Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the speech that my hon. and learned Friend is making and I thank the 237 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the root of this debate is the issue of inequality. There are many forms of inequality around bus use. The petition draws attention to the geographical inequality, but we also see socioeconomic inequality, particularly when we look at putting resources into enabling older people to access bus services so that, instead of paying £6 for a return journey, they can access things such as health appointments on time. Is it not worth looking at people living in deprivation and putting money into supporting people from those communities to use buses?

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly why the Government introduced the Bus Services Act: to allow local authorities to be held to account for the decisions they make about how to fund bus services. I completely agree that bus services are a fundamental public good and a public service. In my constituency, they are essential to allow people living in rural areas, often in rural poverty, to reach GP surgeries or hospital appointments many miles away. It is not as if they can walk or rely on somebody to give them a lift; often, that is not available. A reliable and affordable bus service is often the difference between someone being able to access the town, with its shops and chemists and all the things that are needed to make life work, and sitting for days in pain, entirely cut off. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

One survey response that stood out for a negative reason was this one:

“Doubt Reform will take much notice frankly”.

I totally understand that hard cynicism about Reform, given its bewildering incompetence in Kent. I implore Reform to spend the money wisely. I will take my bus survey responses and put them directly to the council, because we must see accountability and competence in the way our public services are delivered in Kent.

While I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England, I believe that our policy focus should be on encouraging and supporting more local authorities to set up municipal bus companies so that we can reverse bus privatisation, which has, like in the rail and water sectors, been a failure and meant that, all too often, the interests of the private company and the shareholder have been put above those of the passenger.

Before closing, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What action beyond what I have talked about are the Government taking to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for the over-60s? What are the Government doing to make rural bus services more accessible and reliable, especially for that age group? What measures will the Government put in place to hold to account councils such as Reform-run Kent county council and Lincolnshire county council to ensure that they spend their additional bus funding prudently and purposefully? How do the Government plan to use investment in our bus network to help to increase economic growth and lower unemployment? Finally, can the Minister explain how empowering local government can lead to improved bus services?

The answers to all those questions would be gratefully received, because my constituents constantly press me on this issue. We are a long, coastal constituency, so it is very difficult to get around unless there is reliable public transport. That is what we have to achieve over the coming years with the funding and the new powers that Kent county council has.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It comes back to affordability. The whole scheme needs to be couched in an affordable way. I will come on to a few of her other points later in my response.

Alongside safeguarding the sustainability of the concessionary travel scheme, our focus is on delivering better buses for everyone. At the end of last year, we confirmed long-term investment of more than £3 billion over the next three years to support local leaders and bus operators across the country, in order to improve local bus services for millions of passengers over the remainder of this spending period. This includes multi-year allocations for local authorities under the local authority bus grant, totalling nearly £700 million a year, ending the short-term approach to bus funding and giving councils the certainty they need to plan ahead and improve services for local communities.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the sustainable funding model, and I think that my response addresses that point. It also addresses the affordability issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said that funding must come with the powers. Again, I believe funding has followed the powers under the Bus Services Act.

[Rachael Maskell]

Would the Minister look again at the settlement he has given to the Mayor for York and North Yorkshire? There will be fewer choices available to the mayor because of the reduction in that settlement. The mayor would perhaps also like to use some of his other transport budgets to subsidise bus travel, so that he can make positive choices for buses and bus users right across York and North Yorkshire.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I continue to work closely with the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire. I know that York and North Yorkshire is one of our franchising pilot areas, and a little later in my speech I will talk about the formula—the fairer formula—that has dictated the amounts that different areas across the country have received.

The funding I mentioned is in addition to the £1 billion we are already providing in this financial year to support and improve local bus services and to keep fares affordable. It enables councils and operators to protect local routes, improve reliability, upgrade stops, enhance accessibility and support local discretionary concessions, where it is judged right to do so. These measures should help to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for all, including the over-60s.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe specifically asked about supporting improvements to rural bus services. We know that bus services in rural areas can be a lifeline for many people, providing the only means of getting around. That is why, in our multi-year funding allocations for local authorities, we have revised the formula to include a rurality element for the first time, ensuring that the additional challenges of running services in rural areas are taken into account.

