Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Amendment 83, in clause 64, page 36, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 82, in clause 64, page 36, line 28, leave out “at any time” and insert
“by giving no less than 12 months’ notice”.
This amendment imposes a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum 12-month advance notice of changes to the charging scheme.
Amendment 84, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(9) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the charging scheme until a copy of the scheme has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is not much to say, except that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage raised a question about our amendments and what he called phantom paths. I think he may have been referring to ghost trains, as opposed to phantom trains—if you google “phantom trains”, all sorts of weird films come up, and they are far too scary for me to watch. He is not here to disagree with me, but I think he was alluding to the issue of trains running entirely empty through stations where people would have quite liked to get on them.
The point I think we are making with our amendments is more about where issues that it is within Great British Railways’ responsibility to fix mean that services cannot run, and about not believing that the operators, which have no responsibility for the infrastructure, should still be expected to pay a fee if they are not able to run their services. I think we would have been alluding to that, rather than where they are running empty trains. There may well be empty trains as well, but I think we were talking specifically about where GBR had the responsibility—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to piggyback on her response to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I want merely to say that, from the Government’s perspective, having one centralised body accountable for access to and use of the railway and for determining best use is a good way to avoid the phantom train scenarios she describes, such as the 7 o’clock service from Manchester Piccadilly to London. I am grateful that she has given me the opportunity to row in behind her on this point.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for that. Yes, absolutely; I believe our amendments are much more about the infrastructure that GBR has responsibility for and about operators not having to pay if they are un able to operate their services. A natural disaster is probably a bit too extreme, but if, for example, a train is running through to Dawlish and the line gets closed, I think it is fair to suggest that the operator should not have to pay the fees for that train. We will press some of these amendments to a vote for that reason, but I just wanted to clarify that point. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
It is, once again, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendment 254 would require GBR, when charging above the cost directly incurred—in other words, when charging mark-ups—to consider its target to increase the use of freight. I can reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset immediately that GBR will not be able to raise charges in a way that is not compatible with its statutory duties or targets.
In practice, that means that when developing its own test of affordability, GBR is expected to establish bespoke criteria for divergent market segments operating on the railway, including freight, as Network Rail set out in its discussion document on charging. That allows GBR to design a test that can support its duties, including those under clause 18, and the targets to increase freight under clause 17.
We intend that the provision will operate in a way similar to the “market can bear” test today. GBR will develop its own test of affordability in consultation with the sector, including the Office of Rail and Road, before publishing it. However, as we move away from European law, in which the “market can bear” test is established, and to the Bill, which carries over the same principles, we must ensure that the language in the drafting is fit for purpose for UK statute. That is why the Bill stipulates that GBR will be able to levy mark-ups only if it is affordable to efficient operators. The Bill preserves that fundamental safeguard for operators, but in a form that can be applied more clearly in the UK context.
The test will be published with clear routes of appeal, as a further layer of protection for any operators, including freight, that are subject to charges when using GBR infrastructure. When hearing appeals, the ORR will consider the extent to which GBR has appropriately considered all factors before levying a mark-up. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for West Dorset that amendment 254 is unnecessary, as the Bill already achieves its intended effect.
Amendment 255 would give the ORR an explicit power, following an appeal against the content of a charging scheme, to direct Great British Railways to revise the scheme in cases where it considers GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. The Bill already provides clear and robust rights of appeal to the ORR in relation to the content of a charging scheme. Those rights are supported by strong and effective remedies where an appeal against GBR is successful, as set out in clause 68.
In the system set out in the Bill, where the ORR upholds an appeal on the content of a charging scheme, it has the power to remit all or part of the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration. That means that the ORR can require GBR to make changes to the charging scheme if it was identified during the appeal process that GBR had acted in a discriminatory manner, inconsistently with its statutory duties or in a way deemed procedurally unfair.
The ORR can also give legally binding directions to GBR, which could include setting out what it failed to take account of in the original decision and what it must do to ensure that those matters are properly assessed when reconsidering it. The amendment would therefore introduce powers that are already provided for in clause 68. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press amendments 254 and 255 to a vote.
Rebecca Smith
Amendment 254 is good in so far as it goes in relation to rail freight, but other rail operators also provide public benefit and should receive a similar level of protection. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment, but we do not think it goes nearly far enough.
Amendment 255 would give the ORR the power to order GBR to revise a charging scheme if it found, on appeal, that GBR had not dealt fairly with the appellant. With the current constraint on appeals, the amendment would make no practical difference. The Government need to go much further by providing a genuine appeals process to assess appeals on their merits, with an independent body, not a direct competitor, taking the key charging decisions.
Keir Mather
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed all the points on these amendments, and I have nothing further to add at this stage.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 65, page 37, line 15, leave out subsection (3)(b).
This amendment would enable GBR to have to pay penalties or compensation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 223, in clause 65, page 37, line 15, after “Railways” insert
“or any operator of a train on Great British Railways infra-structure”.
This amendment clarifies that freight operators should not face penalties for service disruption caused by factors outside their control, such as infrastructure failures or planned engineering works by Great British Railways.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 86, in clause 92, page 53, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 65 does not come into force until Great British Railways has published the performance scheme and laid it before Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent section 65 from coming into force until GBR has published the performance scheme and laid it before Parliament.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 65 requires GBR to provide and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise GBR, its subsidiaries or other train operators to minimise disruption or delay to other train services or the network. Train operators may be required to pay penalties if they cause disruption, may receive compensation where disruption is caused by a different operator’s operations and may receive bonuses to reward better than planned performance. So far, so good, you might say. However, it does not permit payments by GBR that relate to disruption outside its control.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. As in previous sessions, I draw the Committee’s attention to my membership of Unite the union. I will speak briefly on the amendments. I welcome the opportunity to talk about an area of narrowly gauged interest of long-standing, although I hesitate to call it tunnel vision: schedule 4 and schedule 8 compensation for planned and unplanned disruption on the network.
The delay attribution scheme has remained essentially unchanged since privatisation, and the clause is a welcome opportunity to look again at how it works in practice. Attention has been drawn to the fact that, under the present system, approximately 400 people are employed across the rail industry to attribute delays to either operators or Network Rail. That sometimes happens in ways that defy any common-sense interpretation of good value for money, and there have been eye-catching examples of expensive lawyers gathering in a room to argue about whether a dead pheasant or a dead peacock was a small bird or a large one, for the purpose of the scheme. Depending upon that determination, the costs may be picked up by the taxpayer or by private operators, and I think we can all agree that that is nonsense.
I am glad that the Bill, as drafted, retains some degree of compensation scheme. My attention was drawn to the need for such measures recently in my constituency, where there has been a long-standing problem with road surface conditions, including what has become known, infamously, as “Northfield’s big pothole” under the railway bridge that connects Quarry Lane and Coleys Lane. Network Rail pointed out to me that a single bridge strike from a heavy goods vehicle would incur greater compensation costs for just one hour of disruption than the entire cost of resurfacing that stretch of road. Clearly, we need some degree of accountability in the system.
However, the amounts paid out through schedule 8 compensation, which is for unplanned disruption in particular, have been enormous. In theory, these schemes should be self-financing, but for all the attention that is paid to dividend payments and profits in the current railway system, the money that leaves the public part of the railway through these compensation schemes has in some years been in excess of those payments. There is a very good case for these changes.
I am not sure that amendment 85 is entirely necessary or desirable, on the basis that there may well be circumstances in which a private operator, whether freight or open access, is responsible for delays, for example if rolling stock had not been kept in the required condition. It is sensible for there to be some attribution in the system. As subsection (7) sets out, there is a right of appeal to the ORR. This is a sensible clause, and I am not sure that the amendments are necessary.
Rebecca Smith
Does the hon. Member not think our amendments could actually improve the system for GBR? We have talked, in this Committee and in the Select Committee sessions on the Bill, about the real gap in terms of the incentives for GBR to improve its services and improve itself. There is no reason why adding GBR as a body that would have to pay penalties and compensation would not introduce an incentive, in the same way we expect for operators, to ensure that the service provided on the taxpayers’ behalf and using taxpayers’ money is improved. At the end of the day, GBR is paying itself, but our amendments would at least give it an incentive to make sure that it does not need to pay compensation in the first place.
Laurence Turner
If I have understood the hon. Member’s point correctly, the key is openness and transparency. We need some degree of understanding that, if GBR itself is responsible for delays, that information should be recorded so that improvements can be made. I am not convinced that GBR paying money to itself in a legal or quasi-legal process is the best use of public resources.
That transparency is lacking under the current system. The Delay Attribution Board does not publish any records of its proceedings. Some months ago, I made a freedom of information request for the minutes of the board, and the response was that they were too commercially confidential to disclose. Given the vast amounts of public money that are spent through this process at the moment, I think that is a severe limitation of the current system. This is a real opportunity to do things better.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts my later comments about the role of the ORR in this process.
On the principle of whether GBR should be able to design a performance scheme for its own network, that is completely in keeping with the aspiration of the Bill to create a single uniting mind for the railway. We are cognisant of the fact that GBR has a threefold obligation in this process. First, it must create a scheme that it can use to deliver the efficiencies and operational realities of the railway in a way that suits the interests of the travelling public. Secondly, operators that use the service need to be able to ensure that they can have fair service under it. That is why consulting with the industry is so important.
Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, GBR must protect taxpayers’ interests where it is reasonable to do so. A scheme is being created that directs GBR to run the railway in a purposeful way but with robust consultation and enforcement mechanisms, which I will come to in a moment, embedded within it. I believe that strikes the right balance. We are giving GBR control over the system but not allowing it to mark its own homework in every way, as the Opposition might see it. I will go into that in more detail in a moment.
Rebecca Smith
To build on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made, clause 65(3)(b) says that compensation may not be paid by Great British Railways
“in relation to any disruption that is outside its control.”
It strikes me that that relates to what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said happens already: people have to decide what constitutes significant disruption, and what is inside its control. If I were an outside operator looking at this, I would be thinking, “Hang on a minute. Where’s the definition of what is inside GBR’s control?” There is a whole long list of options that I will not even begin to bore the Committee with for what could be said to be outside its control, but where is that conversation? It strikes me that it might be like trying to claim for a bag that was stolen on holiday on insurance—you have to literally prove that you were mugged to get reimbursed. I would be interested in a bit more information on how “outside its control” will be defined.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 66 sets out who GBR must consult before issuing, revising or replacing the access and use policy under clause 59. The ORR and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be consulted as well as other persons GBR considers appropriate. Subsection (2) requires GBR to consult the persons it considers appropriate before issuing the infrastructure capacity planning document under clause 60, including any revisions and replacements; before issuing a working timetable under clause 61; and before making, altering or replacing a charging scheme under clause 64 or a performance scheme under clause 65.
Subsection (3) provides that a requirement in this clause for consultation may be satisfied by a consultation before or after the commencement of the clause. There is currently no express requirement to consult existing open access operators.
Clause 67, on appeals against access, charging and performance decisions, provides that a person who is aggrieved may appeal to the ORR against a GBR decision as to their train operations’ access to and use of the infrastructure, or a decision under the charging scheme or performance scheme. That sounds okay, until we realise that it is on judicial review terms, so there is no actual right of appeal at all.
Clause 68, on the appeals procedure, sets out that the ORR, when determining appeals under this chapter, must apply the principles that the High Court would apply on an application for a judicial review, or the principles that the Court of Session would apply in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction for appeals in Scotland.
Subsections (2) and (3) provide for the ORR to allow an appeal or dismiss it, and, if it allows an appeal, to use the following remedies. For appeals made against the GBR policies, plans, and schemes themselves—under clause 59(6), on access and use; clause 60(6), on infra-structure capacity; clause 64(8), on charging; or clause 65(7), on the performance scheme—the ORR can only require GBR to reconsider the decision.
For appeals made against a specific decision under clause 61(5) or clause 62(7), on the working timetable, or under clause 67, on GBR’s policies, plans and schemes, the ORR can quash the decision that is appealed against. Then, however, all it can do is to send it back to GBR to reconsider, or it may substitute the decision with its own if quashing the decision is on the basis of an error of law and without the error there is only one decision that GBR could have reached.
Clause 68(1) means that because appeals must be assessed using judicial review principles, operators can challenge GBR decisions only on procedural grounds and not on the substance or commercial merits. That means that GBR will be judge and jury in its decisions affecting its direct competition, which is obviously wildly unfair.
Clause 68(3)(a) sets out that even where an appeal succeeds, the ORR can only remit the matter back to GBR for reconsideration, which means that GBR can often reach the same outcome again without revising its reasoning. That offers little to no real corrective power.
Clause 68(4)(b) says that the ORR may substitute its own decision only where there is an error of law and where only one lawful outcome was possible. That is a very high bar and as a result this remedy will be rare.
These concerns have been echoed by the industry. During one of the oral evidence sessions for the Transport Committee, Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group said:
“There are a number of problems with that appeal function. First, it will be incredibly hard to ever get to it. We are told that the appeal will have to meet the standards of a judicial review—illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness—so there will be a very high bar to meet to even get there. On top of that, the law allows the Secretary of State by regulation to set out some steps you would have to take in advance of going to the ORR. We do not know what those are. There is also a fee, and we do not know what that is. Even getting to the ORR will be very much more difficult than it is today.
If we do get up there, in most cases, the ORR will be able to ask GBR to have another look at its decision. It has another look, and it reaches the same view—so what? Only in a minority of cases can it quash a decision and only if there was an error of law…Passengers are going to get a very powerful watchdog when, conversely, we feel that in freight, we are having those rights of access watered down.”
Steve Montgomery from FirstRail said:
“Considering other large public sector organisations—like GBR is going to be—you have to ask, ‘Why would you not have an independent regulator of it?’ Why is rail going to be different from other large public sector organisations where there are regulators looking at them?”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:
“A strong independent rail regulator has two roles. The ORR, by the way, is part of the European group of independent rail regulators called IRG. Ideally, those roles are to protect passengers and other parts of the sector from monopolistic behaviour, and to ensure the best use of taxpayer money. Their role is also, in other countries, to ensure competition and non-discriminatory behaviour. We are worried that that might be watered down in this country and needs to be improved still.”
That prompts some questions that I hope the Minister can answer. Why is GBR being set up in such contradiction to its European neighbours? Is there anything that we could have learned? Will the Government reconsider any element of GBR as a result?
These concerns were also set out in the Rail Freight Group’s written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“GBR will by nature be a very powerful monopoly of track and GBR trains, and the overarching changes in the Bill reduce significantly the independent oversight of ORR, leaving the Secretary of State holding GBR to account. By comparison, the ORR currently has a duty to promote the use of the rail network and thus has a track record”—
ha, ha—
“of creating growth by approving new access applications previously rejected by Network Rail. Although we welcome the provisions for freight outlined above, there is still a significant risk that GBR could act in a way which favours its own trains, restricting growth for freight. As such, we believe it is essential that non-GBR operators have an independent appeals function that is powerful, easy to use and able to take action effectively.”
It continued:
“In essence, the provisions in the Bill mean that freight operators and customers have a very limited right of independent appeal against GBR. It is also of note that GBR may replace the current Access Disputes Committee (also independent of Network Rail) who hear lower level timetabling disputes with their own internal process, albeit we do not yet have full details of this.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
FirstGroup wrote in a similar vein, saying that it was concerned
“about the ORR’s responsibility for track access decisions being transferred to GBR…The Bill removes the ORR’s powers to independently adjudicate on whether applications for access best meet the needs of all railway users. Under Clause 68 the ORR is an appeals body but with no ability to uphold appeals if they are discriminatory or anticompetitive. There need to be more checks and balances to maintain confidence in fair access, independent regulatory oversight and to protect the interests of passengers…As a broader point, independent regulation is vital to all large comparable bodies—consider for example the CQC’s role in healthcare or the Civil Aviation Authority in airlines and airports.”
The pushback against this grossly unfair clause is overwhelming, and the Government can surely no longer turn a deaf ear.
Amendment 88 would remove the requirement that appeals may be made only under judicial review principles. We think that it is an obvious improvement. At the Transport Committee on 7 January, the Department for Transport’s official, Lucy Ryan, stated that the requirement is deliberate:
“The reasoning for the JR threshold is to be absolutely clear that GBR needs to remain the directing mind, able to take decisions about optimising the use of the network.”
That is an insufficient safeguard against monopolistic behaviour by GBR. Large monopolies with structural conflicts of interest need effective decision-making oversight. It cannot be done by the Secretary of State, because this is operational, so it has to be the ORR.
Amendment 89 would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the facts and the law. It builds on amendment 88, and we think it is the only way to create a fair and non-discriminatory process. Amendment 90 would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, either to remit to GBR for reconsideration or to quash and/or substitute its own decision for all or part of the decision appealed against. An independent appellate body applying the rules to GBR and its decisions would not challenge the role of GBR, but make sure that it was applying its rules fairly and correctly.
Amendment 91, which I believe the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage supports, would allow the ORR to substitute its own decision for that of GBR when allowing appeals, without there needing to have been an error of law, resulting in only one possible outcome. It would remove a ridiculously closely drafted requirement, and it is obviously fair. It is a test to see if the Government actually want a fair and level playing field.
Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State to consult open access operators before making regulations about steps that must be taken before an appeal can be brought, to make provision about the procedure and to set time limits and fees for the appeals brought under this chapter. Operators clearly have skin in the game, and should be consulted by right.
Amendment 93 would require the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing its document on the practice and procedure for appeals under this chapter. The argument for that is very similar to the one behind amendment 92, which I just set out. Will the Minister stand up for the open access and freight sector, and support our amendments to create a fair appeals process?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a short point to make. The Minister seems to be saying that it is important to restrict an appeals process to the judicial review principles, which is a more restrictive set of criteria by which a body or company can appeal. Otherwise, that might lead to “incoherent decision making”—I think those were his words.
That sentiment and assertion undermines the entire court system of the United Kingdom—save for judicial review applications—which is based on disputes being had in, for example, the county court or the High Court, or another court making a decision, and the possibility of an appeal going upwards all the way to the Supreme Court, depending on the issue. However, nobody would suggest that that leads to an incoherent society or to incoherent contracts, family law, employment law, decision making or anything else.
For some reason, Great British Railways has this special carve-out, such that it can be challenged only through judicial review, because of some notion of incoherence. It seems to me that the entire purpose of that restriction is to prop up Great British Railways and allow it to act in a way that is not really comparable to anything else in the way we deliver public transport in this country. It gives me considerable concern.
Edward Morello
Amendments 203 to 205 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The clause gives the Secretary of State extensive powers to intervene and, ultimately, overrule access decisions made by GBR. As I said in our previous sitting, we must remember that those powers are not just for the current Government, but for all future Governments. The Bill concentrates too much authority in the hands of the Secretary of State, with too little accountability and independent oversight. The amendments would reduce ministerial micromanagement and strengthen the role of the ORR in determining appeals on access decisions. The ORR should be an independent regulator whose job it is to make fair, evidence-based judgments. Access decisions should be governed by transparent regulation, not by political discretion. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR, protect the independence of GBR and prevent excessive control by the Secretary of State, especially without any accompanying accountability—something the Government have continued to refuse when the Opposition parties have tabled amendments. However, I hope we will have a sudden volte-face on amendments 203 to 205.
Rebecca Smith
I shall be brief. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR and reduce the role of the Secretary of State in considering appeals against GBR access decisions. Without further ado, I will say that we will support all three, should the Liberal Democrats press them to a vote.
Edward Morello
I wish to speak in support of amendment 146 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements. We believe that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for train operators and passengers. Access agreements are detailed, regulated contracts that set out service patterns, responsibilities and costs. They are overseen by the ORR and published on its public register. Amendment 146 would remove ministerial powers to terminate those agreements early, limiting the ability of the Secretary of State to micro- manage GBR.
While I risk sounding like a broken record, as I have said before, these are powers that apply to both the current Government and future one. While I understand the desire for the Secretary of State to have the power to terminate agreements, those powers sit better with the ORR and GBR. If we want stability, investment and reliable services, we need to signal to the market that there will not be political intervention that undermines long-term planning. I hope that the Government will see the sense of this amendment.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to except GBR or a subsidiary of GBR from the sections outlining the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. That change would prevent the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. The clause removes GBR from the normal ORR supervised access regime, giving it a special exemption that no other operator has. Since GBR is both operator and infrastructure manager, we believe that this creates an uneven playing field and risks unfair treatment of competing operators. If the Government insist on the current drafting, they must come clean and admit that their intention is to treat competitors unfairly in comparison, and that they are not in favour of competition and reject private investment as a driver of innovation and improvement on the railway.
Given the destruction of the current independently managed fair and level playing field, it is no surprise that the industry has major concerns. Eurostar’s written evidence to the Transport Committee explains:
“The Railways Bill consolidates strategic and operational authority in Great British Railways. While centralising network management offers efficiency gains, it is essential that ORR’s independent regulatory function is preserved, especially for open access and international services. In future Government will have the overarching interest in the Infrastructure Concession (let to LSPH), the Maintainer Operator (Network Rail) and the largest operator on the route (SET). There needs to be an independent referee to balance these interests with those of open access operators.
ORR provides impartial oversight of track access, station allocation, depot facilities, charging, and timetabling. Its independence provides transparent decision-making and safeguards competition, while giving investors confidence in the long-term stability of services.
Decisions such as the allocation of depot access at Temple Mills demonstrate the importance of ORR in balancing competing demands for constrained resources. Without statutory protection, GBR could constrain competition and impede international service growth. In addition, it could reduce transparency in access allocation.
Eurostar recommends that the Bill explicitly preserves the ORR’s independent role in regulating access, charges, and depot allocation for international services. This statutory protection is essential to provide fair treatment for operators and give certainty for the future of UK international rail services.
In international rail terms, the ORR’s role is more important than ever before, given the recent ruling enabling a new entrant to the market to access Temple Mills depot. The regulator will need to perform a strong, independent and objective role in ruling on cost sharing, compatibility and rolling stock issues.
