Railways Bill

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Eighth Report of the Transport Committee of Session 2024-26, Railways Bill, HC 1472, and the Government response, HC 1836.]

New Clause 48

Tax consequences of transfer schemes

“(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect in relation to—

(a) anything transferred under a scheme made under section 86, 87, 88 or 90, or

(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, such a transfer.

(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(a) includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything transferred;

(b) anything transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;

(c) the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything transferred.

(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of or in relation to the transfer;

(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer to have or not to have a specified consequence or to be treated in a specified way;

(c) the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer.

(4) In this section—

‘relevant tax’ means income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax or stamp duty land tax;

‘tax provision’ means provision about a relevant tax made by or under an Act.

(5) References in this section to things transferred under a scheme include references to—

(a) the creation of interests, rights or liabilities under the scheme, and

(b) the modification of interests, rights or liabilities under the scheme,

and ‘transferred’ is to be read accordingly.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Treasury to make provision about the tax consequences of transfers under clauses 86 to 88 and 90.

Brought up, and read the First time.

14:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clauses 49 and 50.

New clause 1—Passengers’ Charter—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.

(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—

(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;

(b) targets for reliability of services;

(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—

(i) seat design,

(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,

(iii) provision of power outlets,

(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,

(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and

(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;

(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;

(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;

(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—

(i) are digital by default;

(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;

(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.

New clause 2—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).

(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”

This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.

New clause 3—Fund for future railway improvements—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a fund for the purpose of providing improvements to the railway in the long term, including investment in new or reopened railway lines and stations.

(2) The fund under this section is to be called the Tomorrow’s Railway Fund (‘the fund’).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for monies to be allocated to the fund for each funding period.

(4) Local and regional transport authorities may apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund, for the purpose of enabling construction of new railway stations and associated infrastructure.

(5) A purpose enabling construction under subsection (4) includes a feasibility study for any station or associated infrastructure.

(6) In this section ‘funding period’ has the meaning given in Paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 2 to this Act.”

This new clause would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid to central government for funding for feasibility studies on, or construction of, new stations, railways, or other enhancements.

New clause 4—Restoring Your Railway fund: review—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the Restoring Your Railway Fund.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the effect of the fund on the reopening of railway lines and stations.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous Government in February 2020.

New clause 5—Rails to Trails Programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—

(a) walkers,

(b) wheelers,

(c) cyclists, and

(d) horse riders.

(2) The programme must include—

(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),

(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;

(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.

(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the ‘Rails to Trails Programme’.”

This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.

New clause 6—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—

“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).

(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to—

(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,

(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,

(c) offer discounted fares for passengers who are UK armed forces veterans,

(d) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,

(e) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,

(f) introduce a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,

(g) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,

(h) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and

(i) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—

(i) multiple rail services, or

(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.

(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”

This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s and veterans’ discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.

New clause 7—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—

(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;

(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.

(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).

(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”

This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.

New clause 8—Great British Railways: environmental targets—

“(1) In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—

(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This new clause requires Great British Railways to take steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.

New clause 9—Great British Railways Board—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).

(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—

(a) Great British Railways,

(b) open access passenger operators,

(c) freight operators,

(d) The Office for Rail and Road,

(e) The Passengers’ Council, and

(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.

(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.

(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.

(5) Any—

(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or,

(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to

Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.

(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.

(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—

(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;

(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.

(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”

This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.

New clause 10—Devolution of rail to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended according to subsection (2).

(2) In section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.

(3) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the transfer of functions relating to rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers.

(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to—

(a) the management of rail infrastructure;

(b) the operation and funding of rail infrastructure;

(c) the planning, funding and management of maintenance, enhancement and renewal of rail infrastructure;

(d) the regulation of capacity, access, charging and performance arrangements of rail infrastructure; and

(e) the integration of passenger services with rail infrastructure.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) must come into force—

(a) on a date no later than three years after the passing of this Act, or

(b) on a date agreed between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers,

whichever is the earlier.

(6) Regulations under this section must make provision about funding for the Welsh Ministers relating to the functions transferred to them under subsection (4).

(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the level of funding to be provided under subsection (6).

(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause devolves rail in Wales to the Welsh Government and makes provision about the devolution of commensurate funding.

New clause 11—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—

“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.

(2) In this section ‘safe bicycle storage’ means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.

(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—

(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and

(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”

This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.

New clause 12—Welsh rail funding report and strategy—

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) an estimate of the cost of unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal need in Wales since 1 April 2000;

(b) a strategy to fulfil any need identified under paragraph (a).

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include a definition of “unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal”.”

This new clause requires a review of funding, including as needed to make up for rail infrastructure not developed since 2000.

New clause 13—Investment in rural areas in Wales—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy (‘the strategy’) to increase levels of investment in railway infrastructure enhancement in rural areas in Wales.

(2) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the strategy.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers when preparing the strategy.

(4) The Secretary of State must receive the consent of the Welsh Ministers before publishing, revising or replacing the strategy.”

This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on improving railway infrastructure enhancement investment in rural areas of Wales.

New clause 14—Passenger growth target—

“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State—

(a) must keep the target under review, and

(b) may revise or replace it.

(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.

(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—

(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and

(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.

New clause 15—Travel facilities for rail staff—

“(1) Great British Railways must, following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify, provide free and discounted travel to persons who are—

(a) employed by GBR;

(b) employed by a subsidiary of GBR;

(c) employed by a company owned by GBR;

(d) employed by a company contracted to provide a service to GBR;

(e) employed by a company licensed to operate railway services on GBR infrastructure;

(f) employed by a railway services company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority;

(g) employed by a company that is subcontracted to provide rail services to a rail company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority; or

(h) any other person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the creation of an industry wide concessionary travel scheme for rail staff, and a requirement for that scheme to be consulted with the trade unions.

New clause 16—Reopening of services to underserved areas—

“(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.

(2) In meeting its purpose, the department must consider—

(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and

(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.

(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.

(4) In subsection (3), relevant transport authorities means—

(a) Scottish Ministers;

(b) Welsh Ministers;

(c) in England—

(i) any—

(a) mayoral strategic authority,

(b) combined authority, or

(c) combined county authority

with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and

(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”

This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.

New clause 17—Duty to consult certain Members of Parliament—

“(1) Great British Railways must consult certain Members of Parliament before making a decision within subsection (2).

(2) A decision is within this subsection if—

(a) it relates to railway passenger services or railway infrastructure, and

(b) in the opinion of Great British Railways, making that decision would have a significant effect on the economy of any area or on persons living, working or travelling in that area.

(3) In this section ‘certain Members of Parliament’ means any Member of the House of Commons who represents a parliamentary constituency that includes any part of an area as described in subsection (2)(b).”

This new clause would require Great British Railways (GBR) to consult MPs whose constituencies include areas likely to be affected by decisions made by GBR relating to passenger services or railway infrastructure.

New clause 18—Railway services: safeguarding accreditation scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that all operators of passenger railway services participate in a recognised safeguarding accreditation scheme.

(2) Any scheme under subsection (1) must be recognised by—

(a) the British Transport Police, or

(b) any other authority determined as suitable by the Secretary of State.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires all rail service operators to engage with a nationally recognised safeguarding scheme.

New clause 19—Railway workforce: dispute resolution—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about railway workforce terms and conditions and dispute resolution.

(2) Regulations under this section may designate which terms and conditions for staff working on the railways require—

(a) consultation prior to agreement, or

(b) can be imposed without consultation.

(3) Any industrial disputes about arrangements under subsection (2) must be referred to a dispute resolution process.

(4) Any findings of a dispute resolution process under subsection (3) must be accepted and actioned in full including—

(a) any enforcement action to be taken;

(b) any award of the dispute resolution by all parties.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to define which railway workforce terms and conditions can be imposed, and which must be agreed, and for any that must be agreed, to refer disputes to binding dispute resolution.

New clause 20—Duty to integrate across modes of transport—

“In exercising any of their functions under this Act, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must seek to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—

(a) bus and coach services,

(b) tram and light rail, and

(c) micromobility.”

This new clause puts a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to promote the multimodal transport integration with rail.

New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR.

(2) Any scheme under this section must—

(a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);

(b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate.

(3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.”

This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.

New clause 22—Duty to provide step-free access—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State has a duty to approve such works as are necessary to enable step-free access to all platforms at qualifying stations served by any GBR passenger service.

(2) In this section, a station is a qualifying station if—

(a) in any given year, at least one million passengers—

(i) start a rail journey,

(ii) end a rail journey, or

(iii) transfer between passenger train services

at the station; and

(b) on the day on which this Act is passed, there is not step-free access to all platforms at the station.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to approve work on ensuring stations serving more than one million passengers a year are step-free.

New clause 23—Accessibility strategy for the railway network—

“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an accessibility strategy for the railway network (‘the strategy’).

(2) The purpose of the strategy is to describe how the railway will be made accessible for all passengers by the end of the period of ten years beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, having particular regard to disabled persons.

(3) The strategy must include—

(a) a timetable and programme of works for delivering permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms;

(b) measures for ensuring accessible rolling stock, interchange, and station facilities;

(c) an assessment of costs and funding requirements to meet the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b);

(d) a plan for monitoring progress against any goals set in the strategy, including through annual reporting to Parliament; and

(e) arrangements for consultation with such disabled persons’ organisations and other persons as the Secretary of State may designate.

(4) The strategy must not consider any reasonable adjustment for disabled persons as a substitute for the provision of permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms.

(5) Arrangements under paragraph (3)(e) must include consultation throughout the development, implementation, and review of the strategy, including involvement in design and delivery of any activity proposed by the strategy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a ten-year railway accessibility strategy, within one year of the passage of the Bill.

New clause 24—Regional railway services passenger organisations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a passenger organisation for each region in which Great British Railways operates (‘GBR regions’).

(2) Any user of railway services who is resident in, or who regularly uses services within, a region may join the regional passenger organisation established under subsection (1) for that region.

(3) The purpose of each regional passenger organisation is to represent passenger interests, including representation of passengers’ expertise to management boards of GBR regions.

(4) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of each regional passenger organisation, including that members of each organisation must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (4) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.

(6) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (5).

(7) No less than one-third of any regional board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise representatives of regional passenger organisations, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.

(8) Any representative to which subsection (7) applies—

(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the organisation, and

(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.

(9) Regulations under this section must create a disabled people’s committee as part of each regional passenger organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the regional passengers organisation and the GBR regions.

(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish regional passengers groups in each region in which GBR operates, with the purpose of representing passengers' interests and putting forward passengers' expertise.

New clause 25—National passengers group—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a national passengers group (‘the group’), comprising representatives of each regional passenger organisation under section [Regional railway services passenger organisations].

(2) The purposes of the group under subsection (1) are to—

(a) facilitate engagement with regional passenger organisations on national rail proposals,

(b) act as a body that the Secretary of State and GBR must consult on national rail proposals, and

(c) provide oversight and scrutiny to the regulatory work of the Passengers’ Council.

(3) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of the group, including that members of the group must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (3) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.

(5) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (4).

(6) Any national board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise at least one-third representatives of this national passenger organisation, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.

(7) Any representative of the group to which subsection (6) applies—

(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the group, and

(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.

(8) Regulations under this section must create a National Accessibility Panel as part of the national passengers’ organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the national passengers group and the national GBR board.

(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a new national passengers group made up of representatives of regional passenger organisations and requires that the group is represented on a GBR national board.

New clause 26—Transfer of employees to GBR—

“(1) For the purpose of meeting GBR’s function in section 3(1)(i) of this Act, the Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment for—

(a) Network Rail,

(b) any franchise operated by DfT Operated Ltd, or

(c) any franchise operated by a rail company under a contract with the Department for Transport,

become employees of GBR.

(2) A scheme made under this section must in particular include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”

This new clause is consequential on Amendment 64 and enables for the transfer of employees to GBR from Network Rail and DfT-operated franchises.

New clause 27—Pension schemes—

“(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to active members of the Railway Pension Scheme who joined the scheme after 4 November 1993.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide that any person who—

(i) is an active Member of the Railway Pension Scheme,

(ii) joined that section of the Railways Pension Scheme after 4 November 1993, and

(iii) becomes an employee of GBR through arrangements made under this Act,

remains a member of the Railway Pension Scheme under terms and benefits that are no less favourable than those terms and benefits received by the person prior to the passing of this Act;

(b) provide that persons employed by GBR are eligible to join either—

(i) the Railway Pension Scheme, or

(ii) any other scheme, provided that the terms and benefits of that scheme are equivalent to the Railway Pension Scheme.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would provide that employees of GBR, or those transferred into GBR, can continue to access the Railways Pension Scheme or a pension scheme providing equivalent benefit.

New clause 28—Season ticket discount—

“(1) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are—

(a) under the age of 25, and

(b) enrolled in full-time education at a recognised educational institution

to access a discounted season ticket for travel on railway passenger services provided by participants in the scheme.

(2) A discounted season ticket under this section—

(a) must cost no less than a third of the price of the full-price season ticket provided by Great British Railways, and

(b) may be limited to allow travel only between the holder of the season ticket’s residence and recognised educational institution.

(3) ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”

New clause 29—Duty to co-operate—

“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—

(a) reduce transport disruption, and

(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.

(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).

(3) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—

(i) maintenance;

(ii) construction;

(iii) any other work;

related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.

(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.

New clause 30—Accessible rail strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.

(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.

(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—

(a) percentage of stations with step free access,

(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,

(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.

(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.

(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.

New clause 31—Service changes: consultation—

“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—

(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—

(i) its functions under Section 1;

(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;

(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;

(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;

(d) consult—

(i) local stakeholders,

(ii) passenger groups, and

(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements

about those changes.

(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it includes changes to rail—

(a) timetables;

(b) routes;

(c) service capacity.

(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.

New clause 32—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—

“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) capacity of the rail network,

(b) the potential need for new lines or services,

(c) level crossings, and

(d) the accessibility of the rail network.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.

(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.

New clause 33—Rail devolution: Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.

(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.

(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—

(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;

(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;

(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;

(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and

(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.

(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.

(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.

(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”

New clause 34—Mutual and co-operative structures—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual and co-operative corporate structures.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.

(3) 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 mutual and cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.

New clause 35—Duty to consider capacity at Ely Junction—

“(1) In exercising functions under section 17 (rail freight target) and section 15 (rail strategy), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase capacity at Ely Junction.

(2) The rail strategy prepared under section 15 must—

(a) identify Ely Junction as a capacity constraint of national strategic importance for freight and passenger services, and

(b) set out how the Secretary of State will work with Great British Railways and other relevant bodies to address that constraint.

(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress towards resolving capacity constraints at Ely Junction.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely Junction as a nationally significant capacity constraint and to report to Parliament on progress in addressing it.

New clause 36—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.

(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—

(a) is a member of the armed forces;

(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or

(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.

(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.

(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.

New clause 37—Train frequency duty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must—

(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;

(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.

(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).

(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—

(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;

(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.

(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.

New clause 38—Accessible ticket machines—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.

(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.

(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—

(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;

(b) have the same user interface;

(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and

(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.

New clause 39—Passengers’ Council Board—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.

(2) The persons appointed to the board by the Secretary of State must include a minimum of two disabled persons.”

This new clause would ensure representation of disabled people on the Board of the Passengers’ Council.

New clause 40—Population change: railway services—

“(1) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State have a duty to provide railway services for an area or at a station proportionate to any increase in population of the area served by that station.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a population increase includes any change in residency of an area that is either—

(a) permanent, or

(b) seasonal.

(3) In this section ‘seasonal’ means any period, or periods, of at least seven days where in the opinion of Great British Railways it is reasonably predictable that the population of an area will increase relative to the population during any time that is not the period in question.

(4) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State must consider provision of—

(a) infrastructure,

(b) rolling stock

(c) services, and

(d) any further investment necessary

for the purpose of meeting the duty under this section.”

This new clause would put a duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to any permanent or seasonal increases in population in areas.

New clause 41—Contribution of rail to environmental targets: report—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and before the end of each period of twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Report on the contribution of rail and rail travel in the UK to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with—

(a) meeting the UK carbon account target for 2050, as provided for in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.

(2) A report under this section must include recommendations to Great British Railways for any actions to increase the contribution of rail to the goals in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the contribution of UK rail to net zero and climate change goals.

New clause 42—Assessment of passing loop at Tisbury—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the West of England line.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits to—

(a) reliability of services on, and

(b) capacity of

West of England line railway services that pass through Tisbury.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing an assessment under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a new passing loop at Tisbury.