My hon. and learned Friend also asked about measures to ensure that local authorities use their bus funding to truly improve services for passengers. I can assure him that this funding will be linked to an outcomes framework, which will track the impact of funding against a suite of indicators aligned with the issues that matter most to passengers. Crucially, this framework will help us to identify where local transport authorities may need additional support to deliver the improvements that their communities expect.

We know that the debate around access to free bus travel is rooted in concerns about the affordability and quality of local bus services, and we are taking steps to address those concerns. The Government introduced the £3 single bus fare cap at the beginning of last year, and announced at the spending review that it would be extended until March 2027. The cap is helping millions of passengers to save on their regular travel costs. Without it, single fares on some services on the more expensive routes could soar above £10.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked what further steps the Government are taking to lower the cost of bus travel. Local leaders can use the funding provided by the Government to improve bus services and to introduce their own local fare measures below £3, if they wish to do so. That is already the case in places like Greater Manchester and the north-east.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the challenge of extending travel times for disabled person bus passes. The Government are committed to improving public transport—we have had the debate often—so that it is more inclusive and enables disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. Seventy-six per cent of local concession authorities offer some form of extension to the 9.30 am start time for disabled bus pass use. That could include full or partial extensions, or discounted travel before 9.30.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered connected and automated vehicles.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Yesterday, I jumped in a car with a couple of other people near King’s Cross station. It was a pretty normal journey. We watched the world go by, chatted and got stuck in a bit of traffic. The journey was completely ordinary, except for one thing: the car was driving itself. That 20-minute journey represents the future of what our roads could look like, which is why I am pleased to be leading today’s debate. I originally applied for this debate for reasons related to road safety. I have met too many families in my constituency who have lost a husband or a mother through other people’s dangerous driving. I am fascinated by how automation and technology could help us to eradicate road danger and death, but getting deeper into this topic, my speech will focus on not only safety but accessibility and economic growth.

Turning first to safety, in the UK, 30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads each year. If we speak to the police, they will say that most deadly crashes are caused by the “fatal five”—speeding, drink and drug driving, mobile phone use, antisocial driving, and not wearing a seatbelt. I do not need to be a machine learning expert to know that automated vehicles, trained by safe, expert drivers and programmed to comply with the strict rules of the road, could avoid all five of those issues and the needless death they cause. A self-driving car is not going to be drunk, high or scrolling through TikTok. During the passage of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, the last Government rightly put safety at the heart of the regulation, stating that a self-driving vehicle should be at least as safe as a competent and careful driver. There are still some questions about what exactly that means.

In the US, where the roll-out of autonomous vehicles and robotaxis is far ahead of here, the safety statistics on automated versus human-driven vehicles look impressive. Waymo, the Google-owned company that runs self-driving taxis there, claims that its vehicles have 80% fewer injury-causing crashes compared with the average human driver, but within the human average there will be drivers who are neither careful nor competent, so these figures are quite hard to compare. What progress has the Minister made on expanding the safety expectations for automated and connected vehicles, and what is the timeline on the remaining regulations that need to be set out? Furthermore, what do the Government hope the safety gains from automated vehicles could be?

Proving the reliability and safety of automated vehicles is essential for public acceptance of this new technology. Lots of people might feel reticent to get in a self-driving car because they do not feel safe, but I found my own experience yesterday in a Wayve autonomous vehicle reassuring. During the journey, we had cyclists jumping red lights, pedestrians walking out on to the road and other drivers cutting across our right of way. The car dealt with it all. The whole journey felt safe and smooth the whole time. Some critics say that these cars cannot handle British roundabouts because they were made for American grid cities. I can confirm that the Wayve car handled the roundabouts with ease. We had a safety driver sat ready to take the wheel if any issues arose, but none did.

Other areas of safety are important to mention too. In a world where cyber-attacks are becoming more common and more devastating, there is a fear that fully connected and autonomous vehicles could be hacked. Could the Minister say more about that and the protections that are being put in place? Another key element is data sharing, particularly in the event of a collision involving cars that are either fully automated or have advanced autopilot systems. The latter is where a vehicle can steer itself, but drivers must keep their eyes on the road, ready to assume control if needed.

Many of these driver-assist functions are important safety enhancers, and these functions, including things such as lane assist, should not be so easily turned off. However, in other countries, there have been examples of cars in self-driving modes where collisions have occurred, and companies have refused to share all the data with families and authorities. Is the Minister confident that we will not have the same issue here?

