Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Over 130,000 motor vehicles are now stolen every year in the UK; there has been a 75% increase in England and Wales in a decade. Much of that theft happens through the exploitation of weaknesses in remote key fobs. Does the Minister agree that this crime trend is a major risk for users of motorised vehicles on our roads, and what steps will her Department and its agencies take to improve vehicle and fob design standards and regulation, as well as driver awareness, to prevent such crimes?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member raises an important question. Of course, our Department works closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle crime of that sort. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to write to him about those regulations.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Government have big ambitions for active travel, but their targets in the third cycling and walking investment strategy are neither bold nor measurable. Over 40 organisations, including some Labour mayoral authorities, have called for a target of 50% of short urban journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030, as well as planning for a national active travel network. What does the Secretary of State say in response?
Lilian Greenwood
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we consulted on the third cycling and walking investment strategy. That consultation closed in December and we are carefully considering all the representations that have been made. We will publish the final strategy in the spring.
Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew
I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him.
I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning. That must make me a very slow learner.
Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole.
With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.
Keir Mather
May I begin by thanking everyone personally for the way that they have conducted themselves and approached the Bill? As a relatively new Minister taking on my first major piece of legislation, I have appreciated enormously the constructive approach of Members across the Committee. I want to read into the record my personal thanks, in particular, to those on the Government Benches: my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and Penge, for Bexleyheath and Crayford, for South Dorset, for Truro and Falmouth, for Wrexham, for Derby South, for Hyndburn and for Birmingham Northfield, as well as the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South.
I extend my thanks to the shadow Minister, who has worked assiduously to bring forward a number of constructive proposals, which, by virtue of us having had the opportunity debate them at length, I think have teased out interesting questions about how the Bill will progress, provided an important buttress against pre-conceived notions and allowed us to explore some of the issues in depth. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has engaged in the process.
Although he is not in his place, I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who approached the Committee in his good-natured way, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon, who made many valid and respected contributions. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage certainly kept me on my toes on all aspects of railway nerdery—buttressed by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset—and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East was characteristically forensic in his scrutiny of specific aspects of the Bill, and I thank him for his hard work.
May I also thank my Bill team, who have done an incredible amount of hard work over many months, predating my occupancy of this role, to make this piece of legislation possible? It is enormously appreciated. I thank all the Doorkeepers for facilitating our Divisions and keeping us safe; the Clerks for their assiduous work; and all the Chairs who have been in charge of our proceedings.
It falls to me finally to say that regardless of individual Members’ perspectives on the merits and demerits of certain aspects of the Bill, it is one of the most consequential pieces of railways legislation that have come before this House in the last century. I am very proud to have been a part of it, and I have enjoyed it very much because of the contributions of everyone in this room. Thank you, all.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 10th February 2026
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 February 2026 - (10 Feb 2026)
Jerome Mayhew
That will teach me to go away for a day; the Committee finished off half the Bill without me. Anyway, we will go back to the usual slow progress today!
Clause 80 is pretty straightforward. Great British Railways will have a duty to consult Scottish Ministers before making decisions that relate to cross-border services designated under clause 25, where—this is the important bit—
“the decision will significantly affect…Scotland’s economy or…persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland.”
Similarly, the clause requires GBR to consult Welsh Ministers where its decisions relate to services designated by the Secretary of State that are provided in Wales under a similar process.
Most of the clause is pretty unremarkable, but there is one glaring issue with it: it asserts that GBR will decide for itself when a decision will “significantly affect” the Scottish or Welsh economies. The Minister will recognise that GBR is not an economic forecasting or policymaking body and cannot credibly assess national economic impact internally. The clause therefore makes the duty discretionary and risks major decisions proceeding without any meaningful consultation of either Welsh or Scottish Ministers. How is it sensible for GBR to have the duty to assess whether a proposed action is likely to affect the economies of either Scotland or Wales?
That brings me neatly on to amendments 103 and 104. Amendment 103 would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland. Surely that is the correct approach. Similarly, amendment 104 would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, took the decision. Effectively, instead of GBR having the responsibility to say, “This affects Scotland and/or Wales, and therefore we should consult,” the amendments would give the power to the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to call in a decision on their assessment of their own economy. Surely that is the better approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rebuttal.
Clause 81, which introduces a duty to consult mayoral combined authorities, is pretty similar to clause 80. In the interest of speed, I will skip straight on to amendment 105, which would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, and not GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy. I am repeating a similar argument, but it is an important one—one of process rather than any political issue. Again, we are talking about a rail body making an assessment of the impact of its activities on an economy that it is not a specialist in.
Clause 82 creates a duty to consult Transport for London. Again, we have the same concerns as we had regarding clauses 80 and 81. Under the franchise system, the Mayor of London, and other mayors for that matter, were able to drag in rail operators to question them about their performance and standards; however, that right of consultation seems to have been removed. Is this a deliberate decision by the Minister to reduce the rights of mayors and mayoral combined authorities in relation to consultation? If it is, I would be grateful if he could explain why he has reduced powers, as opposed to increasing them.
Amendment 106 would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Greater London. I am sure the Minister will speak to Government amendments 158 to 160 in a moment, but to anticipate his comments, they provide a duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. The Opposition have no objection to these clarifying amendments.
Finally, I understand that new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is intended to facilitate collaborative strategic planning between central Government and local authorities, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report every five years assessing the long-term changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure. We support the principle of the new clause, but I recognise that a five-year reporting requirement is an onerous task to impose if no concrete improvements follow. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say in support of his new clause.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir Alec. Before I speak to new clause 25, let me make a few comments about the Government and Conservative amendments. I see nothing to object to in the Government amendments, which seem to tidy up some aspects of the Bill surrounding interfaces relating to TfL; I await the Minister’s comments. We support the Conservative amendments, which would strengthen the role of devolved Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral authorities and TfL in relation to GBR’s decisions. That is the right principle because, as I shall argue, for too long decisions about our rail network have been focused on London and the south-east, sometimes to the detriment of regional development.
Our new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report at least once every five years on the long-term rail infrastructure changes needed at a local level. It would force the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and would ensure that those views are properly considered, reported and laid before Parliament. Local authorities understand where infrastructure is holding back growth, connectivity and reliability. Whether it is the need for additional passing loops—were my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset present I am sure that he would talk about the west of England line—station upgrades or better integration with local bus services, such issues are often well known locally but struggle to be given a proper voice under our current arrangements. The new clause would create a formal mechanism to surface those priorities and ensure that they are not overlooked.
The powers in the Bill are not just for this Government and this Parliament, so it is important that appropriate checks and balances are put in place. The new clause would restore balance by embedding local government and parliamentary scrutiny into long-term rail planning, while making sure that local people’s voices are heard by the Government on the changes that they want to see. By requiring reports to be shared with relevant Select Committees, new clause 25 would strengthen accountability and transparency. It would support joined-up, evidence-based planning and help to ensure that Great British Railways delivers the improvements that reflect local need.
