight operators during the preparation of the rail strategy.

Amendment 213, in clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out any progress on the rail strategy.

(9) The report under subsection (8) must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.

(10) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”

This amendment requires regular reporting to Parliament and the House of Commons Transport Committee on delivery of the rail strategy.

New clause 27—Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national rolling stock strategy.

(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out rolling stock requirements by operating region and route.

(3) Great British Railways must align each strategy to the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60, the rail strategy in section 15, and each funding period as set out in Schedule 2.

(4) Great British Railways must set out how the strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”

This new clause would require GBR to publish a national rolling stock strategy each year, setting out the expected rolling stock requirements per operating region and route, aligned to current and future planned infrastructure, and aligned to the long-term rail strategy and 5-year funding periods.

New clause 28—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).

(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—

(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,

(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and

(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—

(i) WiFi access,

(ii) digital ticketing,

(iii) real time information systems, and

(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.

(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”

This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.

New clause 29—Railway services: Sunday working arrangements—

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) current figures for use of railway services on Sundays, and

(b) projected figures if services on Sundays were increased.

(3) The report must identify and set out actions that can be taken to increase demand for railway services on Sundays.

(4) When setting out actions under subsection (3), the report must have due regard to five-year funding periods for Great British Railways.”

This new clause would require GBR to publish a report on current Sunday demand, suppressed Sunday demand, and identify actions to be taken to increase demand for railways services on Sundays in line with the 5 year funding periods.

New clause 54—National signalling strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national signalling strategy.

(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out expected signalling renewal requirements by operating region and route.

(3) Signalling requirements as set out in subsection (2) must be informed by the principle that new or renewed signalling will be digital and based on standards set by the European Train Control System.

(4) Great British Railways must align each strategy to—

(a) the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60,

(b) the rail strategy in section 15,

(c) each funding period as set out in schedule 2, and

(d) current and future planned infrastructure including electrification and rolling stock changes.

(5) Great British Railways must set out how each strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”

This new clause introduces a national strategy for digital signalling rollout to create an approach to signalling renewals, enhancements, and interfaces with rolling stock, and to realise signalling safety, capacity, and performance benefits of digital signalling.

Clause stand part.

[Olly Glover]

We have reached a rather long group of amendments at this point in the afternoon. I would generally have liked to have used that as an opportunity to be concise. However—[Laughter.] No, no, the substance is too severe for that to be the case.

Let me start off on a positive note: this rail strategy is perhaps the strongest element of the Bill. It is absolutely what our railways need to hopefully get us out of the endless cycle of decision, indecision, dither and delay: “Yes, we’re doing it,” then, “No, we’re not,” or committing to things that are undeliverable before they have been properly planned, thought through, funded and so on.

In this part of the Bill, we even have the potential to put ourselves on as glorious a footing as Switzerland and its approach to its rail network. Somehow, I have managed to avoid talking about Switzerland so far in this Bill Committee—

[Rebecca Smith]

No you haven’t!

[Olly Glover]

Oh right—okay. I seemingly stand corrected. Well, there we go; this probably will not be the last mention either.

It is good that an element of the Bill enables us to have some hope of reaching the glory of the marvellous rail network in Switzerland, which genuinely merits admiration. We so often assume, lazily, that railways in Europe are better than those here. Some of them are in some respects; others are not. However, Switzerland’s railway is pretty much better than ours all over.

I turn to our amendments. Generally speaking, the intention behind them is either to strengthen or enhance what is already in clause 15 regarding the rail strategy. New clause 2 proposes to expand the number of factors that should be considered in developing the strategy, to ensure that critical elements that have not necessarily been well-planned or managed on our network hitherto are better stewarded in the future.

I turn first to amendment 134. It would very simply put what is currently in an accompanying piece of commentary on the Bill into the Bill itself, including the clarification that by “long-term” we mean “30 years”. The problem is that at the moment “long-term” can mean many things to many people, depending on their own particular agenda. We could include in clause 15 the words “for the next 30 years”. That would make it very clear what the rail strategy was focused on, but would not preclude its being changed in the future. That is important, because any strategy should be regularly reviewed and refreshed in the light of changing circumstances. However, the amendment would enshrine the idea that the strategy is intended to get GBR to engage in long-term thinking in its future planning of our network.

Amendment 137 would add a couple of elements to clause 15. First, it would ensure that the long-term rail strategy considered the support that rural communities need to access rail travel and the need for

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

and GBR. That is so we can have a real focus on

“greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”

I hope that is welcomed by the Government, given their own commitment to introduce an integrated transport strategy at some point in the future.

Amendment 207 intends to ensure that the rail strategy considers the rail network as a whole and the relationship between the integrated timetables that we need to move to and the infrastructure enhancements necessary to enable those timetables. Let me explain that a little further. The historic focus of development on our rail network has been, with some exceptions, an obsession with reducing journey times to and from London on major inter-city routes. In and of itself, that is not a flawed goal. However, tens of millions of pounds will often be spent on cutting a couple of minutes from journey times.

A particular example of that was removing an avoiding line at Stoke-on-Trent as part of the modernisation of the west coast route. It was for the 7 am Manchester to London inter-city train, which has been the subject of so much controversy recently in relation to ORR decisions. That passing loop was taken out just to save 30 seconds from the journey time for one train a day, which does not even stop at Stoke-on-Trent. That shows the extent of the obsession with reducing journey times to London, which I have just alluded to.

What there has not been is an accompanying focus on trying to improve connection times between trains at Birmingham New Street, for example, or at Manchester Piccadilly or in Leeds. That is important, because there is very little point in cutting some time off inter-city routes if that time saving is negated by having a longer connection and waiting time at a regional hub. What puts a lot of people off using trains is the lack of decent connections and having to wait for their next train at stations that might not have particularly amenable environments.

By contrast, that is what has been done so well in Switzerland. It began in 1987, when a national referendum approved what was a 20-plus-year plan, to upgrade the country’s rail network around connections. That led to a nationwide investment in infrastructure improvements designed to enable a nationwide inter-city timetable, so that at all the key hubs—such as Zurich, Berne or Basel—trains would arrive within a 10 or 15-minute window and passengers could easily change from inter-city train to inter-city train, or from a local train to an inter-city train. Such integration is not just limited to the rail network; it is applies to other public transport. Anybody who has travelled extensively in Switzerland by public transport knows that the same level of timetable integration exists for buses, cable cars, mountain railways and so on.

Amendment 207 would create the framework for that kind of thinking: we would have to think hard, in the long-term strategy, about what sort of timetabling we want to see on our network in the future and what infrastructure enhancements are needed to get end-to-end journey times down.

Our amendment 135 would ensure that the rail strategy considers international rail. For the purposes of the Bill, that is not the Dublin to Belfast Enterprise service, which is of course the subject of entirely different legislation—a very good train it is, too, and not just because it is named after that series of wonderful flagships from “Star Trek”—but international rail through the channel tunnel. The amendment would simply require that the rail strategy includes an international rail strategy to support the development of international routes and consider some of the key challenges in increasing capacity, particularly rail depot capacity, to the channel tunnel and beyond, as well as options for upgrading the existing rail network so that we can get far more rail freight directly through the channel tunnel, which is currently not possible because of limited gauge clearance on the existing network.

Our amendment 136 would require the rail strategy to include a network electrification strategy, which another amendment alluded to. Something that has so far been absent from this Government’s thinking, as it was from that of most previous ones, is clear criteria for electrification, of whatever type—including the current fetish for discontinuous electrification with batteries. The amendment would create a framework for us to be very clear about the criteria that will be used for each electrification type, including maximum operating speeds, which lend themselves far more to full electrification than to batteries, the intensity of traffic, whether there is freight, and so on. It is a very strategic amendment that would help to focus the output of the long-term strategy on things that need to be addressed.

I have a bit more to say; I am attempting to be concise, Mr Western, and I thank you for your forbearance, as I thank the rest of the Committee for theirs. Amendment 213 would require the Secretary of State to update Parliament annually on progress on the rail strategy. This is not intended to hamper the strategy or bog it down in bureaucracy; it would merely involve updating Parliament, from time to time, on the development and delivery of the rail strategy. The key purpose is to ensure that the Transport Committee can carry on the great review and scrutiny that it does of so many things—that is not a comment on my contribution, but on that of all Transport Committee members, past and present.