My personal campaign this year has been to address the wild west that is the British number plate regulation system. The traditional number plate, as the public identifier or passport of a vehicle, has been mandatory since the Motor Car Act 1903, but they are still as important as ever—even more so for determining ownership in the era of driverless cars. Can the Minister, who is in charge of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, reassure me that he is looking at the gaping holes in regulation of number plates and the sale of vast numbers of illegal ghost and cloned plates?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for looking into this subject. It is something we all have to learn a lot about. The University of York has the Institute for Safe Autonomy, which is really interested in how the Government will monitor the initial pilots of this scheme, and how lessons will be learned and then, of course, fed into the regulator. Does she believe that we need to have a proper framework for how we do that data collection before the roll-out of such a programme?

[Sarah Coombes]

Definitely. Safety has to be paramount. Britain is a leader in universities and institutes such as the Institute for Safe Autonomy, to ensure that as this new technology rolls out, it is safe and has public confidence.

On accessibility, 30% of my constituents in West Bromwich do not have a car; they rely on buses, bikes, trams, trains, taxis, lifts and legs. We also have bad congestion problems. We do not want to see that made worse by a massive increase in vehicles on our roads. The dream is that autonomous vehicles could help us on both counts if we shape the future right. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has welcomed Waymo coming to London, saying that it will give those with visual impairments more scope for independent and spontaneous travel. Transport for West Midlands is interested in how we could integrate autonomous technology with our public transport system. How could we use driverless cars to fill in the gaps that buses and trains do not reach?

I keep thinking about the possibilities of an automated dial-a-ride service—larger, disabled-accessible autonomous vehicles that can be ordered easily and work out optimum routes to drop off passengers. The staff on existing services offer valuable support and care to passengers with additional needs. This is not about replacing them; it is about adding extra capacity.

Pavement Parking

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Hobhouse. I also thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing it.

Having campaigned to reclaim our streets for pedestrians for many years, I have cleared the A-boards and the clutter, but I cannot shift the cars. That is why I welcome today’s debate, as well as action at last from a Labour Government.

In York, 9.1 million visitors a year come to our city —I am sure all hon. Members do—but the streets are narrow, and we need to ensure that pedestrians can pass. That includes blind and partially sighted people, as we have heard, as well as parents and elderly people. Cyclists also get pushed further into the road as well. We need to make sure that we have our space on the road.

The problem is often worse outside schools as parents push their kids out of the car, or draw them in at the end of the day. We need to ensure that those incredibly hazardous places have provision. I would say that we should not have cars near schools. We need to clear that environment so that children can navigate the space well.

What happens? The pavements crack—of course, we pay for that—and our constituents experience accidents. The logistics companies that park their vans and lorries on pavements need to be called to account.

When we talk about parking on pavements, we should also talk about cycle lanes, which are often blocked. Even last night, the cycle lane from Westminster was occluded. We need to make sure that we include them in the discussion, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on pavement parking, an issue that may seem mundane at first glance, but that, in reality, touches on safety, accessibility and dignity in every one of our communities.

Pavement parking is not just unsightly; it is downright dangerous. When cars mount pavements, they force pedestrians off the footway and into the road, directly into the flow of traffic. For many, that is inconvenient; for many others, it can be life-changing. For someone in a wheelchair, a single car blocking the pavement can mean a 10-minute diversion, or the frightening prospect of rolling into a busy road. For someone with a visual impairment, it can mean walking straight into the bonnet of a car—an obstruction they cannot anticipate. Carers supporting people with hidden disabilities—perhaps guiding an autistic child who finds traffic overwhelming, or pushing a specialist buggy—find themselves in exactly the same position: what ought to be a simple walk to the shops or to school can suddenly become an obstacle course.

Guide Dogs research tells us that 85% of people know that this issue is a danger for those with sight loss, and nearly three quarters say that it is common in their area. Local councillors, including my own in Buckinghamshire, hear directly from residents and overwhelmingly report that pavement parking creates a safety risk, with many saying that it is one of the issues raised with them most often.