To address the shadow Minister’s point, I understand where he is coming from, but were somebody to be punished by being required to tot up the reports that would have to be laid before Parliament under amendments that he and I have tabled, I think it is possible that he might win. In that context, we do not think that this is overly onerous, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the local authority voice can be strengthened.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Sir Alec; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendments 103 to 106, which would require GBR to inform the relevant devolved Ministers and bodies before taking a decision that affected them, and the relevant Minister or body to decide whether consultation is necessary, if they deemed the decision to be significant. Each of the amendments does the same thing, for Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL respectively. They would reverse provisions in the Bill as drafted that require GBR to consult the relevant devolved Minister or body if it considers a decision significant.
The Committee has heard that GBR will be the directing mind of the railways. I fully recognise the need for Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL to be suitably informed and consulted on decisions of GBR that relate to them. GBR is already required by the Bill to have regard to the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, statement of objectives, and directions and guidance; to the Welsh Ministers’ transport strategy; to the local transport plans of MCAs; and to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Furthermore, in the case of Scotland and Wales, the memorandums of understanding required by the Bill will ensure that any significant decision affecting Scotland or Wales is not made without the proper engagement of the relevant Government and transport body. In the case of mayoral combined authorities and TfL, there is a clear intention for GBR to work closely in partnership with mayoral authorities including TfL. An industry-developed practitioner guide on how GBR could work in partnership locally was published on 13 January, and GBR will be a proactive partner with all those bodies.
Clauses 80 to 82 already require consultation on significant decisions. Rather than improving the Bill, amendments 103 to 106 would fundamentally hamstring GBR’s decision-making powers by creating unnecessary additional requirements. Decision making would become inefficient and less responsive to passengers and freight. Consultation will ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers can share their views, perspectives and expertise on the economic impact of GBR’s decision making.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 48—Train guard patrols: requirements—
“(1) This section applies to passenger train services which operate with the supervision of a train manager or guard.
(2) The train manager or guard has a duty to patrol any train on which they are working at such intervals as are, in the opinion of the train manager or guard, reasonable for the purposes of supporting—
(a) passenger safety;
(b) the accessibility needs of any individual passenger;
(c) detection of incidents including—
(i) possible criminal behaviour;
(ii) possible anti-social behaviour;
(iii) obstruction of doors, or other obstruction to the safe and routine operation of the train,
provided that doing so is practicable for the guard or train manager in question.”
This new clause would require guards or train managers to routinely patrol trains provided it is practicable for them to do so.
New clause 57—Anti-social noise—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to—
(a) prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.
(b) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection 1(a) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.
Olly Glover
Before I go into the detail of new clause 10, let me say why we think it is important. Passenger safety on our railway is important not only in absolute terms—it is absolutely right that people who are paying to take the train be safe, have their safety taken seriously and feel safe—but because, as always, public transport is competing with the private motor car, which is often associated, rightly or wrongly, with safety. Many people feel that it is a safer option, particularly late at night.
Our new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to undertake, within six months of the Act’s passing, a comprehensive review of passenger safety, with a particular focus on the safety of female passengers and passengers with disabilities. It would need to look at staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly for services that run late at night or that could give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety, such as services around special events. Lighting is a key consideration, as are opening hours and accessibility of health points. CCTV coverage is already significant across our railway, but the processes in place to access it and obtain evidence promptly are not always there.
We want to look at the merits of ideas such as real-time reporting applications for incidents in which a passenger is harassed. There are such initiatives at the moment—I really ought to know the number by now, given the endless announcements: 61016, perhaps—but there is more that can be done. I have just made the point covered in our proposed subsection (3)(f): that public awareness of the methods to report concerns should be promoted. Perhaps they are working better than I thought.
There is a lot to be done on making sure that travel connections from the train for onward journeys are strong, particularly bus waiting points and points to pick up taxis. Staffing is also a key consideration that requires some thought. If the review were to recommend any action to improve safety, it would be down to GBR to make efforts to implement those actions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
New clause 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), would mandate some provisions on train guards. It has been tabled because, alas, the current general customer experience of the visibility of guards, conductors, train managers or whatever we want to call them, where they are present, is patchy at best—that is the most polite way I can put it. New clause 48 is a modest, practical proposal that puts passenger safety and accessibility at the heart of our railways.
Guards, train managers, conductors, senior conductors and all the other job titles—including on-board supervisors on Southern; I must not forget those—are uniquely placed to provide reassurance to passengers and to identify problems at an early stage, whether that is vulnerable passengers needing assistance, antisocial behaviour escalating or obstructions that compromise the safe operation of the train.
By placing a clear duty to patrol where practicable, at reasonable intervals, this new clause would support staff in doing what many already strive to do, while giving passengers reassurance that someone is present, visible and responsive. That visible presence offers peace of mind, particularly for those who may feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and helps to build confidence in the rail network as a public space. The benefit is a safer, more inclusive travelling environment, with early intervention preventing minor issues from becoming serious incidents and providing a safer, more welcoming environment.
New clause 57 would deal with antisocial noise. This is a very grave matter. Passengers are frequently plagued by the imposition of people’s often dubious taste in music or TikTok videos, which may sometimes include the soothing sound of cats miaowing but quite often takes the form of a great deal of other raucous things. It may seem disproportionate to suggest legislation to counter the problem, but sometimes our own human weaknesses let us down. That is why new clause 57 would require regulations to be made to
“prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.”
I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Keir Mather
New clause 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to undertake a review of passenger safety within six months of the Act passing and to make all reasonable efforts to implement any actions identified. I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause—passenger safety is of the utmost importance as we transition the railway into public ownership—but I do not think the new clause necessary, as the Government are taking action even before the Bill is passed.
As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will be aware, we already have a range of security measures and guidance in place across the railway and the wider transport network, addressing the issues raised. Those will be maintained under public ownership and are kept under continuous review to ensure that they meet the challenges of the day.
I highlight the recently reviewed and updated long-running public security campaign, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, which increases public awareness and makes clear how to report suspicious activity to the British Transport police via the 61016 text reporting service; I am not sure I need to remind Members of that, as it will probably be seared into every one of our minds from travelling on the railway. I am confident that in giving GBR strategic responsibility for rail workforce planning, we will create more resilient staffing and provide greater visibility and assurance to passengers, both on trains and at stations.
As part of the Government’s safer streets mission, we have already committed to reduce violence against women and girls by half over the next decade. That will be tracked by Government through the violence against women and girls strategy, recently published by the Home Office, which includes ambitious measures to enhance the safety of women and girls on the rail network. That includes improving live access to CCTV images by the British Transport Police, and establishing consistent personal safety criteria across the rail network.