The ORR can also play a role in track access charges – costs for accessing the London-to-Calais stretch of rail are nine times higher per kilometre than the cost of accessing equivalent infrastructure in Belgium, France or the Netherlands.”
Written evidence to the Transport Committee from Lumo and Hull Trains outlines their concerns:
“The ORR plays an essential role in maintaining a fair, transparent, and competitive rail network. Its independence supports confidence among passengers, freight operators, and private investors. Lumo and Hull Trains believe the Railways Bill should preserve this role to help GBR succeed.
To maintain balance across the system, the ORR must retain meaningful regulatory powers to ensure decisions made by GBR on access and charging are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the Government’s growth objectives. The current drafting of the Bill, however, limits the ORR’s capacity to intervene proactively, restricting its powers primarily to appeals after decisions have been made.
Enhancing the ORR’s decision-making and enforcement capability would help ensure that GBR’s commercial and operational decisions remain aligned with the wider interests of passengers and the market. This approach would reinforce the Government’s ambition for a collaborative, competitive, and accountable rail system. A strong regulator also provides stability for investors, ensuring that GBR operates within a framework that fosters long-term confidence and fair treatment for all market participants.
While the Government desires to create a ‘directing mind’ in GBR, coordinating rail with a whole network view, for private operators to have confidence in the system there must be appropriate protections guaranteeing fair access and charging. The ORR is well-positioned to perform that role as an essential backstop, but the correct framework must be built around it to enable it to operate as such.”
Finally, Angel Trains also provided written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“Angel Trains believes that the new access framework must provide equitable access to all parts of the railway, whether operators are GBR-led, Open Access, or freight. As a lessor of rolling stock to both GBR-led and Open Access operators we believe parity among operators is crucial and would welcome greater clarity from the Government on how access and charging decisions will be made and prioritised. As an independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) should be responsible for ensuring a level playing field by intervening if concerns are raised that GBR could have taken a discriminatory decision, for example, around preferential access rights and charging for GBR operators over Open Access competitors.
Beyond access arrangements, we would welcome further detail from the Government about how GBR will be held to account. In its current form, GBR possesses a high concentration of power in its role in setting both strategy and delivery. In order to provide adequate scrutiny and accountability, there must be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that financial, economic, and safety objectives are met.
Angel Trains believes that there should be clear divisions between different parts of the rail system to ensure adequate accountability…As outlined above, it is vital that there is a fully independent regulator to hold GBR to account, for which the ORR could be best-placed. Beyond acting as an arbiter on access and charging decisions, the ORR should be empowered to report on GBR’s performance and issue performance improvements notices to GBR, in addition to other regulatory duties. The ORR must maintain a regulatory function to provide fairness and stability for the rail industry, which encourages investment and ensures financial sustainability by creating a level playing field across the sector and eliminating subjectivity from decision-making.”
We therefore seek to leave out clause 69 and will vote against it. This would keep GBR under the normal access regime supervised by the ORR and ensure a fair system. We have no objections to Government amendments 175 to 183 but, as mentioned, we are less happy with clause 69 as a whole.
Clause 70 amends the 2016 regulations to exempt GBR from the provisions of those regulations that would otherwise apply to its infrastructure. The 2016 regulations will continue to apply to other infrastructure managers. We do not object to the clause.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of amendment 256, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 72 allows regulations that could give the Secretary of State powers over operational matters in freight sidings and terminals. Amendment 256 makes clear that those operational decisions must not be subject to ministerial direction. The amendment comes directly from the freight industry and reflects clear concerns about unnecessary political interference.
Freight sidings and terminals are operational commercial assets, and their day-to-day management should sit with operators, not with Ministers. As we said in previous sittings, the powers would apply to not just the current but future Governments. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I should say that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State too much control and too many opportunities for micromanagement with too little accountability over too many areas. Amendment 256 draws a sensible boundary, protects freight operators from meddling, and supports a stable and efficient freight network.
Rebecca Smith
I will speak to clauses 72 and 73, and the grouped amendments. Clause 72 is another controversial clause. It sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the management and operation of non-GBR infrastructure, which means any network, station or track not operated by or on behalf of GBR; about the rights to operate trains that use non-GBR infrastructure; and about competition in the market for the provision and supply of such operations.
Subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to set access terms and charges for non-GBR infrastructure, overriding commercial negotiation and bypassing the ORR. That cuts directly against the stated principle that the publicly owned operator must not regulate its competitors. It is an extraordinary clause that cuts up contract law and throws it out of the window.
The Rail Freight Group is concerned. It states:
“Clause 72 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to intervene in privately owned rail freight terminals, setting conditions of access and charges amongst other matters. Again, we understand that this is not the intention of the clause (which exists to enable GBR to take over other infrastructure such as HS1, Heathrow Branch or the Core Valley Lines) but nonetheless it is an extant risk to rail freight as presently worded, and we believe freight terminals should be explicitly out of scope for this clause.”
Rebecca Smith
I think he probably would have said it, to be perfectly honest.
Clause 73 marks the end of a very significant chapter in the Bill, with many poorly drafted or simply ill thought through clauses. I am sure the drafting has been done with the greatest attention to detail; it is just the “thought-through-ness” that we are struggling with. But we end on a positive note, with no objections to clause 73.
Keir Mather
I am pleased to speak to this group of provisions, which concludes the scrutiny on the access chapters of the Bill.
Clause 72 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to amend the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 via the affirmative procedure. The access and management regulations are the existing body of secondary legislation that sets out the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers, train operators and the role of the ORR in relation to access, capacity allocation, access charges and performance. At present, those regulations can be amended only using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, but those powers will expire on 23 June 2026, which means that, after that date, there will be no means other than an Act of Parliament by which those detailed and technical regulations can be amended.
Great British Railways infrastructure will not be subject to the regulations, as the Bill establishes a new access framework to enable GBR to be the directing mind, which we have discussed over the last few groups. However, alongside Great British Railways there will be a number of rail networks, such as Transport for London, London St Pancras Highspeed and the Core Valley Lines in Wales, that will continue to be subject to the access and management regulations. Those “adjacent infrastructure managers” will therefore not be part of GBR’s access regime. The purpose of the power in clause 72 is to ensure that the legislative framework governing the other infrastructure managers can be updated to address any inconsistencies between networks—to “keep pace” between the two different regulatory regimes. Without this power there may be disruption to the smooth passage of train services across different networks—which the Government have a duty to protect.
For example, the power might be used to secure alignment on the date when a new working timetable must come into effect. The access and management regulations currently stipulate a date in December, but given the risk of weather-related events, staff absences during the Christmas season and the engineering works that usually take place between Christmas and the new year, GBR will likely want to move away from that. If it did, it is not unreasonable to think that other infrastructure managers might want to follow suit to avoid being affected by the same risks and to ensure consistency in the timetable change date. To achieve that, it would be necessary to amend the regulations for the other infrastructure managers who wish to align with the date that GBR chooses in the future. The regulation-making power would enable that simple change to be made without needing an Act of Parliament.
There may also be opportunities for adjacent infrastructure managers to seek further simplifications to the current regulations in a way that meets our ambitions to reduce regulatory burden and support growth, while maintaining a sustainable and predictable framework so that businesses have confidence to plan and invest. The Government consider regulations, rather than primary legislation, as a better way in which to achieve that.
Regulations made under the clause must be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Before exercising the power, the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties, ensuring full transparency, that industry has the chance to comment and that Parliament approves the regulations before any changes can be made. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 all seek to narrow that power in some way.
Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings and terminals; amendment 231 would similarly exclude freight-only facilities. Those amendments are unnecessary, as the purpose of the power is to ensure alignment and remove inconsistencies in the regulatory regimes that will apply to GBR and non-GBR infrastructure and to enable simplifications where they align with the objectives of adjacent infrastructure managers.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister just said that the amendments are completely unnecessary, because the stated concerns are not real, effectively. That does not answer the very real concerns put forward time and again in the Transport Select Committee and in this Committee’s evidence session—the written and oral evidence—by businesses that are experts in the field. They are not reassured by the Bill as it stands. How can the Minister go back and say, “No, we’re right and you’re wrong,” to those experts in the industry?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not arguing that stakeholders are not valid in raising concerns about the issues: they are. I am seeking to ameliorate their concerns by outlining what provisions are in the legislation to offer sufficient scrutiny and ensure that the way in which the process happens offers robust safeguards.
Constraints are built into clause 72 to ensure sufficient oversight, with the Secretary of State consulting persons considered appropriate and making changes in secondary legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that legislation will be subject to full public consultation and subsequently debated in both Houses, which reflects the importance of the regulations in providing certainty for business.
I have already said that the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties to ensure that there is full transparency and industry comment. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 would all narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings, and amendment 231 would exclude freight-only facilities. I have already spoken on why some of the principles that lie behind those amendments are unnecessary.
Let us take my example of GBR changing the date when its new working timetable is to take effect. On the basis of the amendments, other infrastructure managers would forever be misaligned with that new timetable change date, even if they wished to align. The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the owners or operators of private freight facilities on operational matters.
I am happy to reassure the Committee that the power cannot be used to bring other infrastructure managers or operators of privately funded facilities into public ownership, as I know how exercised Opposition Committee members have been about that principle. In the consultation, industry broadly supported the ability to make necessary amendments, although it is of course right to raise concerns when they arise. Most sector bodies agree that it will be important to ensure that there are no regulatory barriers to passenger and freight operators crossing between different networks, and that is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 221 would make the ORR and affected facility owners statutory consultees to the power. That is unnecessary as before exercising the power to make regulations, the Secretary of State is already required to consult all persons they consider appropriate, which would include the ORR and any affected facility owners. If the Secretary of State did not consult such persons, there would be strong grounds to challenge the regulations.
Clause 73 will ensure clarity in how key terms are applied throughout the access chapter of the Bill. It defines “GBR infrastructure”, “GBR passenger service” and “working timetable”—fundamental terms to the operation of GBR. The definition of GBR infrastructure ensures that the new access arrangements developed by GBR apply only where intended. The clause also includes a power to amend the definition, which is necessary to ensure that, as GBR’s network evolves over time, it remains clear to GBR and other infrastructure managers which parts of infrastructure are GBR’s responsibility. The clause is therefore critical to provide clarity and transparency.
Given what I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments. I commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 74, page 42, line 24, after “monitor” insert “and audit”.
This amendment would require the ORR to monitor and audit GBR’s statutory functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 100, in clause 74, page 42, line 29, after “monitoring” insert “and auditing”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Amendment 101, in clause 74, page 42, line 30, after “monitoring” insert “and auditing”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Amendment 97, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—
“including, where reasonably practicable, implementation of recommendations of safety improvements and standards developed through relevant industry bodies”.
This amendment ensures that Great British Railways in furtherance of railway safety actively engages with the industry bodies such as the Rail Safety and Standards Board and implements where reasonably practicable, the cross-sector recommendations of safety improvements and standards emerging from any cross-sector work.
Amendment 222, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) whether, and the extent to which, Great British Railways is achieving its key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment requires the Office of Rail and Road to consider Great British Railways’ performance against its KPIs, as set out in NC2. This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 74 amends the Railways Act 1993. It gives the ORR a new function to monitor GBR’s delivery of its statutory functions and carry out investigations where appropriate to fulfil that monitoring. In particular, the ORR must consider how and whether GBR is carrying out the activities listed in its approved business plan, how the cost of carrying out those activities compares with the estimates in the business plan, and whether GBR is carrying out railway activities in a way that furthers railway safety. The ORR may advise the Secretary of State in relation to that monitoring function and publish its advice.
Amendments 99 to 101
“would require the ORR to monitor and audit GBR’s statutory functions.”
The amendments address the relationship between GBR and the ORR, making it clear that the ORR remains an independent regulator with powers associated with audit, for example in relation to the release of documents. None of that applies to a woolly duty to monitor. Legally, the term “monitoring” is weak. It does not imply an ability to take action to demand improvement. That is particularly concerning when combined with clause 75, which removes the ORR’s ability to impose a financial penalty in the event of poor performance.
Amendment 97
“ensures that Great British Railways in furtherance of railway safety actively engages with the industry bodies such as the Rail Safety and Standards Board and implements where reasonably practicable, the cross-sector recommendations of safety improvements and standards emerging from any cross-sector work.”
That provides the Office of Rail and Road a clear mechanism to hold Great British Railways to account in safety matters. It also highlights an expectation of relevant industry bodies to recommend improvements to Great British Railways. We will not divide the Committee on amendment 97, but we ask the Government to think about what we are proposing in it. We all want the Bill to make the railways safer, and anything we can do to ensure that that happens will be for the good.
I think we have already debated amendment 98, but I want to put it in context we will vote on it at this point, so I want to mention why it is relevant. It
“would require the ORR to consider whether GBR procuring services from the private sector would be a more efficient use of public funds.”
That echoes previous amendments that we tabled, but we will be dividing on amendment 98 as part of this group, I believe.
Amendment 222
“requires the Office of Rail and Road to consider Great British Railways’ performance against its KPIs, as set out in”
new clause 2. As amendment 222 is consequential on new clause 2, we will not press it to a Division, given that the new clause is likely to be rejected. It is a probing amendment that we wanted on record.
We also have amendment 236, which is not part of the group, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham told me not to forget it because we will have a vote on it. Are we debating group 73?
Keir Mather
Me too, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for placing such confidence in me; we will see in due course if it is justified.
I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to amendment 222, which would require the ORR to monitor KPIs. My response will be brief, to avoid repeating myself, as the amendment is heavily linked to new clause 2, which we have already debated.
We expect GBR to have KPIs, as I have said before, but the right place for them is in GBR’s integrated business plan, alongside the detail of the activity that GBR will carry out over the five-year funding period. No sensible business would ever set its KPIs in stone, potentially for generations to come.
It is important that the ORR, in its role scrutinising GBR’s proposed business plans and monitoring its delivery of them, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious and realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR will have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s KPIs. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is already ensured by legislation.
Amendment 97 would require the ORR to monitor whether GBR is implementing safety recommendations and standards set by industry bodies. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. Britain’s railways remain some of the safest in the world, which is why we are maintaining the roles of the statutory bodies in this area—the ORR and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch —and preserving the legal duty on all public bodies, including GBR, to give due regard to the investigation branch safety recommendations addressed to them.
Existing safety legislation already gives the ORR broad powers to monitor GBR’s safety management, including its implementation of investigation branch recommendations, and to take enforcement action if it finds that GBR is not managing safety effectively. The amendment risks confusing or duplicating well-understood roles and responsibilities in relation to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety best practice. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member that this suggestion is already covered.
Amendments 99 to 101 would require the ORR to audit GBR’s statutory functions when undertaking its monitoring role. That is unnecessary, and would distort the clear and distinct roles set out in the Bill for both GBR and the ORR. The Bill retains the ORR’s important role as sector regulator and creates an enhanced monitoring function through which it will monitor GBR’s statutory functions and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State.
The ORR’s role as sector regulator is rightly separate to the role of an approved auditor. The annual accounts of GBR will be audited by the National Audit Office in the usual way. We do not propose to change that effective system, and cannot agree to an amendment that would layer it with unwarranted and inappropriate duplication, given that the ORR will already be monitoring GBR’s delivery of the KPIs within its business plan and GBR’s consideration of its duties when doing this.
Oversight of GBR will be proportionate, risk-based and focused on the outcomes that matter most to users of the railway, taxpayers and the wider public. The ORR will have a crucial part to play in providing this oversight, including by undertaking its enhanced monitoring role in the way it, as the independent regulator, considers appropriate. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member not to press those amendments.
I commend clause 74 to the Committee. It will provide the ORR with enhanced monitoring powers, in line with its new role in the reformed sector. It will ensure that the ORR can effectively scrutinise GBR and provide independent expert advice for the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on its performance. As set out in the Bill, GBR will be required to produce an integrated business plan that demonstrates how it will deliver its priorities across the breadth of its statutory functions, including passenger services and the management of the GBR network.
Although GBR will report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of the plan, the ORR will be required to monitor the performance of GBR and independently advise the Secretary of State. The clause sets out that the ORR will monitor how GBR exercises its functions, including whether the commitments in GBR’s business plan are being met, how costs and income compare with estimates in that plan, and the extent to which GBR is ensuring safety on the railway. On an ongoing basis, the ORR will be able to escalate concerns to Ministers as it considers necessary, enabling the Secretary of State to make informed decisions in line with her responsibilities as funder of GBR. Given that the Secretary of State is democratically responsible for the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy invested in the railway, it is right that she has the final say on how it is used, with proper, comprehensive advice from an expert independent regulator to support her.
To fulfil its new role, the ORR must have the ability to gather information, conduct investigations, and assess whether GBR is fulfilling its statutory functions and business plan commitments. Clause 74 provides that statutory basis. It will allow the ORR, where it deems appropriate, to publish any information or advice it provides to the Secretary of State in connection with this monitoring function. That will ensure that the public can see how GBR is being held to account for its performance and how it is delivering in the interest of its customers, taxpayers and the public.
The policy rationale is clear: the Government are committed to preserving an independent expert adviser within the rail system and are providing the necessary tools for that body to operate and scrutinise GBR effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I have indicated that we want to press amendment 99 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
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.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would retain the ORR’s power to fine GBR in the event of a licence breach. He will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I made in my opening remarks. However, as I suspect he knows, I cannot accept his amendment, because in creating the ability for the ORR to fine GBR, it would simply lead to the recycling of public funds, which he so ably outlined as being an issue.
On the subject of licence breaches, the ORR can issue an enforcement order to direct a different outcome from GBR. There is also a point to be made about accountability for GBR’s executives. That kind of relates to the penalties for Network Rail today: the ORR already recognises its public sector status and scales penalties accordingly. The chair and board of GBR will be responsible for ensuring that the CEO has in place robust performance management for senior staff, inherent to which will be not defying the ORR when it has issued legally binding directions. There will be a clear expectation that any significant failures will have a material impact on performance-related pay, and where the failure is sufficient to demand it, an individual should be at risk of dismissal. Put simply, removing the ORR’s power to fine will not cause the executive of GBR to be remiss in their duties.
Although the hon. Member asks me to speculate on potentially extreme cases where GBR could defy the ORR, I believe that, in the round, sufficient safeguards remain in place, with the ORR retaining its existing ability to issue mandatory and legally binding enforcement orders to GBR on matters within the licence; it is only the monetary aspect that is targeted here.
Amendment 271 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Mather
Clause 76 updates the Office of Rail and Road’s information duties by inserting a new section into the Railways Act 1993 under which the ORR must proactively publish documents and information about key regulatory matters, including licences, access contracts, closures and railway administration orders, in whatever manner and form it considers appropriate. At the same time, the clause removes the ORR’s duty to maintain a formal statutory register under section 72 of the 1993 Act and repurposes that section so that it better reflects modern expectations of transparency, while retaining strong safeguards so that information that would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals, businesses or the wider public interest is not disclosed. The clause is not retrospective: it does not compel the ORR to publish historical material, but it allows it to publish information already held on the existing register where that is appropriate.
The main purpose of clause 77 is to replace the Secretary of State’s duty to keep a statutory register under section 73 of the 1993 Act with a focused duty to publish information, in keeping with the Government’s commitment to ensure appropriate levels of transparency on the railways. Clauses 78 and 79 do the same but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.
These clauses retain strong protections for individuals, businesses and the wider public interest, making it clear that material that would seriously and prejudicially affect those interests must not be published. They allow Ministers to publish material currently held on the existing register, so that there is no gap in transparency during transition. The clauses deliver a modern, proportionate and more accessible publication regime, in keeping with the Government’s ambitions for a reformed railway.
Rebecca Smith
Clauses 76 to 79 change the current duties on the ORR, the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to maintain a register, in sections 72 to 73B of the Railways Act 1993, and put them under duties to publish certain information. The ORR must publish documentation relating to licences; access agreements; access contracts, other than those using GBR infrastructure, for which GBR will be responsible; experimental passenger services; closures; and railway administration orders, except where that would affect individual public or commercial interests. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers must publish determinations that a closure is a minor modification, and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. Each clause contains restrictions about publishing information that would affect individual, public or commercial interests. Each clause also allows for the publication of documentation that was previously contained in the registers.
Clause 77, which is very similar to clause 76 and, indeed, clauses 78 and 79 on the devolved Ministers, amends section 73 of the 1993 Act, on the publication of a register by the Secretary of State, so that they are under duties to publish information—in particular, determinations that a closure is a minor modification and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. However, proposed new section 73(5) of the 1993 Act is interesting. It states:
“The Secretary of State may not publish particular information or documents under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State that publication of that information or those documents would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of any person.”
Can the Minister outline under what circumstances not being transparent is not in the public interest? What determines public interest? I would be grateful to hear the methodology in this instance. Further, the only person with commercial interests in the railway will be the guiding hand of the Secretary of State herself, as it is all public money.
I am sure that proposed new subsection (5) is standard practice in statute, but it raises an interesting point about transparency that I ask the Government to spend some time thinking about. Public trust is low—perhaps it is even lower today than it was when my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham wrote this speech—and any part of any Bill that allows the Secretary of State to get away with not publishing information under a perceived public good would look most suspicious indeed. I do think that, in the light of yesterday’s events, my hon. Friend will see the irony in the words that he wrote there.
Clause 77(2) allows publication of anything that was in the register before the Bill’s commencement. What is the timeline for publication, and will the Minister commit to publication? Those queries aside, Members will be pleased to hear that we have tabled no amendments at this time.
Clause 78, which relates to publication of information by Scottish Ministers, mirrors clause 77. As I mentioned, it amends the 1993 Act, and aside from my query about the ability that it provides to not publish information against a perceived public good, we have no objections to the clause—unless it falls outside the devolution settlement, but presumably the Minister can reassure the Committee that it does not.
Clause 79 relates to the powers of Welsh Ministers, which are similar to those enjoyed by Scottish Ministers. The rationale behind allowing Ministers to not publish information over a perceived public good remains interesting to me, but I see no need to revise the clause.