New clause 27 would require the strategy to incorporate a national rolling stock strategy. I understand from remarks made by the Minister and by the noble Lord Hendy in the other place that that is very much the intention anyway. Perhaps we will have another of those debates where they say that that is the intention anyway but for some reason we cannot possibly put it in the Bill. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause, because it is so important.

New clause 28 would require GBR to set out a cyber-security and technology strategy. Technology is changing all the time, and the railway has not always been the fastest at embracing it. There is a particular issue with cyber-security. A couple of months ago, I attended a forum in Parliament, which was well attended by representatives from the rail industry. There are real issues about how software on rolling stock is kept up to date, and the funding for that. The new clause is intended to ensure that proper thought is put into a framework for cyber-security.

New clause 29 would require GBR to publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays and the current arrangements for staffing of the railway on Sundays, which in my opinion and that of many of my constituents simply does not align with the 21st century nature of the Sunday economy.

Finally, new clause 54 would require GBR, within 12 months of the passing of the Act and every subsequent 12 months, to publish a national signalling strategy. The reason this is so important is that we have been slow to embrace digital signalling and the European train control system in this country. That is starting to improve, with ETCS currently being introduced to the southernmost 100 miles of the east coast main line, but those in the industry are clear that the current fragmented structure makes it hard to introduce ETCS and digital signalling, because open access operators, particularly freight operators, are not necessarily incentivised to align their driver training and locomotive upgrades with the plans to introduce digital signalling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 15 requires the Secretary of State to publish a document that sets out the long-term strategy for the railway, which we welcome, after consulting with Welsh Ministers and the passenger watchdog. The Secretary of State must keep the strategy under review and publish any revisions.

The clause does not provide any detail, which is part of the problem. The industry is in the dark now, and it will still be in the dark if the Bill ever becomes law. There is no draft prepared. There is no indication of the direction of travel. There is just subsection (4), which is very limited. All it says is:

“(4) The Secretary of State—

(a) must keep the rail strategy under review, and

(b) may revise or replace it.”

Well, with what and when? We are in trouble here, with no direct reference to even the development of rail freight, which we have seen in other parts of the Bill is apparently in the Government’s mind. Amendment 224 would serve to correct that by making specific reference to rail freight.

More widely, the Government have missed an opportunity to set clear targets for the strategy to achieve. Colleagues will know from the debate on clause 3 that we have already tried to amend the Bill to assist with that. Our purpose clause, new clause 1, would have set a clear direction, and new clause 2 would have set KPIs for what the strategy should achieve. That would have helped to inform our set of amendments to clause 15.

We are told that Great British Railways should be the guiding mind, so our approach is that GBR will implement the long-term strategy for rail, based on the Secretary of State’s long-term priorities for the railways. GBR is intended to be the stand-alone expert implementer of the development of the railway. The priorities are set out by the Secretary of State through the licence in schedule 1, access to funding in schedule 2 and the long-term rail strategy. All recognise that the political cycle and control periods are far too short for rail infrastructure projects. The industry really needs more predictable forward views. There is inevitably an uncomfortable fit between the needs of democracy and the political cycle—political views change with general elections and sometimes even between them—and the long-term investment certainty that large projects need. There is currently no indication of how long term the strategy will be, or even what it will seek to achieve.

Amendments 24 and 25, which we debated with clause 13 but would also affect clause 15—I do not seek to repeat the debate, but I wish to mention the impact that they would have—seek to address those failings by requiring the rail strategy to be geared towards enabling GBR to meet its key performance indicators. Without the amendments, the clause will set out a long-term strategy that includes no requirement to set clear growth targets for passenger numbers or freight use, meaning that there will be no measurable outcomes or performance metrics. I intend to seek to divide the Committee on those amendments when the time comes.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 134 would ensure that the rail strategy covers a 30-year period. That is logical given the infrastructure life cycle, and any timeframe is, by its nature, arbitrary, but I have to say that 30 years feels on the long side, given the political cycle of four or five years. I wish the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage well and we should be having a stab at setting out what long term actually means, but that is why we have tabled an amendment that would set the period at 15 years. That would be long enough to show the direction of travel, as he has in mind, but short enough to have some sense of connection between the political cycle and the objectives of the strategy. We may have a difference of opinion, but we are pointing in the same direction.

[Olly Glover]

I understand the shadow Minister’s point, but I put it to him that the fact that our Parliaments tend to be four or five years long is precisely why the strategy needs to be very long term, so that we avoid subjecting our railway to the political cycle and the whims and whimsies of the Government of the day. But perhaps the key point is that the Government’s own guidance on the Bill, in the section entitled, “What is the Long-Term Rail Strategy?”, states:

“It will set out strategic objectives for the railway over a 30-year period.”

Would it not be coherent to put that on the face of the Bill?

[Jerome Mayhew]

From the Government’s perspective, yes, it would be, but we have recent experience—this is a slight tangent, but I hope the Committee will bear with me—of Governments passing key objectives to achieve long out in the distance. I am thinking of the Climate Change Act 2008 and its objective of achieving net zero by 2050. That all sounds good in 2008, but in my view it does not achieve the objective of balancing democratic accountability with a long-term direction. Look, we are slightly arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both parties agree that we want a long-term strategy, but should it be 15 years or 30 years? In a sense it does not really matter, but it needs to be significantly beyond the current five-year control period.

Amendment 137, also in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the strategy to set out a long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options. It is a worthy objective, although we would want to go further if extending clause 15(1) beyond the railway network and railway services—the catch-all descriptors. The amendment is slightly a halfway house, but it nevertheless points in the right direction, and in so far as it makes progress, we are happy to support it.

Amendment 207, again in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, would introduce a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration. There is perhaps a better solution tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is engaged somewhere else as we speak—there may be a better way to achieve that outcome.

Amendment 224, which I tabled, would add paragraph (c) to clause 15(1). As drafted, the provision requires the Secretary of State to

“prepare and publish a document that sets out”

her

“long term strategy for…(a) the development and use of the railway network in Great Britain, and…(b) the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided in Great Britain.”

This important amendment would add a focus on “rail freight network usage”. Rail freight does, in a sense, come under “railway services”, but we need to give it particular focus, and the amendment offers a good opportunity to do so.

Amendment 25, which is also in my name, would require the rail strategy to remain in place

“for a minimum of three control periods”,

which would be 15 years. We have already debated whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but the provision would provide the industry with a genuine long-term strategy and mean that that strategy is less likely to be used as a political football when Governments come and go. The period of 15 years is short enough to have political weight, but long enough to give the certainty that the industry also seeks.

I will briefly mention amendment 260, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I know that the subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart because he has told me so, multiple times.

Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is not a perfect analogy, because GBR is at least intended to be more akin to a business—a nationalised business—but my hon. Friend is entirely right that where we have two organisations in competition, each one thinking that it runs the railways, that is a recipe for confusion at the least, and disaster at the worst.

This is not an idle concern, because it has happened before. We all remember the Virgin West Coast franchise debacle in 2012, when the slightly arm’s length process of franchising did not go well, causing a communal panic in the Department for Transport. The phrase, “Something must be done to prevent this from ever happening again,” was no doubt repeated many times. The result was that more and more micromanaging took place by the Department for Transport in the setting of franchises. The Department no longer talked only about outcomes that needed to be achieved, leaving how companies went about that entirely up to them, which is the appropriate way to draft a franchise agreement. Instead, that devolved into mechanisms of how a franchise should be operated.

We had that mission creep, and I fear that under the Bill we might get exactly the same approach with GBR. It will be set up with the best of intentions, and perhaps in the first two or three years all will run smoothly and the directing mind in practice might well be GBR, but then something will happen, because something always does happen in the real world, with lots of people doing their best but sometimes making mistakes, and there will be a collective gasp from the Department of Transport, because it will feel like it is on the hook, so “Something must be done to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.” We have designed into this mechanism a structure that allows the removal of GBR’s operational independence, and it does so without any reference to actions of last resort by the Government—the Bill is silent on that.

We talk about the Secretary of State, but we all know that officials in the Department for Transport will be advising the Secretary of State on what he or she should be doing in a particular circumstance, and there will be a power grab. Without amendment, the clause will absolutely allow for that. We should be alive to the real-world experience that we all have and take this opportunity to strengthen its wording in order to design out that issue and ensure that there is proper accountability—with GBR accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament—and that operational independence stays with what will be a nationalised business, rather than creating a railway version of NHS England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned a moment ago.