Of course, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), has already said, London has had a ban on pavement parking for many years, but the rules are far less clear outside our capital. Local councils can bring in restrictions through traffic regulation orders, and they have had permission to use standard signage without asking Whitehall for approval since 2011, but that system is patchwork, complex and slow.

That is why, in 2020, the last Conservative Government consulted on how to go further. More than 15,000 people responded. The consultation looked at a nationwide ban with sensible exemptions—recognising, for example, the realities of narrow rural lanes or terraced streets, where pavement parking has been part of the layout for decades. Yet here we are, nearly five years later, and there is still no formal response from the Department for Transport. Public opinion, though, could not be clearer: eight in 10 drivers want action. Two thirds see pavement parking in their neighbourhoods on a regular basis, and a third see it every single day.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am slightly baffled; I have been campaigning on this issue throughout my 10 years in this place, and the hon. Member’s Government were in power for almost the entirety of that time. Can he explain why the Tory Government did not make any improvements to pavement parking? Why is he pointing the finger at a Labour Government who clearly want to make a difference for all pedestrians?

[Greg Smith]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady. The Government have had a year to take action, and they have not. I have not been in the House as long as she has, but I was here in the last Parliament and I was a member of the Transport Committee for the entirety of it. I, too, sat around the horseshoe with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and indeed the Minister for some of that time. I certainly recognised the challenges of pavement parking and pushed for solutions in the last Parliament as well. I fully acknowledge that we are five years on, and that some of those years were under a Conservative Government, but action is required now. If we are to have a serious debate, the onus is on the present Government to come forward with the necessary actions.

One of the issues that I notice in my constituency is the challenge of pavement parking in a lot of our new build areas and estates, where the planning system has quite deliberately tried to restrict parking. Guess what? That has created chaos on the streets in its own right, because people still require the same number of cars to get about, particularly in rural communities. Someone cannot do the family shop for a family of five on the back of a bike.

We all recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. A blanket national ban is not going to be practical everywhere, but we cannot accept inertia. We cannot ask people with disabilities, carers or families to keep waiting while this problem goes unaddressed. I call on the Minister to come forward with practical steps and a realistic timeline, and then to commit to that and solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that I am sure we will consider in our response. As I said, I will make an announcement very soon. I am also pleased to share that I have commissioned new research to update and strengthen our evidence base on the extent and impact of pavement parking. To be clear, that research is not a prerequisite for the consultation response—it will not delay progress—but it is part of our broader commitment to evidence-based policy and future evaluation to better understand the problem and ensure that the solutions we implement are working.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Lilian Greenwood]

I apologise, but I will not take any more interventions, because we are so short of time.

The research will begin imminently and will involve a representative sample of local traffic authorities. It will seek to include both a physical measure of the extent of pavement parking and questionnaires to gather qualitative insights into its impact. That dual approach will allow us to understand not only where and how pavement parking occurs but how it affects people’s lives, and particularly the lives of vulnerable road users. It will also allow us to evaluate the impact of the pavement parking policies that we intend to implement.

I had a very positive meeting co-ordinated by Guide Dogs, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders across the transport, accessibility and local government sectors, whose insights are invaluable. I am also mindful of the need to balance competing priorities, such as the availability of parking, the needs of delivery drivers and the importance of maintaining access for emergency services.

However, let me be absolutely clear: the status quo is not acceptable. Pavement parking is a blight on our towns, cities and villages. It undermines inclusivity and equitable access. It sends a message, however unintentionally, that some people’s mobility matters less than others’. That is not a message that any of us should be comfortable with. We must recognise that pavement parking is not just a transport issue but a social justice issue. I am determined to ensure that the steps we take are meaningful and effective. That means considering lived experiences, closing evidence gaps and adopting policy that reflects the realities of modern Britain.

Britain has changed significantly since the consultation in 2020. Technological developments such as new mobility solutions—the dockless e-scooters referenced earlier in the debate, e-bikes and even delivery robots—have changed the landscape. Our devolution agenda is putting power and decision making closer to those affected, where it should be. Our streets and our local authorities are evolving, and so must our policies.

I thank all those who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue—Members of Parliament, local councillors, advocacy groups and members of the public—and assure them that their voices have been heard and will continue to shape the work ahead. Together, we can and will build streets that are safer, more accessible and more welcoming for everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking.