We are also already working to improve Passenger Assist and to support staff with better tools and more consistent training across the network. The ORR also monitors and reports on Passenger Assist and releases statistics quarterly. Finally, the ORR already has general safety duties that include carrying out inspections to ensure that the train and freight operating companies and Network Rail manage passenger and occupational health and safety risks appropriately. Those remain unchanged by the Bill. Given that, a further review of safety requirements would only serve to drive attention and resource away from the action that is already being taken.
Similarly, I fully agree with the principle of new clause 48, which aims further to ensure that passengers experience journeys free from disruption, harassment and criminality. I pay tribute to the train managers and guards across the network who work tirelessly in the interests of passengers to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I know the friendly and reassuring faces of the train manager on my regular trips between Parliament and my constituency. However, as I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, changing the role of train managers and guards through a legal duty could be a change to the nature of individuals’ contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. It would be up to GBR to consider what is appropriate at the time. Consequently, I do not agree with the new clause.
Finally, new clause 57 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the use of electronic audio devices on rail services. I cannot begin to express the depths to which I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. The Government recognise the nuisance that irresponsibly used personal electronic devices can cause to other passengers, and I appreciate the importance of ensuring that passengers are not disturbed by excessive noise while travelling on the railways.
I am pleased, however, to confirm that the matter is already addressed under existing national railway byelaws. Railway byelaw 7 states that people “on the railway” shall not “to the annoyance of” others
“sing; or…use any instrument, article or equipment”
to produce sound without
“written permission from an Operator”.
Any person who breaches that byelaw commits an offence and may be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000.
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady raises another valid point. It is right that train operators manage and enforce the byelaws and that GBR will have the added benefit that I have identified of holistic responsibility across the network, but she is right to point out that there is much further to go. Sometimes, there are complexities around subjectivity, where somebody on the train will have to determine what they believe constitutes an unreasonable level of noise, but that does not stop the fact that there are clear incidents in which the noise is totally unacceptable. We have further to go in this space, and the signage issue that the hon. Lady raises is interesting and something that I will reflect on. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clauses.
Olly Glover
I will press new clause 10 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 35—Report on long-term pipeline for works—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, Great British Railways must publish a report containing a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work affecting any line or service operated by Great British Railways (‘the works pipeline’).
(2) Great British Railways must publish further such reports within twelve months of the publication of the last such report under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report under this section before Parliament.
(4) Each report laid under this section must provide a works pipeline for the period of the following 15 years.
(5) Each works pipeline must include details of—
(a) infrastructure renewals;
(b) enhancements, including capacity schemes;
(c) digital signalling and technology programmes;
(d) major station works;
(e) rolling stock procurement;
(f) upgrade and refurbishment programmes.
(6) The works pipeline must specify the expected—
(a) timing,
(b) scope, and
(c) sequencing,
of renewal programmes, enhancements, and major technology transitions.
(7) The works pipeline must align with—
(a) The Rail Strategy’s objectives, and
(b) the funding provided for infrastructure and rolling stocks works during each Control Period.
(8) Each report laid under this section must include an assessment of—
(a) how the works pipeline will reduce inefficiencies in delivery of works, specifically in relation to—
(i) irregularity of gaps in funding, and
(ii) unstable or unreliable management of projects and programmes.
(b) how the works pipeline—
(i) has supported, and will support UK supply chain capacity;
(ii) has impacted protection of specialist skills within the rail industry; and
(iii) will support employment and apprenticeships.
(9) Each report must contain an assessment, during the year prior to its publication, of—
(a) progress in delivering any projects or programmes included in the works pipeline,
(b) any changes to projects or programmes included in the works pipeline, and reasons for those changes,
(c) the impact of the works pipeline on—
(i) industry investment,
(ii) inflation of costs in the rail sector, and
(iii) delivery capacity in the rail sector.
(10) Before publishing a report under this section, Great British Railways must consult—
(a) participants in the rail sector supply chain,
(b) rail industry bodies,
(c) the Scottish Ministers,
(d) the Welsh Ministers, and
(e) the Office of Rail and Road.
(11) Great British Railways has a duty to ensure that its integrated business plan and long-term procurement strategies pay due regard to the works pipelines included in the most recent report published under this section.
(12) On the day on which a report is laid before Parliament under this Section, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House about how the works pipeline—
(a) aligns with the long-term rail strategy, and
(b) supports whole-network delivery priorities.”
This new clause would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works.
New clause 71—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) capacity of the rail network,
(b) the potential need for new lines or services,
(c) level crossings, and
(d) the accessibility of the rail network.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.
(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.
Olly Glover
Our new clause 11 would create a fund for future railway improvement, which would have multiple intentions. First, it would create a stable pipeline of enhancements in infrastructure for the years and perhaps even decades ahead, which the supply chain is so loudly clamouring for, given that the rail networks enhancements pipeline has not been updated for many years. During Transport Committee visits around the country, we talked to supply chain businesses. Many of them reported never feeling quite so despairing about the outlook for their trades given the uncertainty with railway investment and enhancements. The fund would also create hope for communities. It would create a mechanism for them to submit their ideas for consideration, so they form part of the pipeline.
In anticipation of the Government or the Conservatives accusing me of being fiscally reckless, careful observation of the wording highlights that the new clause does not stipulate an amount for what should go into the fund. That is for the Government of the day to decide, but the principle is clear: there should be a longer-term process and mechanism for local authorities and communities to get their ideas on the table.
What would the fund involve? The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the fund, which could be for new or reopened railways or just stations. We would call it the tomorrow’s railway fund. Local and regional transport authorities would have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund. That could be simply to develop an idea to the next level or to implement construction of something that has already gained support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
I would also be inclined to support the Conservatives’ new clause 35, which would explicitly intend to create a long-term pipeline project. As I have alluded, we think that is a good idea for our railway and our supply chain, and it is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should welcome, given their oft-stated but rarely implemented commitment to economic growth and getting our country moving.
Jerome Mayhew
I seek a bit of advice here, Sir Alec: I presume this is the right time to talk about new clause 35 as well.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Sir Alec. On new clause 11, I hear what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says about fiscal responsibility, but it seems a bit strange to set up a fund with no funds in it. Although, as Committee members have seen in the new clauses I have tabled, I support the principle of having a long-term approach to infrastructure development and investment in rolling stock and skills in this country, I cannot support the creation of a new fund without fully understanding where that money would come from.
Olly Glover
Given the shadow Minister’s criticism of the new clause, is he willing to condemn the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund for the same reasons?
Jerome Mayhew
The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success.
New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development.
That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements.
In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling the new clauses, which relate to enhancements on the rail network or the impacts of other projects on rail.
New clause 11 would establish a fund for future railway improvements. Local and regional transport authorities could then bid for funding from the pot for their local areas. I certainly share the support the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has for improving the railway across the whole country, and I believe that the railway can bring benefits to the places it serves. However, it should be for GBR, as the organisation run by experts and charged with running railways, to maintain close relationships with local and regional authorities, including the local commissioning of infrastructure projects where agreements can be reached.