Keir Mather
The intention of these changes is not to reduce transparency, but to modernise what is published and how. The new duty focuses on determinations under the Railways Act 2005 and the exercise of key enforcement and closure powers, which are among the most significant decisions the Secretary of State takes in relation to the railway. Other publication requirements—for example, on designations, directions and guidance, and the long-term rail strategy—are dealt with in other clauses, so the transparency framework should be viewed as a whole, not just through the lens of these changes to the 1993 Act.
The shadow Minister raised an important point about how commercial and public interest protections interact with freedom of information and scrutiny. The clauses preserve a carefully balanced approach that has long existed under the 1993 Act. This is not a wholesale change in how that process works. The Secretary of State must not publish material where it would be against the public interest or commercial interests, or where it would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals or particular bodies. Those protections sit alongside and do not displace the wider legal framework, including freedom of information legislation and parliamentary scrutiny, which of course continues to apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch any electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments or new clauses take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 59
Access and use policy
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 59, page 33, line 19, at end insert
“in addition to a subsequent right to appeal to the ORR”.
This amendment would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 217, in clause 59, page 33, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Great British Railways’ policy about, and procedures for, access to and the use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains, must be best calculated—
(a) to promote improvements in railway service performance;
(b) otherwise to protect the interests of users of railway services;
(c) to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable;
(d) to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods;
(e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;
(f) to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services;
(g) to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services;
(h) to promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator;
(i) to impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of its functions under this Part; or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions;
(j) to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance.
(3B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3A) above, Great British Railways shall have a duty, in particular, to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by virtue of this Part, or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to protect—
(a) the interests of users and potential users of services for the carriage of passengers by railway provided by a private sector operator otherwise than under a franchise agreement, in respect of—
(i) the prices charged for travel by means of those services, and
(ii) the quality of the service provided; and
(b) the interests of persons providing services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway in their use of any railway facilities which are for the time being vested in a private sector operator, in respect of—
(i) the prices charged for such use; and
(ii) the quality of the service provided.
(3C) Great British Railways shall be under a duty in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by virtue of this Part or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions—
(a) to take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways, and
(b) to have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected with the provision of railway services.”
This amendment places requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service and competition.
Amendment 77, in clause 59, page 33, line 37, at end insert—
“(7) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the access and use policy until a copy of the policy has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways, could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 66, page 37, line 32, after “ORR,” insert “open access operators,”.
This amendment would require GBR to consult open access operators on its access and use policy.
Clause 66 stand part.
Rebecca Smith
It is a privilege to work under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I start by conveying the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, who is not able to be present today. Instead, I am standing in on his behalf.
The clause sets out that Great British Railways must issue documents explaining the policies and procedures for access to and use of GBR infrastructure. Policy must cover procedures for applying for access, the criteria that GBR will apply to its decision making, and a procedure for resolving disputes. Subsection (3) permits GBR to set out the terms—that is, the rights and obligations —that a train operator can expect to receive where it has been granted access to GBR infrastructure. Subsection (6) allows a person aggrieved by a provision in the document to appeal to the Office of Rail and Road.
That is crucial information for all open access operators, and yet the Bill has no detail at all. It just makes reference to a future “document or documents”. In our view, that is a totally unacceptable approach, and it leaves the industry in the dark on mission-critical issues. Furthermore, no draft has been published, no direction of travel set out and no assurance given to the sector. We feel that to be a slightly arrogant approach from the Government and not a good sign of the approach that GBR itself will take to the independent sector.
Under the Bill as drafted, GBR can make the application process as one-sided as it likes, favouring its own services over those of other competing operators—in the interests not of passengers, but of GBR. The key issue is that the Government’s approach to the legislation is an assumption that the interests of GBR are synonymous with those of passengers, but we do not believe that that is always the case. Every organisation seeks to remove competition, which is uncomfortable—it exposes failures and weaknesses, and ultimately will show GBR up—but competition is crucial to improve service to customers, because organisations are forced to respond. That is why we believe that it needs to exist.
The Bill gives GBR the power to design out competition to itself, with no checks or balances save what we consider to be a pathetic appeals process, where the Government’s position is that the appellate body should not second-guess the decision of GBR, only errors of law. That is a core problem with the Bill and something that we feel is akin only to what a judicial review can do in other areas.
The clause gives GBR sweeping control over access rules, with very few safeguards. GBR sets both the access criteria and the timetable dispute procedure, so the body compiling the timetable also controls challenges to its own decisions. Subsection (3) makes the publication of access terms optional, allowing for opaque or preferential conditions. Subsection (4) lets GBR change the rules at any time, with no duty to consult. Overall, the clause lacks the transparency and checks promised in the consultation and risks embedding clear conflicts of interest to the disadvantage of non-GBR operators.
Lumo and Hull Trains, in their written evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, stated:
“Maintaining a fair, evidence-based, and independent process for access to the network is fundamental to ensuring continued growth and innovation.”
Under clause 59, however, the access and use policy will be developed and revised by GBR, setting the framework by which new services are assessed and defining the terms under which the ORR will judge appeals. Giving GBR exclusive control over that framework risks creating real or perceived conflicts of interest.
For more than two decades, the independence of access decisions has underpinned rail market growth. The continued involvement of the ORR in assessing applications objectively, balancing passenger, freight and performance needs, is essential to preserving that success. To ensure a transparent and fair access framework that the ORR can meaningfully enforce, it is important that private operators are involved in the development of the access and use policy and that appropriate statutory protections for open access are in place.
Without consultation or clear safeguards, the access and use policy risks becoming a document shaped solely by GBR’s priorities, which would potentially exclude private operators and leave them with no effective mechanism to challenge decisions that affect their ability to operate. A robust and independent access framework will also help to unlock further private sector investment in new services and rolling stock. By maintaining confidence in fair treatment and predictable regulation, the Government can encourage additional capital into the network, supporting the expansion of rail connectivity and the delivery of GBR’s passenger growth targets.
Freight operators currently benefit from statutory protections that recognise their environmental and national importance. Open access services deliver comparable benefits by driving modal shift, reducing emissions and supporting regional economies, and should therefore receive equivalent recommendation. They recommend that the Bill provide statutory protection for open access services, equivalent to that afforded to freight, and ensure that the ORR retains full authority to make access determinations independent of GBR. That would support the Government’s ambition for a network that is accountable, transparent and responsive to passenger demand.
I think that they are right. A core criticism of GBR is that it is a player and, now, the referee at the same time. Everyone must surely see that glaring conflict of interest. If His Majesty’s Government insist on changing the access and use policy to create a non-level playing field through the very tight capacity duty in clause 63, it should, at the very least, have an independent body responsible for applying the access and use policy. That is basic fairness in organisational structure.
We tabled amendment 76, which was not selected. We are not sure why, because it would ensure that the access and use policy would remain with the ORR by removing clause 59. That would mean sticking with the status quo and the existing access and use policy, avoiding the profound conflict of interest that clause 59 creates. If the Government decide to keep clause 59, which I assume they will, amendment 79 would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process. That would give open access operators a mechanism by which they could go to an independent regulator where necessary, giving them more assurance that they could survive in a new GBR world. That is a different point to the right of appeal under clause 59(6), which refers to the right to appeal the contents of a document. Amendment 79 requires a right of appeal to be included in the document itself.
Amendment 217 would place requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service or competition. At the very least, legislation needs to point GBR in the right direction so that other users can hold their decisions to account. The amendment gives such guidance. Without it, all that is left is clause 18, the general duties for GBR, and a bold reference to the public interest. It is inevitable that GBR will consider the public interest and the interests of GBR to be the same thing. The Government must think again on this, because the long-term damage to the wider rail sector will be profound.
Amendment 77 ensures that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. That ensures that we are not blindly creating law when we have not even seen important documents relating to how that law will work in practice.
Clause 66 lists the bodies that GBR will be required to consult before issuing its access and use documents: the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. That is it; they are the only ones that have that opportunity by right. There is no requirement to consult freight or other operators that might be affected. We think that that is an extraordinary approach. Amendment 87 addresses the shocking lack of consultation envisaged when GBR creates its crucial access and use policy documents by adding open access operators to the mandatory list.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Western. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for these amendments, which all seek to make changes to GBR’s access and use policy.
First, I will provide a brief explanation of what the access and use policy sets out to do. It will set out a clear and consistent process for any operator seeking to run services on GBR’s network. It will therefore provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators—such as freight and open access—on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with when seeking access to GBR’s infrastructure. It will be very similar in concept to the way the ORR publishes access processes and policies today. It will therefore follow a well-known path by which industry can engage with the access process, and like today, this engagement will be underpinned by legislation.
I can reassure hon. Members that the access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on the initial contents of the policy has already been published. It can be reviewed by hon. Members of this Committee and anyone else who wishes to contribute to its development.
I will turn to amendment 79, which seeks to add an appeals route to the working timetable after the dispute resolution process. I am delighted to start in a place of agreement with the hon. Member for South West Devon because the addition to clause 59 is, in fact, already in the Bill. The Bill provides, first, a mechanism for resolving disputes relating to the working timetable and, secondly, an appeals route to the ORR.
GBR will be required to set a dispute resolution procedure within its access and use policy for applications to be included in the timetable. That will allow parties to resolve disagreements collaboratively before escalation to the ORR, as detailed in clause 61(5). To be clear, the Bill already provides a subsequent route of appeal to the ORR for operators who have disputes over the working timetable. The amendment is therefore duplicative of that existing appeals route, and risks creating additional bureaucracy and confusion within the process. It would not improve the dispute resolution framework and, in our view, is redundant, but I am pleased that we have found at least one thing in these clauses on which the official Opposition and the Government can agree.
Amendment 217 would add requirements that GBR should use the access and use policy to promote high-quality service and competition. I cannot agree with this amendment. GBR’s duties under clause 18 cover the range of points that the hon. Member for South West Devon has suggested GBR must consider for its access and use policy. For example, I agree that GBR must promote a high-quality service, and this is already reflected in GBR’s duty to ‘‘promote high standards” of performance. We must remember that the clause 18 duties are the key decision-making criteria that GBR must apply at every stage—including when making its access and use policy—and so the requirement to drive towards a quality service is already embedded.
On competition, however, I must clarify that the Government support competition on the railways where it can add real value to passengers and farepayers. As the directing mind, GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network for all operators under a new and simpler legislative framework that ensures passengers and taxpayers are at the heart of decisions that are taken on the railways.
Where competition can support GBR in fulfilling its statutory duties—for example, to grow the economy and to provide improved choice and benefits to passengers —without undermining the vast investment made by taxpayers, we are supportive of the benefits of competition, and GBR must take those benefits into account. However, what the Government will not support is competition for competition’s sake. It is ideological and does not help us achieve the goal of making the railway work better.
The hon. Member for South West Devon seems to be equating promoting competition with fairness, but they are not one and the same. GBR must be fair to all third-party operators at all times. To ensure fairness for all parties, GBR will be bound by the Competition Act 1998, under which rules it cannot discriminate or abuse its dominant market position, and the ORR will continue to enforce this as the competition regulator. GBR does not need to actively promote competition to achieve that aim.
Amendment 77 would require GBR’s access and use policy to be laid before Parliament for three months before it can be implemented. GBR would be unable to implement any part of the access and use policy for a period of three months after it had been laid in Parliament. This would only result in delays for operators seeking to access the GBR network—a concept that is unlikely to be considered favourably by either open access or the freight industry.
The hon. Member for South West Devon should note that the access and use policy is a technical railway document. The purpose of this document is to provide a fair and transparent process for operators to apply for access. It sets out, for instance, the timings for applications, so that operators can prepare for the application window in advance. It also sets out what information applicants will need to supply and how applications will be assessed by GBR in accordance with its statutory duties. It is therefore right for GBR to develop it in consultation with industry and other railway bodies such as the ORR. This document should rightly be industry and expert-led. To reassure hon. Members about the content of the access and use policy, Network Rail has published a discussion document that sets out emerging thinking on a future access and use policy, with input from industry stakeholders. If Members of Parliament are keen to scrutinise the document, they are welcome to do so now, and I encourage them to engage with Network Rail’s external engagement process, or the usual processes in Parliament.
The industry has responded positively to the transparent and collaborative approach that has been taken in the development of the access and use policy. The freight sector has commented on how the discussion document acknowledges the key role of private investment. Network Rail’s engagement with industry will continue as the policy is developed, and there will be a further full consultation on the access and use policy with the ORR as a statutory consultee, which Members of Parliament are again welcome to contribute to.
Rebecca Smith
Something that the Minister said reflects back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on Tuesday. Not putting private operators, open access and freight on this mandatory list is making us nervous that it is not the Government’s intention to keep involving them in the future. I appreciate what the Minister is saying about them being consulted at the moment, but this amendment is important because it would keep them as a fixture of the future of GBR, rather than as an optional extra, where they can be useful, but if they are not considered to add any value to the railway, they will not be there any more.
As we have already alluded to, industry certainty and assuredness needs to be there for private investment to come forward, some of which I know the Government will welcome. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: if we do not have them in the framework at the beginning, they are not being encouraged to stay involved and have that confidence. Does the Minister agree?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is of course right to be wary about the involvement of open access in the railway, because although such provision forms a comparatively small proportion of railway journeys, we have discussed at length how certain access operator services provide great inter-city connections. There is of course a role for open access in the system being created by the Bill.
With GBR having regard to its duties when creating its access and use policy, it will have to factor in how users of the railway, both current and future, are able to make best use of services, whether they are provided by GBR or anybody else. Being bound by competition law, and the transparency and fairness inherent in it, will ensure that those that already provide services on the railway, and those that seek to provide services in the future, will have the opportunity to do so. I understand the hon. Member’s point about making sure that something is prescriptively listed in the Bill so that it is given due regard, but I would say that, whether through existing open access entitlements or the two rail freight targets that exist, there are sufficient assurances that there is scope for the inclusion of those services in the future of the railway, and that the access and use policy has to reflect that. I will turn to that in more detail soon.
All of the work on the access and use policy so far has happened without the need for a long and ever-expanding list of operators in the legislation, which would be the likely result of the amendment. If we name open access operators, we should presumably also list others, such as freight operators and devolved operators. Clause 66 currently requires that GBR must consult
“such other persons as it considers appropriate”,
and that formulation is deliberate; it ensures that consultation can be targeted, relevant and proportionate. Network Rail’s actions so far clearly demonstrate that open access operators are considered to be other appropriate persons in the reading of the clause, so both the reality and the future can be accounted for.
I reassure the hon. Member that there is no world in which GBR will create an access and use policy without consulting the relevant industry bodies that are affected. The amendment would add complexity, without delivering additional practical benefit. Although I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, for those reasons, I urge that she does not press them to a vote.
Clause 59 requires Great British Railways to publish an access and use policy. That key document will provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators, such as freight and open access, on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with. For example, the policy will set out how operators should apply to access and use GBR tracks and infrastructure. It must set out the criteria Great British Railways intends to apply, in accordance with its statutory duties, when making access decisions, as well as its procedures for resolving competing demands and disputes. That will include, for instance, details on the economic and performance assessments GBR will undertake to determine best use. The policy must also include an explanation of how GBR will carry out maintenance and improvements to GBR infrastructure, and other necessary provisions, to ensure that the network works effectively. That exists in today’s system, within the industry network code, and we would expect GBR to draw on that when developing its policy on these key points.
The access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on initial content has already been published, and can be reviewed by the Committee or anyone else who wishes to input into its development. We hope that the extensive engagement being undertaken will ensure that a robust and effective document is produced that industry will be content with. However, as a backstop, any person aggrieved by a provision in this policy may appeal to the ORR.
Clause 66 will make it a legislative requirement that GBR must consult the ORR, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and such other persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its access and use policy, which is dealt with in clause 59. That is in addition to GBR being a public body bound by public law principles. GBR must behave in a fair and transparent way, and therefore must consult interested parties, including rail freight and open access. The clause also ensures that GBR consults such persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its infrastructure capacity plan, before issuing a working timetable and before making, revising or replacing a charging or performance scheme. Those issues are dealt with in clauses 60, 61 and 62.
Clause 66 is essential to provide reassurance to industry and our Scottish and Welsh counterparts that key parts of the new framework—GBR’s policies and processes—will not be designed in isolation, but will be underpinned by a transparent and consultative process. The clause provides the essential framework for collaborative and strategic planning by GBR across the rail network. I therefore commend clauses 59 and 66 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I think I have said everything I want to say, but we would like to press amendment 79 and then amendment 217 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 60, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
“(4A) When preparing, revising or replacing the document or documents Great British Railways must consult and have regard to the views of other railway passenger services and services for the carriage of goods by railway.”
This amendment would ensure that GBR had to consult and have regard to the views of open access and freight providers when preparing, revising or replacing the capacity plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “to” to the end of line 37 and insert
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Amendment 80, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “ensure” to the end of line 39 and insert
“be satisfied that it will meet its key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: key performance indicators].”
This amendment would ensure that GBR made decisions about allocating capacity having regard to the need to meet its key performance indicators.
Amendment 253, in clause 63, page 35, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.
This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.
Amendment 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Amendment 229, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) In exercising its capacity duty, Great British Railways must take account of the Infrastructure Capacity Plan and give due regard to achieving the Rail Freight Target set out in section 17.
(4) Great British Railways must identify and publish a list of strategic freight corridors on the railway network.
(5) In exercising its capacity allocation functions, Great British Railways must ensure that the availability of network capacity on a strategic freight corridor is not materially reduced unless—
(a) the Office of Rail and Road has approved the reduction, and
(b) suitable alternative provision has been made to enable the carriage of goods by rail to continue to be facilitated.
(6) Before revising the list of strategic freight corridors, Great British Railways must consult—
(a) freight operating companies;
(b) owners and operators of rail-connected terminals;
(c) such other persons as it considers appropriate.”
This amendment ensures that capacity allocation decisions reflect both planning priorities and freight-increase ambitions. This amendment requires GBR to publish and maintain a list of strategic freight corridors and ensures that any material reduction in capacity must be approved by the ORR.
Clause 63 stand part.
New clause 56—Centralised train planning and auctioning—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of the centralised train planning and auctioning scheme (‘the scheme’) set out under subsection (2).
(2) The scheme must require Great British Railways to—
(a) create a centrally designed passenger rail services timetable, and
(b) auction to alternative operators of passenger rail services train paths that—
(i) are long-distance intercity routes;
(ii) have a high revenue yield.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider the potential impact of the scheme on customer service and choice.
(4) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider the potential benefits of centralised train planning and auctioning.
Rebecca Smith
The Government Whip referred to this as the “meaty” group, so we may be here for a while. That is fine; we have plenty of time.
Clause 60 requires GBR to set out how, in its view, best use can be made of its infrastructure over a specified period. Subsection (3) allows GBR to replace or amend the document or documents that set that out at any time, and subsection (5) requires any plan or revisions to be published. Subsection (4) requires GBR to have
“regard to the need to accommodate”
its own passenger services, other passenger services—including open access services—freight services, and the maintenance and improvement of its infrastructure when preparing the document or documents.
Subsection (6) gives a right to appeal to the ORR, but only on limited judicial review grounds, in line with clause 68; there is no right of appeal on the decision of GBR. The Bill contains a duty to consult the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers, but no express duty to consult other rail operators, despite their activities being two of the four considerations for GBR under subsection (4). The Opposition believe that that is an extraordinary omission; only the ability for GBR to consult
“such other persons as it considers appropriate”
is included, in clause 66(1).
Clause 60 gives GBR broad freedom to set and change the capacity plan at will, with no explicit duty to consult operators or freight interests when doing so. Subsection (3) allows revisions “at any time”, and the “have regard” duty in subsection (4) is weak and does not stop GBR prioritising its own services. In fact, the capacity duty in clause 63 actively requires GBR to prioritise its own services, irrespective of passengers’ interest. Clause 60 lacks the transparency and safeguards signalled in the consultation. Our amendment 78 would ensure that GBR must consult and have regard to the views of other railway passenger services and freight when preparing, revising or replacing the capacity plan. That is the very least GBR should be required to do.
Clause 63 provides for GBR to retain sufficient network capacity for the passenger services it is required to operate, and for engineering access. When granting access under the clause—that is, when issuing any capacity commitment or access contract—and when preparing, issuing and revising the timetable under clause 62, GBR must ensure that it retains sufficient capacity on its infrastructure to operate its own passenger services and to carry out works to maintain and improve its structures. It is required to retain sufficient capacity for services it already operates and for those it expects to operate in the future—for example, as set out in a business plan or public service obligations in transport specification not yet awarded. GBR will continue to follow general and wider legislative duties when taking access decisions, and the explanatory notes to the Bill assure us that
“it must take decisions fairly on the genuine best use of the network.”
The infrastructure capacity plan at clause 60 will indicate the capacity available to different market sectors—that is, how much capacity is best used for freight, for open access and for GBR passenger services. Clause 63 ensures that where GBR has decided what constitutes best use, and where the Secretary of State or Scottish or Welsh Ministers have funded it to operate passenger services, consistent with their allocated section of the infrastructure capacity plan issued under clause 60, GBR must ensure that sufficient network capacity is available for those services to operate, while ensuring sufficient capacity for engineering works. The explanatory notes assert:
“The duty does not enable GBR to secure more capacity for its own services than it thinks would equate to best use.”
However, clause 63 is not designed to achieve a level playing field; it does not even try to. The clause is not interested in maximising passenger choice or services, or in allowing competition to maximise use of capacity for the benefit of passengers. The express obligation in the clause is that GBR prioritise its own planned growth, because it must ensure capacity for all current and expected GBR services. That obligation sits ahead of any consideration of open access bids, or whether the service provided by open access would be better for passengers and therefore in the public interest.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
This question is possibly better directed at the Minister, but does my hon. Friend think that the clause might be so restrictive because, in truth, the Government do not really want open access, despite what they say?