I have tabled two amendments to address this issue. Amendment 12 would limit directions to circumstances in which the Office of Rail and Road assesses GBR to be in breach of its statutory functions. It could be argued that the Secretary of State should have an emergency lever; that is fair enough, because bad things happen. One of our great complaints before the election, although I am beginning to hear it from Labour Ministers as well, was, “We pull the levers but they’re not attached to anything—we have no power.” When we form the Government after the next election, we will want to have levers that are attached to something, and I accept that it is necessary to have an emergency lever to pull should a significant unforeseen event occur—another pandemic, perhaps—and an intervention be required.

However, amendment 12 would still allow the Secretary of State to intervene in emergency scenarios, as the ORR would deem that such events make it impossible for GBR to conform to its business plan targets. Clause 74 sets out the ORR’s power to monitor GBR’s performance. Elsewhere in the Bill, we shall argue that the ORR needs more teeth to hold GBR to account, and this provision limiting the potential for the Secretary of State to intervene until such time that an independent regulatory body has recognised that GBR has not been able to fulfil its functions will be an important safeguard.

Amendment 11 would put the words “last resort” on the face of the Bill, and would provide that a direction may be made only after the removal of GBR’s chief executive officer. The intention behind the amendment is to treat GBR as a business, which I think we all agree is what it is intended to be—albeit a nationalised one. Where there is a board of non-executive directors, they can question the executive team, and they can challenge decisions and require the chief executive to explain and defend the direction of the company. However, when push comes to shove, and the decision is made that the organisation is moving in the wrong direction, the weapon available to the chairman is the removal of the chief executive officer.

If GBR is operating on a day-to-day basis with oversight from the Department for Transport—the Secretary of State—and concerns arise as to its direction or performance, the sequence of severity of the response should not start with guidance from the Secretary of State and then mandatory directions. They might be the final requirement, because we all need those levers, but surely they should come only after the chief executive has been challenged and then removed, just as in the private sector with an arm’s length majority investment.

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

I certainly see what the hon. Member is trying to do with these amendments, and the Liberal Democrats share some of his concerns about the balance between holding GBR to account and GBR’s autonomy. However, does he not feel that amendment 11 may go a little too far? Laudable though the KPIs that he has set out are, I am not sure that any railway in this country has ever achieved them all at once, and if the amendment were made we may very well go through a revolving door of chief executives before the Secretary of State can give any direction.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is a perfectly fair challenge, but amendment 11 would not require the CEO’s removal by the Secretary of State if those KPIs are not met; it would be a necessary first step to demonstrate that the KPIs are not being met, and then there would be a discretion. I suppose the hon. Member is really arguing that my safeguard is not quite as strong as it could be. Nevertheless, it would be a step in the right direction, and it would not require the removal of the chief executive.

New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the CEO of GBR on the grounds that a KPI has not been met and—this is an important bit, which the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage might recognise gives the new clause some weight—GBR has failed to act on guidance that has been issued by the Secretary of State under clause 9. It is sequential. First, the chief executive is given guidance from the Secretary of State. Most chief executives worth their salt would take notice of official guidance given by their 100% shareholder, but if for some reason they fail to act on the guidance and they are still missing their KPI, then the power to dismiss would be exercisable. In my submission, that is a good approach.

Clause 7(2)—the “interference clause”—anticipates minor direction changes, which is exactly the kind of direction that should not be issued and is contrary to the explanatory notes. We are told that the powers in the clause will be used only as a last resort, but subsection (2) states:

“A direction under this section may provide, in particular, that a function is only to be exercised—

(a) after consulting the Secretary of State, or

(b) with the Secretary of State’s consent.”

The clause is not an emergency lever. It is quite clear from the drafting that the circumstances in subsection (2) cannot apply to a last-resort emergency lever. It is saying, “You can carry on doing things, but we need to have oversight in the nitty-gritty.” It is truly an interference clause.

Is it the Government’s intention that directions issued under clause 7 will be, as described in the explanatory notes, used as a “last resort” emergency brake, or do they intend—this is the case as the Bill is drafted—that the Secretary of State will give himself or herself the power to intervene in day-to-day management, even down to the level that individual decisions will not be taken until there has been consultation with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State has consented to them?

Clause 7(5) needs improvement. It requires publication by the Secretary of State, but anticipates no role for Parliament in that oversight. The organisation Rail Forum said:

“We agree that this is desirable to ensure GBR remains arm’s length and is allowed to manage its own affairs.”

That is important. The industry itself is saying that GBR needs to be operationally independent and to manage its own affairs. Amendment 14 would correct that issue. It would require the Secretary of State to lay any decision before Parliament—the right place for primary scrutiny. Rail Forum supports the amendment. It says:

“This is essential to ensure that normal Parliamentary process is not bypassed.”

Amendment 16 would mean that decisions on fares imposed on GBR by the Secretary of State can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. Such a direction would have a huge impact on the financial position of GBR, because decisions on fares and passenger growth and affordability are central to revenue. It is crucial that decisions are made on proper evidence and in line with the objects of GBR.

--- Later in debate ---

Guidance by Secretary of State

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 9, page 6, line 30, after “statutory functions” insert

“, but only in respect of strategic or financial matters where such guidance is necessary and does not interfere with the operational exercise of those functions.”

This amendment limits the guidance that the Secretary of State can give to Great British Railways.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 9, page 6, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railway’s attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC2.

Amendment 20, in clause 9, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“(5A) 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.”

This amendment puts a duty on the Secretary of State to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives used when giving any guidance about the level or structure of fares, so decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability.

Amendment 21, in clause 10, page 7, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC2.

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. This amendment relates to some of the clauses in the Bill that will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance, as opposed to direction, to GBR. Amendment 143 is, in my humble opinion, a very modest and reasonable attempt to simply clarify some of the clear intentions that the Minister has expressed for the Bill. Our amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could only provide guidance to GBR on its statutory functions in respect of strategic or financial matters, where such guidance is necessary and does not interfere with the operational exercise of those functions.

The reason for tabling this amendment alludes to things I have said previously in this Committee room, and in other locations—there have been many examples in the past of the Secretary of State as proxy for the Department for Transport, getting involved in far too much of the fine detail of the running of our railways, whether that is the intricacies of timetable specification, whether certain types of rolling stock are upgraded or not, and whether they are equipped with wi-fi and tables, or not. There are many other examples that I could give and I have given before. The amendment is intended to strengthen the Government’s clear intent that the direction and guidance given by the Secretary of State should be strategic and high level. The guidance should be about providing a clear overview of what the Government of the day wishes the railway to achieve and deliver, and about empowering GBR—with appropriate regulation to hold it to account, as we have been debating—to get on with it.

I hope the Minister will view the amendment rather more favourably than he has others, although my powers of clairvoyance feel particularly strong this morning, and I suspect that will not be the case, in which case we will wish to press it to a vote.

Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is just as well, because I am going to leave those to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I will be happy to support new clause 15 should he be minded to press it to a vote.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish to speak to new clause 15. In doing so, I must ask the Minister for his assistance with either a medical or a political problem—I am not entirely sure which it is, because I cannot get a GP appointment in Didcot as we do not have a GP surgery on Great Western Park, but that is an issue for another time. In the absence of a GP appointment, I really hope that the Minister will be able to save me from sullying my reputation. In speaking to this new clause, I find myself at risk of having to say something positive about the Thatcher Government, which is obviously somewhat politically embarrassing.

New clause 15 proposes adding a rolling programme of electrification to the Bill. The reason that I may need to say something nice about the Thatcher Government is that according to figures that I have looked at, nearly 3,000 km of railway was electrified under that Government during the 1980s, to which the just 170 km electrified under the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government compares very unfavourably. That perhaps comes as quite a surprise, given that there was significant economic growth during that later period, at least compared with today—[Interruption.]

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I think we just heard an Opposition Member ask, “What were they doing?” in respect of the 1997 to 2010 Government. The answer, of course, is that capital investment had to be directed to safety in the aftermath of Hatfield and other disasters. When we look at where exactly that money was spent, it was on the safety improvements necessitated by some of the disasters caused by privatisation. I am a strong supporter of electrification, as I know the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is, but I thought it was important to place that on record.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will say two things in response. First, I hope that his Government and the Minister will support the new clause, because, given the strong state of railway safety today, there should not be the same limits on electrification expenditure that he suggests. Secondly, the problem with his point is that very few electrification schemes were authorised between 1997 and 2000, the period before the Hatfield rail disaster, which led to the period of safety recovery that he quite rightly highlighted.