New clause 43—Provision of food and drink—

“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to provide food and drink on all qualifying GBR services.

(2) A GBR service is a qualifying service if it has a journey time of at least one hour from the station from which the service first departs to the station at which it terminates.

(3) In meeting the duty under this section, Great British Railways may provide food and drink through such means as it considers appropriate.”

New clause 44—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).

(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—

(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,

(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and

(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—

(i) WiFi access,

(ii) digital ticketing,

(iii) real time information systems, and

(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.

(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”

This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.

New clause 45—Great British Railways Governance—

“(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) works for, or

(b) has a financial interest in

a private company involved in the railway sector.

(2) A person under subsection (1) is ineligible for appointment to positions within the governance structures of Great British Railways, including—

(a) any Board of GBR,

(b) any regional Boards that oversee GBR at a regional level,

(c) Passengers’ Council, and

(d) Office of Rail and Road.”

This new clause requires that people who work for private companies involved in the railway sector or who hold a financial interest in the railway sector are ineligible for participation in the governance of GBR, including on the board of national GBR and in regional GBR boards.

New clause 46—Review of passenger safety—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of passenger safety.

(2) A review under this section must in particular have regard to the safety of women and disabled people.

(3) The review must consider—

(a) staffing levels at railway stations and on board trains, including for late-night services and other services which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety;

(b) lighting in waiting areas;

(c) opening hours and accessibility of help points;

(d) CCTV coverage at stations and on trains;

(e) the potential merits of introducing real-time reporting applications for incidents where a passenger is harassed or otherwise is unsafe, and an associated rapid response protocol following a notification being made to an appropriate authority via such an application;

(f) public awareness of methods to report concerns about safety, including the British Transport Police text facility;

(g) the potential merits of providing a dedicated phone number that allows passengers to directly contact the next station on the line to report incidents or safety concerns;

(h) coordination of travel connections from stations at night, including between rail operators, local public transport and licensed taxi services;

(i) the potential merits of increasing, where it is practicable, patrols of trains and stations by train managers, guards or other appropriate persons for the purposes of identifying incidents, supporting accessibility, and promoting passenger safety.

(4) Where the review recommends any action to improve passenger safety, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must make all reasonable efforts to implement that action.

(5) In this section, ‘appropriate persons’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that it may have different meanings for different purposes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review ways to improve passenger safety. It sets out the content of such a review, and requires the Secretary of State and GBR to take reasonable steps to implement the review’s recommendations.

New clause 47—Free train travel for 16 to 18-year olds in education or training—

“(1) Great British Railways must provide for a scheme enabling persons who are—

(a) aged 16, 17 or 18, and

(b) either—

(i) enrolled in full-time education or training at a recognised educational institution, or

(ii) undertaking an apprenticeship

to travel for free on railway passenger services subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition is that the travel undertaken must be between a person’s residence and either—

(a) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(i), the recognised educational institution at which the person is enrolled, or

(b) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(ii), any place at which the person is employed, or undertakes any training relating to that employment.

(3) In this section ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”

New clause 51—Long-term freight access agreements—

“(1) Great British Railways may enter into long-term access agreements with—

(a) Freight operating companies, and

(b) Persons developing, owning or operating rail-connected logistics facilities.

(2) An agreement under this section may be granted for a period exceeding 5 years where the ORR is satisfied that the agreement—

(a) Supports the rail freight target set under section 17, and

(b) Does not unduly restrict network capacity for other users.”

This amendment would allow GBR to enter into long-term access arrangements for freight.

New clause 52—Purpose of Great British Railways—

“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—

(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,

(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,

(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,

(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,

(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,

(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,

(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,

(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,

(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,

(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,

(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,

(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and

(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.

(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”

This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.

New clause 53—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).

(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—

(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,

(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,

(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,

(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,

(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,

(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and

(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.

(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.

New clause 54—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (‘the Framework’).

(2) The Framework must include measures to—

(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;

(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;

(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;

(d) end practices including—

(i) short-notice holiday approvals;

(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;

(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;

(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;

(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;

(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;

(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;

(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;

(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—

(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or

(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.

(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.

(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.

(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.

(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—

(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;

(b) data on—

(i) workforce productivity,

(ii) cost savings,

(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and

(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).

(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”

This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.

New clause 56—Anti-social noise—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.

(2) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.

New clause 57—Ticketing and Settlement Agreement—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (‘the agreement’).

(2) The agreement must set out the—

(a) opening hours, and

(b) range of products sold,

at any ticket office operated by Great British Railways or the Department for Transport Operator.

(3) The agreement must include all measures set out in Schedule 17 of any Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in place on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Changes may only be made to the agreement regarding opening hours or the range of products sold if—

(a) an equality impact assessment, and

(b) consultation process

has been undertaken by the relevant passenger body.

(5) Regulations under this section must establish a process for challenging any changes proposed under subsection (4).

(6) The Secretary of State must decide on any challenge made under subsection (5).”

New clause 58—Metroisation—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a rail metroisation strategy.

(2) The purposes of a strategy under this section must include increasing the proportion and number of passenger journeys under 10 kilometres undertaken using metropolitan rail services.

(3) The strategy under this section must—

(a) include proposals—

(i) for cooperation between Great British Rail, the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and mayors for the purpose of developing and delivering metropolitan rail services;

(ii) for the funding of those services;

(iii) for the development of local metroisation area plans by local planning authorities and mayoral authorities;

(iv) for provision of multimodal ticketing across transport within the area served by any metropolitan rail services;

(b) specify the governance arrangements for metropolitan rail services provided for by a corporation under subparagraph (a)(i).

(4) For the purpose of this section—

‘local metroisation area plan’ means a plan for the delivery of rail services and ancillary services to an area served by metropolitan rail provision, including—

(a) the intended outcome of the provision of such services;

(b) station access and interchange arrangements;

(c) the funding model for those services;

(d) a projection of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre travelled using the relevant metropolitan rail provision;

‘mayoral authorities’ means—

(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning given by section 107A(8) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(b) a mayoral combined county authority within the meaning given by section 27(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

‘metropolitan rail services’ means rail services that start and end within an area with a radius of 25 km from a designated point within a local authority or mayoral authority area.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for rail metroisation, including cooperation with mayoral authorities to deliver that metroisation.

New clause 59—GBR contribution to town growth—

“Great British Railways may enter into a joint venture or partnership vehicle with a mayoral development corporation for the purpose of delivering rail infrastructure and services to town growth zones, station investment zones, or new green towns promoted by, or otherwise connected with, that mayoral development corporation.”

This new clause would enable GBR to enter into agreements with mayoral development corporations to deliver rail to areas of new local growth.

Government amendments 92 and 93.

Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert

“on an equal basis via any means of sale, including online and at station ticket offices,”.

This amendment would give GBR a statutory function to ensure that passenger fares must be sold at ticket offices on the same basis as online.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Amendment 56, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) ensuring the safety, including safety from assault, of all GBR and non-GBR employees that facilitate railway services, and

(i) ensuring that there are safe staffing levels to facilitate railway services.”

Amendment 64, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) acting as the single employer of all persons currently employed by—

(i) Network Rail,

(ii) franchises operated by DfT Operator Limited,

(iii) franchises operated by rail companies under contracts for passenger rail services between those companies and the Department for Transport, and

(iv) such other companies operating or facilitating rail services as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that any such specification is made following consultation with and with the agreement of relevant trade unions.”

This amendment would add to GBR’s statutory functions a duty to act as a single employer for all rail workers transferring into it from Network Rail and DfT franchises, and for persons employed by rail companies wholly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers to be transferred into GBR subject to the agreement of those ministers.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”

This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.

(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”

This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.

Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(a) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal under Section 67 a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary.”

Amendment 166, page 4, line 15, at end insert—

“(d) a regional railway undertaking that is nominated by any other body that is a relevant local government body for the purposes of this subsection.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘regional railway undertaking’ means a company that is—

(a) wholly owned by a relevant local government body, or

(b) limited by guarantee.”

This amendment would ensure that a devolution agreement could be reached with a devolved railway body whose geographic coverage may vary from current mayoral area boundaries.

Government amendments 94 and 95.

Amendment 150, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”

This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.

Amendment 46, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of a direction, variation or revocation published in accordance with subsection (5) to the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons.

(5B) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”

This amendment would require that any published direction, or variation or revocation of a direction, issued to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State is provided to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.

Amendment 151, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.

Amendment 152, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.

Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 7, line 27, at end insert

“, including the levying of charges on providers of railway rolling stock.”

This amendment ensures that the charges GBR may impose include possible levies on rolling stock companies.

Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after “publish” insert “lay before Parliament”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the Rail Strategy before Parliament.

Amendment 4, page 8, line 23, at end insert

“for the next 30 years for”.

This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.

Amendment 55, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) the expansion of the railway network to rural population settlements that are currently not served by the railway, and

(d) co-operation between GBR and relevant local and regional transport authorities, for the purpose of integrating railways with bus services and active travel options including cycling routes and walking routes.”

This amendment would require that the rail strategy to include measures to support rail travel in rural areas, and measures to better integrate rail travel with other travel options, including active travel.

Amendment 68, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) resolving key capacity constraints of national strategic importance, including Ely Junction.”

This amendment is related to NC35. It would require that the Rail Strategy includes consideration of key capacity constraints, and include Ely Junction as such a constraint.

Amendment 72, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) the provision of rail services to areas experiencing permanent or seasonal population change within the meaning of section (Population change: railway services).”

Amendment 65, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”).

(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”

Amendment 66, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—

(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and

(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.

(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”

Amendment 85, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include Key Performance Indicators for GBR, including—

(a) for operating a safe railway,

(b) for promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,

(c) for promoting the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods,

(d) for increasing the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport,

(e) for promoting high levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers Council,

(f) for minimising the number of services delayed or cancelled,

(g) for delivering value for money, taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,

(h) for improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.

(2B) The rail strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 38, page 8, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) When the strategy is revised or replaced [in accordance with subsection (4)(b)], the Secretary must lay before Parliament the revised or replaced strategy, subject to subsection (4B).

(4B) The duty under subsection (4A) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that all revisions made to the strategy are non-substantive.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any replacement, or substantively revised, rail strategy.

Amendment 86, page 8, line 34, leave out

“the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement strategy”

and insert

“the revised or replacement strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 170, page 8, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) When preparing the rail strategy, the Secretary of State must ensure that it aligns with the ten-year strategy for UK Infrastructure, CP 1344.”

This amendment would require the rail strategy to align with the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.

Amendment 90, page 9, line 2, after “Ministers” insert

“, Scottish Ministers, the Mayor of London, Mayors of Mayoral Combined Authorities or Mayoral Combined County Authorities,”.

Amendment 171, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, at end insert—

“(d) the ten-year strategy for UK infrastructure, CP 1344.”

This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to have regard to the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.

Amendment 87, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(4) Great British Railways must prepare an annual report to be laid before Parliament detailing its performance in meeting, and its forward plan to meet, its statutory duties.”

Amendment 67, in clause 17, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Railways about how they intend to meet the target under this section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”

Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (a) and insert—

“(a) so as to protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”

This amendment replaces the requirement to consider the interests of users of the railway and needs of disabled users of the railway with a requirement to protect and promote the rights of those persons.

Amendment 70, page 10, line 17, after “particular,” insert

“in the manner best calculated to make improvements for”.

This amendment would require the duty-holders to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network rather than only promoting the interests of disabled persons.

Amendment 53, page 10, line 26, at end insert

“including the value of public investments”.

This amendment adds a requirement to consider the value of public investments as part of the general duty on cost-efficiency in relation to public funds.

Amendment 30, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) so as to maximise, so far as practicable within the resources available, the social and economic benefits resulting from the operation of the railway network in Great Britain,

(h) having regard to the effect the provision of railway services has on the environment,

(i) so as to increase the use of railways relative to other modes of transport,

(j) so as to achieve targets towards the full accessibility of the rail network,

(k) so as to secure the affordability of fares,

(l) so as to improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.”

This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to maximise social and economic benefits, achieve targets for modal shift and accessibility, secure the affordability of fares and improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.

Amendment 35, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to promote the transfer into direct employment by GBR of non-GBR employees who facilitate railway services.”

This amendment ensures that Great British Railways performs its duties in a way that ensures the maximum possible insourcing and integration of the rail workforce.

Amendment 48, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) acting in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner,”.

This amendment would place a requirement on Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR to exercise their functions in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

Amendment 49, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers—

(i) by rail,

(ii) by rail relative to private car use and domestic flights, and

(iii) resulting from the integration of rail services with active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry and any other public transport services.”

Amendment 157, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway,

(h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth,

(i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services,

(j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways,

(k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and

(l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.”

This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.

Amendment 59, page 10, line 28, at end insert—

“provided that they must not favour the conditions of paragraph (f) over the conditions of paragraph (a) to the extent that any station may not have step-free access as a result of balancing the requirements.”

Amendment 36, page 10, line 32, at end insert—

“‘non-GBR employees’ means—

(a) employees of a company or body contracted to provide services to GBR to facilitate railway services, including cleaning;

(b) employees of companies granted a licence to operate services on GBR infrastructure;

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Amendment 158, page 10, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,

(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance,

(c) passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,

(d) affordability and value for money, including levels of fares, the availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money,

(e) passenger growth and network expansion, including growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”

This amendment defines standards of railway performance for the purposes of Great British Railways functions.

Amendment 167, page 10, line 41, at end insert—

“‘rights’ of passengers and disabled passengers includes rights under the Equality Act 2010, data protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and consumer protection legislation (including the Consumer Rights Act 2015), and other legal rights to non-discrimination, accessibility, privacy, fair treatment, information and redress.”

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 29.

Amendment 57, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) In meeting the duty under subsection (2), they must—

(a) take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce incidents of assault against persons working on the railways, and

(b) ensure levels of staffing sufficient to meet the duty.”

This amendment would ensure GBR will have a duty to reduce staff assaults and protect safe staffing levels.

Amendment 159, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment requires the ORR to promote competition in its appeals role.

Amendment 160, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.

Amendment 31, page 11, line 28, at end insert—

“(h) its functions as the enforcement body for rail passenger rights and obligations, consumer protection and accessibility, including passenger related licence conditions.”

This amendment means that the ORR’s duty to promote competition does not apply when it conflicts with its passenger rights enforcement duties.

Amendment 54, page 11, line 31, insert—

“provided that such exercise does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration or unreasonably increase the cost to public funds of providing railway services.”

This amendment means that ORR must exercise its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds.

Amendment 91, in clause 25, page 14, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not designate a service currently commissioned by—

(a) a local government body as defined in Section 5, or

(b) Transport for London

without obtaining consent from the relevant body.”

Amendment 75, page 14, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may not vary or revoke a designation so as to permit the operation of railway passenger services by any person other than a public sector company.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing any designation of services in such a way that allows operation by a company other than a public sector company.

Amendment 76, in clause 28, page 16, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) Regulations under this section must not provide that railway passenger services are exempt from designation unless those services are to be provided by a public sector company.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from exempting any passenger service from designation unless it is provided by the public sector.

Amendment 77, in clause 31, page 16, line 31, leave out from “contract” to end of line 37 and insert “to—

(a) Great British Railways, or

(b) one or more GBR companies that are public sector companies.”

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of passenger rail services is performed using public sector companies exclusively.

Amendment 88, page 16, line 32, at end insert—

“(a) Great British Railways or a GBR Company may sub-contract a direct award under this section to a private train operating company.”

Amendment 78, page 17, line 5, leave out from “companies” to end of line 6.

This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Scottish Ministers.

Amendment 79, page 17, line 11, leave out from “companies” to end of line 12.

This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 80, page 17, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) In this section “direct award” means the award of a public service contract without any competitive tendering procedure.”

Amendment 143, in clause 34, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 144 to 147 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, or young people aged 26 to 30.

Amendment 32, page 18, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are British residents to travel at discounted fares for an annual fee on railway passenger services provided by all licensed rail operators.”

Amendment 144, page 18, line 30, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 145, page 18, line 33, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 146, page 18, line 37, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 147, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—

“(a) Great British Railways, being a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State,

(b) a GBR company, that is, a company wholly owned (directly or through one or more wholly owned subsidiaries) by Great British Railways,

(c) a company that is wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers,

(d) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers, or

(e) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;”.

This amendment defines GBR and GBR companies in such a way as to ensure that they are always public sector companies.

Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) must protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”

This amendment adds the requirement to protect and promote passenger rights and the rights of disabled persons to the duties of the Passengers’ Council.

Amendment 71, page 19, line 35, leave out

“must have particular regard to”

and insert—

“must take all reasonable steps to promote improvements in meeting”

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.

Amendment 60, page 20, line 2, at end insert—

“(2) In taking into account costs under subsection (1)(b), and having regard to its duty under paragraph (1)(a), the Council must not treat the cost of providing step-free access as sufficient reason for preferment of other reasonable adjustments to meet the interests and needs of disabled persons.”

Amendment 47, in clause 42, page 23, line 12, leave out from “must” to the end of line 18, and insert—

“take such action, from the range of enforcement actions open to them, as is necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention, unless there is a legal impediment to so doing or the issue has satisfactorily been remedied.

(4) The ORR must take such enforcement action as required by this section within one month of the matter being referred by the Passengers’ Council.”

This amendment would require the ORR to take enforcement action within one month of an issue being referred to it by the Passengers’ Council.

Amendment 61, in clause 46, page 24, line 29, at end insert—

“including provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.

Amendment 161, in clause 47, page 25, line 24, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert—

“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”

This amendment gives the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.

Amendment 39, in clause 48, page 26, line 3, before “a mayoral strategic authority” insert “the mayor of”.

This amendment clarifies that statutory duties to consult apply to the mayor of a mayoral combined authority.

Amendment 51, in clause 49, page 26, line 29, at end insert—

“(fa) any proposed—

(i) closure,

(ii) reduction in provision of, or

(iii) amendment to the operating hours of,

ticket offices,”

This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council on closure of, reduction in provision of, or any changes to opening hours of, ticket offices.

Amendment 58, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(h) any proposed changes to staffing levels at stations or on trains.

(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsections (2)(a) and 2(h).”

This amendment would require any changes to staffing at stations or on trains to be subject to consultation with the Passengers’ Council, and require the Passengers’ Council to consult the public on such changes as well as on changes under subsection (2)(a).

Amendment 62, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(h) provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”

Amendment 52, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsection (2)(fa).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51 and requires the Passengers’ Council to consult the public about proposals from GBR to close, or change the opening hours of, ticket offices.

Amendment 63, in clause 53, page 28, line 12, after “persons” insert

“including but not limited to provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.

Government amendment 96.

Amendment 69, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In performing the duty under subsection (1), Great British Railways must have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for both freight and passenger services.”

This amendment would require Great British Railways, in performing its capacity duty, to have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for the benefit of both freight and passenger services.

Amendment 162, page 36, line 1, leave out from “to” the end of line 4 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 8, page 36, line 4, 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 9, page 36, line 6, 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 163, in clause 64, page 36, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.

Amendment 148, in clause 68, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”

This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.

Amendment 26, page 38, line 16, leave out from “must” to the end of line 20 and insert—

“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”

This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.

Amendment 27, page 38, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—

“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or

(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”

This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.

Government amendments 97 to 106

Amendment 73, in clause 70, page 40, line 36, at end insert—

“a GBR company, or other public sector company,”.

This amendment would change the definition of an infrastructure manager in the relevant 2016 regulations so as to exclude GBR companies and other public sector companies, alongside GBR.

Amendment 74, page 41, line 4, at end insert—

“(4) In regulation 14 (establishing, determining and collecting charges) after paragraph (9) insert—

‘(9A) Paragraph (9) does not apply to GBR.’

(5) In regulation 19 (capacity allocation), after paragraph (4) insert—

‘(4A) Paragraph (4) does not apply to GBR.’”

This amendment exempts GBR from the requirement on infrastructure managers to operate separate accounts for separate functions.

Amendment 164, page 41, line 5, leave out clause 71.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts.

Government amendment 107.

Amendment 149, in clause 72, page 42, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) Non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this clause.”

This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under clause 72, clarifying that privately funded sidings and terminals are not brought into scope.

Amendment 165, page 42, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”

This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.

Government amendments 108 and 109.

Amendment 41, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 40, page 48, line 6, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 42, page 49, line 4, after “must consult" insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Government amendments 110 to 117.

Amendment 44, page 55, line 38, leave out clause 92.

Amendment 45, in clause 92, page 56, line 24, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for the public ownership of rolling stock by Great British Railways;

(b) make provision for Great British Railways to buy and own future passenger rolling stock as—

(i) current rolling stock contracts end, and

(ii) old rolling stock are taken out of commission.”

Government amendments 118 and 119.

Amendment 82, in clause 96, page 58, line 5, after “company” insert “wholly and”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Scottish Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.

Amendment 83, page 58, line 7, after “company” insert “wholly and”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Welsh Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.

Amendment 84, page 58, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) In this Act, a company is ‘wholly and jointly owned’ by the Secretary of State, Great British Railways, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers if every member of the company is—

(a) one or more of those persons, or

(b) a company that is itself wholly owned by one or more of those persons.”

This amendment defines the terms “wholly and jointly owned” in such a way as to ensure that companies that are wholly or jointly owned by GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, are always fully public sector companies.

Amendment 3, page 59, line 15, at end insert—

“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”

This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.

Government amendments 120 to 123.

Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 63, line 6, at end insert—

“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”

This aims to ensure that the Code of Practice explicitly includes a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.

Government amendments 168 and 169.

Government amendment 124.

Amendment 154, in schedule 2, page 65, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) The date specified in sub-paragraph 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.

Amendment 7, page 65, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.

(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—

(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);

(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);

(c) fares;

(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;

(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”

This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.

Amendment 43, page 66, line 19, at end insert “mayor”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 155, page 67, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”

This amendment requires GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.

Amendment 156, page 67, line 22, at end insert—

“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”

This amendment requires the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.

Government amendment 125.

Amendment 6, page 74, line 27, at end insert “including passenger services”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 7, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.

Government amendments 126 to 140.

Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 92, line 20, at end insert—

“, and any person exercising functions of a public nature on its behalf in connection with rail systems or services for which Great British Railways is responsible.”

This amendment makes any person exercising functions of a public nature on behalf of Great British Railways subject to the public sector equality duty.

Government amendments 141 and 142.

[Keir Mather]

It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts.

On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face.

The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill.

Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

One concern that has been repeatedly raised during scrutiny is that Great British Railways will both operate services and have significant influence by being the directing mind over access to the network. If a future Hull Trains application were to compete with a GBR-operated service for scarce capacity on the east coast main line—I know that the Minister, like me, uses Hull Trains—who does he believe passengers would trust to make that decision: the independent regulator or GBR itself?

[Keir Mather]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for again raising that important point about open access, as he did on Second Reading. I share his passion for Hull Trains—I am surprised we have not met on a Hull train to have a subsequent conversation about open access. GBR needs to be the directing mind for the railway. It needs to take the decisions on what constitutes best use in a way that is fair, providing a role for open access while also being compliant with its duties, especially in respect of the need to grow rail freight on the network. The Secretary of State will also be compelled to set a rail freight growth target. There is nothing precluding open access from playing its full role as part of our railway under GBR; it certainly can, provided that it offers value for money and the great service that both the right hon. Member and I have experienced.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Mather]

I would like to make a little bit of progress. [Interruption.] I will let the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) make a short intervention.

14:45

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on, the issue of open access agreements is very important, because there is an inherent conflict in the arrangements in the Bill. I am unclear about whether it is the Transport Secretary or the Office of Rail and Road who will take decisions. The open access bid from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway would see a direct link from Shropshire to London, with trains stopping in the important market town of Wellington. He talked about economic growth, and if that direct access were to be allowed, it would give a multimillion-pound boost to the market town of Wellington. Who will make the decision on that?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pushing me further on this issue. It is GBR’s responsibility to determine what constitutes best use of the railway in relation to its duties. The role of the ORR in that process is that decisions can be referred to it when it is the view of stakeholders—whether it be an open access operator or anybody else—that GBR has incorrectly applied the framework by which it needs to determine best use on the railway and has made a decision in a way that is irrational or unfair, prejudicing one stakeholder over the other. There are important and robust safeguards for the ORR to be able to determine whether the way in which GBR has determined best use is consistent with the framework that we have provided for it. I hope that provides him with reassurance.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Mather]

I would like to make some progress; I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

I will use my first speech to speak about the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which I commend to the House. I look forward to hearing about some of the amendments tabled by other hon. Members; I will respond to them at the conclusion of proceedings.

Let me begin with amendment 92. I believe that in this House we need to be honest: under previous Governments, the British people were promised real change only for it to be abandoned on first contact with political reality. Not this time. Labour promised to nationalise our railways—no ifs, no buts—and today that is exactly what we will do. We are acting in law so that Great British Railways—the people’s railway—is owned by the British people and run in their interests, not in the service of private profit. I know that might appal Opposition parties, but they should believe me that ordinary people in Britain will not ask why we are taking this bold step; they will be asking those who had the power to do so, “What took you so very long?”

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Bill. I recently had a productive meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place regarding my amendment to close loopholes that could allow private companies to creep back into operating GBR rail services. He kindly promised to take that on board, and I am pleased to see those issues addressed by Government amendments 92 and 106, as well as the commitment to bring in further changes regarding the Secretary of State having powers of designation to ensure that they cannot be used for back-door privatisation. May I invite the Minister to provide further commentary and reassurance to the House regarding the Government’s moves on that issue and the very welcome position they have taken?

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope he sees that the Government have tabled amendments to ensure that Great British Railways cannot be privatised by the back door. Any changes would have to be made through an Act of Parliament, with full consultation with the House. I am sure that the people who have sent us here would look at any proposition to turn back the clock on the momentous decision we are taking—to go back to a railway that was fractured, in decline and confusing for passengers to use—and encourage every Member of Parliament not to do so. That is the importance of our amendments, and I am glad that my hon. Friends sees that.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

GBR launched in my constituency when South Western Railway came back into public ownership. The engineers at the depot said that bringing rail and the railways together would improve customer experience. Will my hon. Friend expand on that?

[Keir Mather]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is working so closely with the people who drive our railway and discussing the impact that GBR will have. She is right to say that, by integrating track and train and having a single directing mind for our railway, we can think more holistically about the skills of those we need to drive that change. That is a really exciting possibility to take forward.

Finally on amendment 92, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). It is no exaggeration to say that, without his efforts, this historic provision would not be entering the statute book. I thank him for his work with my officials and the Rail Minister to make that change a reality.

I see that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is again attempting through an amendment—we discussed this in Committee—to press the railway back into a mode of franchising. The 30 years of privatisation are what left our railways in the fragmented and dysfunctional state they were in when this Government came to power. We took immediate steps to fix that, passing the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. It is only right that any future Government that wish to return us to a railway with rising costs, confusing and inconsistent fares, and record cancellations should have to seek agreement from this place.

I turn to new clauses 49 and 50, and amendments 124 and 132. They introduce a new route for the independent sector regulator, the ORR, to modify non-GBR operator licences. That will allow the ORR, after consultation with the operator and others and the passing of a statutory notice period, to modify the contents of a licence. That approach is consistent with that taken in other regulated sectors such as water, electricity and gas. Such modifications will be needed across the industry to reflect the changes we are making in this Bill and to ensure the consistent adoption of standards and services across the rail network.

Amendments 168 and 169 ensure that the ORR can still make technical modifications to the GBR licence with GBR’s consent. That reflects the fact that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in every minor and technical amendment to the GBR licence. From day one, we have been committed to creating a simpler and more unified rail sector. Industry-wide alignment is critical to ensuring that passengers and other users of the rail network benefit from a less fragmented system. The amendments will ensure that all operators, not just GBR, are in lockstep in adhering to consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog, obligations relating to rail safety and the effective delivery of vital cross-industry functions by GBR.

New clause 48 and amendments 110 to 119, and 126 to 128 all build on the transfer scheme provisions that were added to the Bill in Committee. New clause 48, together with amendments 118 and 119, introduces a new power to vary the application of certain taxes in relation to transfer schemes. That ensures that we can restructure the public sector and move staff and assets into GBR in a tax-neutral manner, avoiding a complex and unnecessary money-go-round that would hinder the delivery of better public services. Beyond that, the remaining amendments I referred to are all technical and ensure that the transfer scheme provisions are fit for purpose.

Amendments 107, 108, 141 and 142 are technical amendments to clarify the definition of GBR infrastructure and to ensure that GBR can run trains on third-party infrastructure, for example High Speed 1.

You will have to buckle in for this one, Madam Deputy Speaker: amendments 93, 97 to 106, 109, 120 to 123, 133, 137, 139 and 140 are all technical amendments that ensure the Railways Bill supports the potential future corporate structures of GBR. As I have already said, the Bill will be a long-lasting piece of legislation, and it is right that it provides an appropriate level of flexibility for GBR to adapt and change in the years ahead. It must design itself to meet the challenges of the day, and the Bill must enable it to do that.

Finally, amendments 94, 95 and 136 correct an oversight in the legislation and ensure that Transport for London and other local government bodies can continue to co-operate with the Secretary of State for specific purposes, as well as with GBR, reflecting that decisions about devolution will remain with the Secretary of State.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend for moving at such pace on this. I am sure that many commuters around the country will be pleased to see the progress. On devolution and the integration with local transport schemes, I know the route, the process and the decision maker if we want to get a new Metrolink tram station in Greater Manchester. If I want to reopen the Middleton Junction train station in my constituency, what route do I go down?

[Keir Mather]

That is exactly why we are establishing GBR: to provide my hon. Friend with a consistent approach to making the case for the railway infrastructure improvements that he needs. Also, the devolution settlement enshrined in the Bill will ensure that GBR can work at the local level, with the ability for mayors to fund GBR directly to achieve specific local goals. It is our hope that through that devolved approach, with GBR able to work in lockstep with the mayors who are pioneering place-based politics across the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend can realise the changes to the rail system that he so desires.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Like others, I congratulate him on the speed at which he is moving this forward. He talks about the ability of Great British Railways to support local infrastructure. I have concerns about one of the railway stations in my constituency, Harlow Mill, and the number of suicides because of the lack of safety provision there. Will moving to Great British Railways mean that we can address some of those issues more easily?

[Keir Mather]

We certainly hope that it will. On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises, will he consider writing to either myself or the Rail Minister so that we can think about how we can better integrate those live concerns about people suffering from mental health crises and how we might better protect them on our railway? That is an incredibly important point. Just to conclude—

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

For the final time, I give way.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Lady is right to say that I am well aware of the specific measure that she speaks to. Having the relationship between GBR, the mayors and political representatives in Westminster, such as herself, is critical, and it is part of the purpose of GBR to better facilitate those conversations. I am sure that, through its establishment, she can take forward the debate on this particular matter with her usual passion.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

rose—

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

rose—

[Keir Mather]

I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.

The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.

This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.

Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.

We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.

15:00

The opportunity to solve the problem was presented to this Government on a plate, and they could have looked competent. It has been deeply frustrating to watch them take a good idea, then sow the seeds for its ultimate failure by insisting on the ideological imposition of nationalisation on to GBR and losing the focus on what the customers and taxpayers need. The Government have decided to replace market forces with top-down state direction. That is a mistake, but if they insist on it, the top needs to tell GBR what it is for and what it is to do.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.

As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes

“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—

putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—

“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.

As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.

[Wendy Morton]

Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand to correct the hon. Gentleman: the most punctual is, I believe, Greater Anglia, which services my constituency, but the point he makes is a good one. The greater integration of track and train brings greater efficiencies and leads to greater punctuality. That is exactly why that was Conservative party policy going into the last general election. What we do not need is increased control by perhaps heavily unionised workforces being given extra political power through nationalisation, taking the focus off the customer and focusing on the organisation and its purposes instead.

We have the track and train being integrated, and this Bill should be giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver dynamic management. That is crucial for a big organisational change. It should be putting passengers first by giving GBR the power to sort out the worst of the union-imposed inefficient working practices. How can we seriously have a seven-day timetable staffed by a five-day working week, requiring voluntary overtime to staff just normal service? It is clearly ridiculous. This legislation should give GBR the power and, importantly, through this new clause, the political support it will need to fix that problem.