The fund the hon. Member proposes risks removing GBR’s opportunity to organise, design and implement enhancements, which is a job that it is best placed to do, as the directing mind. Of course, GBR will engage closely with local and regional authorities when planning, and should invest where real benefits would be gained. Enhancements funding should continue to be set at the spending review; that is appropriate where projects are discretionary. GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery.
I also expect the publication of GBR’s integrated business plan to provide further transparency on the enhancements GBR plans to undertake, and the associated funding. That should help set the roadmap for the five-year funding period. I hope the hon. Member can agree that such decisions should be made by GBR, working with local authorities and with mind to the long-term rail strategy.
New clause 35 would establish a report on a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work, on a line-by-line or service-by-service basis, and with considerable detail on the specific timing, scope and sequencing of works over a 15-year period. I share the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to create transparency around GBR’s spending, and certainty for the railway supply chain. We are already working to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and supporting infrastructure, such as electrification, that will provide clear direction for the supply chain. As I am sure he already knows, the Bill contains a duty for GBR to consider certainty for railway service providers. However, I disagree that this needs to be in statute and that a pipeline containing the level of detail proposed in this amendment, over 15 years, would be a good way of achieving the goals of transparency and certainty for GBR.
GBR will have a five-year integrated business plan, backed by five years of funding for infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewals. That has been established as the appropriate balance between long-term planning and the realities of a changing operational environment. Forecasting specific infrastructure works beyond five years becomes increasingly unreliable, potentially leading to instability for the supply chain and for GBR—the exact thing this amendment is trying to avoid. Enhancements funding will continue to be set at the spending review, while GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. That ensures that larger projects have longer term certainty. The current process has resulted in £2 billion being invested in the railway network every year, from 2019 to 2024. I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can understand that creating a stable long-term rail strategy and business planning environment will do more to achieve these aims.
Finally, I turn to new clause 71, which raises the importance of understanding rail impact when considering major infrastructure projects. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for raising this issue, but I do not agree with it primarily because the matters that the amendment seeks to mandate are already comprehensively addressed in the existing statutory framework. Under the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statements applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the transport, energy, waste and water sectors, the Secretary of State will consider requirements to mitigate adverse impacts on transport networks arising from any developments. For transport projects, promoters must provide detailed assessments of the impact of their proposals on transport networks, including rail capacity, demand and operational implications. These assessments are a routine and established part of the development consent order process, which the Secretary of State must consider. This amendment would introduce an entirely new statutory reporting step before an application could be examined, which would go against the Government's reforms to streamline the consenting regime following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aims to make the system quicker and more efficient. Instead of adding value, this new requirement would instead risk adding delay in introducing uncertainty, which could hinder timely progress on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Having laid out the Government’s arguments to these amendments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.
Olly Glover
We would like to press new clause 11.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 58—Rails to Trails Programme—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—
(a) walkers,
(b) wheelers,
(c) cyclists, and
(d) horse riders.
(2) The programme must include—
(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),
(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;
(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.
(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the “Rails to Trails Programme”.”
This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.
New clause 60—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—
(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.
(2) In this section “safe bicycle storage” means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.
(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—
(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and
(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”
This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.
New clause 66—Reopening of services to underserved areas—
(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.
(2) In meetings its purpose, the department must consider—
(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and
(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.
(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.
(4) In subsection (3), relevant travel authorities means—
(a) Scottish Ministers;
(b) Welsh Ministers;
(c) in England—
(i) any—
(a) mayoral strategic authority,
(b) combined authority, or
(c) combined county authority
with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and
(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”
This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.
Olly Glover
I shall be concise because we have perhaps started discussing this new clause unwittingly in the previous segment. New clause 12 would require a review of the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund. Given the comments made by the shadow Minister, I am not sure that the wider populace would be quite so effusive about the success of the program—for £500 million, it delivered just 11 miles of reopened line and two new stations. Having said that, the heart of the idea was positive and that is exactly why we tabled our new clause 11, which we have debated previously. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the now cancelled restoring your railway fund, to understand the pearls of wisdom that could be salvaged from its wider failure, to improve things for the future.
New clause 58 is about our rails to trails programme, which would create the potential for communities to more easily acquire disused railway lines and turn them into walking and cycling routes. Of course, lots of disused railways in the country are no longer owned by railway organisations, but some are. The new clause would facilitate acquisitions so that we can create more spaces on routes that are segregated from traffic for people to enjoy.
Keir Mather
Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.
Olly Glover
If the Minister’s Wikipedia profile is correct, he studied history and politics. As an historian, does he not agree that to get the future right, we must learn from the past, and that we should therefore review the activities of past Governments?
Keir Mather
It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come.
GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true. We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators.
New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield. The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments.
I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land.
The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration.
New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations. The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund.
With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.
Olly Glover
I enjoyed the debate with the Minister, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—
(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;
(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.
(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).
(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”
This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.
Olly Glover
New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on types of traction within a year of the Bill having passed, because the UK seems very committed to pursuing the somewhat anomalous obsession of replacing existing diesel trains with something called discontinuous electrification.
I will try not to bore the Committee too much with the technical detail, but historically the solution to avoiding diesel trains on railways has been to fully electrify them, which brings a huge raft of advantages. Electric trains are significantly more reliable than diesel trains. They are lighter, and therefore easier on the track. They have an impressive power-to-weight ratio, which is of particular benefit to freight trains; the acceleration of electrically hauled freight trains is incomparable with diesel. They also have a lower whole-life cost. Yet, with a couple of noble exceptions, there seems to be a real aversion to full electrification. I can entirely understand that for lightly used branches, where some of the novel solutions, such as battery trains or discontinuous electrification with batteries, would be entirely suitable. However, it currently feels like there is no clear criteria or logic as to which type of traction solution is pursued.
I have attempted to find answers through written questions and other means; I simply seek reassurance that the only consideration is not saving capital costs. I hope the Minister agrees that it is important that we consider whole-life cost as well as capital cost. It therefore ought to be possible to logically define the criteria by which a line will be chosen to be subject to electrification, no electrification or partial electrification. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer.
In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types. In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy.
New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network.
As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made. Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty.
When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.
Olly Glover
I am content to not to press new clause 14—we will save that battle for another day—but I will move new clause 19 formally when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Access for All programme: review
“(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the Access for All programme.
(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must identify the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.
(3) Accessibility improvements as set out in subsection (2) include ensuring step-free access to all—
(a) platforms;
(b) entrances to stations;
(c) exits from stations.
(4) The review must identify all stations with fewer than 1,000,000 entries and exits a year, as recorded by the estimates of station usage published by the Office for Rail and Road, that do not have step-free access as set out in subsection (3).
(5) The review must set out an explanation for spending decisions on the Access for All programme between the period 25 October 2022 and 24 May 2024.