The direction that the Government are taking is a big concern. They have yet again cancelled the midland main line electrification, a scheme that would have happened 40 years ago in any other European country. Our stop-start progress on electrification compares very unfavourably with other countries in Europe. Germany has delivered a steady 200 km a year, or thereabouts, on average for many decades, and in so doing delivers significantly lower unit costs than our boom and bust approach to electrification. It is not just Germany. We often hear excuses about how electrification is too difficult for us because of our limited gauge clearance or our scenery, but that does not explain the fact that the entire Swiss rail network is electrified, including railways in UNESCO world heritage sites and more than 3,000 metres above sea level.

With the exception of the trans-Pennine route upgrade and a couple of other very small schemes, nothing is committed at the moment. That is a real shame, because the benefits of electrification are significant. I feel that we have perhaps lost our way in this country. We have become very focused on electrification as a means of decarbonising our railways, but that is a small part of the enormous benefits of electrification. Electrification delivers more reliable, lighter trains that have far less impact on the track and are also cheaper, because pure electric multiple units are the standard off-the-shelf product across the European rolling stock market. What wouldn’t any other sector—whether it is shipping, which I know the Minister has a keen interest in, aviation or the car industry—give for the ability to provide constant electrical power to get the amazing power-to-weight ratio that electrification delivers?

We constantly talk about the lack of freight on our rail network. A big part of that is that rail freight tends to be diesel hauled, which has far worse acceleration and consumes far more track capacity. On a recent journey across Germany and other parts of Europe, I did not see a single diesel-hauled freight train; they were all electric. That enables so much more to be squeezed on to the network, and would support private sector investment. For example, GB Railfreight has invested in a fleet of locomotives that can haul both diesel and electric. Having visited its Peterborough headquarters a few months ago, I know that it would like to run under electricity far more than it is currently able to because of our electrification rate. We are in a very poor state, and not just compared with western European countries; Poland and India have significantly higher percentages of electrified railways than we do. At the moment, I see no hope of that changing.

Our new clause 15, requiring a rolling programme of electrification, would also significantly reduce unit costs, because the supply chain would get used to doing it, we would become experienced at structures clearance, and so on. That is not my opinion; that is what Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and now chair of DfT Operator, said before the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government.

I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead.

New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use.

Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”

This amendment is consequential on NC8.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Passengers’ Charter—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.

(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—

(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;

(b) targets for reliability of services;

(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—

(i) seat design,

(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,

(iii) provision of power outlets,

(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,

(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and

(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;

(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;

(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;

(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—

(i) are digital by default;

(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;

(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out the what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.

[Olly Glover]

Amendment 130 and new clause 8 constitute a Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a 21st century update to passenger charters. I shall seek to be concise; in the unlikely event that hon. Members would like to hear more, I should say that I gave a ten-minute rule Bill speech on the subject in the House of Commons yesterday.

For context, given above-inflation fare increases over many decades, which I alluded to earlier, the modern rail passenger rightly expects more than they often get. On-board amenities are generally not subject to any form of compensation provision should they not be available. Indeed, passenger charters generally make good noises about having such amenities, but they do not get the same guarantees for them as they do for delays.

The issue is not necessarily about moving to this tomorrow; there are many older trains on our network that require either upgrading or replacement with modern amenities, but where the amenities exist they should be provided. It should no longer be considered a luxury to have functioning wi-fi or a mobile phone signal so that people can be productive on the train. Toilets should be reliable, a seat should not be considered a luxury—a standard class ticket does not entitle one to a seat—and there should be adequate space for luggage, pushchairs, bicycles and so on. In so doing, we will make the rail offer more attractive to the travelling public and ensure that people do not have bad experiences, as did my friend Jen from Wallingford who, after a particularly terrible journey between London and Glasgow on Avanti West Coast, has now returned to driving, even though the distance is—off the top of my head—some 350 miles.

Our proposal would require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter before Parliament within six months of the Act’s being passed. That updated charter would look at providing value-for-money guarantees not just for delays, but for provision of other amenities, with reasonable waivers such as for journeys under 30 minutes, which can be subject to commuter-heavy loading at peak times.

The whole principle of delay repay should be protected. I keep hearing rumours—I have no idea whether they are true; perhaps the Minister could give us assurances that there will not be any attacks on delay repay. We should be proud of it, as it is a much more generous compensation provision than in any other European country and it should not be diluted or reduced to save costs. Instead, we should focus on preventing delays and managing delays better so that we do not need to pay so much delay repay. That compensation provision should be extended to other onboard amenities, so that there is an incentive to create a 21st century onboard environment that enables us to retain our existing passenger base and attract far more people to our railway.

[Edward Argar]

I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.

I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.

The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Forgive me. The shadow Minister points to the fact that we have, in his view, a dearth of ambition when it comes to what we have set out in clause 18. I would actually argue the inverse—the standards set out in clause 18 relating to reliability of services, avoiding overcrowding and promoting the passenger experience are fundamental to creating the turn-up-and-go railway with a single directing mind that GBR seeks to achieve.

At the heart of it, these are the fundamental building blocks of the passenger experience. Layer on top of that the ways in which GBR will be nimble and dynamic enough under this legislation to lay out the passenger offer over time, and that creates a suite of measures that allow us to enhance, in the whole, the passenger experience. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the amendment.

[Olly Glover]

If you will indulge me, Sir Alec, I will briefly respond to the points that have been made. I thank the Minister for his comments. He will know from our past interactions on this that I very much agree with him that we definitely do not want the micromanagement and overprescription of GBR. That would be absolutely inimical to what I want to see happening, but there is a distinction to be made between setting the overall standards and the implementation of the work needed to meet those standards.

I do not read the rest of the Bill as quite saying, “We’re just going to let GBR crack on and define everything from scratch for itself”. Given the Minister’s comments about micromanaging, which I find encouraging, I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the later amendments that are designed to dilute the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere. Hopefully, given his comments, he might be minded to give them a fair hearing, but we shall see when the time comes.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston makes the good point that these things need to have teeth, and that is the intention of clause 8(2)(e), which would extend the delay repay principle to onboard amenities. Work would clearly need to be done to establish a sensible framework for the evidence requirement for people submitting claims—that would need to be thought through further—but that has not been prescribed here precisely because that would be a matter for GBR.

We also want to add teeth with subsection (2)(f), which is all about making it easier for people to claim compensation and allowing them to do so digitally rather than just on paper. In fairness, a lot of that has improved, and we hope it will continue to improve. I also want to address the very fair point made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The challenge with these things is always where to define the cut-off, but it should not be inevitable that commuters in south-east London, Greater Manchester or anywhere else should have to stand by default.

Rolling stock cuts without replacements on some routes—maybe not the hon. Gentleman’s, but elsewhere—have partly added to some of those problems. That includes the premature withdrawal of British Rail class 455 trains on Southern without a replacement and class 365 trains on the Great Northern network. A lot of these poor decisions were made following the pandemic to save cost in the short term, which has added to some of the overcrowding problems—many of which are preventable. We have included a 30-minute minimum duration in new clause 8 to try to be reasonable and to recognise that things are not always perfect.

In conclusion, we are putting a passengers’ charter forward because we feel that there is value in improving the onboard offer and making it consistent. There are things in the charter that would support other elements of the Bill by strengthening accessibility provision. For catering, my temptation would have been to go even further and wax lyrical about restaurant cars on Swiss railways or Austrian railways, which—if anybody has not enjoyed them—should be very welcome.

In Switzerland, even inter-city trains of just two hours always have a restaurant car, and they have a separate division for on-train catering, which is in-house—they take it very seriously. I have been on 55-minute journeys across Switzerland and have been attended to straight away. It is inexpensive and very good. I have decided not to be too prescriptive and to just talk about onboard catering. It is then for GBR, or whoever, to decide if they wish to embrace that particular bit of Swiss excellence, as well as electrification, as I mentioned earlier.

I think I have said more than enough, Sir Alec. I said earlier that we want to press new clause 8 to a vote. I expect I have to take guidance from the Clerk as to whether a vote on that or on amendment 130 would be most helpful—either is good with us.

[The Chair]

New clauses will be moved at the end.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.

(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”

This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 248, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, achieve targets for—

(a) growth in in passenger traffic on railways, and

(b) growth in the overall share of passenger journeys taken by rail for the purposes of—

(i) work,

(ii) leisure, and

(iii) accessing goods and services,

relative to other modes of transport.