We need to enable drivers to operate train doors where that is not yet standard practice and to fix similar Spanish practices. I think that is very unfair on the Spanish, by the way, who surprisingly run a much more efficient railway in some respects. We need to increase flexible driver training and operation, and so much more. Under new clause 54, tabled in my name, a working practices and productivity modernisation framework would provide GBR with that direction and give it the political cover to act.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member will be aware that I have already addressed that question in answer to one of his colleagues, but if international companies, whether state-owned or private, make a tender that is more attractive than any other operator applying for that tender, the people who benefit most are the taxpayers and service users of the United Kingdom. That is what happens.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree with new clause 85, which would make the interests of disabled people a key performance indicator for Great British Railways? I have been contacted by Katrina, a constituent from Sproatley, who has an upper limb disability as a result of thalidomide and relies heavily on rail travel. There are many services on which she cannot pre-book a seat, which for many of us is a convenience but for her is essential, because she finds being jostled frightening. She needs to have her interests recognised by the railway. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be very useful for the Government to accept new clause 85?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that the needs of disabled passengers such as his constituent, whom he so ably represents, are very important. That is one performance indicator that the Government should impose on GBR, but is it not ridiculous that we have to have Government action to impose KPIs on a railway? We should not be doing it this way.

Instead of giving GBR a clear purpose and direction and then supporting it to deliver, the Government are imposing nationalisation, which will bring with it, as we see in the Bill, an inevitable explosion of bureaucracy, civil service plans, targets, long-term strategies and civil service rights to give guidance and direction, all in the name of the Secretary of State. What will be the impact of this on GBR over time? Will it lead to the dynamic management that this structural reorganisation must have if it is to have a hope of working? Let history be our guide. I cannot think of a single example of a nationalised industry in any country, either now or in the past, that is or was a byword for management dynamism. Members should try it themselves—we cannot think of one, can we? If GBR needs dynamic management, how can nationalisation possibly be the answer?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Father of the House is nailing me down to a cast-iron assurance at the Dispatch Box. I am not in a position to do that, but I fully expect to be in this role in a future Government and look forward to the opportunity to encourage open access to provide the through train that the right hon. Gentleman needs or for GBR to do so.

If GBR needs the dynamic management that we say it does, the Government are imposing for political reasons—very popular ones among their Back Benchers, as we have heard—a management system that has never worked in the past, but somehow it will be different this time. They have made their choice and we need to make the best of it. At the very least, this founding legislation should identify core key performance indicators which will survive the test of time in legislation. New clause 53 and amendment 158 provide them. They are detailed, but in essence, they focus on reliability, safety, comfort and on-board experience, affordability and value for money, passenger and network growth, financial sustainability and freight growth.

Until covid, privatisation undeniably brought a focus on ridership that had been missing previously under nationalisation. I accept that private businesses are not trying to be nice; they work to increase ridership because it brings in fare income, which creates profit. They are not directed to do so; the natural incentives work to solve the problem. The innovation of privatisation, fought tooth and nail at the time by Labour and the unions, was supported by passengers, who voted with their feet. British Rail oversaw the long-term decline in ridership from about 1 billion in 1950, reducing in a straight line to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation immediately reversed that 40-year trend of decline, growing back ridership not just to 1 billion but to 1.7 billion in 2019.

Under the Bill, GBR does not even have a passenger growth target. New clause 14 in my name would rectify that by requiring the Secretary of State to set GBR a passenger growth target and to keep it under review. How can the Government be against that? They have agreed to put one in for rail freight growth, but for some reason passengers are not listed in the Bill. Instead of these sensible, pro-growth and pro-passenger measures, we have clause after clause of political control, micromanagement of a nationalised structure, and unfettered rights of guidance and direction by the Secretary of State—by which we mean Department for Transport officials—over GBR at any time and for any reason, under clauses 7 and 9. It is a recipe for corporate paralysis where decisions are second-guessed by civil servants.

Amendments 150 and 151 limit at least the giving of guidance by Department for Transport officials to issues where GBR fails to meet a key performance indicator, and the giving of mandatory directions to serious issues where GBR has missed KPIs and the chief executive has been removed in consequence. I fear that over time, as the corporate memory of the train operating companies fades and with it their focus on the customer experience, this focus will be replaced by other incentives.

Heavily unionised workers of a nationalised industry well understand that the Government will now be politically exposed to industrial action as never before. It will be entirely rational for them—I do not blame them for doing so—to use this new bargaining power to increase pay and improve conditions, which sounds good, does it not? Why would they not do so? It does, however, increase costs and reduce productivity. Who benefits? Not the passenger or the taxpayer. Labour will be too weak to stand up for the taxpayer and for fare-paying passengers. Services will become more expensive, worse, less frequent—or all three—and we will be back to the rationing of resources as we see in every nationalised sector.

15:09

Passenger numbers will no longer be the key driver of success. As an engineering-led business, the incentive will be to increase reliability by reducing services, and the Government are already doing that. Look at Avanti West Coast and its timetable for the summer. It has already been nationalised, and it has been directed by the Department for Transport to cut one in seven services to save money. Look at Govia Thameslink: it has been nationalised and ordered by the Department for Transport to cut hundreds of trains this summer to save money. I am not making this up; this is what is happening now as reported in The Telegraph. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing about The Telegraph. The first article was in The Guardian, which is their paper of record.

What is left of genuine competition, open-access operators and freight? They will be left to the mercy of GBR as they fight for access to the network. The independent economic regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, is having its role largely abolished by this legislation. For the first time, GBR will be given the power to decide whether to grant access to its direct competitors, and those decisions can now not be appealed other than for procedural irregularity—the judicial review clause. That is obviously a monumental failure in natural fairness. It is akin to designing out open access while the Government look the other way. Amendment 148 to clause 68 would fix that, at least allowing the Office of Rail and Road to hear appeals on the merits of GBR decisions—all the more important when GBR is operating as both referee and player. The Bill castrates the ORR as a genuine regulator. It is like designing the NHS without the Care Quality Commission, or the school system without Ofsted. It is grossly unfair, the independent rail sector is horrified by it, and the Government need to think again.

Finally, on fare discounts in clause 34, Labour has protected discount fare schemes only for the young, the elderly and the disabled. In Committee, I pointed out to the Government that they had overlooked railcards for veterans and their families and discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds. I had assumed that it was an oversight, but it was not. The Government whipped their Members to vote against giving railcards to veterans and their families and to 26 to 30-year-olds not once but 10 times. Amendment 143 gives hon. Members across the House, but particularly on the Labour Benches, the chance to put that right. This evening, all Labour MPs will need to make a simple decision: do they vote down veteran railcards and discounts for veterans’ families and for 26 to 30-year-olds, or do they refuse to be cowed by their Whips—the terrifying Whips in the corner—stand up for what is right, and support our brave veterans and young people?

There are many other needed amendments to this deeply flawed Bill, such as those submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) on the importance of Ely junction for freight growth—I have to declare an interest; it affects my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham as well—by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on GBR involving local authorities in service decisions affecting their area; by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on a level-crossing strategy and the integration of services; and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on seeking effective oversight by the Transport Committee—as well as many more from across the House, including from other Opposition parties.

The sheer number of amendments demonstrates that this remains a deeply flawed Bill based on a key error: preferring political ideology to practical solutions, state control to dynamic management. By doing so, I fear that the Government have wasted this generation’s best opportunity for effective rail reform.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway.

I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago.

Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments.

I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.

[Helen Maguire]

Research from the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that 58% of those with visual impairments reported that it was impossible to use ticket vending machines, and I have tabled new clause 38 to ensure a minimum number of accessible ticket machines. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to ensure that railways are accessible for everyone?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Yes, of course I do, and much of what I am saying stems from the work with did for our report published in February 2025. It is entitled, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about so much more than ramps and lifts, although those things are essential for many, and it must be embedded in the culture of the organisation.

Our amendments seek to embed that aspiration in the Bill, and they follow the work we did on the Bill and the report I just mentioned. Amendment 70 would place duties on Ministers and GBR, and amendment 71 would place duties on the passengers’ council to seek to secure “improvements” to accessibility, rather than just to “promote the…interests” of disabled people, as currently stated in the Bill. Amendment 71 would also require the passengers’ council

“to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.”

The Minister may well say that the Bill will already drive improvements, and that the details will be in the GBR’s business plan and the LTRS, but disabled people would like to see enforceable, statutory responsibilities that require progress, not just vague “having regard to” language, or non-statutory policy documents.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on this subject. Earlier I referred to Katrina, my constituent with thalidomide syndrome who struggles to reserve a seat and feel safe, and to use the railway as she wants to. Does the hon. Lady agree that those are the tests we need to see changed, so that people like Katrina can use the railway safely and see their needs recognised?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Member’s description of Katrina’s needs speak not only for her needs but for those of so many people. He described Katrina’s specific physical needs and need to have a seat, but it is important to recognise that every disabled person’s needs are different. The rail system—indeed, the whole transport system—must be able to adapt and ensure that those needs are met.

I welcome the sheer number of amendments tabled today that cover accessibility. New clause 39 makes a specific request:

“The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.”

and it requires that board to include at least two disabled people. The Government told us that legislating for that recommendation is not needed because the Transport Focus board already has such representation, and general duties under clause 18 will apply when the board is appointed. While I welcome the offer to confirm that intention, why is there resistance to putting such a measure into legislation so that it is secured in the future? To say that Transport Focus currently has such representation, and that therefore the passengers’ council board will too, relies on custom. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to

“promoting…the needs of disabled passengers”

but it relies on a specific interpretation of a general clause, so neither of those measures are secure. In conclusion, I commend the amendments to the House, but I will not push them to a vote as I anticipate that they will attract a fair bit of attention in the other place when the Bill arrives there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.

The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.

However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?

11:30

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour.

The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.

[Helen Maguire]

On passenger experience, will my hon. Friend extend my thanks to the Minister and Lord Hendy—I have made them aware of my intention to mention this today—for taking forward new clause 36 via operational arrangements, which will permit a bereaved family member of the armed forces to a fare exemption on Remembrance Sunday?

[Olly Glover]

I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday.

New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today.

New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding.

Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour.

Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee.

Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said:

“It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.”

On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Melton Constable in my constituency has a proud railway heritage—the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway steam train adorns its village sign. New clause 5 would make provision for the exploration of the reinstatement of the orbital railway. Does my hon. Friend agree that being connected to the rail network could bring immense benefits to towns such as Holt? Government support for such a scheme being explored would be very welcome.

[Olly Glover]

The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity.

I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.

[Helen Maguire]

Post covid, the number of trains from Epsom and Ewell was halved. My new clause 37 would ensure that there is community consultation on the frequency of train services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sensible thing to do would be to consult the community?

[Olly Glover]

I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.

New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.

Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.

Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.

Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming.

I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes.

All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.

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

It is really important that that scheme includes people who worked at British Rail Engineering Ltd, who were then privatised and lost their passes as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that BREL is also included in that meeting?

[John McDonnell]

I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together.

My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.

[Cat Eccles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?

[John McDonnell]

I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates.

Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers represent 25% of the directly employed workforce of train operating companies, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that outsourcing creates systemic racism?

[John McDonnell]

There is significance evidence of low pay and the way that people are discriminated against consistently throughout the outsourcing mechanism. Given all the research that has been done, that is unchallengeable.

I want to concentrate on the issue of loss of skills. Under British Rail, when someone joined the railway, they could have the vision that if they were committed and stuck with the organisation, they could secure additional training and rise up the ladder. All the way up, they would be gaining additional skills, but under outsourcing there has been a lack of investment in skills. The precarious work means that we are failing to invest in the next generation and, as a result, we may not have the skills to operate an effective system.

15:45

When it comes to outsourcing, people might remember that we brought maintenance work back into Network Rail to reintegrate it because there was a lack of skills, the undermining of safety and blood on the tracks. I attended the funeral of a driver in the Southall crash; that tragedy was a direct reflection of the breaking down of individual contracts that were outsourced and the loss of skills that resulted.

A joint letter has been published today that was sent to the Secretary of State, signed by the RMT and the National Skills Academy for Rail. In the letter, they call for

“a GBR workforce strategy setting out the skills, employment models and supply chain structures needed to build”—

as we all want—

“a stable, high-capability workforce across operations, maintenance and renewals, including consideration of insourcing where appropriate”.

The amendment I have tabled would enable GBR to function and perform its duties in a way that promotes the transfer into GBR of outsourced and subcontracted railway staff.

I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to a meeting with him or the Secretary of State to talk about the plans for insourcing. The Government are doing some excellent work on insourcing across a whole range of Departments, but this proposal has the scale to ensure that we fulfil the promise we made about the greatest wave of insourcing. I end by commending the Mayor of London on what he is doing to insource staff. It is a fine example of what the Government could do on a mass scale across the railway sector.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Broxbourne is an important commuter area when travelling into London. Millions of journeys start and end at stations in my constituency every year, and more than double the national average number of people use the railway to get to work. The line that I and my constituents rely on—Greater Anglia—was one of the first to be taken over by the Government, and not a week goes by without some sort of incident causing long delays and cancellations. We have not seen any improvements from nationalisation. While I do not support nationalisation in principle, I agree that the railway needs to work better for passengers and the communities it serves and in which it operates. It is in that spirit that I will address a number of amendments.

I support new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It would place a duty on GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years. The rail network should be easily accessible for everyone, as most Members have said. There has been lots of progress in recent years on this issue, and I am pleased that most stations in my constituency are fully accessible, but that still leaves some stations that see hundreds of thousands of journeys each year out of reach for constituents with disabilities or using buggies.

Rye House is the only train station in Hoddesdon, a town of 20,000 people, but only one platform is step-free—the other is not. That means someone can have step-free access going into London, but not when they leave to go home. That means passengers in a wheelchair or with buggies having to get off at a different station, with longer journeys to get home.

It gets even worse at Theobalds Grove station, where the situation is even more difficult. No platform has step-free access, so there is no option for those with disabilities, such as those in a wheelchair, or families with buggies to use that station at all. Both stations would be ideal candidates for accessibility improvements, which should be a key priority for Great British Rail.

Since my election, I have campaigned hard on traffic delays and roadworks, and they do not occur in isolation from other modes of transport, particularly the rail network. I support new clause 29, which would direct Great British Rail to co-ordinate with transport authorities to minimise disruption. We need a joined-up and a common-sense approach. When works are planned on a line, we do not also need utility companies coming along to dig up the high street. It seems that once one element causes a bit of disruption, the other goes out of its way to create more disruption at the same time. We need organisations to have a joined-up and common-sense approach.

Level crossings can have massive knock-on effects for my constituents, particularly those who live in the villages. In my constituency, a track runs through the villages of Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets—right through the middle. If the crossing is down for too long or a defect causes it not to reopen, an entire village is cut off from basic services. The level-crossings strategy proposed in amendment 65 would enable us to look at the consequences of things going wrong in that way, which would hopefully reduce disruption for my constituents.

In the case of any public body, value for the taxpayer should be considered above all else, so I support the requirement for Great British Railways to take steps to keep costs as low as possible. Rail services should also respond to changing needs. We have seen thousands of homes built in the last few years, creating more strain on our rail services. Thousands have been built near Cheshunt, the busiest station in my constituency, and more passengers are using it now than before the pandemic.

New clause 40 would ensure that services respond to population changes. Within the national planning policy framework, the Government are trying to bulldoze our green belt and make it easier to obtain planning permission near stations. I fundamentally disagree with that, and it makes new clause 40 even more important. The Government should support it.

New clause 37 is intended to ensure that the trains on which local communities rely run more frequently. The standard of communication from the railway network, the rail companies and my nationalised local rail service is appalling. If people turn up at the station and there are problems on the line, there are no staff around to talk to. No one is communicating with the passengers. They are left at the station to wait for another service, if and when it turns up.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point about the importance of building near railway stations. My experience, and that of many other Members along the length of the Elizabeth line, is that it is generating a huge amount of economic growth, which is very significant in our communities. It is also reusing a great deal of brownfield land, and I hope that would also benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for supporting the point I was making. The Elizabeth line was a new line with new trains going along it, but currently, planning applications are submitted and the response is: “This development is next to a railway station. We will grant the planning permission.” There are no new services. There are no extra trains. The only consequences for the line are the thousands of houses that are built near it. If my constituency were served by HS2 or we were getting a new train, that would be a completely different matter, but when capacity is being added to existing services and when that planning process is taking place, there is nothing to say that there must be more trains and a more frequent service, and the trains have to be longer during the rush hour to deal with the extra housing.

We need to look at how communication with rail users can be improved and at how this nationalised rail service will work, because, as I have said, the service in my area was one of the first to be nationalised and my constituents have seen no benefit at all.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others.

Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry.

But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.

I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership.

Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.