(6) The review must set out recommendations with the objective of facilitating the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would mandate a review of the Access for All programme. The review would seek to ensure that step-free access at railway stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain spending decisions on the programme under the previous Government and set out recommendations for future spending.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require a review of public road level crossings. It addresses similar themes to those raised by the new clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have previously discussed.
We are seeking an annual review of high-delay level crossings, such as the one at Thatcham on what is known as the Berks and Hants line between Reading and Westbury and beyond. That is because we need to undertake proper analysis of the local economic cost and social impact caused by congestion, which admittedly is often necessary to facilitate railway services. It is sometimes perceived—whether the perception is accurate is another matter—that level crossing down times can be excessive. There may be opportunities to improve that, although ultimately to alleviate the local impact of the railway going through those communities, the high-delay level crossings would need to be replaced with an alternative means of crossing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and other signatories to the new clause are concerned about the wasted time and fuel resulting from long periods of idling traffic while the barriers are down, which can also lead to lost time for commuters, shoppers and business travellers. Road congestion across the UK is estimated to cost the economy tens of billions of pounds a year—some estimates exceed £30 billion—and high-impact level crossings are major contributors to local congestion hotspots, which can result in increased operating costs, particularly for commercial vehicles, such as delivery vans and lorries, and tradespeople. That, in turn, can reduce business productivity, leading to supply chain disruption, and can undermine labour productivity. Of course, there can also be a significant impact on emergency and public services.
The presence of a highly congested level crossing can act as a physical constraint on local planning. Local authorities are often unable to approve major housing or commercial developments that would increase local road traffic, as that would exacerbate the existing gridlock. That therefore stifles economic and housing growth. The Government have been very clear about their commitment to economic growth and highly ambitious housing targets that some consider to be undeliverable, so I hope that argument holds some weight with the Minister if none of the others do.
Let me say a bit more about Thatcham as a case study. Local reports and studies frequently say that the Thatcham level crossing is typically lowered for more than 30 minutes every hour at peak times, leading to significant congestion. The crossing is known as an MCB-CCTV. I have an ongoing commitment to waging war against acronyms, so let me say that that means a manually controlled barrier with CCTV monitoring. It is located on the busy Berks and Hants line, with approximately 133 trains per day passing over it. The line speed is high, at 100 mph—it is definitely an example of a railway that has benefited from full electrification—which requires the barriers to be lowered earlier than on slower lines, to allow sufficient warning time and ensure safe signal clearance.
Thatcham town council and West Berkshire council have formally acknowledged the serious traffic delays at the crossing. These delays have been specifically noted in the development of the local transport plan and the local plan review—the issue of the level crossing delays is identified as a critical factor that must be addressed and mitigated before any major new developments can proceed.
A study assessing the viability of replacing the level crossing with a new road bridge over the railway and canal estimated the cost to be in the region of £16.5 million, with that proposal ultimately declared not financially viable as a stand-alone public project. We do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause, but we will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue that it highlights.
Jerome Mayhew
The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which would require GBR to produce annual reports and technical studies relating to road crossings, with the aim of easing congestion. It is our view that the new clause would add highly disproportionate administrative and reporting burdens on to Great British Railways that we do not believe are necessary to manage level crossings and mitigate any of the impacts on communities that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage so powerfully described.
The new clause would require GBR to undertake an annual review of every public road level crossing in Britain, assessing the social and economic effects on each area, and would mandate feasibility and engineering studies for any site judged to have high levels of congestion. That would create a substantial and ongoing workload that would divert time, staff and funding away from the core functions of managing the railway, including by requiring GBR to develop proposals for engineering solutions even when there is no clear business case for intervention. That would increase costs, reduce flexibility and limit GBR’s ability to prioritise investment where it delivers the greatest benefits.
Network Rail has a statutory duty to minimise risks to the public and keep level crossings safe. I reassure the hon. Member that GBR will continue to be bound by those duties, while also taking full account of the wider economic and social impacts that level crossing down time can have on local communities. In support of that, as is the case now, GBR will be expected to keep level crossing operations under review, support continuous improvements in safety, and reduce unnecessary disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.
GBR will remain directly accountable to the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road, the independent rail safety regulator on this work. As is the case now, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that decisions are well informed and responsive to local needs. Through that approach, GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local priorities and is firmly grounded in evidence. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Olly Glover
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Great British Railways Board
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (“the Board”).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to,
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jerome Mayhew
New clause 31 seeks to reimpose minimum service levels. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose minimum service levels on passenger rail services, and for GBR to enforce them. The previous Government passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023, and the new clause essentially makes the railways subject to those regulations once more.
The purpose of the new clause is to reduce the impact of rail strike action on the ability of passengers to access their place of work and essential services, and to reduce the negative impacts on the wider economy, by setting minimum service levels—MSLs—for passenger rail during strikes. The intention is that the new clause will lead to an improved and more consistent level of service for passengers during rail strikes, when work notices are issued by employers to secure MSLs.
Public transport is critical for the everyday lives of citizens in Great Britain. The transport system supports all sectors of the economy and is a crucial enabler of economic growth. Rail is an important public transport mode as it enables passengers to make vital journeys, such as commuting to work or accessing essential services. Strike action on the passenger rail network can lead to disproportionate disruption to millions of people who rely on these services. A survey conducted by the Department for Transport in 2022 found that most rail users’ journeys were impacted by strike action, with some passengers reporting an adverse financial impact as a result.
Strike action usually takes place when there is a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the dispute cannot be resolved by other means. It is intended to cause disruption to the employer and, in some cases, the wider economy. Strike action in the rail sector, however, affects ordinary rail users, who are not party to the dispute. In December 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that rail strikes between June ’22 and January ’23 would result in a loss of UK economic output of around £500 million due to people outside the rail sector not being able to work. Several sectors, including hospitality, have reported loss of revenue directly from the impact of rail strike action.
Government intervention is intended to mitigate disproportionate impacts of strike disruption on the railway, rail users and the wider economy. While the rail industry has put in place contingency plans to run a limited number of services during previous strike action, the level of service that it can deliver varies. Setting MSLs for passenger rail services will provide an important tool for employers to be able to deliver an overall improvement on the service levels that are typically seen during strike periods, and provide passengers with more certainty and consistency, which is just as important. This is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of passenger rail strike action on users’ access to their place of work and to essential services, and the impact on the wider economy, while balancing that with the ability of workers to take strike action.
New clause 32, also in my name, would provide for a working practices and productivity modernisation framework. It would implement a number of provisions to make running GBR easier and more cost-effective for the Government and the taxpayer. Currently, there are a number of historical terms and conditions in train driver contracts that are outdated and allow drivers to hold their employers to ransom over pay. They make the railway inefficient to run and drivers slow to train, and end up costing taxpayers and fare payers more.