(4B) Targets under subsection (4A) must—

(a) be set by Great British Railways, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, and

(b) take into account, and be published alongside, each Rail Strategy under section 16 of this Act.”

This amendment would require Great British Railways, when exercising its statutory functions, to meet a target for overall growth in the number and relative proportion of passengers using railways.

Amendment 35, in clause 18, page 10, line 17, at end insert

“and to increase the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport.”

This amendment would require Great British Railways to carry out its functions so as to increase the number of passenger journeys.

Amendment 249, in clause 18, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

“(g) so as to achieve an increase in—

(i) the number of passenger journeys undertaken by railway, and

(ii) the proportion of passenger journeys undertaken by rail relative to other modes of transport.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 248.

New clause 42—Passenger growth target—

“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State—

(a) must keep the target under review, and

(b) may revise or replace it.

(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.

(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—

(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and

(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.

[Olly Glover]

The length and complexity of this amendment mean that hopefully I will be able to relieve hon. Members by making a very concise speech. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to a freight growth target as part of GBR. It is good that we have greater ambitions for the carriage of rail freight on our rail network, which tends to lag behind most European competitors in modal share. However, we think that the Bill has missed an opportunity by not including a comparable target for passenger growth. I have heard the argument made in front of the Select Committee and other forums that that could compromise or undermine the freight growth. I disagree with that premise. As so often in life, it is not either/or; it is both/and. Railways are useful for both passengers and freight.

Freight is arguably neglected on our network and the economic and environmental benefits are absolutely enormous, especially if electrically hauled. One freight train is able to convey many containers or aggregate wagons and take dozens of lorries off the road. We therefore very much support the freight growth target, but feel that there should also be a passenger growth target. Many of our roads are plagued by congestion and many people opt to take the car who, in other circumstances, would like to take the train, but have either had negative experience of overcrowding or fear that they could be subject to overcrowding and a bad experience. Amendment 133 would require GBR to set a target for increasing passenger traffic and publish progress in relation to how it will achieve that. I think that I have said more than enough and am very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The official Opposition, strongly support this amendment because it seeks to increase passenger traffic on the railways, in addition to the welcomed inclusion of an objective to increase freight. We agree with it so strongly because it is almost identical to our amendment 35, which I shall also speak to. Amendment 35 would add a specific requirement to subsection (2) paragraph (b) of clause 18—the duties clause—for GBR Ministers and the Office of Rail and Road,

“to increase the number of passenger journeys”.

This directly addresses the concern raised by the Campaign for Better Transport in the evidence received by the Committee. It is an essential amendment to ensure that GBR has a key focus and aim to increase passenger numbers—something that is essential for a railway. It would ensure that the dominant culture of GBR is not one where passengers are seen as creators of damage to infrastructure.

That is not a loose accusation that I have made; I have been listening to the industry for over a year now. The core structure of GBR is Network Rail. I know that I am bound to be corrected if I get this even a couple out, but I believe that Network Rail has about 41,000 members of staff. Network Rail is the central body to which train operating companies have been added at a rate of about one every six weeks or two months over the last period. An oft-repeated criticism of the culture of Network Rail has been that it sees passengers as a necessary irritation in the correct functioning of the railway. Sir Alec, if your organisation is engineer focused, the condition of the infrastructure is what is most important to you. Passengers demand lots and lots of trains, but lots and lots of trains damage the infrastructure. There is a concern in the wider sector— I am merely passing it on—that the culture of Network Rail has historically been one in which it wants to limit the number of trains to what it considers to be acceptable, so that it has a nice steady state of repair of the infrastructure. If that is the dominant culture that pervades GBR, now that it is bringing everything together, that will be a disaster for passenger services, because there would not be an automatic incentive to focus on an increase in passenger journeys, which is why amendments 133 and 35 are so important.

New clause 42—to go into the detail a little—would require the Secretary of State to set, publish and keep under review a passenger growth target. It would also require GBR to have regard to that target when exercising its statutory functions. In oral evidence to this Committee, Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:

“It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 24, Q49.]

That organisation was not alone, because John Thomas from ALLRAIL said:

“I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 47, Q78.]

Finally, we heard from Rob Morris of Siemens. He said:

“What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 64, Q122.]

It is unclear to me why, if the Bill can require a target to increase use of the railway network for freight, the same obligation is not applied to passenger services. The inconsistency suggests a deliberate choice not to mandate passenger growth. And why would GBR care about passenger growth? After all, if it will be dominated by Network Rail, there is at least a risk that its culture will be one of avoiding damage to infrastructure, in excess of looking after growing the number of passengers.

In written evidence to the Transport Committee, Rail Forum said:

“From Rail Forum’s perspective there is nothing specific in the Bill that will guarantee improved travel for passengers. Improvement is predicated on the goodwill of GBR and others driving things in the ‘right direction’. In our view the key to improvement is culture change within those organisations coming together to form GBR. Creating GBR from Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd…will not signal the need for change and creates a risk that the current Network Rail culture will be seen as the norm and hence the status quo will prevail.”

These are not arguments made up by a cunning Opposition to wrongfoot the Government. This is the Opposition doing our job properly and reflecting the concerns of the wider sector—not just from one organisation but from multiple organisations, right across the sector. They identify the drafting as a problem and the culture as potentially a problem unless the legislation makes it clear that it is a duty of GBR to increase passenger numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive spirit of his intervention. Indeed, in the days of cross-party consensus on High Speed 2, I worked with members of his party exactly to address some of the capacity challenges on the network. I just say to him that the two are linked. As he was alluding to, the length of the trains is related to the signalling blocks and the safe distance between trains, so that they can be run together. If he is right, we should be looking to put on more carriages. When waiting for a CrossCountry train, I can certainly remember the collective groan on the platform when another short formation appeared. There is a hard limit, however, to what can be applied without providing more caps on the network. That is where the passenger versus freight dilemma comes in, because sometimes hard choices just have to be made. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not always either/or, but sometimes it is. Sometimes one has to be prioritised over the other, and freight has historically been the loser.

[Olly Glover]

I am trying not to make too many interventions or to be tedious, but I cannot resist the temptation of that. Where the choice is either/or, does that not suggest that that particular route line requires an upgrade to provide sufficient capacity for both?

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the same Select Committee and we tend to agree on most things, and I think that I agree with him again. In the here and now, however, and in the circumstances in which the Bill will start to apply, I share the fear that if the freight growth target is accompanied by an equivalent passenger growth target, in effect the freight growth target is neutralised; it is no longer the essential correction to the tendencies that have sometimes seen freight services being squeezed off the network. I say to the shadow Minister that the previous Government put in place a freight growth target and not a passenger one at the same time, presumably for exactly the same reason: at times when the two are in tension, freight can suffer the detriment. I thought it was important to put that concern on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I genuinely thank the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and Members from across the House for their considered and meaningful contributions on this matter. It shows the strength of feeling that we all have about making sure that the passenger experience sits at the heart of the way that our railways function. On the detail about the length of trains, which I agree is an interesting point that has been teased out in this debate, the rolling stock strategy that the DFT is bringing forward will have specific regard to the issue of train length. That will hopefully assuage some concerns.

The shadow Minister also pointed to the potential deficiencies in Network Rail caused by having an operational focus on the maintenance of infrastructure as opposed to promoting the needs of passengers. I would contrast that with the point that a lot of the issues that come with accessibility on the railway and sufficient provision of passenger services arise as much from the access regime and diffuse accountability as they do from cultural or institutional failings in Network Rail. In the current system, access is ultimately decided by the ORR and timetabling by National Rail, and we can end up with a situation where there is a 7 o’clock train from Manchester Piccadilly to London with no passengers on it. The existing system cannot put passengers at its heart, because its decision making process is too disjointed to be able to look at the railway in a holistic way. That is what the Bill is seeking to change.

As all amendments in the group relate directly to the notion of passenger numbers and increasing the number of passenger journeys, I will respond to them as a whole. As a commercial organisation, we believe that GBR will be naturally incentivised to drive up revenue through growing its passenger base and attracting more people to use the railway. GBR must also have the flexibility to determine how it can deliver on that ambition without adverse incentives, for example to congest the network at the expense of passenger experience, being established.

The Bill already includes a duty for sector bodies, including GBR, to promote the interests of users and potential users. That will require GBR to consider during decision making how to encourage new users on to the railway. That is a natural incentive to grow passenger numbers to enable them to realise the benefits of rail travel. That might include working towards encouraging modal shift, extending the network to areas with poorer connectivity or making informed choices to grow different types of services, such as leisure journeys.