Rebecca Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I alluded to that issue earlier in my comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham raised it on Tuesday. That is why we are concerned on behalf of not only open access, but first of all passengers, who are not going to get the best possible service because of the inbuilt assertion that open access can ultimately be discarded if the Government do not see it as palatable.
The written evidence from Lumo and Hull Trains also says:
“As the Government and GBR seek to deliver a thriving, growing railway, it is vital that the Railways Bill recognises and protects the contribution that Open Access makes to these shared goals. This will ensure that it will continue to deliver these benefits to the millions of passengers who rely on them, now and into the future…As the Government looks to modernise and centralise rail through GBR, it will be important that competition remains an embedded principle within this framework. Open Access provides a proven model of innovation and efficiency, which can help GBR achieve its statutory objectives. Recognising the role of competition as a driver of value and growth will ensure that passengers, the network, and the public purse all continue to benefit.”
FirstGroup’s written submission to the Transport Committee tells a similar story, saying that open access operators
“receive no government funding, take on full risk, and generate their own revenue— giving them very strong incentives to deliver a service which is endorsed by passengers…The way in which GBR structures its timetable will be critical. It should be obliged to carry out its functions fairly and without discrimination, so that if an open access train service can provide passenger benefit monopoly interests do not prevent that train from running.”
FirstGroup also says:
“Clause 63 must ensure that un-funded services which GBR ‘expects’ are not given train paths in advance of funded open access services, which will provide passenger benefit sooner.”
The Rail Freight Group is also concerned by the clause, telling the Transport Committee:
“We understand that the basis of the new approach will be via Infrastructure Capacity Plans (Clause 61) and, for GBR’s own trains, via the Capacity Duty (Clause 63). It is very difficult from these clauses to have a clear understanding of how the new process will operate, and how rail freight and rail freight growth will be facilitated, including in contractual rights for operators…For example, we understand from our discussions that there could be numerous infrastructure capacity plans across the network which a new freight service will have to navigate. We also understand that when an infrastructure capacity plan is reviewed, existing freight services could be stopped from operating if other services are considered to be higher value, as contractual commitments are expected to expire in line with the capacity plans.”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL told the Transport Committee:
“I think we would look for clarification, regarding clause 63, that GBR cannot reserve capacity for hypothetical future GBR long-distance services at the expense of privately funded open-access proposals or existing services that provide immediate benefits—and extra infrastructure income, of course, because open-access operators are paying track access fees too. For that, I think you need to prioritise funded open access over speculative GBR services ‘someday in the future.’”
It is very clear what the sector thinks: clause 63 needs substantial clarification. That is why, along with the Lib Dems, we have tabled a number of amendments, which I will briefly speak to. Amendment 81 would make it clear that capacity allocation should be based on a level playing field, without priority given to any particular operator. That would allow the best outcome for the passenger, and allows the public interest bit in clause 18 to take the lead. Proceeding on any other basis will leave us with a monopoly that is allowed to abuse its position.
Amendment 80 puts forward an alternative approach, based on key performance indicators, but it is clear the Government are not interested, so in the interests of time I will not pursue that further today—that will be one fewer Division, the Government will be pleased to hear.
Amendment 253, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, requires GBR “to retain sufficient capacity” to ensure that the rail freight target is met. To progress, there would need to be a mechanism to reach a decision if that conflicted with any planned GBR service.
Amendment 211 would require GBR
“to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.”
For an appeals process to have any meaning at all, that would need to be a pre-requisite.
Amendment 229 would ensure that
“capacity allocation decisions reflect both planning priorities and freight-increase ambitions”
and would require
“GBR to publish and maintain a list of strategic freight corridors and ensures that any material reduction in capacity must be approved by the ORR.”
The amendment would give a better balance to capacity considerations than the current wholly one-sided drafting. That is incredibly important because, ultimately, the Government are seeking to reduce climate change and achieve net zero. Freight plays a huge part in that, and if we do not have strategic freight corridors to ensure that we can make use of the freight system, we will fall short of what could be achieved.
Finally, new clause 56, in the name of the Libs Dems,
“requires GBR to explore and consider the potential benefits of centralised train planning and auctioning.”
That is an interesting concept and could have significant benefits for passengers and taxpayers by driving competitive pricing for certain routes, while avoiding the abstraction arguments in relation to competing open access applications.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again on the Committee, Mr Western. I will no doubt be told off for getting her title wrong, but I agree with the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for—
Olly Glover
I knew the hon. Lady’s seat; it is just that I got told off the other day by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for calling him the spokesperson instead.
Carrying on, I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the Opposition’s amendments. I think most of them are sound and reflect the intention to strike a better balance in the Bill between GBR wanting to protect its interests and objectives, and recognising that there are valid and competing objectives elsewhere in the industry, particularly on the freight side, as well as on the open access passenger side.
Let me speak briefly to our new clause 56. The hon. Lady accurately summarised our intention. The new clause does not require GBR to adopt the idea of auctioning train paths, but it does require it to examine the potential of the idea, which is used to good effect on the Italian and Spanish high-speed rail networks. This idea, basically, retains the guiding mind approach to timetable development and construction but would recognise that for routes with a high-revenue yield and limited competition, such as London to Manchester, it may well be best, in the interests of both revenue and getting more people on to trains, to auction off one of the paths—London to Manchester has three an hour—to another operator. That would help GBR to provide some competitive tension to improve its own delivery.
I appreciate that the Government would probably say that Avanti West Coast is terrible and when it becomes GBR everything will be a land of milk, sweetness and honey; however, the real structural problem is that at the moment there is no realistic competition between London and Manchester. That is why—certainly from the figures that I have seen most recently—passenger numbers have recovered far less than they have on the east coast main line, where there is competition and a real spirit of customer choice. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Keir Mather
I take fully on board the hon. Member’s point that we need to ensure services are not squeezed out. The process I am outlining is specifically to ensure that that does not happen. Where GBR has regard to its duties under clause 60 when deciding best use, it has to have regard to the freight target and the need to grow freight, but also the need to accommodate a range of services on the railway. That best use policy is locked in. It is under clause 63 that the capacity duty comes into effect, and GBR can make practical operational decisions about how to effectively actualise those proportions being allocated on the railway.
GBR will have to have regard to open access and freight under its duties in clause 60 when making the macro decision about what constitutes best use, which at the end of the day is not a binary yes or no question. The capacity duty in clause 63 merely ensures that it can provide the services it has been allocated. I will come to that in a bit more detail and set it out further. The hon. Member is welcome to intervene again if he feels my subsequent detail is insufficient.
On the capacity duty more broadly, the Government have been nothing but consistent. Put simply, the services that offer the genuine best value proposition for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer, consistent with GBR’s duties, should be allocated capacity. Clause 63, meanwhile, creates a legal duty for Great British Railways to ensure there is enough space in the timetable to run the services funded by the Government and taxpayers. To reiterate, clause 63 is a requirement for space in the timetable. It is not a requirement for space in the capacity plan. It does not apply to the capacity plan and it therefore does not and cannot undermine the best use decisions taken at the capacity planning stage. That is because the Government are paying for certain GBR services and must not waste public funds. The clause 63 duty is about managing taxpayers’ money after best use has been determined. It is not about keeping anyone out.
Amendment 78 would require GBR to consult open access and freight operators in preparing the infrastructure capacity plan. Amendment 80 would require GBR to have regard to its key performance indicators when preparing the plan, and amendment 81 would amend clause 63 to require GBR to retain capacity for open access and freight operators. Amendments 253 and 229 would both give freight operators more weight in the capacity process.
Adding a further consultation requirement to clause 60 is unnecessary as there is already a separate requirement in clause 66 for GBR to consult affected operators when developing or amending the capacity plan. Were GBR to publish or amend a capacity plan at any point without consultation, that would constitute a breach of its duties under the Bill and present strong grounds for appeal to the ORR. Amendment 78 is therefore duplicative of the provisions already in the Bill.
As for amendments 80, 81, 253 and 229, the intended effect of clause 63 is to create a statutory duty for GBR to ensure that there is enough space in the timetable to run its own passenger services, which are funded directly by taxpayers. That is because taxpayers spend many billions of pounds subsidising the railway. Any responsible Government would be obligated to protect that investment and ensure that taxpayers get full value from it. The clause is therefore needed to ensure that where GBR considers its services constitute the best use of the network, and where it then allocates capacity to itself, it will actually run the trains that it is proposing to run and which it will be funded for. I do not believe anyone on this Committee would be delighted to find that, following GBR being paid several billion pounds to run services, it was unable to do so. Clause 63 is therefore an essential legal safeguard to prevent that from happening.
The interests of freight and open access operators are protected by GBR’s general duties under clause 18, and freight operators are further protected by the duty on GBR to have regard to the rail freight target set by the Secretary of State under clause 17. Those duties will apply when GBR establishes best use at the capacity planning stage for all operators, including freight. The existence of not just one but two statutory duties is a clear signal of this Government’s view that freight must be front and centre of GBR’s decision making. This will give freight much greater prominence in capacity planning and allocation decisions than the current system, in which capacity is too often allocated on a first come, first served basis without reference to any coherent view of the best overall use of available capacity. The clause 63 duty exists only to protect the Secretary of State’s investment in the railway; it is not intended to influence GBR’s capacity planning or to keep anyone out of the network. The amendments are therefore not compatible with the intended purpose of the clause.
Amendment 80 draws a link to the concept of key performance indicators. As I have set out in previous debates, the Government do not accept the need to make statutory provision about KPIs and so cannot support the proposed reference. As I have consistently said throughout these debates, KPIs should be in GBR’s business plan and not in legislation.
Amendment 211 would require GBR to publish a statement on any decision not to provide access on the basis of capacity. As a public body, GBR is bound by public law principles to behave in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. That means that GBR must set out its decisions transparently, including when granting access, with robust evidence that shows how it has acted in accordance with its duties, access and use policy and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. If GBR failed to do that, it would be grounds for appeal to the ORR. The amendment is unnecessary because GBR is already required to transparently account for its access decisions, whatever the reason for them.
Finally, new clause 56 would require GBR to report on the merits of a centralised train planning and auctioning scheme, with high-yielding services being operated by private sector operators rather than GBR. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with responsibility for passenger services and infrastructure brought together in a single organisation, is the only way to make the railway run better. It enables everybody to focus on a single set of objectives centred around the needs of railway users and the interests of the taxpayers who fund it, rather than shareholders and private profit. Public ownership of passenger services will save the taxpayer up to £150 million a year in fees to private operators alone. Therefore, GBR, rather than private operators, must be responsible for operating the services that taxpayers will fund it to deliver. Making GBR responsible for essential services also avoids the costs of maintaining a public sector operator of last resort function ready to step in if a private operator suffers financial failure or chooses to withdraw from operating the services.
While I fully support the provision of services by open access operators on the network where they add value and where there is capacity on the network, the model set out by the new clause is not compatible with the mandate that this Government were elected on: to bring franchised passenger services back into public ownership. It is not compatible with the regime set out in the Bill, which already provides clarity about the role of private sector operators and the opportunities for them to run services.
Given what I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon feels able to withdraw the amendments. I commend clauses 60 and 63 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I have listened to the Minister’s comments. As I said earlier, we will not press amendment 80 to a vote, but I wish to press the others to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
Amendment 174 will provide greater clarity for all parties that the agreement GBR is obliged to have under clause 61(4) can be made in advance in a contract or other document between GBR and the operator in line with the terms set out in GBR’s access and use policy under clause 59(3). The amendment broadly replicates the current industry practice of making changes to the working timetable through contractual arrangements, so it is familiar to industry and was always the intended approach. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment, tabled by the Government in my name.
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for tabling new clause 52, which would require the Secretary of State to publicly consult on and publish a report that recommends an appropriate train frequency that would meet local need and which GBR would then be obliged to deliver. Although this Government support the principle of designing a train service that meets passengers’ needs and local needs, the new clause would embed that responsibility in Government, and not with GBR. That would serve only to continue Government’s micro-management of the railways, under-mining GBR’s intended role as an empowered, directing mind that is enabled to take decisions on the best use of the network.
To take access decisions and plan its passenger services —which GBR will do in accordance with its duties, which are clearly defined in the Bill—GBR, and not the Department, must be able to design its own passenger train services. GBR will also be legally required to consult devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities before making certain decisions, such as service frequency decisions that will significant affect their local areas. The Government and GBR will also have to consult the new passenger watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer. The Secretary of State will set the long-term strategic objectives of the railway through the long-term rail strategy, which GBR will need to consider when taking decisions about service frequencies. The Secretary of State will also have to approve GBR’s integrated business plan, which will cover both track and train activity.
That framework represents the right balance between an empowered directing mind that can independently weigh up its duties in a considered and rational way when delivering its statutory functions, including developing the timetable, with appropriate consultation requirements and proportionate Government oversight. We do not want to continue the current system, under which stifling Government interference hampers the efficient running of the railways. I therefore urge members of the Committee not to move new clause 52.
Clause 61 requires GBR to issue a timetable that defines
“all planned train movements which will take place on GBR infrastructure during the period for which it is in force”.
Enabling GBR to establish a working timetable is fundamental to running trains safely and reliably at their published times. The current system cannot deliver significant timetable changes, even where there is a strong public interest case for doing so with significant taxpayer investment. That is because the process for revising the timetable is dependent on different organisations taking, at different points, different decisions that affect the timetable’s production. That creates complexity and challenges that can result in significant delays to the implementation of a new timetable being implemented and passengers and taxpayers losing out.
Despite the significant efforts made by Network Rail and the ORR, the new east coast main line timetable was delayed for over four years, which resulted in delayed benefits to passengers. Ultimately, until the current Rail Minister was appointed no one was willing to make a final timetabling decision. That cannot happen again: GBR must be empowered to take decisions or passengers and taxpayers will not see improvements.
Under clause 61, as the directing mind GBR will be responsible for taking decisions on timetabling in a process overseen by the ORR. A person whose application to be included in the timetable is rejected or who disagrees with the terms and conditions of their inclusion may appeal to the ORR. The clause ensures that GBR will deliver an achievable, reliable timetable that the network is able to deliver. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce cost. GBR’s holistic review of the whole network can also improve connectivity for passengers. Without the clause, the current unacceptable system of timetable delays, disagreements and ministerial intervention will continue, which serves no one.
Clause 62 sets out the steps that GBR must follow before issuing a working timetable, as previously described in clause 61. It is a critical provision as a timetable is the backbone of a safe and efficient railway operation. Without a clear and structured timetable, trains cannot run reliably at their published times. GBR must invite applications for inclusion in the timetable from operators other than GBR’s own passenger services. The invitation must specify the period within which applications must be made and the information that must accompany an application. GBR must prepare and send a draft of the working timetable to those applicants. A person who has had an application rejected by GBR may appeal that decision to the ORR. The clause ensures that the process for developing the timetable is fair and transparent. I commend clauses 61 and 62 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 61(1) sets out that GBR must issue one or more timetables covering all train movements on GBR infrastructure for the period that GBR intends the timetable to cover, to be known as a working timetable. Subsection (3) allows GBR to alter a working timetable, for example to add new train movements, change a planned train movement, allow for maintenance works, deal with disruption, or change the duration of the timetable. Subsection (4) allows GBR to alter a planned train movement of an operator other than GBR only with that operator’s permission. Subsection (5) provides a right of appeal to the ORR for an operator who applied for a train movement to be included in the working timetable by GBR but was refused, or where the inclusion was made subject to conditions. The duty to consult and appeals provisions in clauses 66 to 68 also apply to the working timetable, but not to alterations of the working timetable.
Olly Glover
Apologies, Mr Western; the confusion has arisen because the selection and grouping paper lists it as an Opposition amendment. I do not wish to move it.
Rebecca Smith
Amendment is 211 is mine, and we would like to press it to a vote. [Interruption.] Oh, no, that is also a Liberal Democrat amendment—that says “Opp” as well.
The Chair
Absolutely. We will make sure there is absolute clarity for this afternoon’s session.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Charging scheme
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 242, in clause 64, page 36, line 6, leave out subsection (1)(b).
This amendment would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains which are planned to use GBR infrastructure but do not operate, or do not operate in full.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Amendment 83, in clause 64, page 36, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 82, in clause 64, page 36, line 28, leave out “at any time” and insert
“by giving no less than 12 months’ notice”.
This amendment imposes a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum 12-month advance notice of changes to the charging scheme.
Amendment 84, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(9) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the charging scheme until a copy of the scheme has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways, could take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 64(1) requires GBR to develop a charging scheme setting out the charges to be paid for access to and use of GBR’s infrastructure, and the extent to which charges may by payable in relation to trains that do not operate, or do not operate in full, despite their use being planned in.
The base assumption is that charges will be set at the costs directly incurred—for example, the wear and tear caused by the service—but subsection (3) provides for a higher charge to be demanded in particular circumstances,
“provided that it does not exceed the amount that Great British Railways considers is the amount that an efficient operator would be able to pay in those circumstances.”
Subsection (4) confirms that GBR can also set a lower charge where it considers that appropriate, for various purposes, including but not limited to encouraging the use of spare capacity and promoting new services. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 would apply to any decision to lower charges under that provision.
GBR will not charge itself for use of infrastructure, despite being an operator as well as the infrastructure manager, but must include in its charging scheme sufficient information on the charges for its passenger services’ access to and use of its infrastructure to explain how charges in the scheme have been calculated. GBR will be able to make changes to its charging framework at any time.
The Opposition believe that the clause is simply terrible. It confirms the worst fears of other rail users, and gives no certainty for business planning. Subsection (3) allows for a higher amount than the actual cost to GBR to be charged in particular circumstances, but those are not defined or explained. If GBR thinks that the operator has the money to pay it, then it is expected to pay—no rationale for the increase is given. The clause allows GBR to set charges above direct cost based on what it considers an efficient operator could afford, which remains a subjective judgment made by a body that is itself a major operator.
Even with the ORR able to substitute its own decision on appeal, the initial charging decision sits entirely with GBR. That creates scope for charges that disadvantage open access operators, unless and until challenged, which is not the level of neutrality expected for an industry-wide charging regime.
Subsection (4)(a) is an oxymoron. Charges could not be assessed unless there were sufficient capacity to run a service, which by definition would mean that there is assessed to be spare capacity. Subsection (5) does not provide open access operators sufficient information to properly assess the fairness of the proposed charges. Subsection (6) allows for a change at any time, and without notice.
It is clearly impossible to run a service without confidence of track-access charges. A devolved, concession, freight, open access or heritage and tour operator could, at the stroke of GBR’s pen, suddenly find its cost base increase significantly. That is not conducive to long-term business planning, and must harm private sector investment in rail services.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am thinking about the hon. Member’s arguments about clause 64(3). Does she not think that there may be circumstances where higher charges actually help to get private investment into the railways? For example, GBR could agree to fund infrastructure improvements in exchange for an operator paying higher access charges over an agreed period and, through that mechanism, recoup at least some of the costs of that welcome upgrade to the network.
Rebecca Smith
I can appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. It sounds like a good idea; however, it could still be in the legislation directly, and the illustration he gave still leaves a huge number of questions about what happens if there is more than one user of that bit of infrastructure. Why should the private operator be the one that has to pay for the infrastructure? If anything, there is an issue, which I may come to, about the impact on fares, because ultimately, by the sound of it, GBR is going to have far fewer costs than other operators. In principle, I can see why the hon. Member made that point, but I think it is not clear enough at this stage.
Clause 64(8) allows a right of appeal, but only under judicial review-type provisions, which is no right at all. Any of us who has worked with anyone who ever wanted to get a judicial review knows that it is incredibly difficult. It is also incredibly expensive, so it is certainly not a level playing field.
The industry has rightly been outspoken on clause 64. In evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Freight Group stated:
“The Bill sets out the future framework for access charges for freight. In headline terms the charges will be calculated in a similar way to today (costs directly incurred by running the train) which we welcome. However, the Bill provides for extra costs to be levied on freight services
a. Through a mandatory reservation charge for capacity which is booked and then not used (for example, if a customer cancels a train due to poor weather) (Clause 64)
b. Through a general clause 64(3) which allows GBR discretion to charge more if ‘an efficient operator can pay it’. This is a very broad test and far wider than the test in current law ‘if the market can bear it’. This raises the prospect of far higher, and potentially uncapped charges being levied.
Increasing the costs of rail freight will simply make using rail too expensive for customers when compared to road freight, and will reverse modal shift and undermine growth. It is essential that the powers to charge more than the standard charge are strictly limited for GBR.”
The key point there is about reversing modal shift. On the one hand, the Government want to promote modal shift. Indeed, there is a scheme coming in— I mentioned it on Tuesday, but now I cannot remember its name—that will look at different types of transport, and one of the plans is to ensure modal shift. Anything that undermines that is potentially contradictory and a backwards step.
The Transport Committee also heard evidence from Nick Brooks of ALLRAIL, who said:
“I was just going to say something about privately owned investors and privately owned operators, specifically privately owned investors that want to invest in our sector rather than in other sectors—aviation, the road sector, or even completely different sectors. There is a certain risk. There is a commercial risk, of course, and ultimately they are looking for lower fixed costs and higher variable costs. The worry with GBR is this: who determines what the market can bear? Is GBR an independent entity, or not? I think the Bill says it should be GBR itself that determines that, if I am not mistaken.
It is a little bit like another conflict, or potential problem, with track access fees. Who decides the size of the track access fees? If you are a privately owned operator, is it your competitor—GBR—that decides your track access fees? That is a potential cause of worry.”
Lumo and Hull Trains also had similar concerns, which they raised in their written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“A transparent and proportionate charging regime will be critical to ensuring the financial sustainability and competitiveness of the railway. If GBR were able to set and revise access charges without independent oversight (as suggested by clause 64), it could create uncertainty and deter private investment. Independent regulation of charging is therefore vital to maintain investor confidence and ensure fairness between different operators. Open Access operators already make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of the network while receiving no public subsidy. The charges paid by Open Access are calculated independently by ORR to encourage investment, sweat the railway asset and deliver connectivity and the associated economic benefits. It also acts as an additional income stream to Network Rail. These arrangements demonstrate the sector’s willingness to invest and its commitment to supporting the network’s long-term health.