Let us look at some examples of improvements—this is a non-exhaustive list. We could get drivers to operate train doors without additional payments, and provide a train driving school with updated training methods to speed up route knowledge and training times. At the moment, it takes a lot less time to train a pilot to fly a jumbo jet from scratch than it takes to train a train driver. We could deal with the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails, and introduce multidisciplinary flexible maintenance teams that support other local teams when needed. We could permit driver managers to drive trains when required, and link general pay rises to productivity gains.
All those examples, which are listed in the new clause, are eminently sensible improvements to the ability of GBR to run an effective, modern railway. Most people agree that having a seven-day timetable with a six-day roster is ridiculous, because it means that the Sunday service is voluntary. As a result, drivers are always paid overtime even though the service is part of the standard schedule. That does not happen anywhere else in the public or private sector. The new clause would mean that GBR could be run more cost-effectively. Many train companies have historical disputes with drivers over this issue, and have been unable to remove it from their trip terms and conditions as the drivers would simply go on strike. Now is a perfect time to change approach, with the full backing of the Government, in primary legislation. This wholesale reform of the railways is an opportunity for the Government to reset the terms and conditions for train operation.
As I have said, it is currently quicker to qualify to fly a commercial jet than to qualify to drive a train, and once a pilot has their licence they can fly almost anywhere in the world, while qualified train drivers are restricted to a specific route. We want to make it quicker and easier to become a train driver so that more people have access to the job. That is why the new clause legislates for GBR to establish a train driving school with updated methods. It would decrease dependency on overtime for sick days and for leave. GBR would be directly accountable to Parliament on the success of the framework, which we believe to be important.
Olly Glover
Let me say a couple of words on the shadow Minister’s new clauses. I entirely understand what he is trying to achieve and he asks some valid questions about the nature of industrial relations in the rail industry and how they are managed. I gently suggest, though, that the complexity of those things is perhaps greater than it might appear. This is not the place for me to share my extensive war stories of negotiating on a whole range of things with ASLEF, RMT and TSSA—the three main railway trade unions—but on that basis, my view is that these are exactly the sorts of things that are best left to GBR, with appropriate support and leadership from the Secretary of State.
Our new clause 55 is a different way of tackling a similar problem. It would require GBR to examine the benefits of mutual and co-operative structures and what they might be able to achieve. It is true that industrial relations in the rail industry are often fraught and subject to frayed tempers. As well as continuing constructive dialogue with the unions, are there other ways of looking at things? Perhaps we could draw on experiences both here and abroad, particularly in Germany, where mutual and co-operative structures, making sure that the worker has a voice on boards, and so on, can create a stronger footing for positive dialogue and secure employee buy-in to the wider objectives of the organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsThursday 5th February 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 February 2026 - (5 Feb 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Hobhouse. Our amendment 212 relates to what the Minister said: it would remove the restriction on the ORR’s ability to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. I am hoping that we can find some agreement or that the Minister can improve my understanding of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that we do not want wooden dollars—are we still allowed to say that?—sloshing around the system. We do not want fake money, fake economics or fake regulation. That has not been a strength of the rail industry under the current structure.
The Minister said that the ORR would have the powers to tell GBR to do better and to put a legally binding notice on it. Perhaps this is an extreme thought experiment, but what would happen if GBR said, “Thank you very much, ORR, for your legally binding improvement notice, but we’re not interested—we’re not doing it.”? Is the Minister saying that the ORR could then sue GBR? What would happen next? If he covers that in his summing up, I might not move my amendment—I am sure he feels very threatened given how many Divisions we have won so far.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 75 prevents the ORR from issuing directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities. It also prevents the ORR from imposing a fine on GBR for licence breaches. We think those are both terrible ideas.
The Transport Committee asked Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group:
“What is your view on the ORR’s downgraded power merely to ‘advise’ the Secretary of State on GBR’s performance, rather than having actual powers of enforcement?”
She said:
“I am quite worried about this.”
To the same question, Steve Montgomery from First Rail said:
“Following on from that, the independence element of it—marking your own homework—is a big concern for us. How do we ensure that we do not see a perverse behaviour where GBR looks after its own operations to the detriment of others?”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:
“I can only echo that. With GBR writing the rules, controlling capacity and being linked to the main operator in the country, there is a structural conflict of interest, unless there is a clear duty of fairness and non-discrimination. I do not know of other European countries that do not have a strong independent rail regulator, across the EU and beyond. To be the judge and the jury at the same time is somewhat worrying.”
Emma Vogelmann, the co-chief executive of Transport for All, told the Transport Committee:
“Our recommendation on the role of the ORR is to retain its independent authority. We are definitely interested to see how that transition of powers, as Ben mentioned, plays out, and how enforceability plays into that.”
For once, the Government need to stop and listen. The sector is speaking with one voice and telling them that this is the wrong approach. The clause needs to be removed in its entirety. It is common for regulators to be able to issue financial penalties to private utility companies that are in breach of their statutory duties. Why should that consumer protection not also be applied to a public body like GBR? Removing clause 75 would restore the ORR as a strong, independent economic regulator.
Government amendment 271
“would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.”
The Conservatives are against the whole clause, but, to save time, we will not seek a Division specifically on this amendment—I am sure that everybody will be pleased to hear that. However, as somebody who serves on the Transport Committee and sat through a lot of those evidence sessions, one of the key things that concerned me and some other members of the Committee was the breakdown of the relationship between the ORR and GBR and the weakening of the ORR’s powers. When I heard that evidence, I certainly felt that it was a compelling argument.
Liberal Democrat amendment 212 would remove the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. That is okay as far as it goes, and we will support the amendment, but we think that it does not quite go far enough. As I am sure Members expect on the basis of what I have just said, we will vote against clause 75 as a whole.
Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsThursday 5th February 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 February 2026 - (5 Feb 2026)
Rebecca Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I alluded to that issue earlier in my comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham raised it on Tuesday. That is why we are concerned on behalf of not only open access, but first of all passengers, who are not going to get the best possible service because of the inbuilt assertion that open access can ultimately be discarded if the Government do not see it as palatable.
The written evidence from Lumo and Hull Trains also says:
“As the Government and GBR seek to deliver a thriving, growing railway, it is vital that the Railways Bill recognises and protects the contribution that Open Access makes to these shared goals. This will ensure that it will continue to deliver these benefits to the millions of passengers who rely on them, now and into the future…As the Government looks to modernise and centralise rail through GBR, it will be important that competition remains an embedded principle within this framework. Open Access provides a proven model of innovation and efficiency, which can help GBR achieve its statutory objectives. Recognising the role of competition as a driver of value and growth will ensure that passengers, the network, and the public purse all continue to benefit.”
FirstGroup’s written submission to the Transport Committee tells a similar story, saying that open access operators
“receive no government funding, take on full risk, and generate their own revenue— giving them very strong incentives to deliver a service which is endorsed by passengers…The way in which GBR structures its timetable will be critical. It should be obliged to carry out its functions fairly and without discrimination, so that if an open access train service can provide passenger benefit monopoly interests do not prevent that train from running.”
