Railways Bill (First sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Baggy Shanker]

Q I have to ask this question. Several years ago, the decision was made to create GBR and have it headquartered in the brilliant city of Derby, and successive Governments, Secretaries of State and rail Ministers have backed that decision. Recently, Mr Westlake, when I asked about the size and shape of the headquarters on the Transport Committee, you said that we are six to nine months away from getting to that point. Given that we are about to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, can anything be done to ensure that we hold to that six-to-nine-month milestone, or improve it?

Jeremy Westlake: First of all, we are very much looking forward to being headquartered in Derby. I have lived in Derby for 17 years and I think it is a wonderful place to have a centre for the rail industry; let me start with that. The work we are doing now is to define the internal organisation structure for Great British Railways, including its operating structures, divisions, integrated business units and network functions. That work needs to conclude before we can come back to you more clearly on the size of the HQ in Derby.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Q I want to go back to the accountability piece. You said to the Minister that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at this on the Transport Committee, and the closest thing I can relate GBR to is the NHS. It is not necessarily run by the Department of Health and Social Care; it is a separate organisation, and then it is devolved into local regions through integrated care boards and things. My experience is that it is incredibly difficult to hold it to account because you do not have direct access to the Secretary of State.

I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established.

John Larkinson: I could say something about the role of the ORR in holding it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Secretary of State and our role. Ultimate accountability is with the Secretary of State. For example, it is the Secretary of State who signs off the GBR business plan, which is a fundamental component of the new system, in my mind. If there were a very strategic problem at Great British Railways—if it were not following its duties or if it were breaking the law—ultimate accountability would be with the Secretary of State.

Within that, some of the accountability comes through us. We have the role of enforcing the GBR licence. In terms of the provision of information coming out of the system, one of our big roles is monitoring everything that GBR does and all its functions. That will be done largely through the monitoring of the business plan. From my perspective, it is crucial that we have the ability to do that as we see fit and to publish information. A crucial role for the regulator is providing that information base and analysis to allow Parliament to scrutinise what GBR is doing more effectively.

Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that there are three key mechanisms by which GBR will be held to account. First, it will have to balance its duties in law. Secondly, the business plan will need to be signed off by the Secretary of State and its delivery will be monitored by the ORR. Thirdly, there is the licence.

One thing I would say is that the railways are slightly different from the national health service in so far as we have a revenue line of more than £10 billion per annum. We want Great British Railways to be a commercial organisation that can respond to the market with operational independence at arm’s length from Ministers. However, it is the duties, the business plan and the licence by which GBR will be held to account.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q Can I just come back to you on that? One of the other things that came out when we had the Rail Minister in front of us was the devolution aspect, and my understanding is that each of these individual railway lines will still be run as an individual line. It will be like we have it now; they are just going to be publicly owned, rather than privately owned.

The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior?

Jeremy Westlake: Can I come in on that one? First, the intent of how we are constructing GBR is to introduce much more local empowerment to create an integrated railway that actually consults with the communities that it serves. Whether that is the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or mayoral combined authorities, we want those strategies to be built up from that level, so that you actually have a railway that serves the communities that it is there for.

I actually think that the jobs of running these integrated business units are some of the best that you could have in the railway, because the intent is to have the rest of the organisation supporting them to deliver for passengers and the communities they serve. Actually, if you look at the statutory roles for consultation, and the intent in drawing those input and output requirements to those integrated business unit leaders, I think we will end up with a much better strategy for the railway as a whole.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q But the responsibility for the delivery of services will be theirs. Going back to my original question about how we hold it to account, are you effectively saying that when it comes down to the individual railway lines and the services, we as MPs will be going to that chief exec and then having to figure out how we escalate it if that does not work?

Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge.

These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers.

Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Good morning. I first have a couple of questions to Mr Larkinson, but if other witnesses wish to come in, please do so.

Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,

“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—

in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?

John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at.

Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Smith]

Q Do you think that duty could help to ensure that inclusivity is taken in the widest possible sense? I travel with my toddler, and there is a risk when I go to the toilet with him that he will hit the emergency open button and I will be exposed to the train. There is a conflict there: I absolutely recognise that disabled people need to be able to use those facilities and get support, but I also need to be able to use the train safely as a mother with a small person.

How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?

Ben Plowden: Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network.

Emma Vogelmann: In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements.

Alex Robertson: I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that.

We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business.

The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made.

Michael Roberts: I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q One of the things that has been touched on in that conversation, particularly around universal design and the Bill’s aims to improve accessibility, is that we already have huge discrepancies around the country on each individual line. It is worth asking, for the record, whether you agree that there will be a significant time lag in when this accessibility aim will actually be delivered to the general public. The Minister eventually suggested that it may take 30 years for some of these things to come into place, so do you think it is important for us to be realistic with the public about what the accessibility provision in the Bill will actually mean on the ground?

Emma Vogelmann: Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it.

Alex Robertson: We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that.

There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that.

I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q As I understand it, one of the ways that a lot of it will be delivered—the detail of what GBR has to provide—is through the licence. Do you think it is a problem that the Committee has not had sight of the draft GBR licence yet, setting out what we expect accessibility to look like in the Bill versus the reality of what it will look like?

Ben Plowden: I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on.

One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q Do you agree that the accessibility duty, if combined with detailed targets in the business plan, will improve the whole system for disabled passengers?

Emma Vogelmann: From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation.

Alex Robertson: It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right.

There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.