Ensuring that access charges remain proportionate and independently regulated will help reinforce the Government’s objective of crowding in private capital to support network growth. Confidence in a fair charging regime is essential for the continued profitability of private operators. Reinforcing a transparent and proportionate charging system will also help deliver the Government’s wider fiscal priorities by attracting and retaining private investment. By giving investors certainty that network costs are predictable and fairly allocated, the Bill can ensure that private operators continue to play a central role in funding innovation and expanding passenger capacity across the UK.”
Lumo and Hull Trains recommend:
“The updated charging regime must be developed in consultation with private stakeholders, appropriate for the markets being served and regulated with independent oversight from the ORR. This will sustain confidence in a fair and transparent access regime and ensure that private investment continues to play a central role in delivering a successful railway.”
Amendment 83 would prevent GBR from charging any sum it liked without notice. Instead, it would be required to follow the standard pricing structure set out in clause 64(2), based on actual costs incurred as a result of the activity. Does the Minister agree that any serious business case for private investment in our railways will need to have the certainty of fixed costs? How does the clause achieve anything other than the opposite?
Amendment 82 would remove the right of GBR to charge its competitors costs, basically at any time and without notice, on grounds that they have access to more money that they could pay. Instead, it would impose a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum of 12 months’ notice of changes to the charging scheme, so at least they can react to the change and seek any appeal before the event rather than after it.
Speaking to amendments 82 and 83, the Rail Forum has said:
“We strongly support these amendment, access and other charges should be reasonable and operators should have sufficient warning of changes to be able to plan accordingly.”
The amendments are not just a nice idea being suggested from the Opposition Benches, but something that the industry would like to see as well.
Amendment 84 would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways can take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. Once again, that would put accountability and transparency back into the system—something the Government seem hellbent on ignoring.
The second impact would be to allow affected organisations time to prepare an appeal. Judicial review requires a very short application process of just 12 weeks. This amended clause would help aggrieved parties to prepare a complex challenge in time for a JR timetable. Amendment 84 is more a probing one, so it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. The reflection on the judicial review process is particularly important, because we do not want to crowd people out of the opportunity to appeal. Anything he can offer in response would be appreciated.
Amendment 230 would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions—a case of natural justice. Does the Minister accept that the existing wording of the clause would allow GBR to profit from a cancellation of services caused by GBR’s failure to provide infra-structure? If so, will he explain how that could be a fair result?
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains that are planned to use GBR infrastructure, but do not operate or do not operate in full. Again, that is in effect a probing amendment, or a making-a-point amendment, as it were. With that, I shall sit down.
Olly Glover
I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response.
A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run.
Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.
Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsTuesday 3rd February 2026
(5 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2026 - (3 Feb 2026)
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023.
Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers.
Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty.
There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.
Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.
Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well.
Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner.
If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.
Jerome Mayhew
It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry.
Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity.
Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me.
New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services.
We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future.
I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.
Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards.
The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself.
Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.
Rebecca Smith
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on amendments 46 to 50. I too am surprised that the Government are not seeking to enshrine the right to a veterans railcard on the face of the Bill. While it is laudable that they want to ensure that those long-fought-for discount fare schemes remain for young, elderly or disabled people, I believe that not making the veterans railcard a statutory discount is a backward step and will send a particularly strong message to that community, who we know are quite agitated by a lot of what is being done by this Government, particularly around the prosecution of veterans for previous conduct. Not to use this Bill as an opportunity to put this provision on the statute book is a retrograde step.
I want to pay tribute to the former Member for Plymouth Moor View, Johnny Mercer, who drove putting the veterans railcard in place in the first place through the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He said at the time that it underlined the “debt of gratitude” that we owe to our veterans. They are ultimately men and women who have fought hard for our country, and the opportunity to receive that discount in perpetuity—whether they have served one day or 100—is something that we should be proud of as a country and should seek to enshrine in legislation. The same goes for the opportunity for serving personnel to travel with their families.
I will be very surprised if the Government vote against the amendment: that would send a very clear message to our veterans community that they are valued more greatly by the Conservatives than by Labour. Although I am sure there is no ill intent behind the omission of the veterans railcard in the Bill, we have to think about the messaging and the political point that is being made. It would be relatively easy to put the veterans railcard in law so that it cannot be changed in the future, and I would support that. As has been said, the Bill does not prevent it from being added later, but I wonder why we are not seeking to enshrine it in law now.
Keir Mather
I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage for the amendments, which are about discounted travel for members of the UK armed forces, veterans, their families and the police.
On amendments 46 to 55, first and most importantly, the Government fully recognise the enormous contributions made by members of the UK armed forces, UK veterans and their families. I am pleased to confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard, which also covers family members of serving personnel. Those are valuable discounts for people who have sacrificed in the public interest, and the Government are rightly committed to them.
In our view, however, it is not necessary to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill,. The Bill gives continued statutory protection to the discount schemes that are already protected by the Railways Act 1993 to ensure consistency for groups for whom cost has historically been a particular barrier to travel, to ensure that our railway continues to be inclusive and to be consistent with previous Acts. That does not mean that other discount schemes are not at the forefront of our mind and will not continue.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Keir Mather
As I have just mentioned, we want to carry over those schemes to provide consistency for those groups. We are carrying over the role of the discretionary schemes as set out in legislation. We think that consistency is important but, for reasons that I will come to later, we also believe it is important that GBR is able to move in an agile way and think about evolving needs when it comes to concessionary travel. It is important, in terms of legislative carry-over, to ensure that that remains in place.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is absolutely right to note that we want the concessionary schemes to be able to evolve to reflect the needs and lived experiences of those they are designed to help. I will expand on that point in more detail later.
I will make some progress now. We are of the view that minimising the number of listed discounts on the face of the Bill will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements over time, reflecting passenger needs and other objectives. For example, in the future it might be desirable to rationalise the existing concessionary offer for current and former military personnel and their families to ensure consistent terms and conditions between the armed forces and veterans. GBR should be able to consider such options but, if we enshrine the schemes in primary legislation, it will become virtually impossible to amend and improve them.
The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community through travel discounts and other means. For that reason, while I sincerely understand the motivation behind the amendments, the Government do not believe they are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw them.
New clause 51 requires GBR to provide free travel
“to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.”
As I have said, the Government remain committed to all those who serve, and that includes supporting their attendance at events commemorating Remembrance Sunday. Last year, as in previous years, the Government worked closely with the rail industry to ensure that serving members of the armed forces and veterans were eligible for free travel to and from services of remembrance across the country. Likewise, Poppy Day volunteers and collectors—and their children—travelling to the London Poppy Day events were given complimentary travel to support their fundraising efforts on behalf of the Royal British Legion.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.
Keir Mather
While I do not anticipate provision around the specific instance the hon. Lady described—for example the poppy train being frozen into the licence of GBR—I do expect that GBR will be minded and motivated to continue to ensure that members of the armed forces community, veterans and their families can attend Remembrance Sunday services across the country. In our view, concessionary travel more broadly will improve the ability to do that. It will allow GBR to set provisions in an agile manner through an evolving concessionary fares scheme, rather than freezing them as part of the Bill—and, moreover, to set provisions that are not already locked into legislation and do not therefore need to be carried over, in the interest of consistency for the groups that they affect.
Turning back to my remarks on Poppy Day volunteers travelling to events with their children, I do look forward to that policy continuing in the years to come, although precise arrangements for how that will work will be confirmed closer to the time. All that being the case, we do not see the need for legislative amendments. These are things that the Government and rail industry already strongly support and have been providing for many years. A regulatory framework would only complicate delivery, which is more effectively facilitated at the operational level, so, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of new clause 51, I urged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw it.
New clause 59 requires GBR to provide a scheme enabling free rail travel for police officers and police community support officers who are in full uniform or who are travelling for operational purposes. The Government gratefully acknowledge the service of police officers across the country and all that they do to keep us safe. The speed, skill and professionalism of the response by British Transport police and other brave first responders to the horrific train attack in Huntingdon last year is just one example of how police officers and all our emergency services save lives every day across our country.
While I understand the intention of the new clause in supporting that vital work, the Bill is not the correct place to set out the requirements for such a scheme. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage knows, any new staff travel scheme should be the product of negotiations between the relevant organisations. To prescribe a scheme in primary legislation sidelines that process and risks the creation of a scheme that is not fit for purpose, as well as unfunded financial impacts to the railway. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of the new clause, the Bill is not the appropriate avenue to establish such a scheme, and I urge the hon. Member not to move it.
Clause 34 ensures that GBR will be able to provide discount schemes, such as those offered today as railcards. First, the clause continues the 1993 Act’s statutory protection for young, senior and disabled passenger discounts. Prices are historically more likely to be a barrier to these groups’ accessing rail travel, and they are covered by the protected characteristics of age and disability. Maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation supports equal access to employment, education and essential services. It is worth noting that, while other concessionary discounts are not included in the Bill, the Government recognise that they too are important, and there are no plans to withdraw any of the discounted schemes currently being offered.
Nevertheless, the clause also gives GBR the flexibility required to simplify and modernise discount schemes across the network, and to evolve the offer where that is considered desirable to meet passenger needs in the future. Finally, the clause ensures that devolved operators will still be required to offer the core statutory discounts, and that they will have flexibility over whether to participate in the GBR scheme or to create their own.
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.
Rebecca Smith
It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.
Keir Mather
Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.
Keir Mather
Well, there we are.
Let me start by responding to what the shadow Minister described as a probing amendment. He asked me to set out a little more detail on how we envisage the use of conditions on discounts, and I want to reflect the intent that he described. We want to ensure that eligibility for concessionary schemes and discounts is kept up to date, is reflective and is rationalised where necessary. A good example could be changing terms and conditions to change the eligibility criteria for the disabled railcard to include non-visible disabilities, which we have committed to in the accessibility road map. The intent to make sure that discounts are reflective of the lived experience of those who rely on them very much lies behind the provisions.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 61, which would seek to remove GBR’s ability to set conditions on the use of discounted fare schemes. As drafted, the legislation will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements, if necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and passenger needs. More generally, it is worth noting again that the future framework on fares introduces clear and enforceable mechanisms that can be used to hold GBR to account, to ensure it delivers value for passengers and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers. Under this model, the Secretary of State will set parameters and guardrails aligned to GBR’s financial settlements. We believe that strikes an effective balance between strategic oversight and operational independence.
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsThursday 29th January 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 January 2026 - (29 Jan 2026)
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I can see the intent behind amendment 134 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would ensure that the strategy covers a 30-year period, and I think it is important that one looks to the future. Given our relative ages, I suspect that, notwithstanding any decisions by the electorate, the Minister may be the only person who is still in this place to assess whether the strategy has worked in 30 years’ time. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was right to highlight that a 30-year strategy would set a baseline, but, as with any strategy, it would be right to refresh and, if necessary, amend it every few years to reflect changing externalities or new Government who wish to tweak it in a different direction. I think that is a sensible approach.
Amendment 137 has an important focus on rural transport links. I have four stations in my constituency: Syston, Bottesford, Sileby and Melton Mowbray. Apart from Melton Mowbray and Syston, those stations are in relatively small villages that are served by only irregular buses. The intent behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to not only focus on investment in those rural services, but ensure that there are linkages so that people in outlying villages or elsewhere can access them. I know that my constituents would very much welcome that.
Amendments 207 and 261 focus, in different ways, on interchanges and integrated transport, which are hugely important. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly highlighted the experience, which I expect many of us and our constituents have had, of landing at a railway station five minutes after the train has gone because the bus service is not integrated in its timetabling.
I gently caution the Minister that a national integrated transport strategy may not be something he wishes to take on himself. If I recall, that was something mooted in “Yes Minister”, and Jim Hacker took on the job, in an episode known as “The Bed of Nails” because it was deemed virtually impossible to win when trying to integrate all aspects of transport strategy. Fond as I am of the Minister, I would counsel him not to take on that role, even if the Bill has the right intent of trying to integrate transport a little better.
Amendments 224 and 225 would rightly require freight services to be considered carefully, and would require consultation with freight operators. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken a number of times about the potential tension between passenger services and GBR’s own services, and the need for freight services to be protected and supported, as well as whether there is an explicit target for freight versus passenger services. Again, I think the amendments are sensible.
Finally, I think new clause 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require an assessment of the need for Sunday services, is extremely sensible, and I hope that others on the Committee will speak to it. I mentioned Sileby station in my constituency. Sileby is a large village, but on a Sunday it has only one bus to Leicester first thing in the morning and one bus back from Leicester in the afternoon. That is the extent of the public transport available to that large and growing village. Constituents have written to me to ask what can be done to better understand the demand for and possible implementation of a Sunday rail service there—even if it is only irregular, running once or twice a day, it would be something—to give them that option, so I know that they would welcome new clause 29.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will speak to a few of the amendments and new clauses, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, as well as some of those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because some of their ideas are worth noting.
It is obvious why I would support amendment 224, which yet again seeks to include in the Bill more mention of rail freight. As someone who is keen on looking at how we can use rail, and even sea, for freight, I emphasise the necessity of ensuring that it is a central part of the Bill. The Government speak about wanting to tackle climate change and bring net zero into play, but that will be hampered if the rail freight network is not strongly represented in the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will say that it does mention rail freight, but we do not feel it is explicit enough, and we want to ensure that we get it nailed into the Bill wherever we can.
Amendments 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) would require the rail strategy to consider local need, in particular in respect of level crossings and integrated transport. That is something that the Select Committee on Transport, which I am a member of, is also looking at. Indeed, we had our first hearing on integrated transport yesterday, and one thing that came across strongly to me was that we should really have been looking at an integrated transport strategy before this Bill was introduced, because how rail and buses—I have had the privilege of serving on Bill Committees on both subjects—slot into such a strategy is really important. Therefore, having something on the face of the Bill that pushes towards ensuring that we have regard for integrated transport is important.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to look at modal interoperability. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that a level crossing in a conurbation has a negative impact on road use and, in some instances, cuts one side of a town off from the other? Is he right, as I suggest he is, that that should be part of GBR’s consideration?
Rebecca Smith
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, amendment 260, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, would require the forthcoming rail strategy to have specific regard to level crossings. Fortunately, I do not have anything like what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham describes, where a level crossing splits an entire town in half, but I presume that the Government will not want to invest in bridges everywhere there is a level crossing, so having at least some regard for level crossings in the rail strategy, and ensuring that one thing does not negate the other, will be essential. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends.
Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, relates specifically to rural communities, and no doubt it overlaps with amendment 260. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, he has highlighted the importance of good rail connectivity in our rural communities. Again, that came up in the Transport Committee’s oral evidence session yesterday: how do we make sure that we are not just weighting the system in favour of urban areas, and make sure that due and serious regard is given to rural communities? My rural community has only one station, and we are keen to see more stations that will serve rural communities, both in my constituency and others. But ultimately, if we really want to see that modal shift away from cars to the railway, we have to make sure that everybody stands a fair chance of accessing it.
I will turn to new clauses 28 and 29, again in the name of hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The first is about technology and the need for connectivity on the railway. As somebody who does the right thing and uses my mobile phone rather than Great Western Railway’s wi-fi to connect to the internet—because that is what the parliamentary security people tell me to do—I am entirely reliant on my 4G network to work on the train. I sit there for three and a half hours one way and three and a half hours back, if I am lucky—I have that to look forward to later on today—and I rely on that time to complete my work. I am sat in Bill Committees half of the week, so that time on the train, doing my constituency work and reading in preparation for this Committee, is essential. When there is no decent wi-fi or 4G connection, that is a problem.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very exciting pilot that GWR has been doing using Formula 1 technology, which is right up my street, as those who know me well will appreciate. It is excellent. Effectively, it uses that thing no one likes because it technically belongs to that American Musk guy—is it Skylink?
Rebecca Smith
That is it. It still works, though, and provides a very good internet signal.
I suppose that is a question for the Minister: what regard is he giving to such pilots? That might not be on the face of the Bill, but a large part of the population will want to know we have talked about how to ensure that connectivity on Great British Railways is up to date. Connectivity means getting from A to B, but also the ability to work using the internet. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on that point.
I will just briefly speak to new clause 29, on Sunday working arrangements. I have mentioned this already, but those far-flung parts of the country that rely on a possibly hourly service into London that connects all the way through the south-west region need the guarantee of Sunday services. I have to leave at 6.55 am to get here. If I want to get here for an early start on a Monday, I have to leave the night before—if there was no train available, I would lose nearly a whole day just to get to London for a meeting on a Monday morning. It is a privilege to be able to do that, but I would rather not, and more frequent trains would help.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address.
Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed.
Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.
Jerome Mayhew
The usual procedure applies again. Clause 16 requires both GBR and the Office of Rail and Road to “have regard to” a number of different requirements, such as the long-term rail strategy, the statutory transport or rail strategies published by the Welsh and Scottish Governments respectively, the mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. There is a key political question within this clause: why has the Minister chosen to apply a duty on GBR and the ORR to only “have regard” to those strategies? In practice, that means only that GBR and the ORR will consider transport plans, not that they must, or even should, follow or prioritise them.
That seems a slightly unusual position for the Government to take, given their keen approach to oversight of GBR in other clauses, such as 7 and 9, where it looks like they wish to maintain their role as key stakeholder over that of the devolved Governments and the mayoral combined authorities. The weak obligations are shared, whereas the strong obligations are kept primarily to themselves. It is a surprising approach, particularly given that clauses 7 and 9 effectively strip GBR of operational independence. I recognise that the Scottish Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government in Wales have their own clauses to guide and direct, but the mayoral combined authorities certainly do not. I wonder whether this clause is directed at overweening powers demanded by certain mayors, but I could not possibly look into the depths of the psychology of the Labour party as it struggles with its issues at the moment.
It is very noticeable, as Mayor Andy Burnham said to us last Tuesday in oral evidence, that there is a substantial difference between the Government’s proposed treatment under the Bill of mayoral combined authorities and that of Transport for London. There does not appear to be any rationale for that deliberate divergence—or at least not one that the Government have identified.
As other mayoral combined authorities come online, the Bill provides no formal mechanism for their wishes to be respected. Members of the Committee who were in the oral evidence session will remember that Andy Burnham said he would “insist” on greater authority in that area. The Bill as currently drafted does not provide that avenue for him or for others, so those looking for advancement in the future might like to consider their voting strategy on this clause. After all, page 33 of the Labour manifesto states:
“Mayors will have a role in designing the services in their areas.”
Can the Minister outline the mechanism for existing and future mayoralties to be put on a statutory footing, and for their local transport plans to be given greater consideration from GBR and the ORR?
There is one other question regarding this clause. It relates to subsection (3). What does GBR do if the strategy of a mayoral combined authority or Transport for London conflicts with that of the Secretary of State? How are potential conflicts between strategies resolved, and who will be the arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will there be an independent structure? With that in mind, the clause should be strengthened to ensure that GBR and the ORR respond more clearly and act under greater requirements.
That is where amendment 26 comes in. It would replace the very weak “must have regard to” with “must seek to achieve”. That change seems small on the face of it, but it would strengthen the requirement on GBR and the ORR to engage and work with mayoral combined authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Mayor of London. Will the Minister support this modest proposal to strengthen that relationship?
The clause currently restricts the duty of mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. It is silent on other strategic authorities, yet the same arguments apply to areas that are not yet or will never be mayoral combined authorities when identifying regional needs for current and future transport. We heard that concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. I hope that she will be able to expand some of her thinking on this in a moment. We have heard examples from the west country where local government reform is floundering, as it is around the country, including in Norfolk where I am a Member of Parliament. It is already delayed until 2028. That is perhaps just the first of further delays as well, as this Government lose steam. There is no idea where, when or even if it will go ahead.
There are also many areas that will never have a mayoral combined authority because of the structure of their local government settlement. We do have local transport authorities, though, which are the base level of local government that has responsibility for local transport co-ordination. It seems like a very significant omission that the Bill currently only relates to mayoral combined authorities. That is the lowest level of regional government to which it deigns to provide any form of requirement for co-operation with the ORR and GBR. Why is that? Where there is, for sound local reasons, no mayoral combined authority, why are the Government designing out the ability of local government representatives, the local democrats, to co-operate and co-ordinate with the ORR and—more importantly in this instance—GBR? What happens to their interest? There is simply no explanation as to why these large authorities, which will be the local transport authorities in their own right, have been excluded from consideration. That leads me neatly on to amendment 218, which adds them to the list.
New clause 33 requires the Government, or rather GBR, to set out a long-term rolling stock leasing framework. The clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework, and require GBR to comply with that framework. It mandates a minimum 15-year lease, save in exceptional circumstances. That is because the longer the lease, the better the value for money for the taxpayer.
Longer leases lead to lower costs, which will lead to more UK investment, more trading and better value for taxpayers, as the industry and supply chain are able to plan ahead and produce effective business plans. There is a consequence to the leasing’s being done by the public sector, rather than the private sector: the Government will have to consider the impact of the cost of leasing on the national debt. That is, after all, the logical consequence of their political decision to nationalise the railways—the operating companies. There is a cost that comes with it, and that is moving from the private sector balance book on to that of the public sector. The Government need to own the financial consequences of their political and ideologically driven decision, and that is one of them.
Rebecca Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the positives of new clause 33 and its attempt to rectify things as they stand, is that it is not throwing private investment in our rolling stock out of the window? We have heard in evidence and throughout the Bill process, whether that is in Transport Committee evidence or the Bill Committee, that millions and millions of pounds have been accepted by this Government by the private sector for rolling stock investment. If we are not careful, we will completely dissuade them from being involved. We are already seeing them moving to Europe with that investment instead.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clause 33(3)(a) to (d) is aimed at reducing short-term decisions and focusing more on long-term efficiency and savings. I am sure there are many former business people on the Labour Benches—or maybe not, actually—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are. There are many former business people on these Benches, and all those who have run businesses will know that predictability of the future is one of the key drivers of economic success and of driving down costs. New clause 33 will help to achieve that for the taxpayer.