[John McDonnell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did over the years to develop the policies that this legislation is largely based on. On the issue of trade union negotiations, we have advocated for sectoral collective bargaining in this sector, as in others, for quite a while. Why? Because it gives a voice to the workers themselves and brings about stability on issues such as employment and long-term investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one of the building blocks for the new system we are creating?

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, and I fully acknowledge his point. That is exactly how we are going to build a sustainable railway that will serve our communities and be responsive to reasonable requests from its workforce.

I have tabled new clause 26 and amendment 64, on the transfer of employees to GBR. The original vision of reform was for a railway with a single directing mind, but there is a strong case for having a single employer too. The legislation should make it clear that employees transferring from Network Rail, DfT Operator operators and former franchises will move into a coherent organisation, with full TUPE protections and clear employment rights. I also encourage the Government to move towards a formal framework for sectoral collective bargaining across the rail industry. Public ownership should create the conditions for partnership, workforce voice and stable industrial relations.

I have also tabled new clause 27, on pension schemes. It is remarkable that legislation transferring the railway back into public ownership contains weaker statutory pension protections than the legislation used to privatise it. The Railways Act 1993 included detailed provisions protecting pension rights, and workers joining GBR deserve the same certainty. Every railway employee should have a statutory right to participate in the railway pension scheme on protected terms.

I also support amendments to preserve schedule 17. We all remember the overwhelming public opposition to the proposals to close ticket offices, and schedule 17 provides an important mechanism for consultation and accountability when significant service changes are proposed. Those protections should not be casually swept aside.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would secure GBR in the public sector for the future. I also support amendment 35, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the wider principle of insourcing. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill creates an opportunity for the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation. The railway should not rely on fragmented contracting models that create insecurity and limit progression. Bringing contracted workers directly into GBR would strengthen workforce planning, improve standards and help to fulfil Labour’s commitment to treat railway staff as an asset rather than a cost.

This Bill is a historic opportunity. Public ownership can deliver a better railway for passengers, but it must also deliver a better railway for the people who run it every day. By strengthening protections for employment, trade union recognition, pensions and insourcing, we can ensure that Great British Railways is built on the foundations of fairness as well as efficiency.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak as we embark on the Government’s back to the future nationalisation plan. I will be speaking to new clause 35 and amendments 68 and 69, tabled in my name. Together, they are designed to ensure that Ministers and Great British Railways treat Ely junction as the nationally significant bottleneck it is, and that they make the progress that passengers, freight operators and local communities are entitled to expect.

It is important to set out the context in which my amendments sit. Rail services to North West Norfolk are not good enough. There are too many late trains, cancellations and engineering weekend closures. Those unreliable rail services put people off travelling and have a damaging effect on the local economy, particularly the visitor economy. My constituents deserve better, and improvements to Ely Junction would help deliver that.

15:59

Why Ely? Put simply, this is one of the most constrained parts of the national rail network. It is a major bottleneck where five lines converge. New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely as a nationally significant capacity constraint. It would also require a report to Parliament on progress, rather than allowing this just to wither on the vine, showing what was being done.

Backing the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme would increase off-peak capacity to 10 trains per hour, enabling additional passenger services to King’s Lynn and elsewhere, doubling freight services from Felixstowe to the midlands and the north to meet the growing demand, and removing nearly 100,000 lorry journeys annually. There was real relief across the area when the last Conservative Government approved and funded the Ely project in 2023 as part of scrapping parts of HS2. That was done in recognition of the exceptional cost-benefits of this project, with £5 of benefits for every £1 invested, compared with the derisory £1.20 for every £1 invested in the HS2 scheme.

With rail freight demand growing strongly, increasing the capacity of the network is vital. Amendment 68 would require the rail strategy to include Ely junction as a key capacity constraint for freight as well as for passengers, which would hardwire this into the system and the long-term decisions this Bill is designed to support. That is necessary because, as with so many transport projects in the east of England, such as the A47, this Government have chosen to pause the Ely scheme and cut the funding. Instead, in the spending review Ministers backed projects with much lower cost-benefit ratios, with the result that passengers continue to suffer from unreliable and less frequent services, more freight is required to use roads and infrastructure fails to meet the demand.

Upgrading Ely junction is about improving connectivity and passenger services in one of the growth parts of the country, while supporting our ports and logistics, giving businesses the confidence to invest, and unlocking key housing and employment sites. Amendment 69 would place a specific duty on Great British Railways—the controlling mind in this scheme—to “have particular regard”, in carrying out its capacity function, to increasing capacity at Ely. Without such a duty, even if Ministers considered Ely was a problem to be fixed, there is no guarantee that Great British Railways would choose to prioritise it.

Through these amendments, Parliament has the opportunity to send a clear cross-party message that this upgrade is essential and further delay is not acceptable. Given the compelling benefits—the £5 for every £1 invested—I hope Ministers will accept my amendments.

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue.

Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation.

I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue.

I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20.

In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench.

Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue.

We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.

[Olly Glover]

Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.

[Wendy Morton]

The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.

[Laurence Turner]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.

[Andy McDonald]

What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.

[Laurence Turner]

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is, I say respectfully, wrong on this issue. When the Labour party first committed to the reintegration of track and train, under the then shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), I wrote the announcement—so I do bring some bearing to that question.

It has been a privilege over these years to ride on the footplate of this reform journey. The Bill will end the national buck-passing game of “Whose Line is it Anyway?”. Most importantly, it will establish a rail network that is run by and for the nation. I look forward to voting against amendments that would undo that important journey of reform.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It was my pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who led on the legislation for the Liberal Democrats, and behind whose expertise I have gamely hidden throughout. I believe that the Bill should be about passengers, which is why I strongly support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would establish a passengers’ charter.

New clause 1 would establish clear expectations around value for money, quality of service and adequate seating. It would require targets for reliability and a timetable for improvements to the passenger experience. Importantly, it would address issues that passengers in West Dorset have repeatedly raised with me: reliable highspeed wi-fi; comfortable seat design; dependable mobile connectivity; power outlets; luggage and bicycle storage; accessibility and clean toilets; onboard food and drink provision on journeys lasting more than two hours. Those are basic expectations of a modern railway in a modern country.

New clause 1 would also strengthen accessibility and extend the principles behind delay and repay to failure of onboard amenities, while moving towards automatic digital compensation. Importantly, NC1 sends a simple message to all: passengers come first. The same principle underpins new clause 43, which would place a duty on Great British Railways to provide food and drink on rail services lasting over an hour. For many passengers, particularly those travelling long distances from rural areas, access to refreshments is a necessity. If we want people to choose rail over car, we must think about the entire journey experience, and not simply whether the train arrives at the destination.

Passenger-focused reform must also mean affordability, which is why new clause 6 is important. At a time when many households continue to face pressure with the cost of living, the new clause would require plans for fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. It would extend standardised discounts for young people, provide discounted fares for veterans, establish a national tap-in, tap-out system, guarantee that passengers received the best-value fare regardless of how they purchase their tickets, introduce a national railcard, and enable open source access to ticketing systems and fare databases. The new clause would also require collaboration with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing. In rural areas such as West Dorset, where passengers often rely on both rail and bus services, joined-up ticketing could make a huge difference.

Linked to affordability and passenger growth is new clause 2, which would require a report into the merits of the rail-miles programme. We already reward loyalty in supermarkets and airmiles, yet regular rail passengers receive little recognition for their continued use of the network. A rail-mile programme would encourage repeat journeys, support passenger growth, and provide greater flexibility for commuters, students and working families. It would also help encourage modal shift away from private car use and towards public transport.

For young people, passenger-focused rail reform must also mean access to opportunity. That is why I tabled new clause 47, which would provide free rail travel to 16 to 18-years-olds in education, training or apprenticeships. If a young person cannot physically reach a college, apprenticeship or job opportunity, then every other intervention becomes less effective. New clause 47 would help to remove that barrier and support social mobility, economic participation and fairness.

The needs of rural communities are also reflected in new clause 40, which would place a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to both permanent and seasonal population growth. Coastal communities face the double challenge of being underfunded for their permanent population while simultaneously accommodating huge seasonal increases in demand. This new clause would require consideration of rolling stock services and infrastructure investment to ensure that communities are not left behind simply because population increases occur seasonally rather than permanently.

New clause 42 would require an assessment of the benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the west of England line. This proposal is important not only to my constituents, but across the south-west.

14:29

I must get on to climate change, because it is an important issue. If climate and nature are not at the heart of this Bill, we risk failing to build a railway that is resilient to a changing climate and an increase in extreme weather conditions. It is not just about resilience; it is also about ensuring that every decision we make helps to deliver our climate and nature targets. New clause 7 would establish a statutory rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and require, alongside scheduled infrastructure improvements, the identification of sections of the network that are vulnerable to drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold. Working with new clauses 8 and 41, it would force the Government and Great British Railways to give proper consideration to climate and nature. I hope the Government will give consideration to our amendments and new clauses.

[Rachael Maskell]

When we think about a nationalised rail service, we often debate the governance, which is vital. It was a real honour to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on putting together the blueprint that has set this train in motion. However, we must also remember the staff, and I therefore refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I raise a number of issues that could really impact their experience of working for our railways.

On 1 November last year, a horror unfolded on the east coast main line on a southbound LNER train. It was a chilling reminder of the incredible skills of rail staff in keeping us safe. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we keep the staff safe. My amendments 56 and 57 seek to do just that. Rail workers, whether on board, at stations or in our ticket offices, face an unacceptable level of violence and abuse. The industry recognises this, and how changes in working practices such as driver-only operation and lone working increase risk, and supports the changes I am proposing. Amendments 56 and 57 would extend GBR’s function to include an assurance for the safety of all rail workers, including from assaults. They would also secure safe staffing levels to achieve that aim.

Let me provide some examples. One rail worker was physically assaulted after trying to prevent a member of the public from climbing on to the train tracks, with trains due into the station imminently. Another rail worker had a hot drink thrown over them after charging an excess for an invalid ticket. Another was punched when they asked to see a ticket, resulting not only in him losing a tooth and requiring extensive dental treatment, but in the long tail of a mental health impact that ended in him leaving the service. Others have been threatened with knives. The level of violence is on the rise, with the British Transport police’s latest figures showing a 24% increase in violence against rail workers compared with the previous year. It is staggering.

I have raised this in Parliament many times. We need strong legal protections for public transport workers against assault at work, mirroring new provisions the Government have introduced for retail workers via the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and previously for emergency workers. Transport workers need equally strong protections.

This is a devolved matter, and I understand that the RMT has made significant progress in Scotland, with the Scottish Government committing to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker, not least as many have an enforceable element to their role. Once that legislation is enforced, it will create two tiers of legal protections where rail workers in Scotland, including those working on GBR cross-border services, are afforded strong legal protections, while those working on GBR services in England and Wales are not. It is really important that we move to a single system to protect staff from assault. The Minister has been very helpful in engaging with me on this, and I hope that we can make real progress so that the safety of our staff who serve us day and night is put first. I appreciate that we have CCTV, bodycams and the British Transport police, but we need safe staffing levels and consultation on any changes.

On the wider issue of safe staffing, it is really important that we strengthen passengers’ right to be consulted on changes to staffing levels. Amendment 58 seeks to achieve that. This issue is particularly important for disabled people too. The passenger watchdog has consistently shown that properly staffed trains and stations are not only important for passenger safety, security and accessibility, but safer for staff. Removing guards from trains and cutting staff from platforms, gatelines or ticket offices should be subject to consultation before any decisions are made.

Finally, I have tabled an amendment on open access operators. If they fold, we need to ensure that a process or mechanism is in place whereby staff can be TUPE-ed across—or the equivalent—into GBR, so that they are not left without a job. We need to retain their skills and experience and ensure that they continue to be employed on our national rail service as we move forward.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 17 and amendment 46, both of which stand in my name. I want to focus my remarks on a very simple principle. If Parliament is creating Great British Railways—we can argue away about any timeline—and we are concentrating more responsibility and decision making within a single national body, it is only right that there is appropriate accountability and local democratic oversight alongside it. As the Bill stands, it falls short in this regard.

New clause 17 does not seek to prevent decisions being made or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures that where decisions relating to railway services or infrastructure have a significant impact on local communities and economies, Members of this House—elected to represent those communities—are consulted. Surely that it was local democracy and accountability is all about.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion.

Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key.

Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support.

On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised.

Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic that the vast majority of residents—passengers—in the east of England are travelling on trains in public ownership. This is the next piece of the jigsaw.

I note that the amendment paper appears to be longer than the Bill, so as somebody who has contributed to that, I will turn to some of my amendments. New clause 20 is a simple amendment on promoting integration between trains and everything else—buses, coaches, trams, walking and cycling. I agree that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents that, but I feel there should be something to actively encourage it.

We will all have been at a station when the mainline train has been delayed and, helpfully, the connecting train has been held back for a little time. However, and interestingly, I recently asked somebody at the Transport Committee who ran a bus company whether he had ever come across a situation where the train had been held because his bus had been delayed, and the answer was absolutely not—and vice versa. In fact, there are lots of incentives to stop that happening within the transport system as a whole—after all, a bus company can get fined for having delayed buses. That is why we need something in the Bill that promotes active integration.

Amendments 39 to 42 are about devolution and consultation. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State and GBR will consult with Scottish and Welsh Ministers. By contrast, elsewhere they will consult with mayoral strategic authorities. The difference is that in one place they are consulting with a person, and in the other they are consulting with an organisation. I strongly believe that consultation should take place with the mayor as the person with that democratic mandate to enable us to have stronger, quicker decision making and ensure that what is happening is clear.

I turn to new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on the customer loyalty programme. I cannot say that I agree with the Secretary of State having to lay a report on that within a year—she probably has better things to do. However, the concept of a customer loyalty programme is something I have long called for, and I have had constructive discussions with the Minister on that. Encouraging passengers and would-be passengers to build a loyalty to our railways matters greatly. As has been said, that happens with air miles and with Tesco Clubcard. We could get all kinds of different benefits for passengers, and GBR could use such a programme to try to flex demand.

16:30

Finally, we need a great British spruce-up of all our stations. As we roll out GBR, I want everything to look really good at our stations. Also, I have been reassured by my conversations with the Rail Minister about names on trains. I was worried, as we painted them all red, white and blue, that the names that people have chosen and which show pride in place might disappear—or, indeed, that we might not get any new ones. I hope the Minister will join my campaign to get the next train painted red, white and blue in my area named Q Central, after the fantastic women who were part of that organisation during world war two, which was the communications hub for the whole of the UK. It would be fantastic if the first GBR-branded train bore that name.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents.

I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe.

I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced.

Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action.

I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability.

Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound

“to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”.

We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers.

I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.

Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.

This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.

I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.

My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.

The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.

For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.

Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping us on time and on track—much better than some of the trains I have travelled on.

I will speak in favour of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). When the Government came into office with a promise to do something about the shocking state of our trains, people back in Yeovil all said, “Finally—it’s about time”, which happens also to be what they say if the train eventually shows up. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, but it needs to go further if we are to address the problems with rail travel in Somerset.

Luckily enough, us pesky Liberal Democrats have some ideas that the Government can support today. Our passenger charter and our amendments would provide a range of guarantees that would address the challenges that people in Yeovil face when trying to get a train. They would back up those guarantees with a framework for compensation for failures to comply with the charter, such as delay repay. Our charter’s guarantee about value for money would mean that apprentices such as Gregg would not be priced out of rail travel. He worked out that currently it would cost him £5,200 for an annual train ticket to Exeter—a quarter of his salary—instead of £1,750 if he lift-shares with a friend. We can see why people do not use the trains at the moment.

Our charter guarantee of proper seating for any single part of a rail journey longer than 30 minutes will mean that something finally has to be done about the overcrowding on trains from Yeovil junction, which makes travel for people like Colin a nightmare, even when they get off their train and try to get the next one. Only the other day, I was chatting to a disabled passenger on the overcrowded train to London, and she told me that if she wants a seat, she has to fork out lots more money for first-class tickets to have the peace of mind that she will not have to stand. Our charter calls for proper services, including good wi-fi, clean toilets, and catering—and a few plugs would help. It would also mean that long journeys should not be an uncomfortable nightmare.

The charter guarantee on the reliability of services, and amendment 55’s requirements for better links between rail travel and onward transport, such as buses or active travel, will mean that people like Janine will be able to use Yeovil junction more reliably. At the minute, a lack of bus services means that when trains are late, people miss the bus and are forced to wait ages to get home, or they have to fork out for a pricey taxi. Hopefully, we will also get a safe active travel route to Yeovil junction.