In discharging its full remit of duties, including in particular its public interest and making efficient use of public money duties, GBR should make sensible, rounded decisions on where to target passenger growth across the network. It should do that in a sustainable way, and not to meet a passenger target frozen in aspic that might not be appropriate for the needs of the railway at the time. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not doubt that his intentions are genuine and that he would like to see the Bill and GBR lead to greater passenger numbers, but I gently suggest that that cannot necessarily be taken as read. In periods in the past—arguably to a smaller extent since the pandemic, but to a much greater extent going back to the 1980s and before—there was an approach called managed decline. That was a Trojan horse for closing a line of route; intentional efforts were made to reduce passenger numbers. I do not think it can be taken as read that there will always be a desire to grow the network.

[Keir Mather]

May I test something from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective? The Secretary of State has a lot of oversight over how GBR functions under this new regime. One of her duties, and a duty for GBR, will be to ensure efficient use of public money. Do you not think that that creates a strong incentive for her to drive up passenger use on the railway to ensure that we have a balance of service? Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield about the importance of freight, do you not think that the point about the essential correction for freight is important in a way that does not apply to passenger services?

[The Chair]

Order. May I remind Members again that we do not use the word “you”?

[Olly Glover]

Thank you, Sir Alec. I say to the Minister that there but for the grace of God go I. I totally understand what he is saying, but it is perhaps slightly paradoxical: if there are all these reasons why it is almost inevitable that the Secretary of State will want to do this anyway, what is the harm of having a provision in the Bill?

The Minister made some very good points about nuance and needing to have the right targets for the right part of the country, but amendment 133 to clause 3 does not preclude that. Critically, proposed new subsection (4B) says that GBR must set and publish “targets”. It does not suggest that there should be one big monolithic target for the entire nation that everything would need to be attuned to.

It would be perfectly sensible for targets to be set by a business unit, or whatever it is going to be—it is currently Network Rail routes and Network Rail regions. There is plenty of room for nuance. This is simply about the principle that GBR should have increasing passenger numbers as a statutory function. I would therefore like to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. His new clause seeks to remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and to require the UK Government to transfer responsibility for rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers in the Senedd within two years. In practical terms, that would mean responsibility for rail infrastructure, investment decisions and long-term strategy in Wales sitting with the Welsh Government, rather than being controlled by the UK Secretary of State or Great British Railways. It would put Wales on the same constitutional footing as Scotland, which already has those powers.

The reason this matters is that, under the current arrangements, Wales has consistently lost out. Because rail is not devolved, Wales has no protection when England-only rail projects are classified in ways that deny Wales consequential funding. That has resulted in Wales missing out on billions of pounds of investment from projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, while the Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding to spend on their own rail projects.

The new clause would align responsibility and accountability, and ensure that decisions affecting Welsh rail are made in Wales. I believe that this was a campaign backed by Welsh Labour MPs prior to the general election, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will start by addressing new clause 30, which would require the full devolution of responsibility for rail services and infrastructure in Wales.

The Bill is designed to bring strategic direction, accountability and oversight of the rail system into a single coherent framework, reflecting the fact that railways operate as an integrated cross-border network. Reserved powers play an important part in maintaining that integration. Retaining responsibility for rail infrastructure at UK level supports coherent strategic planning, consistent standards and efficient operation across England and Wales, including on routes that serve communities on both sides of the border.

The new clause would introduce new statutory boundaries into a network when we most need to simplify governance and reduce fragmentation. By reopening the devolution settlement and mandating the transfer of responsibilities that are already being addressed through strengthened partnership working, it risks diverting attention from implementation and delivery. The Bill already enhances joint working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you very much, Sir Alec. We are making progress—it may not feel like it, but we are. Courage! We’re getting there.

Clause 5 deals with co-operation with relevant local government bodies. It is not going to be a bestseller, but it is important, just like every clause in the Bill. It delves further into the devolution of powers. It is hard to quantify the clause while the Government’s devolution Bill continues its progress through the House, which creates an awkward chicken and egg scenario. The challenge with the clause, about the nature of the devolution of powers across local government, really ends up bleeding into clause 6. I am concerned that the Government and, by extension, GBR will end up picking and choosing who they wish to accept consultation decisions from.

Clause 5(1) specifically uses the word “may” when referring to arrangements between GBR and local government. It states:

“Great British Railways may enter into arrangements with a relevant local government body about the exercise by Great British Railways of its statutory functions in relation to railways and railway services in the body’s area.”

There is no clear obligation to provide any functions to mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities, passenger transport executives or integrated transport areas. Can the Minister help me and the Committee by clarifying what functions he has in mind in relation to this clause? How would it work in practice? Will there be guidance on it, and when will we have it? Has that work been done yet? If it has, why has it not been shared with the Committee, with its obvious corollaries? If it has not been done, why not?

That leads me to amendment 232 in my name, which would create a new subsection (2A) of clause 5 as follows:

“Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary under section 67.”

To bring the amendment to life, we need to refer back to the evidence from Mayors Brabin and Burnham on Tuesday. The amendment would give mayors and other regional leaders the right to appeal GBR decisions to alter passenger services in their area. They would be able to appeal to the ORR, because it would be an independent appeals process, in the event that there was no partnership in existence. In their evidence, Mayors Burnham and Brabin were clear that they expected—in fact, I think Mayor Burnham said he would insist on—greater powers to influence rail in their regions. The amendment would help to achieve that through a continued role for the trusted and impartial Office of Rail and Road.

At this stage, I should make it clear that while the power to appeal is set out in clause 67, the governance—what that appeal can look like—is set out in clause 68. I think I am right in saying that it was described as not being worth the paper it is written on as it is drafted, because it limits appeals to judicial review proceedings in the High Court where there is an error of law. There is strong evidence before the Committee to suggest that that clause should be amended to allow an appeal on the merits, and amendment 232 needs to be taken in conjunction with future amendments that we will put before the Committee to do exactly that. It is intended to include in the Bill the provision for an appeal on the merits to the independent ORR, in order to give succour to mayors and other leaders of regional transport authorities where GBR chooses to run roughshod over their local plans.

[Olly Glover]

The Lib Dems think that clause 5 is along the right lines, and it is good that the Government are proposing to enshrine the principle of local consultation and dialogue into the Bill, because that is important for getting our railways and transport on a better footing. With the greatest respect to all Members present, too much in our country is dictated from Whitehall. We need more devolution; we need to listen more to local voices, and that applies as much to railways and transport as it does to anything else. I do, however, see merit in Conservative amendment 232, which is intended to strengthen some of the provisions of clause 5.

I will briefly say a little about Liberal Democrat amendment 214, which we see as a very simple and uncontroversial amendment. If the Minister does not intend to support it, I would genuinely be interested in why. It is simply based on the principle that clause 5 focuses on mayoral strategic authorities, but, because of the ongoing state of flux that local government reorganisation is in—I will not use any stronger words than that—we do not yet know exactly what the final structure will be; we do not know whether everyone is going to get a mayoral strategic authority. I am not an expert on the south-west of England—the hon. Member for South West Devon, sat next to me, is—but I keep hearing, for example, that Cornwall may not be part of a mayoral authority. Surely, it is not the intention of clause 5 to say that GBR would not have to engage with whatever local or regional authority there ends up being in Cornwall, if not a mayoral strategic authority.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This Committee has been a good example of the hon. Gentleman’s party and mine working collaboratively to improve the Bill. While he knows that I agree with the direction of travel that his amendment has in mind, I question its extension to an organisation as small as a district council. Given that district councils are a feature of two-tier local government—there will be a county council above them—can he explain why he thinks it is sensible to include them in the amendment?

[Olly Glover]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to get too carried away by the points on which we have agreed so far, because there will be plenty on which that is not the case. I also encourage Government Members not to get too excited, because I have agreed with them on plenty of things as well. Hopefully that shows that our politics can be more serious and less juvenile and we can all find things on which we agree. Before I make myself feel even more sick, I shall carry on.

I understand what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham was saying. The intention of the amendment is not to suggest that GBR should be engaging with district-level authorities by default. Once local government reorganisation is complete and coherent, there will not be any district councils, so that bit will be rendered null and void. The aim is simply to cover all our bases, because we do not know where local government reorganisation will take us. Until we get there, it is important that whatever the voices are in a given part of the country, they are heard.