GBR will also be mandated to produce an annual public report that enables Parliament and the public to properly hold GBR to account. We have heard time and again how light the Bill is on the ability of the public and of Parliament to hold GBR to account; we are the representatives of the people and we are being denied, by design, the opportunity to do that adequately. Yet it will be spending £20 billion-plus each year, about 50% of which, at the current rate, is public money. Why are the Government running scared of public oversight of these operations?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a couple of small points to make. Cornwall has a very well-developed local integrated transport plan and devolution of bus franchising as well. Will the Minister reassure Members representing non-mayoral areas that GBR will have some regard to the solid local plans we already have in place?
The shadow Minister commented on running businesses. In a previous life, I was an equity partner in a law firm. Some of us have done a lot of other things. It might be worth considering how many shadow Ministers now in opposition worked in the public services they ran as well.
Rebecca Smith
I want to make a few comments in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham. He suggested that I might want to make some comments on amendment 218. I acknowledge the comments and the request for clarification and reassurance from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who, like me, often speaks about issues with railway service in the far south-west. What is going on in Cornwall is good. It is a devolved county that has been given foundation status. Devon has something similar, but Plymouth is not part of that, so the way in which transport strategies are being developed at the moment is further complicated. Local government reorganisation will not solve that problem; it will take further devolution. I believe Devon has been told that it will not be in the next round of opportunities to be a mayoral authority.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member, who is advocating for her constituents. Within London, Transport for London operates at least four lines—the Elizabeth, Central, Lioness and Metropolitan lines—all of which leave the London boundary. They would therefore potentially enter the boundaries of strategic authorities. If the amendment were passed, which would Great British Railways need to have regard to: the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority’s transport strategy?
Rebecca Smith
I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard. I do not see how that would be contrary to what is going on in London.
I will briefly speak to the new clauses and then bring my comments to a close. It is worth looking at the rolling stock leasing framework, and I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about pursuing a leasing framework. At the end of the day, let us be real: the Government and the country at this point in time are not in a position simply to buy new rolling stock just because GBR comes into ownership. Forgive me if I am wrong—I am not an expert on this—but ultimately there will be some requirement to continue leasing. As much as it would be great to have brand-new trains that all look identical and all do the same thing, realistically we are just not in that position.
That leads me to one point that has come up in some of the evidence sessions I have sat in, which is accessibility. I know that a lot is being done to ensure that accessibility is central to the Bill and that people who need access to trains are considered. The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised this issue specifically for those outside the disabled community, including people of particular ages who have mobility needs. We heard from Lord Hendy that it could actually be decades before we see an improvement to accessibility because of the rolling stock. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham would give due regard to putting some system in place to ensure that that those accessibility improvements are looked at strategically and on a rolling basis—so to speak. I believe that the amendments add something, given the argument for accessibility.
We have talked a lot about supply chain manufacturing, which amendment 36 is about. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Derby South. Ultimately, we need to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for our manufacturing sector. I have already mentioned the defence sector; we have a huge requirement for our advanced manufacturing at the moment and we need that certainty. We have seen the role that private sector investment plays in the development of rolling stock. That is not to say that the private sector is better than the public sector—I happen to believe that they are both important in the right proportions—but we have had so much investment from the private sector while the railway has been privatised. To just walk away from that on an ideological basis does not seem right.
Rebecca Smith
Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.
Laurence Turner
Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.
Rebecca Smith
The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety.
The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea. If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them.
First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs.
On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR.
The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.
Keir Mather
I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.
Rebecca Smith
On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate.
For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables.
We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway.
New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement.
New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements.
On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy.
Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments.
Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Railways Bill (Fifth sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsTuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I do not want to stop my hon. Friend’s flow, as I believe he is probably coming to the end of his remarks. On listening to his eloquent speech, it strikes me that these amendments point directly to the fact that if Parliament had more of a role under the Bill, we would not even get to such places. Ultimately, if there is scrutiny throughout the process and an ability for Parliament, once GBR exists, to hold the Secretary of State and GBR to account, we should avoid the need for a civil proceeding, because a lot of the issues could be nipped in the bud before getting to that stage.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That will be a theme of our comments on and challenges to the Bill throughout the progress of our scrutiny: accountability without responsibility is no accountability at all. Time and again, we see an unwillingness from those who drafted the Bill to trust the role of parliamentarians as scrutineers.
As a former businessman, I know—I have not made this one up; it is not unique thinking—that, in any organisation, you get what you measure. That will have been the case in any organisation that hon. and right hon. Members may have worked in in the private or public sector: the NHS has targets because it gets what it measures. At the moment, the Bill measures very little on GBR’s performance, and where it does, that disappears off to the Department for Transport and is reported to other civil servants.
As parliamentarians, we know our value in holding not only GBR to account but the Government of the day, which will not always be a Labour one. That is our important role, which is done through the Select Committee process and more widely. As parliamentarians, we should seek to improve the Bill. I recognise that we will have a number of Divisions during this process and I am unlikely to win a single one, but I urge the Government to listen—perhaps to the private comments of its own Committee members; they do not have to tell me about it—because these are genuine areas of improvement that we as parliamentarians should be encouraging the Government to add to the Bill. On that note, I will stop.
Keir Mather
I defer to my hon. Friend’s expertise on that particular matter, but my overall point is that, rather than create events in our heads about when this enforcement power may be required, it is important that we give GBR, and the Secretary of State in exercising accountability in relation to it, a full suite of measures to ensure that it remains compliant with the law. Actually, specific duties outlined in the Bill encourage GBR not only to be compliant with the law but to deliver for passengers, including those with disabilities, and to make sure that we have a long-term infrastructure strategy for the railway and unify it in a way that serves the interests of passengers.
Amendment 16 would require the publication of the assumptions, criteria and objectives used when giving directions about fares. The Government have been clear that GBR will have a greater level of autonomy and flexibility over fare setting than train operating companies do today; however, given the need to balance passenger and taxpayer contributions to funding the railway, that freedom will be within strategic parameters and guardrails set by the Secretary of State.
While it is possible that the directions power could be used to set strategic parameters and guardrails for fares, there are alternative routes, most notably the ability for public service contracts awarded to GBR to contain fare parameters and guardrails. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, the Government are committed to interacting with GBR clearly and transparently, and the refreshed role of the Secretary of State on fares is no exception.
Finally, I turn to two additional amendments, which relate not to directions but generally to the accountability of GBR. Amendment 24 would require the long-term rail strategy to be geared towards enabling GBR to meet the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. New clause 4 would allow the Secretary of State to dismiss the head of GBR were it not meeting the key performance indicators proposed in new clause 2. We have already discussed new clause 2, so I will not repeat my arguments, but in relation to amendment 24, the long-term rail strategy is clearly meant to be just that—long term. The amendment would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term performance indicators, which could change much more frequently.
Rebecca Smith
I would argue that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has tabled a key amendment, which relates to something that came up in the scrutiny of the Bill in the Transport Committee; indeed, I asked a question of the noble Lord Hendy about it when I quizzed him on how we as MPs are supposed to hold the Government to account for the delivery of the long-term rail strategy. I appreciate that it is long term, but we have to get from the short term to the long term, and if nothing is set out in the Bill about what delivery is supposed to look like on the route to the long-term delivery, we effectively cannot do our job. The Minister in the other place rightly said, “It’s going to be an amazing railway system. It’s going to be perfect,” but he could not answer me on how we hold people to account on getting from A to B. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that if he is not prepared to accept amendment 24.
Keir Mather
It puzzles me that with all the other transport bodies that have been set up—National Highways is an interesting example—I do not recall a series of concerns having been outlined that one of the most robust systems of parliamentary democracy in the world was in some way, shape or form incapable of—
Jerome Mayhew
I will deal briefly with amendment 143 and develop some arguments on the other amendments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on tabling amendment 143, which pushes in exactly the same direction that I have been pushing today, and also last Thursday, in developing the concern about increasing micromanagement by Department for Transport officials in the name of the Secretary of State, which will undermine the independence of GBR as a tactical organisation.
The culture is already there: the Department has been micromanaging the railways to an increasing extent since 2012 at the latest. This Bill needs to change culture. It is not a steady-state Bill; it is a once in a generation opportunity to change the culture not just of GBR, moving it away from Network Rail, but of the Department for Transport, which is as necessary as the other cultural change. If this Bill is to achieve what it is meant to, the Department’s relationship with the railways should properly be changing. Amendment 143 is a modest but important proposal that would go some way to facilitating that.
Dealing with the group as a whole, and continuing the theme of the exercise of functions and guidance by the Department, the Opposition once again note the contrast between the supposed independence of GBR and the various mechanisms that the Department and the Secretary of State have managed to wheedle into the Bill to grant themselves extra powers, whether as a last resort or, as I fear, to create a micromanaging charter, and where that last resort, as it has been described, has no qualifying criteria—although as we have heard from the Minister, that is seemingly of little consequence.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to “issue and publish guidance”, with notable devolved exceptions, which will allow the Secretary of State to
“clarify policy intentions to GBR.”
The explanatory notes acknowledge that
“in most cases requiring course correction, guidance would be used before directions,”
although I note that it is not required. The Government anticipate that they could move straight to directions if they wish to. However, subsections (1) and (2) are very clear:
“The Secretary of State may give guidance…or revoke guidance”
without any qualifying criteria at all.
What is guidance? It is a steer short of direction, and an application for an injunction against GBR—which we have just voted in favour of—destroys the myth of GBR operational independence. It will be taking orders from the Department for Transport, because that is the status quo ante. Without strengthening this clause and some others, we will confine the relationship between the Department for Transport and the newly created GBR to “more of the same”. That is the fear that we should collectively be fighting against.
The guidance will be not just on the strategic direction or the business case, but on delivery decisions, at the whim of the Department. We can say, “Well, it’s the Secretary of State. This will be done under advisement,” but we all know that in practice it will mean officials micromanaging GBR in the name of the Secretary of State, who will provide the rubber stamp. I fully expect the Minister to reassure me that that would never happen, and that the provision is only for course corrections. Now, if I was in the passenger seat of a vehicle and kept telling someone how to drive, I suppose I would call that a course correction, but they might call it backseat driving. That is the problem: the Bill is designed for backseat driving by the Department for Transport. Will the Minister explain how the clause is nothing short of backseat driving?
I obviously wish GBR the best of luck, and I hope the Minister’s enthusiasm and optimism is fully justified, but I fear that the disastrous consequence of forcing it to walk on eggshells will be constant second-guessing. I have been involved in an organisation in which there was second-guessing—no one was sure who had the decision-making power—and it was a disaster. If there is second-guessing, the organisation as a whole does not know when a decision has been taken. Does the power lie with the board? Does the board have to get clearance from a second board in a wholly different organisation, which might have a different view? Should people in GBR wait for the nod from the Department for Transport before taking action within the organisation, particularly if it is a decision with which its sub-department may not agree?
Rebecca Smith
My hon. Friend’s argument highlights the challenge that a lot of the independent retailers, open access users and, potentially, freight users will face if the Bill remains as drafted. Ultimately, they are the people outside the walls of the castle who will struggle to understand who is making what decision and which decision is final. It is a bit like a child going to one parent, getting an answer they do not like, and going to the other parent to get a different answer. Should there be more clarity in the Bill specifically for that reason?
Jerome Mayhew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. When one’s children come and ask for something, the wise answer is always to ask first, “What did your mother say?” If we were able to apply that common sense to this situation, I would not be so concerned. What we have instead is stakeholder management culture seeping into the core aspects of GBR functions.
Keir Mather
Clause 11 introduces schedule 1, which will amend part I of the Railways Act 1993 to set out GBR’s licensing regime in a way that broadly mirrors the existing licence provisions in the 1993 Act. I will deal with schedule 1 in more detail later, but for now I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I do not think I said this earlier, because I was merely intervening, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
I appreciate what the Minister just set out in correcting the record from last week, because a lot of what I was going to say had to do with the lack of the licence. In spite of what he said, I still think that it is a problem for us to be debating clause 11, and later schedule 1, without that detail in front of us. It is very generous of him to say that we can be part of the consultation process, but given that we are encumbered with being here for 10 hours a week, I am not quite sure when would be able to do that. With all due respect, I still want to put on record how disappointing it is that we do not yet have the licence. Ultimately, Great British Railways is entirely premised on that licence: it does not operate without it, cannot deliver its functions without it, and will not create this supposedly amazing utopia of perfection for passengers and infrastructure deliverers alike without it.
Debating the clause without that context feels like a completely wasted opportunity—indeed, I fear that this debate will be incredibly short. This is something that I have seen happen with other Bills. The Minister will say that this is what the Opposition would also have done, but we were not in the position to set up Great British Railways, which—next to the NHS—will be the biggest Government-funded and backed body in this country. Without the scrutiny of hon. Members this morning, we cannot do our job properly.
Such scrutiny is in the interest of all the stakeholders—the public, the staff who work for all the railway companies that are to be brought into Great British Railways, and all the other stakeholders that provide services through open access or freight. Whether it is the coffee shop in a station or the trolley service on the train, all these people need this information, and I am disappointed that we cannot provide that scrutiny at this stage in the debate. I would welcome the opportunity to see the draft as soon as it is out, but it is disappointing that has not come in time for debate in Committee. No doubt similar comments will be made on Report and, hopefully, in the other place.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. When I asked the question and he, with alacrity, answered, I did catch the expression on one of his official’s faces; I have to say that I have, on occasion, found myself in that position in the past, so I sensed what might have been coming.
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed. Although it is important that stakeholders are engaged, this legislation has been some time in the making. The licence is at the heart of how GBR will operate, so the fact that not even a skeleton draft will be made available to hon. and right hon. Members as the Bill continues its passage through this House is deeply concerning. I will speak at greater length when we get to schedule 1, but we are effectively being asked to give the Government a blank cheque, based on assurances of intent, without actually seeing the detail of the legislation.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 1, page 55, line 10, leave out from “may,” to “grant” and insert—
“at the recommendation of the Office of the Rail and Road in relation to matters related to safety and standards and, after consultation with the Passengers’ Council,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to get a formal recommendation from the Office of the Rail and Road that the GBR licence adequately ensures that licence obligations related to safety and standards are not compromised or undermined.
Schedule 1 contains the meat of what we have been talking about. It amends part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 to set out how GBR will be licensed. Paragraph 2 confirms that GBR should never be exempt from holding a licence, and paragraph 3 inserts new section 7B, which will enable the Secretary of State, following consultation, to grant GBR a written licence to operate specified railway assets. The licence must be in writing and will remain in force unless revoked or surrendered. Surrendering the licence will require the Secretary of State’s consent.
Paragraph 3 also sets out the process for granting licences to persons other than GBR. The Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road will continue to be able to grant licences to persons other than GBR to operate railway assets. The ORR may grant such licences only with the Secretary of State’s consent or under a general authority issued by the Secretary of State. Licences must be in writing and will remain in force unless revoked or surrendered. Surrendering the licence will require the ORR’s consent, much in the same way as it previously required the Secretary of State’s consent.
Proposed new section 8A sets out the requirements for the granting of licences by the Secretary of State or the ORR. It provides that a notice must be published outlining the intention to grant a licence, the reasons for doing so, and allowing at least 28 days from the date of publication for interested parties to make representations or objections. There is a duty to consider representations or objections made within the period specified in the notice.
Proposed new section 8B gives the Secretary of State the power to set rules for how licence applications must be made. Among other things, that includes the format of the application, the fee payable—different fees may apply—and the requirements for publishing the application. Before making any regulations, the Secretary of State must consult the ORR. Any fees collected by either the Secretary of State or the ORR in connection with licence applications must be paid to the consolidated fund.
Paragraph 4 clarifies that a licence granted to GBR may specify when the authorisation it provides takes effect. It allows the licence to include a start date or a mechanism for determining it. Paragraph 5 provides that the licence granted to GBR may include a condition requiring it to comply with the provisions set out in separate document that is prepared by the ORR and approved by the Secretary of State. It might be something such as a code of practice—one of these operating documents that we have been talking about so much—and it may relate to the sale of tickets by GBR or third parties, or to services that GBR provides to the rail industry to facilitate railway operations that are of particular interest to the independent retail sector. The paragraph makes it clear that an approved document may be used to regulate GBR’s behaviour in relation to the sale of tickets by parties other than GBR, in the independent retail sector.
Paragraph 6 provides that, before making modifications to a GBR licence, the Secretary of State must publish a notice explaining the proposed modifications and the reasons for them, and must allow the usual period of 28 days for interested parties to make representations. There is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider representations or objections to the notice made within the period specified.
Paragraph 7 clarifies that the ORR must consult the passengers’ council before making any amendments to passenger or station licences that relate to functions of the council. The ORR must also send a copy of the modifications to the council as soon as practicable. Paragraph 9 clarifies that any licence under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 that was in force immediately before the changes made by the schedule come into force will remain so, per the conditions and periods set out in the licence, unless it is revoked or surrendered.
Here is the mystery of the missing licence: where is it? We have explored this at some length, and the Minister is going to go away and see what he can rustle up in the Department’s cupboard to point us in the right direction, or at least to give us the direction of travel of the missing licence. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, chief executive officer of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:
“I think the licence will be critical. There are various references in the documents that the Government published to a ‘streamlined licence’, so I would be quite interested to see what that means relative to the current licence that applies to Network Rail. I think the Government are going to consult on the draft licence, so we will all have a chance to look at it.
The other point I would make is one I made earlier, which is that the licence will be one of many documents the Government will produce in the next year to 18 months. There is the long-term rail strategy and GBR will produce its business plan. There will be the access and use policy; the new periodic review process; and MOUs with Ministers in Scotland and Wales. There will be guidance on partnerships with mayoral combined authorities, and guidance on the right to request full rail devolution. There is a huge amount still to come.
Understanding how the licence intersects with those other documents and processes is going to be critical, because between them they will add up to the set of arrangements that determine whether GBR is successful or not for passengers. We have to see the licence in the context of all the other things that will be guiding, directing and shaping what GBR does, how it invests, and what it does operationally.”
That is the experts in the industry repeating what the Opposition have been arguing repeatedly today and last week. More accurately, it is the other way around: we have been listening to the industry in a way that the Government have not, and have been expressing the deep concerns in the sector that the current proposals are half cocked. Huge chunks of the direction, guidance and memorandums are simply missing, including the licence that the schedule is designed to address.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister spoke earlier about the consultation. It is worth restating that it is not the final draft but a consultation on the draft that is going to happen. We will have sight of the final version of the licence way down the road of the Bill’s progress, and ultimately the final licence may not be ready before scrutiny of the Bill is complete. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is something that we need to address? Hopefully the Minister will reassure us.
Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsTuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
Jerome Mayhew
I agreed with the hon. Gentleman until that last sentence, because new clause 40, which I will come to in a moment, would require not the removal of subsidy but looking towards it—it is aspirational. It would set GBR’s sights on minimising its costs to the taxpayer, not through penny pinching if that would be the wrong decision, but through growth in its revenue by becoming efficient and doing more for less. Those are all good incentives that a private business inevitably has because of the challenge of competition.
New clause 39 would require Great British Railways to focus on other opportunities for funding and on minimising operational costs, just like any other business. The areas of focus under subsection (7) are the revenue opportunities.
New clause 40, on non-reliance on taxpayer funding, would make the direction of travel for GBR clearer. It may be—in fact it is almost certain—that it will never achieve it, but it is a noble objective. It should be clear that GBR should aspire to reduce the need for the taxpayer to support the rail sector by making it as efficient and attractive to passengers as possible, thereby attracting more passengers and freight on to the railways. That would create a virtuous circle, rather than the opposite. We should start thinking about that, which is what new clause 40 is intended to achieve.
New clause 41, also tabled in my name, would require Great British Railways to publish an annual statement of its financial performance. The new clause builds on the theme, forcing Great British Railways to focus on its financial performance and reduce its reliance on the taxpayer. It may be the skimmed-milk version of new clause 40 that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might find more palatable.
It is important that we do everything we can to design into a nationalised structure, where there is no competitive tension, incentives for GBR naturally to seek to achieve efficiency and productivity enhancements. There is a very real need for that, because the taxpayer’s pound can only be spent once, and funds are needed in many areas of Government. Apart from anything else, we need to reduce the tax burden, which this Government have raised to the highest on record, so anything we can do to build a structure that incentivises GBR to reduce its dependence on the taxpayer is a good thing. It also forces public accountability.
Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to give GBR an annual savings target. Taking all the new clauses together, the intention is to allow GBR to focus on providing genuine value for money for the taxpayer, not just in abstract terms, and to cut away some of the existing inefficiencies in the infrastructure commissioning and decommissioning process, to provide a longer period of certainty for the supply chain so that it can pass on the resultant efficiencies to the taxpayer. That money can be either reinvested in accelerated infrastructure roll-out, rather like the ability of ScotRail electrification to do more for less, or—heaven forbid—used to produce tax cuts for the hard-pressed taxpayer. I hope the Minister will be bowled over by those suggestions, and look forward to hearing his response.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I will touch on three of the new clauses—one at greater length than the others—to follow up on the words of my hon. Friend.
For me, new clause 39 highlights something that is clearly missing from the Bill: what actually happens when these currently franchised, privately run rail services come into public ownership across the board. Over many years, unions have fought hard for terms and conditions for staff and railway companies, but these are not uniform across the board. There is a huge differential in the terms and conditions that staff are subject to.
I pay huge tribute to the men and women who work on the railway; they are a brilliant group of people. I am obviously on a train every week, coming up and down from my constituency. However, it is really important that we have this conversation about what the Bill will actually mean. As my hon. Friend pointed out, value for money is mentioned only once in the Bill. We are, in effect, writing a blank check for GBR to spend whatever it wants on bringing all these staff into its employment.
