Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.
We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon.
We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country.
The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process.
We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting.
The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon.
Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems.
At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand.
Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates.
All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Hammersmith Bridge
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed.
It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime.
London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis.
Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK.
The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis.
Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis.
A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue.
My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Lewell. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and it is good that he is aware of some of the concerns about the proposed changes to article 71 and some of the findings from the consultation, but can he go a little further? What he says about the CAA not using these provisions too casually is important, but what will be done—to answer the age-old question of who watches the watchers—to ensure that the CAA is using the powers in the regulations sensibly rather than disproportionately? I agree with the shadow Minister’s comments. The Liberal Democrats are broadly inclined to support the regulations, but we would like to hear a little more from the Minister about what assurances can be given that these new powers will not be abused.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?
Simon Lightwood
We are almost doubling the amount of money going to local highways maintenance to turn the tide. That is why a massive percentage of the road investment strategy—something like £8.5 billion—is going on repairing and renewing our strategic road network.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
An October 2024 Active Travel England analysis of case studies found that walking and cycling schemes typically generate a benefit-cost ratio of between 3.5:1 and 19:1. Given the plans for significant devolution of transport funding, how will the Government ensure that local authorities deliver consistent standards and improvements to streets and routes to enable walking and cycling, and the huge accompanying economic and health benefits?
Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Olly Glover Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for explaining the proposed regulatory changes, which the Liberal Democrats support. Of course, the rules of physics still apply, and these electric goods vehicles will be heavier, so I simply ask the Minister whether he agrees that that underlines the importance of the work the Government are doing on the road safety strategy to reduce the risk and impact of collisions.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 3rd March 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 155-I Marshalled list for Report - (6 Feb 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.
I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.
Mr Perkins
I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks 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(2 months, 2 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
(2 months, 2 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
(2 months, 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 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.