Road and Rail Projects

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the year of the 200th anniversary of the railways, my rail city of York will greatly welcome the announcement about Haxby station. The line in question will address congestion issues and provide economic opportunity in my constituency. The trains will arrive at York station, but the rear of that station is not yet accessible. Will the Secretary of State ensure that as we develop our network, we have real access for all disabled people and others, so that we can gain the benefits from these new announcements?

[Heidi Alexander]

If my hon. Friend writes to me with further details of the access issues at the rear of York station, I will be happy to speak to the Rail Minister and relevant organisations to see whether there are improvements that we can make. I appreciate that we need accessible stations if everyone is to benefit.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

To incentivise walking, wheeling and cycling, and to form habits, we need to invest in capital and revenue infrastructure, skills development and, above all, ambition—not least because half the number of girls as boys travel to school by bike. With Active Travel England in the heart of my constituency, I recognise the importance of that.

We need to ensure there is safe space around schools, as we have heard; that we slow traffic, as with Acomb primary school and Acomb Road; and that we stop the chaos outside schools, as with Our Lady Queen of Martyrs school on Hamilton Drive. We also need to ensure that school travel plans are active in driving the ambition that every family should be engaged in active travel. I ask the Minister to review that, and to encourage simple measures—as Chris Boardman says, we should use paint and plastic before the hard-wired infrastructure.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I am sorry, but I will have to stop Back-Bench contributions here. Members have been incredibly good at sticking to a very tight time limit. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Member raises an important point. The resilience of the UK aviation sector is important, and key to its success, so we will facilitate any discussions to make sure we are always on an improvement trajectory.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Access for disabled people was a condition of opening up planning for the York Central development. However, I hear that the condition will be bypassed, and that planning will go ahead without disabled access being put in place. That clearly impedes disabled people. Can we ensure that difficult engineering work is undertaken before planning permission is granted?

[Simon Lightwood]

The accessibility of all modes of transport is extremely important to this Government. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

Changes made during the pandemic crippled airport duty-free shopping. I will get the hon. Member a more detailed letter on the matter.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York’s advanced digital and advanced rail cluster can really boost our economy with the innovations that it is bringing, as well as providing 5,500 jobs in York. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can bring it into her strategy for developing the rail industry?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will. I know that my hon. Friend represents the proud railway city of York, as I represent the proud railway town of Swindon. I look forward to having that meeting with her.

Taxi Licensing: Deregulation Act 2015

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I will carry on with this bit of my speech.

This situation erodes trust in industry at a time when we should champion local businesses. Instead, we are creating obstacles for them. How can I or anyone in this Chamber look our local taxi drivers in the eye and tell them that we are truly on their side? Right now, I cannot, but by addressing these issues head on, we can change that narrative.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Deregulation Act 2015 needs to be repealed? It is deeply damaging in a place like York, where we have a tourism industry, so we need it to be repealed.

[Chris Vince]

I agree—that is part of what I am talking about. We want to support our local taxi drivers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Member has outlined exactly the kind of issues that we seek to address through the public ownership reforms and the creation of Great British Railways. The Department is already working with operators that are in public ownership and those that are not yet, such as Southern, to ensure that the decisions that they make are properly joined up with Network Rail and that we can start driving improvements immediately.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a result of a failure in regulation, the cross-border taxi trade is undermining the high standards set by local taxi companies and black cabs. What is being done to improve regulation, and will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation in York?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

We are aware of concerns about the current legislative and regulatory framework and would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is what is at the heart of these proposals. This is an opportunity to genuinely reform our railways from top to bottom, to ensure that passengers and growing the railways are the only objectives that they should serve—not private operators, not shareholders, not the whims of the engineers that run Network Rail. This is a once in a generation opportunity to make sure that our public transport system serves the public, so it is not ideological. What was ideological was the previous Government sitting back and presiding over a broken system while passengers and the economy paid a heavy price. I know that the Tories have been trying to pretend that the last 14 years of failure have not happened, but they cannot deny that after 30 years of privatisation we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers are responsible for 50% of the rail industry’s income and underwrite almost every penny spent, while profits are siphoned off to shareholders.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State. I note that clause 2 of the Bill talks about the extension of the current contracts. Could she set out the circumstances in which that could occur, because we know that rail safety is best when track and train are brought together, as they would be under Great British Railways?