We were told very clearly when the Committee began that this is not a civil service; it is the public sector, so there is a difference there, but it is effectively a private body as well. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how staff are being brought across—obviously some franchises have been brought into Government control already—and about the Department’s plans going forward, because time and again, we see pay going up for public sector workers without that necessarily reflecting any changes in performance.
Laurence Turner
The 1992 White Paper that preceded the Railways Act 1993 said that, at the time, British Rail had the second highest workforce productivity of any railway in Europe. What does the hon. Member think went wrong in all the years under privatisation that followed?
Rebecca Smith
That is a very long time ago. Under privatisation, the unions have done a very good job. In my constituency in the south-west, there are no seven-day contracts, for example. If I want to get a train up from my constituency on a Sunday, those trains are cancelled quite regularly, because the service relies on the good will of the staff to do overtime to make the train even come up to London.
Whatever we do, we need to look carefully at the terms and conditions that will be brought forward into this new public body. Up to this point, it has been down to each individual company to negotiate. That has been done with highly professional and competent union representatives, but we are not on a level playing field at the moment. As a member of the public, I want to be sure that those public sector staff are not receiving undue recompense for what they are doing, which would not be in accordance with other public sector bodies.
Private companies have been expected to give their staff a huge amount of benefits—quite rightly; that is their choice as private companies. If the staff become public sector, things like free rail travel need to be on the table. We must at least acknowledge those issues and make a decision to continue them, rather than assuming it is a given, which is down to unions to negotiate.
There is no conversation in the Bill about that TUPE-ing across of staff members. Value for money is really important. We do not want inequality being built into our public sector workforces simply because we are renationalising something.
Subsection (7) of new clause 39 provides that we should be showing where revenue comes from. That is absolutely justifiable. The private companies that will continue to operate in the railway system will have all that information available to their shareholders—to the people they are reporting to. If Great British Railways does not show that information, there is, again, no opportunity for scrutiny. If commercial retail income is flopping because GBR is not doing a very good job, we have no way to hold it to account for that. I do not see why it should be frightened to share that revenue information. It should instead see this as an opportunity to show good practice and how things could potentially progress under GBR.
I have one more point, which came up right at the end of the Select Committee hearing—I managed a question to the Minister, Lord Hendy, but have not seen a response. There is a huge amount of land and value that belongs to these railway stations, currently run by private companies, in some cases, including for things such as parking. What happens with all that income and all the opportunities for Great British Railways to potentially make some money? How will we know about that money and where it is coming from? New clause 39 seeks to bring that information to the fore and ensure that it is transparent and in the public domain.
Turning to new clause 40—this might be something of a segue, but I am going take the opportunity to put it on the record anyway—there is something about the aspiration to move from heavy taxpayer-funded reliance that speaks to the devolution conversation that we have been having. We have had multiple conversations, and I am sure we will have more, but ultimately GBR is being set up to give more powers to certain local authorities and local areas if they wish it, which is great—we want those communities to be able to control more of what happens. However, as we have been discussing, we are effectively developing a two-tier system, whereby anyone who is not in a mayoral authority will effectively be paying into the railway company and GBR, but not necessarily getting the levers to effect change locally. The Minister has reassured me that that will be done through business units and so on, but given that we do not know the scale of those business units or which regions and communities they represent, it is important that we know how that taxpayer money is to be used for funding across the country.
There has been a huge amount of storm damage in the south-west this weekend. Where will the funding come from under the new GBR? The south-west is not a mayoral strategic authority. Will we get our fair share of funding through the set-up for GBR? New clause 40 sets out the aspiration to move away from taxpayer funding and would surely create a more equitable system for the future.
Finally, new clause 44 would introduce a savings target. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has been alluding to the point about the costs we currently see in the system, particularly around infrastructure. That has certainly come up in the Transport Committee, in terms of how much it costs to build a bridge or a new station and the lack of competition and challenge. The new clause would create an opportunity to ensure that we pay as little as possible for the best outcomes. We have had lots of evidence in the past few months to show that other parts of the world can produce the station infrastructure that we need for a lot less than we are paying for it. I believe that is down to how the system currently works, and new clause 44 would force us to look at how it could work under GBR.
Keir Mather
I thank Members for tabling amendments on GBR’s funding and financial framework. In this chunky group of important amendments and new clauses, I first turn to new clause 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a mid-funding period review of GBR’s funding, and new clause 41 from the shadow Minister, which seeks to create a GBR annual statement of financial performance.
In my view, the Bill already creates sufficient transparency about how GBR is funded. Further process could constitute unnecessary bureaucracy. Under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2, the Secretary of State is already required to publish details of the financial assistance given to GBR using the funding period review funding power. Under paragraph 5 of schedule 2, GBR must publish its business plan and keep it up to date throughout the five-year period. Between those two commitments, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons will already have key information about how much funding the Secretary of State is providing to GBR, and the details on GBR’s business plan to understand what GBR is doing with its money. It would be unnecessary and inefficient to conduct an extra review.
New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to set funding two years in advance of the funding period. First, I believe that it is misplaced to require that funding be committed two years in advance. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances over a five-year period, and new projects will surface. That was well acknowledged by all the witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, including those representing the railways supply chain. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance will be redundant before it even starts.
I can also assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railways with certainty, and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period. The ORR, which will run the process, intends to set deadlines so that funding is committed in time for the industry to prepare. Secondly as with new clause 26, new clause 34 seeks to introduce additional reporting requirements that are unnecessary, given the transparency requirements already provided for in the Bill.
I now turn to new clauses 39 and 40. New clause 39 would create a duty for GBR to achieve value for money and long-term fiscal sustainability. New clause 40 would require GBR to develop a transition plan toward ending any reliance on taxpayer funding within its first operational funding period. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that GBR must deliver as efficiently as it can, ensuring good value for money and reducing costs to the taxpayer, and I assure him that the Bill is already very specific about GBR’s achieving value for money. Clause 18(2)(f) includes a specific legal duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to take into account
“the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”.
The ORR must also provide advice to the Secretary of State on whether GBR’s estimated costs in GBR’s draft business plan represent good value for money, with a requirement to publish a summary of that advice as part of the funding process. That is before the Secretary of State signs off on the business plan. Therefore, the hon. Member’s intent is already achieved by the Bill, and the amendment would only create extra bureaucracy and inflexibility without adding to transparency or financial sustainability.
A statutory transition plan to eliminate taxpayer funding would be unrealistic, and would undermine the railway’s ability to achieve its social goals. The reality is that taxpayer subsidy will always be needed for some parts of the railway. For example, while we aim to have the most profitable and efficient network possible, there will always be some lower-population regions of the UK in which rail travel will not make a profit and will need taxpayer subsidy. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the Government to withdraw funding and neglect connectivity in those important rural regions, whether that be in Devon, Dorset or elsewhere—constituencies represented by Members across the Committee. Rapidly forcing GBR to operate without public support would be devastating for the economy and for the mobility of the public, not to mention reducing efficiency and the long-term capacity of the network.
Finally, new clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to set and publish an annual savings target for GBR. Introducing a statutory savings target risks creating a rigid measure that might not reflect the operational realities of the railway. Efficiency is already embedded in the Bill’s framework and will be a key consideration when GBR publishes its business plan and sets out how to meet its objectives, including on efficiency. Statutory targets are therefore not required to drive performance.
Keir Mather
I respectfully disagree with the shadow Minister’s interpretation. This is about how GBR discharges those legally binding duties, and whether we should be overly prescriptive about the means by which it does so. It is important to have flexibility. Given the amount of technological change that we have seen in railway processes over recent decades, as well as socioeconomic factors and the need for GBR to balance those duties, we cannot be overly prescriptive about how we ask it to meet them—apart from the fact that it is legally required to do so.
I assure the hon. Member that GBR’s business plan will have not just a robust but a comprehensive set of KPIs against which it will be held to account. Progress against them will be tracked, and GBR will publish updates in line with the requirements in the Bill. The ORR will also monitor GBR and its business plan, and provide advice to the Secretary of State.
Rebecca Smith
I am thinking through the schedule. Forgive me if I am wrong, but ultimately, it is GBR’s business plan. Effectively though, there are going to be wheels within wheels, in terms of each of the business sectors, the different mayoralties, and the operators that are doing different things in different countries. To me, it feels overly simplistic: we have got one plan, which is the plan for the funding of the entirety of GBR, but if there are no KPIs at all, how are we supposed to even compare parts of the country against each other? Surely there will be different funding streams and business cases for different things. To me, it just feels like one overarching plan. How on earth are we supposed to hold the Government to account for delivering that, let alone ensuring parity and equality across the country, and making sure that funding is going into the right places, where it is most needed?
Keir Mather
That is a very important point. While the hon. Member points to a system that is simple in the objectives that it sets out for the railway overall, I see one that provides sufficient breadth to allow the organisation to develop over time and offer a system of operation that is closer to the communities it seeks to represent—and which, most importantly, is agile in adapting to changing socioeconomic circumstances and technological innovation.
The need for objectives that are not overly prescriptive, and the place for KPIs being in the business plan, allows a holistic approach to setting objectives for the railway, which can guide work overall for a national organisation, offering a single uniting mind, while at the same time not fettering GBR’s ability to evolve as an organisation in future.
In that sense, I believe we desire the same outcome: to make sure that the railway operates in the most effective way possible. In the light of the measures in the Bill that I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 125 would require GBR to include in its business plan information about how it will minimise costs to the taxpayer, while amendment 127 would require the ORR to advise the Secretary of State on this. I agree that it is important for GBR to deliver in the most efficient way that it can. That is why GBR, the ORR and the Secretary of State—all the people involved in the railway, and in the business plan—are all subject to a cost and efficiency duty, which is applied by clause 18. That will ensure that GBR aims to be cost-efficient at all times, which aligns with the intent of amendment 125.
Adding additional requirements for GBR in this space could create perverse incentives. For example, a focus on minimising costs, without other checks and balances, could drive GBR to cancel unprofitable lines even if they are important to local communities because doing so will save money. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for GBR to neglect connectivity in those important rural regions. GBR will also be robustly scrutinised from a value-for-money perspective by the ORR, and the Secretary of State will need to consider the ORR’s advice before approving GBR’s business plan. I hope that is enough to assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Bill can deliver the outcome he seeks without amendment, while allowing GBR the autonomy necessary to plan in the way it sees as most appropriate.
Finally, amendment 128 seeks to limit the information that GBR could redact from its approved business plan. I agree that GBR’s activity must be transparent, and that will be an important part of how we hold GBR to account. That is why the Bill already requires GBR to publish its business plans. The Bill provides for slightly more discretion for GBR to redact sections of the business plan than amendment 128 proposes. That is because it is important that all types of sensitive data, not just the commercially sensitive, are able to be protected. Personal data, security-sensitive information about stations or anything legally privileged are all examples of content that may need redaction from the final plan. A flexible requirement can be better used to navigate these nuances. However, let me be clear that GBR’s public law duties and wider accountabilities framework will ensure that GBR will not be able to hide information that is important and relevant to public scrutiny.
In the light of these considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press the amendments.
Rebecca Smith
I want to briefly speak to the proposed new subsection added by amendment 23, which would offer anybody given conditions by GBR the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Office of Rail and Road. The issue of accountability and the unequal playing field faced by those on the outside compared with those on the inside came up in the Transport Committee’s evidence sessions and last week. Having heard a lot of that evidence, the amendment appeals to what I think is the right way to do things. We must ensure that organisations engaging with the railway, or offering services to the railway—even if they are being paid separately for them—have the opportunity to appeal a decision that affects or impacts them. I feel that not having such an opportunity is particularly onerous. I support amendment 23 and concur with everything that the shadow Minister has said.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendments 22 and 23 and the hon. Member for South West Devon for speaking in their support. Amendment 22 seeks to require GBR to set reasonable charges for the delivery of its functions, and amendment 23 seeks to require the ORR to provide an appeals role for anyone who considers the charges set by GBR to be unfair.
On amendment 22, we clearly agree that GBR must act reasonably when setting charges and there is no suggestion that it will not do so. In fact, safeguards to ensure that GBR cannot levy unreasonable charges already exist in the Bill. Clause 18 requires GBR to act in the public interest and to ensure that railway service providers, such as devolved operators, freight operators and open access operators, can plan, invest and make decisions about their own businesses. When setting charges, GBR must therefore do so in a manner consistent with those duties, and it must not set charges that undermine operators’ ability to run viable and successful businesses.
Olly Glover
We have reached a rather long group of amendments at this point in the afternoon. I would generally have liked to have used that as an opportunity to be concise. However—[Laughter.] No, no, the substance is too severe for that to be the case.
Let me start off on a positive note: this rail strategy is perhaps the strongest element of the Bill. It is absolutely what our railways need to hopefully get us out of the endless cycle of decision, indecision, dither and delay: “Yes, we’re doing it,” then, “No, we’re not,” or committing to things that are undeliverable before they have been properly planned, thought through, funded and so on.
In this part of the Bill, we even have the potential to put ourselves on as glorious a footing as Switzerland and its approach to its rail network. Somehow, I have managed to avoid talking about Switzerland so far in this Bill Committee—
Olly Glover
Oh right—okay. I seemingly stand corrected. Well, there we go; this probably will not be the last mention either.
It is good that an element of the Bill enables us to have some hope of reaching the glory of the marvellous rail network in Switzerland, which genuinely merits admiration. We so often assume, lazily, that railways in Europe are better than those here. Some of them are in some respects; others are not. However, Switzerland’s railway is pretty much better than ours all over.
I turn to our amendments. Generally speaking, the intention behind them is either to strengthen or enhance what is already in clause 15 regarding the rail strategy. New clause 2 proposes to expand the number of factors that should be considered in developing the strategy, to ensure that critical elements that have not necessarily been well-planned or managed on our network hitherto are better stewarded in the future.
I turn first to amendment 134. It would very simply put what is currently in an accompanying piece of commentary on the Bill into the Bill itself, including the clarification that by “long-term” we mean “30 years”. The problem is that at the moment “long-term” can mean many things to many people, depending on their own particular agenda. We could include in clause 15 the words “for the next 30 years”. That would make it very clear what the rail strategy was focused on, but would not preclude its being changed in the future. That is important, because any strategy should be regularly reviewed and refreshed in the light of changing circumstances. However, the amendment would enshrine the idea that the strategy is intended to get GBR to engage in long-term thinking in its future planning of our network.
Amendment 137 would add a couple of elements to clause 15. First, it would ensure that the long-term rail strategy considered the support that rural communities need to access rail travel and the need for
“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”
and GBR. That is so we can have a real focus on
“greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
I hope that is welcomed by the Government, given their own commitment to introduce an integrated transport strategy at some point in the future.
Amendment 207 intends to ensure that the rail strategy considers the rail network as a whole and the relationship between the integrated timetables that we need to move to and the infrastructure enhancements necessary to enable those timetables. Let me explain that a little further. The historic focus of development on our rail network has been, with some exceptions, an obsession with reducing journey times to and from London on major inter-city routes. In and of itself, that is not a flawed goal. However, tens of millions of pounds will often be spent on cutting a couple of minutes from journey times.
A particular example of that was removing an avoiding line at Stoke-on-Trent as part of the modernisation of the west coast route. It was for the 7 am Manchester to London inter-city train, which has been the subject of so much controversy recently in relation to ORR decisions. That passing loop was taken out just to save 30 seconds from the journey time for one train a day, which does not even stop at Stoke-on-Trent. That shows the extent of the obsession with reducing journey times to London, which I have just alluded to.
What there has not been is an accompanying focus on trying to improve connection times between trains at Birmingham New Street, for example, or at Manchester Piccadilly or in Leeds. That is important, because there is very little point in cutting some time off inter-city routes if that time saving is negated by having a longer connection and waiting time at a regional hub. What puts a lot of people off using trains is the lack of decent connections and having to wait for their next train at stations that might not have particularly amenable environments.
By contrast, that is what has been done so well in Switzerland. It began in 1987, when a national referendum approved what was a 20-plus-year plan, to upgrade the country’s rail network around connections. That led to a nationwide investment in infrastructure improvements designed to enable a nationwide inter-city timetable, so that at all the key hubs—such as Zurich, Berne or Basel—trains would arrive within a 10 or 15-minute window and passengers could easily change from inter-city train to inter-city train, or from a local train to an inter-city train. Such integration is not just limited to the rail network; it is applies to other public transport. Anybody who has travelled extensively in Switzerland by public transport knows that the same level of timetable integration exists for buses, cable cars, mountain railways and so on.
Amendment 207 would create the framework for that kind of thinking: we would have to think hard, in the long-term strategy, about what sort of timetabling we want to see on our network in the future and what infrastructure enhancements are needed to get end-to-end journey times down.
Our amendment 135 would ensure that the rail strategy considers international rail. For the purposes of the Bill, that is not the Dublin to Belfast Enterprise service, which is of course the subject of entirely different legislation—a very good train it is, too, and not just because it is named after that series of wonderful flagships from “Star Trek”—but international rail through the channel tunnel. The amendment would simply require that the rail strategy includes an international rail strategy to support the development of international routes and consider some of the key challenges in increasing capacity, particularly rail depot capacity, to the channel tunnel and beyond, as well as options for upgrading the existing rail network so that we can get far more rail freight directly through the channel tunnel, which is currently not possible because of limited gauge clearance on the existing network.
Our amendment 136 would require the rail strategy to include a network electrification strategy, which another amendment alluded to. Something that has so far been absent from this Government’s thinking, as it was from that of most previous ones, is clear criteria for electrification, of whatever type—including the current fetish for discontinuous electrification with batteries. The amendment would create a framework for us to be very clear about the criteria that will be used for each electrification type, including maximum operating speeds, which lend themselves far more to full electrification than to batteries, the intensity of traffic, whether there is freight, and so on. It is a very strategic amendment that would help to focus the output of the long-term strategy on things that need to be addressed.
I have a bit more to say; I am attempting to be concise, Mr Western, and I thank you for your forbearance, as I thank the rest of the Committee for theirs. Amendment 213 would require the Secretary of State to update Parliament annually on progress on the rail strategy. This is not intended to hamper the strategy or bog it down in bureaucracy; it would merely involve updating Parliament, from time to time, on the development and delivery of the rail strategy. The key purpose is to ensure that the Transport Committee can carry on the great review and scrutiny that it does of so many things—that is not a comment on my contribution, but on that of all Transport Committee members, past and present.
New clause 27 would require the strategy to incorporate a national rolling stock strategy. I understand from remarks made by the Minister and by the noble Lord Hendy in the other place that that is very much the intention anyway. Perhaps we will have another of those debates where they say that that is the intention anyway but for some reason we cannot possibly put it in the Bill. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause, because it is so important.
New clause 28 would require GBR to set out a cyber-security and technology strategy. Technology is changing all the time, and the railway has not always been the fastest at embracing it. There is a particular issue with cyber-security. A couple of months ago, I attended a forum in Parliament, which was well attended by representatives from the rail industry. There are real issues about how software on rolling stock is kept up to date, and the funding for that. The new clause is intended to ensure that proper thought is put into a framework for cyber-security.
New clause 29 would require GBR to publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays and the current arrangements for staffing of the railway on Sundays, which in my opinion and that of many of my constituents simply does not align with the 21st century nature of the Sunday economy.
Finally, new clause 54 would require GBR, within 12 months of the passing of the Act and every subsequent 12 months, to publish a national signalling strategy. The reason this is so important is that we have been slow to embrace digital signalling and the European train control system in this country. That is starting to improve, with ETCS currently being introduced to the southernmost 100 miles of the east coast main line, but those in the industry are clear that the current fragmented structure makes it hard to introduce ETCS and digital signalling, because open access operators, particularly freight operators, are not necessarily incentivised to align their driver training and locomotive upgrades with the plans to introduce digital signalling.
Railways Bill (Third sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsThursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse.
I completely appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, I suppose that the outstanding question is this: how will the general public come to understand what GBR is going to mean for them if it is not going to be established for 12 months and if there is not a fixed timetable for reporting back to MPs on how it is going? There has already been a fanfare about delivery; I am sure that there is going to be another fanfare from the Government once the Bill is passed. However, if we are going to take passengers on this journey, so to speak, we must ensure that there is an opportunity for us, as Members of Parliament, to be able to report back, even if it on an issue relating to our own constituency. I think the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is actually quite sensible.
Keir Mather
May I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the fact that so far I have not made a single rail pun in the course of this debate—and I intend to keep it that way?
The hon. Member made a really important point about both parliamentary accountability and the general public being able to understand more about how GBR works and what it constitutes. Throughout the establishment of GBR, there are concurrent process that will allow the Secretary to State to outline more properly the long-term future of the railway and GBR’s role in it, including the long-term rail strategy, as well as work that we are already advancing on the accessibility road map and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
Existing parliamentary structures in our Westminster democracy provide ample room for us to hold Government Ministers and the Secretary of State to account on the establishment of GBR. We have oral questions for Transport, as well as the ability to ask urgent questions on GBR’s establishment. Through both Lord Hendy in the other place and Ministers in this House, we have a real ambition to explain GBR’s provisions and ways of working to the general public, because we are confident in its ability to revolutionise how the railway runs on behalf of passengers, but I take the hon. Lady’s point.
Establishing GBR is the primary purpose of the Bill, and clause 1 provides the Secretary of State with the power, by regulations, to designate a body corporate as GBR. The clause enables wider provisions in the Bill relating to GBR to apply to a body corporate, such as the statutory functions and general duties set out in it. Following Royal Assent, a company will be designated as GBR, and it will consolidate Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, DfT Operator, train operators and parts of the Rail Delivery Group into one organisation to ensure that GBR can be mobilised as quickly as is practicable.
The clause is essential for the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to reform the railways by establishing GBR as the directing mind, bringing track and train together. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Olly Glover
I have not made an assessment of it at this moment. But that is not unique: at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, the right hon. Member will find that a number of the Conservative proposals that are debated in this place have not yet been fully costed—
Rebecca Smith
I beg to differ: they are all costed, because we are the official Opposition.