FirstGroup also says:
“Clause 63 must ensure that un-funded services which GBR ‘expects’ are not given train paths in advance of funded open access services, which will provide passenger benefit sooner.”
The Rail Freight Group is also concerned by the clause, telling the Transport Committee:
“We understand that the basis of the new approach will be via Infrastructure Capacity Plans (Clause 61) and, for GBR’s own trains, via the Capacity Duty (Clause 63). It is very difficult from these clauses to have a clear understanding of how the new process will operate, and how rail freight and rail freight growth will be facilitated, including in contractual rights for operators…For example, we understand from our discussions that there could be numerous infrastructure capacity plans across the network which a new freight service will have to navigate. We also understand that when an infrastructure capacity plan is reviewed, existing freight services could be stopped from operating if other services are considered to be higher value, as contractual commitments are expected to expire in line with the capacity plans.”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL told the Transport Committee:
“I think we would look for clarification, regarding clause 63, that GBR cannot reserve capacity for hypothetical future GBR long-distance services at the expense of privately funded open-access proposals or existing services that provide immediate benefits—and extra infrastructure income, of course, because open-access operators are paying track access fees too. For that, I think you need to prioritise funded open access over speculative GBR services ‘someday in the future.’”
It is very clear what the sector thinks: clause 63 needs substantial clarification. That is why, along with the Lib Dems, we have tabled a number of amendments, which I will briefly speak to. Amendment 81 would make it clear that capacity allocation should be based on a level playing field, without priority given to any particular operator. That would allow the best outcome for the passenger, and allows the public interest bit in clause 18 to take the lead. Proceeding on any other basis will leave us with a monopoly that is allowed to abuse its position.
Amendment 80 puts forward an alternative approach, based on key performance indicators, but it is clear the Government are not interested, so in the interests of time I will not pursue that further today—that will be one fewer Division, the Government will be pleased to hear.
Amendment 253, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, requires GBR “to retain sufficient capacity” to ensure that the rail freight target is met. To progress, there would need to be a mechanism to reach a decision if that conflicted with any planned GBR service.
Amendment 211 would require GBR
“to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.”
For an appeals process to have any meaning at all, that would need to be a pre-requisite.
Amendment 229 would ensure that
“capacity allocation decisions reflect both planning priorities and freight-increase ambitions”
and would require
“GBR to publish and maintain a list of strategic freight corridors and ensures that any material reduction in capacity must be approved by the ORR.”
The amendment would give a better balance to capacity considerations than the current wholly one-sided drafting. That is incredibly important because, ultimately, the Government are seeking to reduce climate change and achieve net zero. Freight plays a huge part in that, and if we do not have strategic freight corridors to ensure that we can make use of the freight system, we will fall short of what could be achieved.
Finally, new clause 56, in the name of the Libs Dems,
“requires GBR to explore and consider the potential benefits of centralised train planning and auctioning.”
That is an interesting concept and could have significant benefits for passengers and taxpayers by driving competitive pricing for certain routes, while avoiding the abstraction arguments in relation to competing open access applications.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again on the Committee, Mr Western. I will no doubt be told off for getting her title wrong, but I agree with the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for—
Olly Glover
I knew the hon. Lady’s seat; it is just that I got told off the other day by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for calling him the spokesperson instead.
Carrying on, I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the Opposition’s amendments. I think most of them are sound and reflect the intention to strike a better balance in the Bill between GBR wanting to protect its interests and objectives, and recognising that there are valid and competing objectives elsewhere in the industry, particularly on the freight side, as well as on the open access passenger side.
Let me speak briefly to our new clause 56. The hon. Lady accurately summarised our intention. The new clause does not require GBR to adopt the idea of auctioning train paths, but it does require it to examine the potential of the idea, which is used to good effect on the Italian and Spanish high-speed rail networks. This idea, basically, retains the guiding mind approach to timetable development and construction but would recognise that for routes with a high-revenue yield and limited competition, such as London to Manchester, it may well be best, in the interests of both revenue and getting more people on to trains, to auction off one of the paths—London to Manchester has three an hour—to another operator. That would help GBR to provide some competitive tension to improve its own delivery.
I appreciate that the Government would probably say that Avanti West Coast is terrible and when it becomes GBR everything will be a land of milk, sweetness and honey; however, the real structural problem is that at the moment there is no realistic competition between London and Manchester. That is why—certainly from the figures that I have seen most recently—passenger numbers have recovered far less than they have on the east coast main line, where there is competition and a real spirit of customer choice. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Olly Glover
Apologies, Mr Western; the confusion has arisen because the selection and grouping paper lists it as an Opposition amendment. I do not wish to move it.
Olly Glover
Yes, Mr Western. Thank you.
Amendment proposed: 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Smith
I can appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. It sounds like a good idea; however, it could still be in the legislation directly, and the illustration he gave still leaves a huge number of questions about what happens if there is more than one user of that bit of infrastructure. Why should the private operator be the one that has to pay for the infrastructure? If anything, there is an issue, which I may come to, about the impact on fares, because ultimately, by the sound of it, GBR is going to have far fewer costs than other operators. In principle, I can see why the hon. Member made that point, but I think it is not clear enough at this stage.
Clause 64(8) allows a right of appeal, but only under judicial review-type provisions, which is no right at all. Any of us who has worked with anyone who ever wanted to get a judicial review knows that it is incredibly difficult. It is also incredibly expensive, so it is certainly not a level playing field.
The industry has rightly been outspoken on clause 64. In evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Freight Group stated:
“The Bill sets out the future framework for access charges for freight. In headline terms the charges will be calculated in a similar way to today (costs directly incurred by running the train) which we welcome. However, the Bill provides for extra costs to be levied on freight services
a. Through a mandatory reservation charge for capacity which is booked and then not used (for example, if a customer cancels a train due to poor weather) (Clause 64)
b. Through a general clause 64(3) which allows GBR discretion to charge more if ‘an efficient operator can pay it’. This is a very broad test and far wider than the test in current law ‘if the market can bear it’. This raises the prospect of far higher, and potentially uncapped charges being levied.
Increasing the costs of rail freight will simply make using rail too expensive for customers when compared to road freight, and will reverse modal shift and undermine growth. It is essential that the powers to charge more than the standard charge are strictly limited for GBR.”
The key point there is about reversing modal shift. On the one hand, the Government want to promote modal shift. Indeed, there is a scheme coming in— I mentioned it on Tuesday, but now I cannot remember its name—that will look at different types of transport, and one of the plans is to ensure modal shift. Anything that undermines that is potentially contradictory and a backwards step.
The Transport Committee also heard evidence from Nick Brooks of ALLRAIL, who said:
“I was just going to say something about privately owned investors and privately owned operators, specifically privately owned investors that want to invest in our sector rather than in other sectors—aviation, the road sector, or even completely different sectors. There is a certain risk. There is a commercial risk, of course, and ultimately they are looking for lower fixed costs and higher variable costs. The worry with GBR is this: who determines what the market can bear? Is GBR an independent entity, or not? I think the Bill says it should be GBR itself that determines that, if I am not mistaken.