Local government is so complicated. It is different in so many bits of the country—even places right next to each other. My constituency covers South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, which have district and county, and then next door in West Berkshire it is unitary. Even there, even in parts of the country that used to be part of the same county—I hope the Campaign for Historic Counties is listening; I do sometimes engage with its Facebook comments—

[Rebecca Smith]

Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment:

“authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”

We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.

[Edward Argar]

I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities.

I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities.

To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects.

The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?

Railways Bill (Third sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak in favour of new clause 24, which I will press to a vote when the time comes, because, as I have said in other forums where the Minister has been present, one of the Liberal Democrats’ big concerns is the Secretary of State’s power over GBR as specified in the Bill. I have given many examples previously of past poor state-led decisions, and fear I will do so again during the Committee’s discussions. Of course, there are lots of problems with private sector railways, but there have also been lots of public sector problems, too, whether with fares, rolling stock or infrastructure.

Our proposal would increase the transparency and accountability of the Secretary of State’s decisions. It would not prevent any of those decisions, but it would create a vehicle for them to be properly discussed. We propose creating a Great British Railways board. If the Secretary of State went against the advice of that board, the reasons for that would need to be communicated. The people serving on the board would represent GBR, but also other key stakeholders in the running of the railway: open access passenger operators, freight operators, the Office of Rail and Road, the passengers’ council and organisations that represent passengers with accessibility requirements. The board would comprise at least six members. To make sure that there is a voice for the other stakeholders that GBR needs to work with and serve, no more than half the board’s membership would be employed by, or otherwise represent, GBR.

It would be for GBR to determine the frequency of board meetings in any year. Any decision or direction from the Secretary of State concerning GBR would be notified to the board prior to being made, and should be made only if a majority of the GBR board approved it. The board would need to publish any decision or direction it considered, and whether it had approved any such decision or direction. If the board did not agree with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would be free to go ahead with whatever they decided to do against the views of the GBR board, which we hope would be made up of experts from both GBR and elsewhere, but would need to publish a statement setting out their reasons for that.

That is a summary of our proposal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister, who wishes to speak to new clause 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I can only advise the hon. Gentleman on how we are going to take the debate forward, but I hear what he says. It would be helpful if he could allude to the amendments we are discussing.

[Olly Glover]

On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. I seek clarification for my own understanding. The lead amendment in the group is Opposition amendment 2; is it correct that we are also speaking to amendment 117 and new clause 3?

[The Chair]

We are.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Can I reassure the shadow Minister and all members of this Committee that it is not my intention to confuse you? I interrupted on the advice of the Clerks. The groupings have been agreed on; I do not want to stifle debate and there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the whole of clause 3 later on, in group 7.

[Olly Glover]

I stand to speak in favour of amendment 131 and new clause 9, and we will push new clause 9 to a vote if you are willing, Mrs Hobhouse. The amendments are intended to encourage GBR to think deeply and creatively about fares and ticketing, reflecting the fact that until recently—more on which anon—rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases for much of the past 20 to 30 years.

Many passengers feel that they are not getting good value for money and that the current fares and ticketing system requires a PhD in British railways ticketing systems, even for a nerd like me. I recently got caught out because GWR’s peak hour restrictions are utterly baffling and incomprehensible. I do not wish to speak too highly of myself—it is not my style—but if I, someone with the generally not particularly character-enhancing reputation in this place of being a railway nerd, got caught out, it does suggest that the system is too hard to process and needs to change. Given that the car is the default mode of transport for so many people, an overly complicated ticketing system creates a further barrier for people using it. That is why we have tabled amendment 131 and new clause 9.

Our amendments would require Great British Railways to prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its ticketing functions under section 3 of the Act. Our measures set out various proposals that we would like GBR to consider and which we feel would significantly improve the value for money of the fares system and its accessibility and comprehensibility to everyone using the railway, and help it to draw on best practice from elsewhere—both domestically and in other countries—to improve the current situation.

The report that we are asking for would need to include the following information. To give credit to the Government, they recently embraced a long-standing Lib Dem campaign for a rail fares freeze, for which we are grateful and praise them, but it should not just be a one-off that Department for Transport Ministers somehow managed to achieve the miracle of persuading the Treasury to do it. It is something that we need to think about for the future. On this side of the House we are not so fiscally irresponsible—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow, but there is a wider point there. The hon. Member is right to mention that the Government have frozen fares, but they have not reduced the cost of providing railway services. All they have done is frozen fares on the one hand and increased taxation on the other—and the taxpayer is having to pick up the difference. Does he agree that what the Government have done is put money into one pocket, but taken it out of the pocket of passengers who are, presumably, taxpayers?

[Olly Glover]

Of course, taxpayers pay for a wide range of services, public or otherwise. Too often, the railway has been viewed almost uniquely, with the high expectation that it covers its own costs. The key challenge with a rail fares freeze is that it needs to be fiscally responsible. While the one-off gesture is welcome, and relieves some of the pressure that has built up over the last few years during the cost of living crisis, our measure for the future is, we believe, more fiscally responsible. A cap on fare increases that does not exceed the rate of inflation should become the default, and should be reviewed as part of each five-year funding settlement.

We also advocate for extending, where not currently provided for, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 to address the anomaly of fare rates for young people aged 16 to 18. We want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing that is consistent across the countries of England, Wales and Scotland.

[Edward Argar]

May I ask, on a factual point, what assessment the hon. Gentleman has made of what the cost of that 50% discount would be?

[Olly Glover]

I have not made an assessment of it at this moment. But that is not unique: at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, the right hon. Member will find that a number of the Conservative proposals that are debated in this place have not yet been fully costed—

[Rebecca Smith]

I beg to differ: they are all costed, because we are the official Opposition.

[Olly Glover]

I look forward to hearing all the figures. The point is that it is not always about coming up with the exact cost for absolutely every measure. There are plenty of things that are the right thing to do, and that can earn a return on investment. The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training is a significant barrier to economic growth. This measure, by making it easier for young people to use the train to access jobs, is likely to earn a significant return by getting more people into employment and paying taxes.

Before I accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that we want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland. If that sounds absurd, the Netherlands has it at this exact moment—and there is much that we can learn from that example. We want a guarantee to be issued that whatever ticket passengers purchase, via any means, is the best value fare. There should be no inequality in fare for the same ticket purchased via different means, which can be the case now because of the proliferation of ticketing platforms.

We want a national railcard to be introduced across the country. Many other countries, including Germany and Switzerland, offer national discount cards, but it is a bit of a postcode lottery here, with the network railcard in the London and south-east England area and a number of other regional or local railcards. We want open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rate databases for third-party retailers. That would build on the useful example demonstrated by Network Rail about 15 years ago, when it made the data feeds for its performance and train running systems available for the public to use. That created a wonderful ecosystem of useful train running and disruption apps that were much better than the official ones provided by train operators.

We also want to see greater collaboration with local and regional transport authorities, so that we see much more multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks. That would help us to get the integrated transport system we need to deal with the first and last-mile issues that are often a barrier to people deciding to take public transport over the car. Where a single journey involves travel on multiple rail services, or at least one rail service and another form of public transport, we want steps to be taken to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel.

We believe that our new clause makes a number of proposals that would put our fares and ticketing system on a much better footing. It would deliver value to the taxpayer as well as reduce cost, because it would stimulate many more people to use our railway and therefore increase revenue. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect.

Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage.

The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities.

The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Olly Glover.

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

Q Mr McDonald, it is an interesting that the extent of rail devolution in Wales and Scotland is at rather different levels; perhaps I can put it that way. The Welsh Government have long called for greater devolution of rail policy. Does the Bill, and all that comes with it, give you hope for progressing that ambition?

Peter McDonald: It certainly does not take us further away, if I can put it that way. In technical terms, I would say that the Bill is neutral for the devolution settlement. It does not adjust the fundamental constitutional arrangement in Wales, just as it does not change the fundamental constitutional arrangement of Scotland.

I think the Bill makes the current settlement more operable and better; I will not comment on the Scottish case—I will leave that for Bill. Certainly, the Welsh Government support track-train integration. I appreciate that I came at your question from a negative direction, but the Bill definitely advances us in terms of making the settlement more operable and efficient.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both for coming in. This question is for both of you. Clause 80 of the Bill puts a duty on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers if it appears that a decision that it makes would “significantly affect the interests” of the Scottish or Welsh economy, or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland or Wales. Is “significantly affect” the right test? Is it a strong enough term to ensure consultation, or is there a risk that it will allow GBR and different personnel to make such a determination based on their own judgment?