Olly Glover
I look forward to hearing all the figures. The point is that it is not always about coming up with the exact cost for absolutely every measure. There are plenty of things that are the right thing to do, and that can earn a return on investment. The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training is a significant barrier to economic growth. This measure, by making it easier for young people to use the train to access jobs, is likely to earn a significant return by getting more people into employment and paying taxes.
Before I accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that we want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland. If that sounds absurd, the Netherlands has it at this exact moment—and there is much that we can learn from that example. We want a guarantee to be issued that whatever ticket passengers purchase, via any means, is the best value fare. There should be no inequality in fare for the same ticket purchased via different means, which can be the case now because of the proliferation of ticketing platforms.
We want a national railcard to be introduced across the country. Many other countries, including Germany and Switzerland, offer national discount cards, but it is a bit of a postcode lottery here, with the network railcard in the London and south-east England area and a number of other regional or local railcards. We want open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rate databases for third-party retailers. That would build on the useful example demonstrated by Network Rail about 15 years ago, when it made the data feeds for its performance and train running systems available for the public to use. That created a wonderful ecosystem of useful train running and disruption apps that were much better than the official ones provided by train operators.
We also want to see greater collaboration with local and regional transport authorities, so that we see much more multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks. That would help us to get the integrated transport system we need to deal with the first and last-mile issues that are often a barrier to people deciding to take public transport over the car. Where a single journey involves travel on multiple rail services, or at least one rail service and another form of public transport, we want steps to be taken to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel.
We believe that our new clause makes a number of proposals that would put our fares and ticketing system on a much better footing. It would deliver value to the taxpayer as well as reduce cost, because it would stimulate many more people to use our railway and therefore increase revenue. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect.
Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage.
The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities.
The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?
Edward Morello
At one point, going through all the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill, I concluded that accepting them all would mean that the only people who would pay for a full-price ticket would probably be working-age men aged 35 to 45—they would have to single-handedly fund the entire rail network. I am not sure that that is a desirable long-term system, but a simplified system is ideal. I accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s intervention: the regionalised or localised railcards have their own benefit. But invariably we are just creating more and more carve-outs, and a simplified national system may be fairer and easier to sustain over the long term.
A move towards a national tap-in, tap-out system would modernise the network and make it far more user-friendly. In West Dorset, passengers too often step off a train only to have to wait 45 minutes for a bus, because timetables are poorly aligned. Enabling multimodal ticketing would allow rail, bus and other services to work together, making journeys smoother for residents and visitors.
New clause 9 would require Great British Railways to report on and plan for fair fares, modern ticketing, innovation through an open-source system and integration across all transport nodes. Like new clause 8, it would allow us to advocate for passengers, which should be the central theme of the Bill.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the clarity on the code of practice, which has also been echoed in some written answers I recently received from him. While we are talking about open access, what thoughts have the Minister and the Department given to working with independent retailers who have probably spent billions of pounds developing an app and a website that do a particularly good job? What work will they do collaboratively with those organisations, rather than viewing themselves as competition?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are certain areas where GBR will operationally have to work with third-party retailers to ensure that they have the information that they need to continue to discharge their service.
However, another important point is that there are lessons to be learned about existing functions—where they work and where they do not work—in providing value for money for passengers and ease of access to the railway network. That is certainly something that we can take forward as part of the discussion on the Bill. I know that the Rail Minister consistently meets with stakeholders across the breadth of the railway industry, and it should be incumbent on us all to ensure that competitive measures, where they serve the interests of passengers, are incorporated into the way GBR works.
Rebecca Smith
The point I want to come back to is about value for money for the taxpayer. I want some reassurance that GBR will not go right back to the beginning of the journey of creating a ticketing app and website, which would effectively cost the general public an inordinate amount of money, when we already have a lot of platforms that could be brought in-house rather than having to be separate businesses.
On the value for money point, call me a cynic, but my understanding of computer programming is that it is not very cheap. I assume that that is something that GBR will have to factor in. Perhaps using some of the existing independent retailers might be a better value for money option.
Keir Mather
Of course, those independent retailers can continue to operate. GBR also has, as part of its duties—the things that it is required to follow by law—an interest in promoting the efficient use of public funds. We also think that there are significant economic benefits that can be realised through consolidation when it comes to aspects of ticketing.
As has been so ably pointed out, taxpayers and railway passengers are the same people. To that extent, people being taken in different directions by a vast variety of ticketing apps, not being able to realise the potential savings that are in place, does them a disservice economically. We believe that consolidation can offer them a smoother experience of ticketing and, hopefully, access to benefits that otherwise they might not be able to realise.
To return to the code of practice, it will be fully consulted on before its introduction, so it would not be appropriate for the Bill to pre-empt the specific provisions that it will contain. However, I can confirm to the Committee that the principles I have set out today, which I believe are consistent with some of the concerns that amendments 2 and 117 and new clause 3 seek to address, will very much guide ongoing work in this area.
On that point, I turn back to one of the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson about his concern regarding the setting of fares. I would like to make clear to him that it is not for the Secretary of State to interfere in day-to-day fare decisions. The Secretary of State will be limited to setting high-level strategic parameters to ensure that fares remain affordable for passengers and sustainable for taxpayers. GBR will make all of the operational decisions within those parameters and changes to those parameters would occur only to reflect GBR’s financial settlement, or in exceptional circumstances. That is, in my view, a necessary and proportionate safeguard to protect passengers, taxpayers and Government money. Therefore, as we are already taking significant and sufficient steps to deliver what the amendment envisages, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
I turn now to new clause 9 an amendments 131 and 132, which are dependent on it. New clause 9 would mandate the publication of a report covering various elements of GBR’s fares, ticketing and retail functions. Many of the items that this report would be required to cover relate to affordable and accessible rail travel—causes to which the Government are steadfastly committed. Affordability for passengers will be a key consideration when the Secretary of State sets strategic parameters and guardrails for GBR to follow on fares. As the Committee is by now aware, the Bill ensures continued statutory protection for concessionary discounts for young, older and disabled passengers.
Elsewhere, new clause 9 covers matters such as tap-in, tap-out payment and integrated ticketing, as well as third-party retailers’ access to systems and products. On integrated ticketing, we are already working with local authorities to integrate rail with local transport modes—and to trial or expand pay-as-you-go travel where appropriate. We are also progressing evaluations of how different pay-as-you-go schemes impact passengers, and the final reports will be published in due course. This work, which has not required additional legislation, is consistent with the ambition set out in various parts of new clause 9.
In summary, a legislative requirement to publish the envisaged report is not needed to deliver the outcomes that we want to see going forward. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will agree not to press new clause 9 to a vote. Amendments 131 and 132 are dependent on new clause 9 and, for the reasons set out, the Government do not believe the report that new clause 9 would require is necessary, so I hope that the hon. Member will also agree not to press these amendments.
Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsThursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph (e) and some of the other provisions will support what I am particularly keen to see: the growth of the entire railway, not just the areas that happen to have a mayor or are part of Scotland or Wales?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. One of the stand-out moments from Tuesday’s oral evidence was that given by the mayors, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin. What it highlighted, apart from their articulate defence of their regions’ interests, was how different things will be, under the current proposals, in mayoral combined authorities: there will be the right to ask or be consulted on the devolution of aspects of rail to those authorities. That is great as far as it goes—they said that it did not go far enough, but it goes some distance in that direction.
However, what if an area is not a mayoral combined authority? I believe that is the point that my hon. Friend is making: without the direct relationship that the Government are anticipating for mayoral combined authorities, at the expense of other parts of the country, the “purpose” clause becomes more important. That is another reason why paragraphs (e) and (f) and others are helpful.
Many Members and constituents across the country were enthused by the restoring your railway fund and the new stations fund, which have unfortunately now been scrapped by this Government. They were set up in the last Parliament and led to a renaissance of interest in local railway investment and a focus on modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency and passenger experience.
Working practices are not really spoken about in the Bill as it is currently drafted. This is not a new start-up—we have to be quite clear about that: it is building a new organisation out of some very old organisations, including Network Rail. The aim of modernisation is to do more for less. That is a good thing because it means that there is more money left over for further investment in improving infrastructure and improving or increasing passenger services and more left in the kitty to reduce subsidies—the taxpayer support—and by extension reduce the tax burden on our hard-pressed constituents. Doing more for less by modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity efficiency is an unalloyed good. It should be very important and at the heart of any organisation—yet the Bill is silent on it.
Although I can hear the subtext, but the new clause is not intended to be a union-bashing measure. It is intended to make a dynamic organisation that has its passengers—its users—at the heart of its interests and that there is a focus on ensuring that GBR continues to have growth as part of its objectives. That aligns with the Government’s decision to put growth at the heart of their mission.
Jerome Mayhew
I was going to say 1.5%, but maybe it is 2%. Let us call it approximately 2%; I leave rail freight in a separate category. But open access operators have a disproportionate impact on driving competitive challenge.
One of the very significant concerns of the sector, which I share, is that if the very dominant GBR is created and the operator and open access operators are not supported, even though they represent just 2% of passenger transit what will be lost is the competitive comparator for what good operating processes and customer-focused activities for train operations look like. It is disproportionately important that GBR should be held to account practically by the operations of open access operators, so such operators must receive fair and transparent treatment. That is what paragraphs (i) and (j) set out. They would ensure that the system is transparent where we believe that the legislation as drafted is currently vague.
Paragraph (j) enshrines the growth freight targets that we all agree on and that the Government have outlined. Paragraph (k) states the need to strengthen
“the financial sustainability of the railways”
to reduce reliance on subsidy. That should be an objective, and a purpose, of GBR. The taxpayer has lots of things that his or her money needs to be spent on. If we can reduce, over time, the need for subsidy on the railways, that money is freed up either for tax cuts, which make everyone richer, or to be spent on other important priorities of Government.
Meanwhile, paragraphs (l) and (m) speak to another key aim—integration, both of track and train, and of the mayors, with their local transport integration beyond rail, which are important to have. The lack of explicit inclusion in the Bill feels like an oversight that we are more than happy to shed light on for the Government.
Sir Alec, you will be pleased to know that that is it as far as new clause 1 is concerned, but I do have new clause 2 to entertain you with, which is about key performance indicators. The Government have been asked multiple times over the last few months to provide, even in draft, the KPIs that they intend Great British Rail to operate under. This clause is a first attempt to fill the gap that the Government have left by refusing time and again even to discuss what the KPIs will be, other than to say, using their go-to phrase, that they will be “robust”. What does that mean? We do not know.
The new clause would set a statutory key performance indicator framework, which must include targets for a number of areas, such as reliability, safety, cleanliness, affordability, passenger growth, financial efficiency, freight and others. It is necessary because of the failure of the Government. I would be delighted to withdraw it if the Minister were to stand up and say, “These are the KPIs that the Government have in mind—let’s debate them.”
At the moment, we have draft legislation in front of us—we are a scrutinising Committee and we are here for a month to go line-by-line through the Bill to improve it and understand how GBR will be operated—and yet we have no idea what the Government are even thinking on KPIs, which are a central set of objectives. This new clause seeks not to bind GBR or the Secretary of State to rigid targets, but instead to provide an overall remit for where the Secretary of State and GBR must report within.
Accountability is at the core of public trust in nationally run services, and setting targets in statute ensures there is a positive feedback loop for officials—very importantly—and GBR agents to work against. It helps frame discussions and engagement between the Departments and GBR, and allows a number of different datasets and parameters to be considered. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish these indicators and lay them before Parliament.
The KPIs work as a strong starting position by which GBR can judge itself, and how it in turn can be judged by passengers and the public. Again, the Opposition are having to do the Government’s work for them. We should not be in that position. The Government should have brought forward this Bill with the accompanying documentation, which, as we have heard, is missing— 19 important documents and counting.
Finally, I turn to new clause 5. You will be pleased to hear that it is much shorter, Sir Alec. The new clause would give reporting requirements to GBR, continuing the theme of accountability, which new clauses 1 and 2 also have at their core. The layout of the new clause is self-explanatory. Subsections (2) and (3) link to new clause 2 on key performance indicators, and the clause would enhance accountability further, not just by having targets in place, but by having a clear reporting criterion.
In the same way that a Secretary of State is expected to appear in front of Parliament on a rotating basis in urgent questions, in Committees and through written ministerial questions, it is reasonable to expect that GBR should publish an annual report in which it reports on the targets set by the Secretary of State. Given the eminently sensible and logical outcome of the new clauses, I urge the Government to consider seriously on what basis it would not want to create greater transparency.
Rebecca Smith
I will briefly make a few comments about each of the new clauses, though obviously I have already intervened on my hon. Friend. I support wholeheartedly what we have proposed in new clause 1, which is no surprise given that I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I want to pick up on what he said about the restoring your railway fund as an additional way of explaining why the lack of regional devolution, apart from mayors, is going to be so important for a lot of our constituents.
I represent a constituency in the south-west that had some really great promises made under the restoring your railway fund, and was going to be able to make progress on a new station and railway line between Tavistock and Plymouth. That is really important if the Government want to see economic growth in the south-west, which they do, because they are investing enormous amounts of money in defence. But if we do not build in at this early stage the ability to see growth for regions that do not have a mayor, and are not likely to have a mayor for some considerable time, I remain unconvinced that the Bill is reassuring enough to say, “Don’t worry, these far-flung parts of the country will get a look-in.”
Rebecca Smith
Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment:
“authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”
We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.
Edward Argar
I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities.
I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities.
To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects.
The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?
Rebecca Smith
I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act. I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that.
I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power.
We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a
“Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.”
Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think.
How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours? They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.
Keir Mather
I turn first to the definition of “may”, which feels as philosophically profound a point as it does a political one. I interpret “may” differently to the hon. Lady. Mayoral strategic authorities, and other local government organisations across the piece, have incredibly divergent aspirations, ambitions and existing structures through which they may want to realise their local transport opportunities and overcome challenges. Using “may” gives them the opportunity to explore the full range of them in a way that is not over-prescriptive. If we combine that with the role that mayors can have in the system to exercise accountability, that provides sufficient safeguards for the mayoral piece of the puzzle.
More broadly, building on the point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about what the reality could look like, it goes back to the operational reality that we do not want GBR to be set up as a highly consolidated, top-down organisation that does not have a presence in local people’s communities. On the other hand, GBR’s integrated business units will provide closeness both to the people who maintain assets that are directly related to the railway, and to local government representatives, who will have a very refined view of how the system meets passengers’ needs.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s point speaks directly to something else I am concerned about: how the business units relate to local government areas. His explanation still uses language that makes it sound like the authorities will be much smaller, granulated local authorities rather than larger strategic ones. Can the Minister help me to understand how the business unit will work in an area that does not have a mayoralty—that top level of devolution—in place?
I do not want to be parochial, but two railway companies currently provide services in the south-west, and there are three in the far south-west, if we look at some of the other routes down from London to there. If there is a business unit, what is it controlling? Is it controlling the entire south-west? Is it controlling the railway company providing that service? Does it have to be linked to a level of devolution, or will it exist anyway, meaning that local councils, such as the one in my area, would still refer to them?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady will have to forgive me, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive, and that is for two reasons. The first is that, as she outlines, there are very different cases in different local areas, and I want integrated business units that are set up as part of GBR to be responsive to those particularities. Those matters are part of operational design, which necessarily does not sit in the Bill, because we do not want GBR to be frozen in aspic through legislation. We want its operational workings to be future-focused and agile, as we would want any private organisation to be, which the shadow Minister has outlined.
Secondly, however—this relates to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments—I do not want to create phantom clauses in the Bill and build in accountability structures for council systems that may be replaced by mayoral strategic authorities. We talk a lot about Christmas tree Bills in this place, but I envisage this as more of a bonsai Bill, with each part perfectly formed and maintained, so I do not want to put provisions into statute that quickly become irrelevant.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 232, which would create an appeals process for relevant local authorities when a GBR decision affected rail services in their area. The Government support a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, and that is why GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary because clauses 81 to 84 require GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and receive advice from relevant local authorities. Those are the proposed mechanisms through which mayoral authorities will be engaged when one of GBR’s decisions could have a significant impact on the local area. At that point, GBR can receive advice from relevant local authorities and will co-operate with them to find a workable solution. It does not make sense to require a statutory appeals process for something that engagement via other routes can easily solve. I also point to the fact that mayors can appeal the capacity plan or appeal against access decisions if they are aggrieved by them. They can also go to the ORR if GBR ignores the transport strategy, under the existing legislation.
The shadow Minister raised a really important point about the partnership practitioner guide, which was published earlier this month to set out how those partnership models might work. He asked me to point to which functions we have in mind through those models. It could be mayors agreeing local fare packages with GBR as they relate to passenger services, such as through the Bee Network. Hopefully that provides him with a little more detail, but if he has subsequent questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Amendment 214 would enable GBR to enter into arrangements with all tiers of local government, rather than just mayoral strategic authorities. As I have mentioned, the provisions in clause 5 are pitched at that level to reflect the growth of MSAs across England and the role that mayors can play in convening local partners and tackling regional challenges. That level of authority also represents the appropriate scale and capability for integrating rail with wider public transport, and the provision on the intersection with buses is obviously of great importance to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the further detail that he has provided. A lot of these regions feed into London and the big cities. If local councils are holding their local business units to account, how does that connect with services going from those regions to big cities such as London or Birmingham?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady’s comments speak to the advantage of an integrated railway with a single point of accountability—whether that be at the local level, or through an integrated business unit or GBR’s HQ functions in Derby. The reason for having integration is that accountability is not diffuse, as one single point of contact at the local level can radiate through the system to ensure that local residents get what they need. Beyond that, there are the duties that underpin GBR’s need to promote the interests of passengers as being both a national consideration and something that local businesses should have regard to.
Clause 5 also enables GBR to co-operate with relevant local government bodies, such as MCAs, by entering into formal partnership arrangements with them or by sharing information. The clause does not detail what the co-operation arrangements should be, as every local area is different, but arrangements could include local authorities funding GBR for additional services or enhancements beyond the national baseline. The information-sharing provisions can also allow for more integrated transport planning, for example, so that new bus stations can be located alongside new train stations. This provision enables GBR to co-operate with local authorities, allowing local areas the opportunity to genuinely shape the railway and have greater influence over services.
I have heard from many mayors and MPs that this is how the railway should work, and I know that a lot of members of the Committee have local priorities that the clause can help to deliver. In the future, GBR will be accountable for every part of the railway, and it should be able to do sensible business with every Member of Parliament to get the right outcomes for everyone. I commend clause 5 to the Committee.
Railways Bill (Second sitting)
Rebecca Smith ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Jayne Kirkham
Oh, there is a fraught question. I think anyone in the rest of the country who you ask will be having issues about devolution.
Tracy Brabin: Fair enough. But it is about that oversight of the buses feeding the train timetable.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
The application of the term “devolution and local leadership” to this Bill is quite distracting, because ultimately, unless you are a mayoral combined authority, you do not get any of these powers. I think that was what Jayne was alluding to. To my mind, GBR is an increasingly two-tier system: you have the devolved local authorities and everywhere else. I am concerned about what that is going to mean for accountability to local areas. That was more of a statement than a question—apologies.
You keep saying that you want a meaningful relationship with GBR. The question that has kept coming to my mind is: what does “meaningful” actually look like? Can you unpack what you mean by “meaningful”?
Andy Burnham: On your statement, I think we have to get our heads in the space of an all-devolved England. I know it can be difficult, but sometimes people have to see the bigger picture of the area where people live and travel. People go across those borders every day; they do not think about borders as much as politicians.
Rebecca Smith
It is more the fact that there are not going to be any more in certain parts of the country for this Parliament.
Andy Burnham: For us, though, we are moving to a situation where Cheshire and Warrington are going to have a mayor soon, and I believe Lancashire will too—hopefully, Sarah. That would mean an all-devolved north-west. I think we would start to collaborate very differently with each other in that world, and it would work. I do not see why it cannot go everywhere; I suggest that it should.
On “meaningful”, the answer is that it is joint decision making. Let us get away from the idea that we just mandate the railways. That would not be realistic, because running a railway is complicated. It is about joint decisions. We are already doing it, to be honest with you. We are working like that. We have a Greater Manchester rail board and all the partners come to it. It has moved on a lot in the last 12 months. Going back a year or so, it was a little fractious, but it is not so much any more. People are clicking into a new way of thinking and working. Culture change takes time, but it is happening. It is about jointly agreeing ways forward.
I will give you an example. We had four different rail fares from Manchester airport to Piccadilly in the city centre. We said, “That’s just ridiculous; it’s confusing for visitors.” Picking up on what Jayne was saying, we have now agreed a fare simplification, which came in in December, as a sort of precursor to the cap system. That has just been jointly agreed. We have also agreed with TransPennine that there will be services through the night from Manchester airport. This joint decision making is beginning to happen in a meaningful way, and that is the meaningful bit.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: Jointly.
Rebecca Smith
Or at least make them jointly. Is that what you are after—that joint decision making?
Andy Burnham: Yes, I think that would be what we would want. The risk would be that GBR is too remote and not responsive—everything that Lloyd was saying about slow decision making. That is not what we would want. From our point of view, we would want a Bee Network business unit within GBR, with joint decision making and a very place-based focus. That would be meaningful.
Sarah Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: We have no plans to annex you yet, but I will let you know if that changes!
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Straight after questions, I have a meeting with the managing director of Stagecoach in my region. I have worked closely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) to mitigate the impact of increased prices for young people travelling to school from villages like Horrabridge and Yelverton. We have had success on fare zone changes, with decreased fares for some, but—because of rural services—not all. When will my constituents see the benefits of the Bus Services Act, which the Minister has referred to, and what needs to happen locally for those benefits to be realised?
Simon Lightwood
I have already mentioned the fantastic benefits of the Bus Services Act. It gives local leaders the tools that they need to take back control of their bus services, and to shape them around their communities, through improved enhanced partnerships, franchising or local authority operated bus companies.