Finally, our charter’s guarantee relates to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, the areas around stations and replacement services. It will force more action to support disabled passengers in rural areas because this is a real issue in Yeovil. Staff shortages and a lack of proper training have seen both Jack, a wheelchair user, and Kathy, who is visually impaired, suffer accidents at Yeovil Pen Mill. As Kathy points out, at the moment things are only getting worse, with staff retiring after years of service and GWR not hiring replacements beforehand. Jack even described to me how she was made to feel responsible for her accident, because she needed to use a ramp. That is not good enough and not acceptable at all.

Our charter makes it clear as day that accessibility is the responsibility of Great British Railways, not passengers. I hope the Government will listen and take on board our ideas, because we need this Bill to succeed if we are to get the trains working for people in Yeovil again.

[Matt Rodda]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to address some of the issues raised by new clause 22 and other new clauses in relation to disabled people. If I could just make it clear for the sake of the record, I did not mean to sign new clause 22 and, in fact, I have asked the office to remove my name from that clause, although it will not appear in the paperwork until tomorrow.

I want to offer my wholehearted support for the Bill and to thank the Minister and, indeed, his predecessor as shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who I had the pleasure of working with in opposition. This important Bill will bring track and train together and deliver enormous benefits for local residents, not least in constituencies such as Reading Central, where we have a significant number of commuters, but also a lot of economic growth generated by rail investment. It is a shame that I was not able to discuss that further with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) after his slight misunderstanding of my point on this matter. It is important to consider the benefits of rail in terms of economic growth to the country. While the Elizabeth line cost about £18 billion, in the first three years it operated—it has now operated for several years—£42 billion of economic growth was generated by that wise investment. It was backed by both main parties and, I would hope, other smaller parties as well. I hope that we can all come together to support that.

I should declare a bit of an interest in that not only do I represent a town that has seen huge growth thanks to rail investment, but I was involved in the Paddington rail crash and was lucky to survive it. I am a regular commuter, and I also thank the RMT and ASLEF for supporting my general election campaigns in the past.

16:45

On the importance of improving disabled access, I did not want to speak about step-free access at stations, but there was a clerical error between my office and someone in the House—it was possibly my fault as well; I am not quite clear how it happened. I want to speak about the use of steps for access to taxis at stations, which is currently a live issue at Reading station. A number of local taxi drivers have raised it with me, and in particular I pay tribute to Haji Benares, who is one of the regular, long-standing taxi drivers at Reading station. He and his colleagues have pointed out that due to faults in the design of the new station, which is a huge asset to our community, there are issues getting disabled people in and out of taxis.

I would like to ask the Minister for his help, because it appears to be a problem caused by poor-quality design some years ago. The new station was opened some while back under the previous Government’s supervision—I am not criticising them for supporting the rebuilding of the station, but I would like to see more training and understanding of the issue by architects. We need a better understanding of the needs of disabled people, particularly wheelchair users, when getting in and out of taxis at railway stations, in addition to the issue of step-free access at stations. Perhaps it will be possible for me to meet officials in the Department about that important matter.

Reading station is operated by a private railway company on behalf of Network Rail, so it is even more complicated, and I hope the Minister will be able to help me to find a way through the bureaucracy involved. I have had initial offers of help from Great Western Railway and Reading borough council, but I hope we can address the issue. I do not want taxi drivers to have to lift heavy wheelchairs in and out of taxis at our station; I want it to be a seamless process whereby disabled people can use the trains. They get support at Reading from a dedicated member of staff, which is excellent, and we have step-free access, which I would love to see expanded further. I know the Government want that too.

I would like features to be designed in to allow passengers who are disabled and use wheelchairs to access taxis easily, as they are a vital part of their transport. Integrating road and rail transport in that way is important. I thank the Minister for listening to that point, and I look forward to speaking more about it to his colleagues.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name.

My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics.

I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency.

A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies.

New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time.

New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?

[Dr Spencer]

I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced.

New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens.

New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport.

That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

As I made clear on Second Reading, this crucial Bill is about undoing the immeasurable damage done to our rail network, to passenger confidence and to economic prosperity after decades of privatisation and woeful mismanagement.

I will focus on rail devolution. I commend the Transport Committee on its incisive report on the topic, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for the amendments drafted in her name and her clear desire for us to get the most out of this legislation. I know how much is riding on the Bill for our regional mayors, strategic authorities and, most importantly, the passengers they serve. My appeal today is to ensure that the Bill supports the Government’s devolution journey.

Transport planning is a crucial competence of our elected mayors, and where mayoral strategic authorities are truly emboldened, entire city regions, local transport networks and whole communities are strengthened as a result. We must do as much as possible to support connections that improve economic density and therefore boost growth. Our achievements in Greater Manchester are a testament to that, and the absorption of rail into the Bee Network is the critical next step in delivering on the priorities of local people.

I welcome Government amendment 136, which will enable local bodies to enter into certain arrangements with the Secretary of State, but concerns remain that it may not reflect the full capabilities of our mayoral authorities. I would welcome any assurances from the Minister that this provision will not be narrower than existing provisions set out in the Railways Act 2005. Essentially, can the Minister confirm that the amendment supports meaningful partnership with our elected combined authority mayors? As the Bill stands, engagement between Great British Rail and our mayoral authorities could be predicated on good will among officials negotiating on their behalf, with little codified in the way of a formal, statutory partnership between the two.

Mayoral strategic authorities and mayors themselves are now integral to the delivery of housing policy, urban planning and regional economic development. For them to do that role without much of a stake in local rail networks is to proceed with one arm tied behind their backs. Authorities need to be sufficiently empowered in relation to Great British Railways to get on and demonstrate that they deserve greater scope to plan transport alongside other policy areas—for example, by strategically aligning rail corridors and house building. Great British Rail cannot inhibit this kind of common-sense approach in the way that Network Rail sometimes has in the past. Great British Rail and our local rail networks must work in lockstep with spatial plans and the changes we see across our communities. That is the only way we can ensure benefits for peripheral towns as much as for the hearts of our city centres.

We also need to think about the future. We can never say with certainty how committed a future Government may be to devolution, so the Bill must enshrine a robust partnership duty to ensure that mayoral authorities have a decisive role in commissioning services, shaping specifications and influencing fares and performance outcomes. We cannot simply rely on a duty to consult.

Local transport plans are critical, too. As the Bill stands, Great British Rail should “have regard to” local transport plans—forward-looking, multi-year plans developed by local transport authorities, each with a statutory basis, that promote safe, integrated, reliable and sustainable local transport policy. Simply having regard to them could lead to rail policy being delivered entirely by Great British Rail in a silo and in isolation from wider place-based policy.

I appreciate that we are planning a national rail network, but that work must not run roughshod over local economic and transport priorities. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to consider revising the language in clause 16 from “have regard to” to “act in accordance with”. I know that, in their response to the Transport Committee’s report on this matter, the Government were clear in their view that the current language is sufficient, but I am keen to stress that this Bill is about not just the next few years but the next few decades. We need to set an irreversible course for sustained devolution, and doing so means GBR not just regarding the plans, but fully aligning with them. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that.

I offer my full support to this crucial legislation, and I thank the Government for their continued engagement. Our regional leaders have an invaluable contribution to make in engaging with GBR; for that to be realised, we need to move beyond notions of consultation and towards equal and productive partnerships between mayoral strategic authorities and our rail network’s new guiding mind. That means making train travel and other forms of public transport better for passengers across the country, irrespective of where that may be, and ultimately driving economic growth. This ambition must be what guides us going forward, and that is how passengers nationwide will come to judge what we are doing here today.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 10, 12 and 13, tabled in my name. Before I start, may I sincerely thank the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago? The dialogue was constructive and welcomed, and I really hope that other Ministers take a leaf out of his book and reach across the Floor to have dialogue when moving forward with legislation.

New clause 10 would devolve rail powers in Wales to the Welsh Government and, crucially, devolve the funding that goes along with them. The current system in which one Government control trains and another Government control the track simply does not work for Wales. It prevents Wales from creating its own integrated network and planning and delivering the rail system it needs. If we are serious about improving rail for the people of Wales, we must address this fundamental issue through the full devolution of rail infrastructure, which the people of Wales support. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government were elected on a commitment to devolve rail, as is already the case in Scotland. Devolution would finally unlock the investment Wales has been denied and end the injustice of Welsh taxpayers funding England-only projects such as HS2, Oxford-Cambridge—which is nowhere near Wales—and Northern Powerhouse Rail, which again is nowhere near Wales. HS2 alone deprives Wales of nearly £6 billion.

17:00

Network Rail’s funding and planning remain reserved to Westminster, unlike in Scotland. Meanwhile, the Welsh Government receive no dedicated budget for rail enhancements, despite—in fairness—having invested over £1.3 billion in the south Wales metro. That money was diverted from essential issues such as health and education services, because the Wales block grant provides nothing for rail. New clause 12 addresses this historic underfunding. Wales has received just 1% to 2% of enhancement funding despite having 11% of the UK network. The UK Government repeatedly claim that they are investing £14 billion in Welsh rail, but I am afraid that this is simply not the case. It is an unfunded pledge—a wish list, a hoped-for. When I asked the Department for Transport in a written question whether the Treasury had guaranteed that funding, the answer was no.

Even the Government’s own figures are inconsistent. Ministers speak of a £14 billion plan, yet Transport for Wales estimates that the pipeline of projects the UK Government say they would support would cost around £10 billion. Let us look at what actual money has been committed. So far, £445 million has been committed over 10 years, with no guarantees of further funding—that is £44.5 million per year. To put that into perspective, each of our local governments has a far bigger budget than that to run our local services with. We need an urgent step change in funding for Wales to deliver the railway investment we need, and I hope the UK Government will work constructively with the new Welsh Government to deliver it. I am afraid that commitments on paper mean nothing without the funding that makes them real. The new Welsh deputy Minister for transport has already reached out to the UK Government on this issue, and I am sure the Minister will respond positively.

The last amendment that stands in my name is new clause 13, which concerns rural investment. The £445 million mainly concerns new stations in the east of Wales; rural communities, particularly in the west, have been overlooked for generations. In my constituency of Caerfyrddin, the case for reopening St Clears station is well established, as is the need to improve links towards Pembrokeshire, which I have been pressing for alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). New clause 13 would require a clear plan to ensure projects such as these merit consideration and that rural Wales and, in particular, rural west Wales finally receive their fair share of funding.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

To ensure I get all colleagues in, I am introducing an immediate four-minute time limit.

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank all railway staff at stations across Stockport, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies. I also declare an interest—trade unions have made donations to my constituency Labour party.

The British Transport Police recorded a 5% increase in crime in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, including a rise in violence and sexual offences, leading to claims of an “epidemic of violence”. It is facing a funding shortfall of £8.5 million this financial year, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we in this House have a duty to keep passengers and staff safe. As such, I urge the Government to ensure that proper, adequate funding is allocated to the BTP.

I also echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about outsourcing. Outsourcing is embedding systemic racism in parts of the railway network where outsourced workers are disproportionately from ethnic minority backgrounds. As I said earlier in an intervention, ethnic minority workers represent 25% of the directly employed train operating company workforce, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers.

The outsourcing model is driven by employers taking on workers on precarious contracts and on poor terms and conditions, such as inadequate sick pay and pensions when compared with directly employed workers. Outsourced workers typically have no travel facilities, but many in the House will be aware that a chief executive of a private train company has excellent terms and conditions, benefits and travel facilities. GBR should tackle these outsourced contracts and the poor terms and conditions that people are on. Everyone deserves fair pay and treatment, as well as dignity at work.

Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.

Reddish South train station in my constituency has one train a week. That is not a joke. It is absolutely ridiculous. Proper passenger services must be restored at Reddish South train station. I pay tribute to the Friends of Reddish South Station, who do such important work in my patch. In the last reporting period, only 102 passengers used that train station in an entire year. We need to ensure that as we move on with modernising our railway system, Reddish South is not left behind and train stations have proper services.

I did support new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). It has now been withdrawn, but it would have required GBR to establish a department to look at options to increase services to underserved places. I invite the Minister to visit Reddish South. Lord Hendy made a visit to my constituency last year, but it was at short notice and he did not have a chance to go to Reddish South. I invite the Minister and Lord Hendy to come to my constituency specifically to meet the Friends of Reddish South.

I will make a quick point on disabled access. The Access for All scheme is a good scheme, but it is far too slow. Nathaniel Yates, a constituent of mine, has done so much work over the years to improve disabled access for all, but accessibility at train stations in the north is poor, with fewer than half of all stations having step-free access. We need to ensure that more people are not excluded from our railways, such as those with mobility issues, underlying health conditions or heavy luggage. I support amendments 29 and 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would protect and promote the rights of disabled passengers.

I end on the point that since privatisation, rolling stock companies have been rinsing the taxpayer. Those companies should be brought in house, and Great British Railways should create its own rolling stock procurement team to stop taxpayers being taken advantage of.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

When I was growing up, the state of the railways, alongside the weather, was a general complaint that united most people. Thankfully, the days of the cardboard British Rail sandwich are long gone, but I regret to say that general dissatisfaction with the railway experience in my part of the world remains. That is why I welcomed the Railways Bill and the creation of Great British Railways, and I was optimistic about the renationalisation of South Western Railway, which covers my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I regret that the reliability of that service and the experience of my constituents is, if anything, worse than a year ago. I now no longer tell my family to collect me at the scheduled arrival time, but call ahead, so regular are the delays.

James, a constituent who has travelled from Wareham to London for 50 years, told me that the service has never been so poor and is not a pleasant experience. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), which would create a passenger charter. It should not be too much to ask for wi-fi that works, access to a drink or snack on a long journey, clean toilets and a guaranteed seat. Those with disabilities, bikes and prams should be able to get on and off a train and be able to put their luggage or equipment on board.

I also support new clause 6 and in particular its provision relating to fares for children. That issue was raised by students of Purbeck school when I visited last year. More than half do not stay on for sixth form, accessing colleges in Poole, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Brockenhurst. We all consider children to be children until they are 18, but not the rail companies, to whom childhood stops at 15. I presume that dates back to when we left school at 16, but we are more civilised now, and it is outrageous that a 16-year-old is considered an adult. Regardless of what happens to the new clause, please will the Government fix that?

My new clause 11 is about reducing bike thefts linked to the railways. Until February this year, bike thefts were not investigated where the bike had been left for more than two hours. That is a ridiculous position, bearing in mind that most people are going to school, out for the day or to work, and so staying away for more than two hours. The change that now allows bike thefts caught on CCTV to be investigated is great, but small rural stations such as mine at Holton Heath do not have any CCTV, so we should be preventing the bike thefts in the first place. More than 4,000 bikes were stolen from railway stations in 2024, so a modest requirement for secure cycle storage alongside car parking, or on platforms of smaller stations, seems only reasonable. I asked South Western Railway to do that voluntarily, but it refused, so my only option was to put my name to a new clause that would give passengers security and peace of mind but also reduce the need for people to drive to stations, thus supporting the railway’s role in carbon reduction.

There is an opportunity to take the railway to more people, which is why I support amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) but has, I believe, now been withdrawn. In Dorset we have a huge opportunity to revolutionise rail use through Dorset Metro, which could increase train frequency across the local area from Wareham to Christchurch and create potential new stations or halts to take the strain from the heavily congested roads. In areas where railways cannot be restored because of housing developments, the “rails to trails” programme proposed in new clause 5 provides a great opportunity. The fantastic Castleman Trailway runs through the heart of my constituency, but at Corfe Mullen it stops abruptly as it reaches the A31, and there is a missed opportunity to connect those on both sides of the community.

If we are going to let the train take the strain, it must be reliable, affordable and safe. My constituent Adam says that as things stand, he is considering moving elsewhere because travel is such a problem. While the Bill constitutes a good step, I am not sure that we can currently call this the “Great” British Railway, and I hope that the Minister will do better and accept more of the amendments to allow it to be great again.

[Cat Eccles]

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.

Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of railway accessibility. I wish to put on record, as I have been advised to by the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, that my name has been mistakenly added to new clauses 22, 59, 60, 61 and 62, but has correctly been added to new clause 23, which concerns that issue of railway accessibility.

[Cat Eccles]

The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded.

Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail.

The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed.

I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.