Peter McDonald: It is very reasonable for there to be a conditioning adjective in the clause, certainly for the purposes of primary legislation. In practice, hundreds of operational decisions will be happening every day that—certainly in the case of Wales and England—affect the border. I certainly would not want each of them to have to go through a duty to consult.

The Welsh Government view is that “significantly affect” is reasonable. It could be further codified and defined in a memorandum of understanding, which provides a more flexible, non-legislative route to get into when consultation matters and when this can be done at working level more informally, without legislative backing.

Bill Reeve: We would agree. I might have a professional interest in the signalling of the Newquay branch in Cornwall, but I am not sure I need to be consulted on it. We are a small team in proportion to the size of the network that we are responsible for: we would be overwhelmed if we had to be consulted about everything on a precautionary basis. As Peter said, the working of the MOU will be important and people’s behaviours will always matter. But the drafting is fine from our perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[Olly Glover]

Q You have made some really good points about the complexity of rail and the criticality of the relationship between renewals, electrification, signalling and rolling stock, and all the interfaces and dependencies between them. At risk of putting words in your mouth—hopefully I am reflecting back what you said—would you agree that some of those interfaces and the decisions around them have been, historically, a bit suboptimal? In that context, do you think there is enough in the Bill that recognises that and gets us to a better future? In particular, should the Bill explicitly state that there is a need for a rolling stock strategy? I know the Department for Transport says that it is making one, but it is not specifically in there. Do you have any thoughts about how the Bill deals with all those issues?

Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.

This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.

Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.

The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.

Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.

Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.

Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q I suppose the crux of this is: do you guys, with your organisations and trade bodies, believe that the creation of GBR will make things better going forward? I am thinking of things like giving stability to what UK rail looks like; being able to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock; collaboration between industry and organisations such as GBRX for innovation and bringing in best practice; and having an investment pipeline to give certainty to what you guys are trying to do to drive your businesses forward—all while making sure UK Rail plc, call it what you like, is in a better position than it is now.

Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years.

You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in.

Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user.

Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year.

I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges.

That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment.

I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.

[Olly Glover]

Q Mayors, you have made some really good points about the need for clearer accountability and for more responsiveness and understanding of what is going on in your areas. Mayor Burnham, I think your point about Everton is important, in that where there are strong mayoral areas quite close to each other, it is also important to have a regional cross-border overview. Does GBR do enough to strike the balance between strategic mayoral authorities’ having control in their areas and making sure that that is regionally joined up, maybe through subnational transport bodies? Do you think it does enough to provide that regional overview?

Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.

From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.

[Olly Glover]

Q Do others have any thoughts?

Andy Burnham: This is a really important point. Giving city regions the ability, either individually or together, to manage events better with the railways, and a role over that, is really important. The Everton stadium example is probably most relevant with rugby league, where England played Australia. There was just an utter meltdown of the TransPennine timetable, and chaos at stations. That affects the country’s reputation when it is a major event.

We have the Euros coming in 2028. Manchester and Liverpool will be hosting games. You just want to have a grip on the system. At the moment, we do not feel that we have that with rail, but we do with trams and buses. We have a control room for Transport for Greater Manchester. We manage these things really closely. Oasis played in the summer—you may have noticed that—and we handled major numbers coming through the city on five consecutive nights really well. Obviously, there were some issues, but really well.

The railway does not quite live in that world with us, and that is an issue. It is reputational for the country. The railway has been living in its own world a bit too much. That has got to change. I realise some of that is culture change rather than the structures that we lay out in the Bill, but the railway does have to come through this re-emerging as a public service again—people putting a bit more into the railway than they are required to, because they care, and we all care about the reputation of our places and our country.

It feels to me like that has been lost, as I look at where the railway has got to in recent times. We need to use this Bill to get it back. It is not a trivial point to say that the bee on the side of trains creates a sense of civic pride again. This is about us and the places where we live. It is a softer point perhaps, but it should not be missed.

Tracy Brabin: On events, we have seen a 10% uplift in passenger numbers on rail. There is still a feeling post covid that rail passengers are in decline, because of the change in the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday and so on. Actually, we are seeing an uplift in passenger numbers. Particularly Sundays are rammed.

I can give one example of the lack of connectivity. I was a participant in the Abbey Dash in Leeds. There were thousands of people coming into Leeds, then there was a signal failure and the whole of Leeds station closed down. On Trainline on your phone, the app was suggesting the trains were all running. I enquired and they said, “Well, that is a private company. They are not connected to us, so they don’t know.” People were coming to the station assuming that the trains were still running. We have to have that local accountability and the connected nature of the ebbs and flows of the network.

If you build it, they will come. If we have more carriages—more than two on CrossCountry—you will get more passengers because people will enjoy the journey and feel it is value for money, rather than being rammed in like cattle. Standing at London Bridge station, you see Southern trains with 13 carriages. I dream about 13 carriages. We have trains that are two and three carriages that are absolutely rammed because we have such an uplift in footfall.

[Olly Glover]

You may enjoy a ten-minute rule Bill speech that I am making tomorrow.

Tracy Brabin: I shall set my timer to make sure I watch it.

[The Chair]

I have a lot of colleagues indicating that they want to speak and I do not believe we will get everyone in. If we could have shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers, to try and get as many people as possible in, that would be really helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Thank you so much. I have no further questions.

[Olly Glover]

Q Mr Bowker, you lived through an interesting time—I hope you do not mind me describing it like that—when you ran the Strategic Rail Authority. The industry was recovering from the chaos and meltdown of the Hatfield disaster and everything that followed. According to some, there were tensions at the time between the SRA and the ORR and other bodies. Given that there appear to be superficial similarities, to some extent at least, between the structure proposed by the Bill and what existed then, what lessons and insights from that time will help us to get this right?

Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.

I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.

[The Chair]

I am afraid this will probably have to be the last question for this witness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q They do not agree, do they? We have heard stark evidence today that the lack of a level playing field and the lack of advanced sight of where this legislation is going are making investment in the railways less likely, not more likely. That is the evidence of the sector that you have heard today. You can put your fingers in your ears and say something different, but that is the evidence that we have heard.

Whether it is the access in use concerns, the failure of the appeals process to be anything worthy of the name, or the fact that the proposed powers for the Secretary of State to change without notice access in use, taken in combination, the evidence from multiple witnesses today was that the Bill does not make it easier. Are you going to listen to them, or are the Government going to pursue their dogged insistence that everyone else is wrong and they are right?

Keir Mather: If you take something like the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the consultations are undertaken in close partnership with the private sector. If you are asking me whether it is going to be easier in the long term, with GBR created, for private sector operators to engage with a level playing field, I think that it will be. I think that it creates a very clear structure of accountability measures, clear metrics by which decisions are taken and robust accountability, if GBR does not meet its obligations under the access regime, to make sure that it does things correctly, especially on the matter of access.

I think it is important that we dig into this further, because it came out consistently with the freight operators. GBR has to decide how it meets its capacity duty once it has decided what best use of the railway constitutes. That is a really important safeguard that is built into the Bill. The Secretary of State gives GBR its funding envelope through the business plan, and needs to ensure that GBR will deliver the services that it has said it will. It is therefore very important to have that capacity duty in place, but that is after GBR has made a determination, while balancing its existing duties and its need to promote freight and service providers on the railway, on whether or not those services stack up.

I think that the accountability process and appeals process are very clear, and give private operators multiple points to raise concerns, and robust enforcement measures for the ORR to substitute decisions and ask GBR to think again. The point about thinking again is very important, because we want GBR to improve as an organisation, and to become more agile and more responsive to the needs of the private sector, and the appeals process facilitates that.

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

[Laurence Turner]

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?

[Keir Mather]

The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Across the country, people enjoy traffic-free walking, cycling and wheeling on disused railways such as the Tissington trail in Derbyshire, the Mawddach trail in Gwynedd or the Deeside way in Aberdeenshire. What steps will the Secretary of State take to make it easier for local government and communities to gain access to the 8,000 miles of disused railway that we still have, which creates such a good opportunity for family-friendly cycling trails, as part of a national network?

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

The disused part of the rail network is currently in the custody of National Highways. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of those trails provide excellent opportunities for walking, wheeling and cycling; indeed, I have spent many happy times cycling on the Tissington and Monsal trails in Derbyshire. We will continue to work through Active Travel England and with local authorities to encourage them to make great use of those greenways.