It is a little bit like another conflict, or potential problem, with track access fees. Who decides the size of the track access fees? If you are a privately owned operator, is it your competitor—GBR—that decides your track access fees? That is a potential cause of worry.”
Lumo and Hull Trains also had similar concerns, which they raised in their written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“A transparent and proportionate charging regime will be critical to ensuring the financial sustainability and competitiveness of the railway. If GBR were able to set and revise access charges without independent oversight (as suggested by clause 64), it could create uncertainty and deter private investment. Independent regulation of charging is therefore vital to maintain investor confidence and ensure fairness between different operators. Open Access operators already make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of the network while receiving no public subsidy. The charges paid by Open Access are calculated independently by ORR to encourage investment, sweat the railway asset and deliver connectivity and the associated economic benefits. It also acts as an additional income stream to Network Rail. These arrangements demonstrate the sector’s willingness to invest and its commitment to supporting the network’s long-term health.
Ensuring that access charges remain proportionate and independently regulated will help reinforce the Government’s objective of crowding in private capital to support network growth. Confidence in a fair charging regime is essential for the continued profitability of private operators. Reinforcing a transparent and proportionate charging system will also help deliver the Government’s wider fiscal priorities by attracting and retaining private investment. By giving investors certainty that network costs are predictable and fairly allocated, the Bill can ensure that private operators continue to play a central role in funding innovation and expanding passenger capacity across the UK.”
Lumo and Hull Trains recommend:
“The updated charging regime must be developed in consultation with private stakeholders, appropriate for the markets being served and regulated with independent oversight from the ORR. This will sustain confidence in a fair and transparent access regime and ensure that private investment continues to play a central role in delivering a successful railway.”
Amendment 83 would prevent GBR from charging any sum it liked without notice. Instead, it would be required to follow the standard pricing structure set out in clause 64(2), based on actual costs incurred as a result of the activity. Does the Minister agree that any serious business case for private investment in our railways will need to have the certainty of fixed costs? How does the clause achieve anything other than the opposite?
Amendment 82 would remove the right of GBR to charge its competitors costs, basically at any time and without notice, on grounds that they have access to more money that they could pay. Instead, it would impose a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum of 12 months’ notice of changes to the charging scheme, so at least they can react to the change and seek any appeal before the event rather than after it.
Speaking to amendments 82 and 83, the Rail Forum has said:
“We strongly support these amendment, access and other charges should be reasonable and operators should have sufficient warning of changes to be able to plan accordingly.”
The amendments are not just a nice idea being suggested from the Opposition Benches, but something that the industry would like to see as well.
Amendment 84 would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways can take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. Once again, that would put accountability and transparency back into the system—something the Government seem hellbent on ignoring.
The second impact would be to allow affected organisations time to prepare an appeal. Judicial review requires a very short application process of just 12 weeks. This amended clause would help aggrieved parties to prepare a complex challenge in time for a JR timetable. Amendment 84 is more a probing one, so it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. The reflection on the judicial review process is particularly important, because we do not want to crowd people out of the opportunity to appeal. Anything he can offer in response would be appreciated.
Amendment 230 would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions—a case of natural justice. Does the Minister accept that the existing wording of the clause would allow GBR to profit from a cancellation of services caused by GBR’s failure to provide infra-structure? If so, will he explain how that could be a fair result?
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains that are planned to use GBR infrastructure, but do not operate or do not operate in full. Again, that is in effect a probing amendment, or a making-a-point amendment, as it were. With that, I shall sit down.
Olly Glover
I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response.
A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run.
Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.
Keir Mather
I will briefly turn back to the debate on the previous clauses; because the Opposition spokesperson asked me to provide an example of the motion of consent in general as it relates to timetabling and I was remiss in my duty in not doing so. To give more context, the network code currently sets out the circumstances where train service timings need to be adjusted by a few minutes without requiring specific consent. GBR will follow a very similar process and that is a normal process that industry would expect us to follow.
I now turn to the amendments at hand, all of which seek to make changes to GBR’s charging scheme. I confirm to the hon. Member for South West Devon that the charging regime broadly replicates the one that is in place today. That is intentional, so that all of the charges and discounts referenced will be familiar to industry to achieve a smooth transition to the new framework.
Furthermore, given that GBR will be bound by public law duties, which require fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination in actions and decision making, there is no reason to think that GBR will behave unreasonably. Rather, when making or amending its charging scheme, GBR will be required to balance the various duties set out in clause 18, which include promoting the interests of passengers, promoting the use of the network for carrying freight and enabling operators to plan the future of their businesses. GBR will also be required to consult with industry through the development of its charging scheme, and will be held to account via a clear route to appeal to the ORR on the scheme’s design and application.
Given that existing competition law and applicable subsidy rules will automatically apply to GBR, GBR will not be able to treat other operators unfairly or start levying excessive charges that would undermine their ability to operate successful, profit-driven services. That will be further supported by the ORR’s continued role as competition regulator for the railway. I hope that gives hon. Members some assurance to begin with.
I now turn to amendment 242, which proposes to remove the provision at clause 64(1)(b) that enables GBR to charge operators for services that do not run as planned. In today’s system, that mechanism is called a reservation charge, and the Bill replicates that for GBR. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate that a reservation charge must be issued in all instances where services do not run. Instead, GBR will have discretion regarding how and when to use it. That is particularly important for taking into consideration different industry operating models, especially freight, which is market driven and therefore has to live with less certainty over the services that it needs to run to serve its customers.
A routine and technical example of when a reservation charge is used today, and likely to be replicated in the future, is one affecting passenger services, not freight. Where a passenger service is allocated to a path that is expected to stop at eight stations but—for reasons of its own making and not GBR’s—it terminates short of its final destination and stops at only seven, it could still be charged as planned for the full service. In addition, with finite capacity on the network it is important that, when passenger operators are granted access, they provide those services they said they were going to run and are disincentivised to simply hold on to capacity.
To use a different example, if an operator consistently failed to run a service in its entirety, it would disadvantage passengers seeking to use that train and other operators that might wish to operate a passenger or freight service on an unused path. It could therefore be charged in full. As I have outlined, the purpose of the measure is to encourage operators to use the capacity that they have been allocated. Therefore, the ability to levy a reservation charge is an extremely useful tool to drive the right behaviours on the network. It ensures that best use is made of capacity and that operators remain accountable for providing the services in the timetable that they agreed to deliver.
Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ExcerptsTuesday 3rd February 2026
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2026 - (3 Feb 2026)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ExcerptsMonday 2nd February 2026
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 View all High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsThursday 29th January 2026
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 January 2026 - (29 Jan 2026)
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.
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.
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.
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 ExcerptsTuesday 27th January 2026
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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—
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.
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.