17:14

Finally, I wish to speak in favour of new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). The privatisation of British Rail in 1994 was an unmitigated disaster and has left passengers facing some of the highest fares in Europe, alongside persistent issues with service reliability and quality. Railways are by their very nature a monopoly, and they should never have been fragmented and placed into private hands; they should be under public ownership and accountable control, and that principle should expand to rolling stock. In 2023 alone, private train-leasing companies made over £400 million in profit. True public ownership should mean the Bill bringing rolling stock under Great British Railways and passing on savings to passengers.

I will not press any of my amendments to a vote, but I trust that the Minister and the Rail Minister in the other place will take these matters into account. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for taking this action today.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

We in this place all recognise the transformative role that railways can play in creating better-connected places and driving the economic growth that our communities and country need, yet that potential remains largely unrealised in some counties. Wiltshire has an extensive network of existing railway lines, but they remain primarily geared towards ferrying passengers and freight across the county, rather than providing a service on which residents can rely for local commuting, business and leisure travel.

Thanks to tireless local campaigning, Melksham saw a significant uplift in its rail service back in 2013, but with an average of just one train every two hours, the service remains too intermittent to meet the needs of a town experiencing rapid population growth. Meanwhile, a 20-mile station-less stretch of line runs between Westbury and Pewsey. It passes within three miles of Devizes, but there is no railway access for over 30,000 people living in the heart of Wiltshire, which is holding back the area’s economy. The Bill acknowledges the importance of local and regional rail, and requires GBR to align decisions with local transport strategies, but making mayoral strategic authorities the sole vehicle for this new co-operation leaves some 60% of England’s population not yet covered and without the tools to harness rail’s potential.

If the Government are committed to sustainable housing growth, town centre regeneration, access to jobs, education and decarbonisation, the Bill must go much further in enabling local rail. Metroisation of our railways is not just for large cities; counties such as Cornwall and Northumberland are already demonstrating how more frequent and reliable rail can transform rural economies. The Government need to ensure that market towns such as Melksham and Devizes are not left behind in economic development and can benefit from the rail network.

The creation of GBR must also be accompanied by a brand-new passenger charter. If we want more passengers to choose rail over road, we must tackle issues such as overpriced tickets and overcrowded carriages with poor wi-fi and little or no catering. I urge the Government to accept new clauses 1 and 58, and set a new bar for value for money, accessibility and passenger comfort in our new Great British Railways.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Ministers both here and in the other place for their hard work and engagement on this important Bill. I will focus my comments in favour of new clause 16.

Great British Railways cannot come soon enough for my constituency of Shrewsbury. Under privatisation, our geography has penalised us, as we sit on the edge of everyone’s maps between regional operators serving either Wales or Birmingham, leaving us under-invested and underserved. As Members may recall—I have mentioned it quite a few times—Shropshire remains the only county without a direct train to London. The value of such a direct service is not just the obvious economic boost for jobs, education and tourism, or the improved accessibility of avoiding step-heavy connections, but the important investment in infrastructure that inter-city services could unlock at our station. We need more frequent and reliable regional services, with much more capacity to cope with the vast demand for services for a county town of 70,000 residents. For example, our local university campus closed last year, and students now have to travel beyond Shrewsbury to access education, training and employment.

For these reasons, I am pleased to put my name in support of five amendments, including new clause 16, which calls for the reopening of services to underserved areas. This new clause calls for GBR to establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services, and to assess passenger and community needs for adding services, routes or stations where they are missing. It is crucial that the full opportunities of this new integrated, nationalised railway are felt across the whole country by improving service levels in underserved and often rural areas such as Shropshire, not just adding increased frequency for already well-served cities. Just last month, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I stood in this very place to present a petition signed by over 10,000 fare-paying passengers asking this Government to recognise the demand for a direct train service at Shrewsbury and to approve extra routes to London.

As we stand together on the cusp of nationalising our rail system, we must ensure that the mantra of “people before profit” becomes a reality in places such as Shrewsbury. Where investment has been lacking, let us take this opportunity to rebuild; where services have withered away, let us deliver for our communities; and where towns have been left behind, let us reconnect them. In short, let us show in deeds, not words, how Great British Railways will deliver more services for more places such as Shrewsbury.

[Monica Harding]

I rise in support of new clause 1, on the passengers’ charter, new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and my own new clause 60, which addresses reliability, accessibility and refurbishment.

All seven of my railway stations in Esher and Walton are under the stewardship of South Western Railway, making our constituency one of the first to experience the transition to public ownership, and there are significant reliability challenges. The latest performance figures show that, in March, 3% of all services were cancelled and only 65% of services arrived on time, meaning more than one in three trains fail to arrive when passengers expected them to.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?

[Monica Harding]

They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1.

It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network.

That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe.

There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need.

All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

The Bill is a necessary and long-overdue step towards bringing our railways back into public ownership. Great British Railways represents a real opportunity to build a railway that works in the interests of passengers and staff, rather than profiteering companies and distant shareholders.

For railway workers, the transition to GBR must be an opportunity to strengthen good, secure and unionised jobs across the sector. Rail staff are the backbone of the network. Whether they work on trains, in stations, or on signalling, engineering or maintenance, they keep this country moving every single day.

I also want to commend the work of campaign groups such as We Own It, alongside the rails unions the RMT, the TSSA and ASLEF, for their long-standing commitment to the renationalisation of our railways. Working constructively with the trade unions will be vital if GBR is to succeed. A publicly owned railway must also be a railway built on a partnership with its workforce.

The transport unions have raised a number of concerns that the Government should address. Tens of thousands of rail workers still do not know exactly who their future employer will be under GBR, nor do they know what pension arrangements will apply. There are also real fears about potential job losses linked to the transition. Around 870 Network Rail staff are reportedly at risk of redundancy and are concerned at de-recognition of trade unions during the TUPE transfer from Network Rail into its wholly owned public subsidiary, Platform4. A fundamental principle of the transition from private to public ownership should be that every workplace within GBR recognises trade unions.

My now-withdrawn new clause largely spoke to Beeching. The Beeching cuts, now widely recognised as a significant failure, saw the closure of up to 2,363 stations and approximately 5,000 miles of track. It severed vital links for many communities, causing lasting damage to local economies. That is felt all too acutely in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, where we have a huge gap between Caersws and Machynlleth—the longest stretch of line without a station in the whole of Wales.

17:30

New clause 16, in my name, aims to establish a dedicated function with a duty to identify opportunities to expand rail services in a cost-effective and efficient way to underserved and unserved areas across the UK. As the Minister pointed out, other avenues exist by which hon. Members and community groups can pursue the reopening of closed stations. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on the readiness of the Minister to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Member is giving an impassioned speech about areas that are underserved by rail connections. My constituency is one such areas—it does not have a single mainline station, despite being the largest constituency by land in Cornwall. Unfortunately, the North Cornwall railway was a victim of the Beeching cuts. Will the hon. Member ask the Minister how the Bill will help such areas to bring back vital rail links? There are initiatives such as Kernow Connect, which has the potential to connect my constituency at Launceston, but does the hon. Member agree that the Bill does not go far enough in that regard?

[Steve Witherden]

The hon. Member serves a similarly large and rural constituency to mine. Getting stations open in such areas is incredibly important, and I urge him to work closely with community groups, as I am sure he is already doing, so that what I am trying to do in mid and north Wales might also be done in Cornwall.

Great British Railways presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our railways and create a service that works for the public good rather than for private profit. Workers must not be sidelined; jobs, pensions and trade union rights must be protected; and passengers must see genuine improvements in affordability and reliability.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

This Bill represents a once-in-a-generation chance to create a simpler, more effective and more accountable railway. I am pleased that c2c, which serves my constituents in Thurrock, was one of the first operators to come under public ownership. I look forward to the reversal of 30 years of privatisation, which have seen fragmentation, outsourcing and a dangerous lack of investment in infrastructure. Nationalisation and the establishment of Great British Railways will allow us to protect the long-term future of our railways, putting passengers first, not profit.

When we commit to putting passengers first, however, that must mean all passengers. That is why I strongly support amendments 70 and 71, proposed by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Last year, the Transport Committee released a worrying report on access to public transport by disabled people. The Committee estimated that more than one third of disabled people were regularly avoiding travel because they believed it would be too complicated, too unsafe, or things would be too likely to go wrong.

The amendments would require a commitment from Great British Railways and a proposed passenger council not simply to consider the interests of disabled users, but to carry out their responsibilities in a way that actively promotes their interests. Accessibility must not be viewed through the same lens as customer service, where minor delays or engineering faults are considered irritating but, unfortunately, normal. Accessibility failures should be incredible rare, and failures to meet standards should be regarded as a serious infraction of people’s rights.

[Melanie Ward]

My hon. Friend is making some important points about railway accessibility, which is also an issue for my constituents, particularly at the railway stations in Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn. That is why I added my name to new clause 23, which would have introduced a strategy to ensure full railway accessibility across the country within the next 10 years. We have been waiting far too long for our railways to be accessible. We need action now.

[Jen Craft]

I completely agree. We have waited since the inception of the railways for them to be accessible. As anyone who, like me, is a bit of a rail geek and enjoys a trip on a stream train of a weekend will know, railways in the past were not designed with access for all in mind, and we can and must do better.

If a train station lift breaks overnight, wheelchair users who travel regularly on the train might find themselves in a position where they are unable to travel to work or school, visit family or get to their local hospital. That is not inconvenient; it is unacceptable. The lifts are currently out of service at Tilbury in my constituency, and the solution that is being offered is for people to travel on to the next stop, change trains, go round and come back. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. This sentiment is not reflected in the way we currently talk or think about service provision for disabled people. We urgently need a change of mindset, recognising that accessibility is a non-negotiable matter—it is the bare minimum.

At my local station in Grays, we have been waiting for operational lifts for years. Although c2c received a grant under the Access for All scheme, the lifts have been a categorical failure. As the fourth most used station in the east of England and a busy transport hub, it should have the proper infrastructure. The lifts were initially promised for late 2024, but they were not delivered until August 2025. They did not work—in fact, they have never worked. They frequently break down. Now, due to quite a lot of persistence from me, they are finally being torn out and replaced.

This has had a significant impact on my disabled constituents. One woman told me that she was trapped in a lift for 35 minutes and had to be removed by firefighters, while another told me that her husband is reluctant to use the station because he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and struggles with stairs. It is just such a shame that these brand-new lifts, which were promised under an access scheme, are out of order so very often.

I am very pleased that the Bill will bring Network Rail, which is responsible for providing, servicing and now replacing these lifts, into Great British Railways. It is absolutely right that the organisation becomes part of a unified, publicly owned body that is accountable to all the passengers who rely on it. I am hopeful that this added accountability will help to foster genuine progress on accessibility.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I wonder whether I could give the hon. Lady an update from my own constituency. A year on from South Western Railway’s nationalisation, its performance metrics continue to fall. My constituents commuting to Portsmouth or Fareham can expect that one in every three journeys will be late. It is not a good sign for the Government’s nationalisation plans, especially as GBR is now marking its own homework. The trains are dirty and overcrowded, and passengers are lucky if they can find wi-fi that works. That is the lesson we have learned from the Government’s nationalisation so far.

[Jen Craft]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I find that quite unusual, as, having travelled on privatised trains for a number of years, I am very familiar with dirty, unreliable trains, and GBR will finally unite rail and the networks to enable them to turn those things around, ensuring a rail network that delivers for all who use it and puts people over profit, which is absolutely fantastic.

It is absolutely crucial that there is added accountability in a rail service. If amendments 70 and 71 are given proper consideration, we could really see a turning point in how disabled people who regularly use the rail network are viewed. We have to consistently get the basics right. We need lifts that work, ramps with railings and staff on hand to help people on and off the trains. We also need these things to be reliably available.

With Great British Railways, we also have the potential to use the power of procurement to ensure that trains are fully designed to meet the needs of all passengers, instead of being designed around one bloke with a briefcase travelling to and from the office, as they were in the past. In the modern world, so many different people use the train, and we have an opportunity to have a rail network that services all who use it.

With Great British Railways, we have the opportunity to go further still by being more innovative and forward thinking in our efforts to support disabled passengers. I would like to shout out Railscape, a business operating locally to me, which has been developing an interactive model that allows neurodiverse people in particular to look around the station ahead of time. When neurodiverse people are looking at getting into the workforce and travelling to work, a huge barrier is anxiety over how to navigate a rail station—where the ticket barriers are, where to buy a ticket and so on—and this model allows them to plan ahead of their visit and see where they are going. I hope that this is the sort of work that Great British Railways will encourage and incorporate, as it is a fantastic example of how important it is to actively promote the interests of disabled people.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

For decades, my constituents have been dealing with the consequences of the failed experiment of the privatisation of our railways. This Bill begins to put that right. At its heart is the creation of Great British Railways—a single, publicly owned body focused not on shareholders, but on the people who use the railways day in, day out. Government amendment 92 will ensure that the benefits of nationalisation are felt by passengers for decades to come. It prevents future Ministers from undoing this progress and dragging our railways back into the chaos and fragmentation of the past.

My gramps was a train driver, and my amazing auntie Michelle—Michelle Nolan McSweeny—has dedicated her career to the railways, so for me this Bill is personal. I know the pride that hard-working railway workers take in what they do. They want to deliver a quality service for their passengers, but they have been failed by a system that puts profit above people. For too long, our railways have been broken up into pieces—pieces of track, trains and operation—all working under different initiatives. That fragmentation has made it harder to plan properly, invest and deliver the railways that passengers deserve.

A railway works best when it is treated as one. We need the people who run the trains, manage the infrastructure and make investment decisions all to be working together, not pulling in different directions. Every pound generated by our railways should be focused on improving our railway network and supporting development here in the UK. It should not flow out to private interests or be used to support railways elsewhere.

Under privatisation, some of the companies operating our rail services have been owned by overseas interests, including state-linked rail companies from other countries. That means that money from UK passengers has at times helped to support transport systems and priorities outside our own country. Our railways should be an asset that strengthens the UK economy. The fares that passengers pay and the value created by our network should help to fund better services, infrastructure and connections for communities in Britain.

We can see from across Europe that a more co-ordinated approach can deliver better infrastructure. Strong infrastructure is not just about trains; it is about jobs, housing, businesses and opportunity. We are beginning to see what a different approach can achieve. Last year, South Western Railway became the first railway company under public ownership. At the end of last month, Southern Rail followed. Public ownership operators are performing better on average on punctuality and cancellations compared with those still in private ownership. Avanti, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), has cut services and remains owned by the private companies FirstGroup and Trenitalia, which are owned by the Italian state railway.

Under public ownership, South Western Railway has accelerated its plans for new trains and improved driver training, increased capacity and more space on routes into London. It will also provide information and connections to local bus, ferry and transport services to join up the systems locally. Southern Rail’s new publicly owned operator has committed to practical improvements too, including giving passengers direct access. That is welcome, but we must make sure that those promises are properly challenged and scrutinised. Passengers need improvements that they can feel every day, including value-for-money tickets, reliable information, better customer service and better access. People also expect the basics, such as decent wi-fi and connectivity on their journey.

Those improvements matter locally. In Portsmouth North, for passengers using stations such as Hilsea and Cosham, the railway is not abstract; it is a part of everyday life. It is about getting to work, getting kids to school and college, and staying connected with communities. I look forward to working with Great British Railways to ensure that those stations have full accessibility, full safety and extended facilities.

The Bill is about bringing the railways back together and simplifying a system that has become too complex, fragmented and difficult to navigate. Amendment 92 secures this system into the future. I am proud to support the Government’s mission to keep Great British Railways in public ownership and ensure that the mistakes of privatisation are not repeated.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Railways are critical for many of my constituents, and I am pleased to speak to the Government’s amendments, particularly the measures that will ensure that nationalisation fully proceeds with no scope for future partial privatisation through the back door.

I welcome this Government’s focus on the railways, as frustratingly only part of my constituency is served by rail. The major towns of Renfrew, Erskine and Inchinnan are railway deserts right now, meaning that residents have to rely on the road network. Since privatisation in 1997, railway connections have felt more fragmented. As a regular traveller southward, I understand how important it is that the Bill will enable the system to work together, as integrated transportation is currently lacking.

The strategic planning that underlines this legislation means integrated track ownership infrastructure, and better management, service and procurement, so Great British Railways will increasingly pay off. I welcome the provisions to allow Scottish Ministers to contribute to the broader strategic planning of the railway system, and the new technical amendments for the transfer of staff under TUPE, which is essential for a smooth transition.

I am encouraged by the inclusion of rail freight in the Bill. In my constituency, Russell’s, a family-run business with a massive distribution depot in Hillington Park, already makes significant use of rail for freight distribution, and it is looking to recommission the existing railway track from Hillington and get it operational once again. I am keen to explore how I can support its aim to transport freight by rail all the way from Hillington to the centre of Europe.

17:45

The advantage of transporting freight by rail has been particularly relevant recently as the M8 motorway has been subject to long-standing structural repairs. Rail currently carries only about 7% of freight. If the UK were to match the European average of 19%, that would remove millions of heavy goods vehicles from the road and cut carbon emissions while reducing road congestion.

Members may have picked up that I have long been an advocate for improving rail infrastructure in my Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency, which houses an important strategic connection in Glasgow airport. I hope that the establishment of Great British Railways will help with a local goal. It is a source of considerable frustration for my constituents that they can take a train to Manchester airport but not to Glasgow airport, which lies just over a mile from Paisley Gilmour Street station. There is a very strong case for a rail link within my constituency, and I look forward to making that case in the context of the more strategic approach to railways that the Government’s amendments seek to deliver.

[Keir Mather]

With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice.

I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution.

GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR.

On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned.

New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency.

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region.

On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.

I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors.

New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station.

On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for meeting me and Olivia from my office to try to find a way to implement the new clause. I also thank Simon Watkins, who is vice-chair of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who has repeatedly raised the new clause’s objective with me. The Minister said earlier that GBR will be “owned by the British people and run in their interests”; does he agree that when we talk about the British people we mean all the British people and that, when the Bill proceeds to the Lords, our representative there, the Rail Minister, would be wise to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Keir Mather]

I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue.

On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute.

Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality.

On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.

New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train.

The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend will have heard representations for ensuring that, under clause 5, devolution agreements must not be unduly limited, either by the Bill or its implementation. Is he able to offer any reassurances to Transport for West Midlands and other bodies that they will continue to be part of the conversation about how the Bill is implemented?

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.

As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.

[James Wild]

The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.

[Keir Mather]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

Oh, go on then. Why not?

[Wendy Morton]

I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that accountability and transparency should be at the heart of this. I think we have pointed to a bit of a discrepancy between the views of the major parties on how that should take place. It would be an interesting argument to say that, on the one hand, we did not want to micromanage the railway but then to put on the face of the Bill lots of key performance indicators that would allow us to do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the sentiment that accountability needs to run to the heart of GBR. That is what the passenger watchdog is there for: to enforce consumer standards on the railway as licence conditions for all operators. I thank her for raising that important point.

Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause 56, on antisocial noise. That is a debate that I certainly want to take forward, and he knows how passionate I was on that matter in Committee. I thank Members once again for their contributions and for getting the Railways Bill on track for what I am sure will be a pleasant journey through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49

Modification of licence conditions

“For section 12 of the Railways Act 1993 substitute—

“12 Modification of licence conditions by the Office of Rail and Road

(1) The Office of Rail and Road may modify the conditions of a licence under section 8.

(2) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice—

(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications,

(b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect,

(c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and

(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made,

and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and

(b) by serving a copy of the notice on—

(i) each licence holder whose licence conditions are affected,

(ii) the Secretary of State,

(iii) the Scottish Ministers,

(iv) the Welsh Ministers, and

(v) the Passengers’ Council.

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with subsections (2) and (3), the Office of Rail and Road decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any licence under this section.

(5) The Office of Rail and Road must—

(a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,

(b) state the effect of the modifications,

(c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and

(d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(b).

(6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the Office of Rail and Road in relation to that modification.

(7) The date specified by virtue of subsection (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this section.””—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify rail operator licences, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

18:00

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 9 December).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 50

Modification of SNRPs

“For regulation 13 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/3050) substitute—

“Modification of SNRPs by the ORR

(1) The ORR may modify the conditions of a SNRP.

(2) Before making modifications under this regulation, the ORR must give notice—

(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications,

(b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect,

(c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and

(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made,

and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(3) A notice under paragraph (2) must be given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the ORR considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and

(b) by serving a copy of the notice on—

(i) each SNRP holder whose SNRP conditions are affected,

(ii) the Secretary of State,

(iii) the Scottish Ministers,

(iv) the Welsh Ministers, and

(v) the Passengers’ Council.

(4) Paragraphs (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with paragraphs (2) and (3), the ORR decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any SNRP under this regulation.

(5) The ORR must—

(a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,

(b) state the effect of the modifications,

(c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and

(d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of paragraph (2)(b).

(6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the ORR in relation to that modification.

(7) The date specified by virtue of paragraph (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this regulation.””—(Keir Mather).

This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify SNRPs, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Passengers’ Charter

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.

(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—

(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;

(b) targets for reliability of services;

(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—

(i) seat design,

(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,

(iii) provision of power outlets,

(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,

(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and

(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;

(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;

(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;

(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—

(i) are digital by default;

(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;

(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:01

Division 19

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 77

Noes: 271

Clause 1

Great British Railways

Amendment made: 92, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(2) A body corporate may be designated by the regulations only if it is wholly owned by the Crown.

(3) Where the designation of a body corporate by the regulations has effect no Minister of the Crown, and no person who is a member of the body, may take any steps that will result in the body ceasing to be wholly owned by the Crown.

(4) In this section ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.” —(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would require that the body corporate to be designated as Great British Railways be wholly owned by the Crown, and would prevent ministers and members of the body from taking steps that would result in that status changing.

Clause 2

Crown status etc

Amendment made: 93, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(6A) This section applies in relation to GBR companies as it applies in relation to Great British Railways.”—(Keir Mather.)

This section would ensure that subsidiaries of GBR and companies jointly owned by GBR and the Scottish or Welsh Ministers are treated in the same way for the purposes of Crown status as is GBR itself.

Clause 6

Co-operation with Transport for London

Amendments made: 94, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) In subsection (2)—

(a) for ‘the purposes of the co-operation required under subsection (1) above,’ substitute ‘purposes connected with passenger transport services for persons travelling to, from and within Greater London, Great British Railways,’, and

(b) for ‘one another’ substitute ‘each other’.

(5A) In subsection (2A), after ‘London to’ insert ‘Great British Railways or’.”

This amendment would reinstate references to the Secretary of State in section 175(2) and (2A) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and allow payments to be made by TfL to the Secretary of State in connection with London rail services.

Amendment 95, page 4, line 31, at end insert—

“(b) a reference to the functions of the Secretary of State is to be read as a reference to the functions of the Secretary of State under—

(i) sections 22 to 24 of the Railways Act 2005 (discontinuance of railway passenger services), and

(ii) sections 25, 28 and 30 of the Railways Act 2026 (designation of railway passenger services).”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would define what is meant by references to the functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 175(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Clause 34

Discount fare schemes

Amendment proposed: 143, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)

18:16

Division 20

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 167

Noes: 266

Clause 58

Restrictions on disclosure of information by the LTUC

Amendment made: 96, page 32, line 36, at end insert—

“(2) In the application of section 145(5)(a) of the Railways Act 1993 by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, the reference to section 50 of the Railways Act 2026 is to be read as a reference to section 252DB of this Act.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would provide for the general restriction on disclosure of information in section 145 of the Railways Act 1993 not to apply to information and advice published by the LTUC under section 252DB of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Clause 68

Appeals procedure

Amendment proposed: 148, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:28

Division 21

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 155

Noes: 279

Clause 69

Access agreements

Amendments made: 97, page 39, line 32, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

This amendment and amendments 98 to 105 would provide for GBR companies to be treated in the same way as Great British Railways for the purposes of the access provisions of the Railways Act 1993.

Amendment 98, page 39, line 37, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 99, page 40, line 2, leave out

“Great British Railways may not,”

and insert

“Neither Great British Railways nor a GBR company may,”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 100, page 40, line 9, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 101, page 40, line 11, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 102, page 40, line 15, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 103, page 40, line 19, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 104, page 40, line 26, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Amendment 105, page 40, line 31, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 97.

Clause 70

Access rights

Amendment made: 106, page 40, line 36, after “Railways” insert “or a GBR company”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would prevent GBR companies from being infrastructure managers for the purposes of the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016.

Clause 72

regulations about non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services

Amendment made: 107, page 42, line 27, leave out from “not” to end of line and insert “GBR infrastructure”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Clause 73

Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 3

Amendment made: 108, page 42, line 30, leave out from second “infrastructure” to end of line 31 and insert—

“managed or operated by Great British Railways or a GBR company, but does not include any such infrastructure managed or operated on behalf of a person other than Great British Railways or a GBR company”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would define GBR infrastructure so as to exclude infrastructure managed or operated by GBR or a GBR company on behalf of non-GBR companies from the definition of GBR infrastructure.

Clause 75

Miscellaneous functions of ORR

Amendment made: 109, page 44, line 6, at end insert “or a GBR company”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would prevent the ORR from giving a direction to a GBR company under section 16A of the Railways Act 1993.

Clause 86

Transfer schemes made by the Secretary of State

Amendments made: 110, page 51, line 10, leave out “or”.

This amendment and amendment 111 would expand the categories of property, rights and liabilities that could be transferred under a transfer scheme.

Amendment 111, page 51, line 11, after “services” insert—

“or the management of land or other property formerly used in connection with the provision of such services,”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 110.

Amendment 112, page 51, line 31, leave out “or”.

This amendment and amendments 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117 would amend clauses 86 and 88 to achieve equivalence between the powers of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make transfer schemes.

Amendment 113, page 51, line 31, at end insert

“or a company jointly owned by the Secretary of State and a former GBR,”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.

Amendment 114, page 52, line 6, at end insert—

“(iiia) the Secretary of State,

(iiib) a company wholly owned by the Crown,”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.

Amendment 115, page 52, line 10, at end insert—

“(f) from a company wholly owned by the Crown to another company wholly owned by the Crown.” —(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.

Clause 88

Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers

Amendments made: 116, page 53, line 35, leave out “or”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.

Amendment 117, page 53, line 35, at end insert—

“or a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and a former GBR,”.—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.

Clause 95

Regulations

Amendments made: 118, page 57, line 17, after “State” insert “or the Treasury”.

This amendment makes provision consequential on NC48.

Amendment 119, page 57, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Tax consequences of transfer schemes) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment makes provision consequential on NC48.

Schedule 1

Licensing of Great British Railways

Amendments made: 120, page 60, line 12, after “Railways” insert “and its subsidiaries”.

This amendment would allow subsidiaries of Great British Railways to be authorised by the GBR licence to operate railway assets.

Amendment 121, page 60, line 27, leave out

“other than Great British Railways”.

This amendment and amendments 122 and 123 would ensure that a subsidiary of Great British Railways may not also be licensed under section 8.

Amendment 122, page 60, line 31, leave out

“other than Great British Railways”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 121.

Amendment 123, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) The powers under subsections (1) and (2) may not be exercised to grant a licence to Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways.”—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 121.

Amendment 168, page 63, line 30, leave out from “specifying” to “which” in line 31 and insert—

“the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within”.

This amendment would bring the period for objections and representations specified under section 11A(3)(c) of the Railways Act 1993 into line with that under the provision that would be inserted by Amendment 169.

Amendment 169, page 64, line 4, at end insert—

“11B Modification of Great British Railways’ licence by agreement

(1) The Office of Rail and Road may, after any consultation required by subsection (2), modify the conditions of a licence held by Great British Railways if Great British Railways consents to the modification.

(2) This subsection requires consultation with the Passengers’ Council if the proposed modifications relate to functions of the Council.

(3) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice—

(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications and setting out their effect,

(b) stating the reasons for proposing to do so, and

(c) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made.

(4) A notice under subsection (3) is given—

(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications, and

(b) by serving a copy of the notice on Great British Railways.

(5) The Office of Rail and Road must consider any representations or objections which are made before the end of the period specified in the notice and not withdrawn.

(6) As soon as practicable after modifying the conditions of a licence under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must send a copy of the modifications to the Secretary of State and the Passengers’ Council.”

This amendment would allow the Office of Rail and Road and Great British Railways to agree to modify conditions of the licence held by Great British Railways.

Amendment 124, page 64, line 5, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would remove amendments to the Railways Act 1993 which are no longer required due to the substitution of section 12 made by NC49 and the repeal inserted by amendment 132.

Schedule 2

Funding Great British railways

Amendment made: 125, page 73, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State considers” and insert “Scottish Ministers consider”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would correct a drafting error in paragraph 13(5) of Schedule 2.

Schedule 3

Transfer schemes

Amendments made: 126, page 75, line 18, after “liabilities” insert “under or”.

This amendment and amendment 128 would broaden the provision that may be made under a transfer scheme regarding contracts of employment.

Amendment 127, page 78, line 17, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—

“8 (1) A transfer scheme may provide for—

(a) modifications by agreement;

(b) modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.

(2) Any such modifications may include—

(a) any provision that could have been contained in the original scheme;

(b) incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with the modifications.”

This amendment would amend provision regarding modification of transfer schemes.

Amendment 128, page 78, line 32, after “liabilities” insert “under or”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 126.

Amendment 129, page 80, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate Minister”.

This amendment would require information under paragraph 11(5)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Bill to be provided to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, instead of the Secretary of State, in appropriate cases.

Amendment 130, page 80, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate Minister”.

This amendment would allow an application for an order under paragraph 11(8) of Schedule 3 to the Bill to be made by the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, instead of the Secretary of State, in appropriate cases.

Amendment 131, page 80, line 28, at end insert—

“(11) In this paragraph “the court” means—

(a) in England and Wales, the High Court;

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would add a definition of “the court” to paragraph 11 of Schedule 3.

Schedule 4

Minor and Consequential amendments

Amendments made: 132, page 82, line 20, leave out paragraphs 6 and 7 and insert—

“6 Omit sections 13 to 15C.”

This amendment would repeal sections 13 to 15C of the Railways Act 1993, which concern a licence modification referral mechanism which is no longer required.

Amendment 133, page 84, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) At the appropriate place insert—

““GBR company” has the same meaning as in the Railways Act 2026 (see section 96(1) of that Act);”.”

This amendment defines GBR company in the Railways Act 1993 for the purposes of the references added to that Act by amendments 97 to 105, 106 and 109.

Amendment 134, page 85, line 21, leave out “At the end of” and insert “In”.

This amendment and amendment 135 would provide for the general restriction on disclosure of information in section 145 of the Railways Act 1993 not to apply to information and advice published by the Passengers’ Council under clause 50 of the Bill.

Amendment 135, page 85, line 21, after “(5)(a)” insert—

“(a) after “71 above” insert “, or section 50 of the Railways Act 2026,”, and

(b) at the end”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 134.

Amendment 136, page 88, line 5, at end insert—

“47A After section 12 insert—

“Local government bodies

12A Arrangements between local government bodies and Secretary of State

(1) A relevant local government body and the Secretary of State may, for purposes connected with railway passenger services for persons travelling to, from or within the body’s area, enter into arrangements with respect to the exercise and performance of their respective functions on such terms as may appear to them to be expedient.

(2) Those arrangements may include arrangements under which sums become due from the body to the Secretary of State—

(a) in respect of railway passenger services for persons travelling to, from or within the body’s area;

(b) in respect of station services provided in connection with such railway passenger services;

(c) in respect of bus substitution services provided as alternatives for such railway passenger services.

(3) In this section—

(a) “relevant local government body” means—

(i) a mayoral combined authority (within the meaning of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026),

(ii) a mayoral combined county authority, (within the meaning of that Act), or

(iii) a Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area;

(b) a reference to the functions of the Secretary of State is to be read as a reference to the functions of the Secretary of State under—

(i) sections 22 to 24 of this Act (discontinuance of railway passenger services), and

(ii) sections 25, 28 and 30 of the Railways Act 2026 (designation of railway passenger services).””

This amendment would allow relevant local government bodies power to enter into arrangements with the Secretary of State in respect of railway and station services for their areas similar to those that amendment 94 would allow TfL to enter into.

Amendment 137, page 90, line 38, leave out paragraph 73 and insert—

“73 (1) Regulation 2(1) is amended as follows.

(2) In the definition of “railway undertaking”, after “private undertaking,” insert “other than Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways,”.

(3) At the appropriate place insert—

““subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006;””.

This amendment would exempt subsidiaries of Great British Railways from needing a railway undertaking licence under the Railway (licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005.

Amendment 138, page 91, line 31, leave out from “2(1)” to “, after” and insert “(scope)”.

This amendment would remove a duplicated reference to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, and add a note on the Article being amended.

Amendment 139, page 91, line 34, after “Railways” insert

“or a subsidiary of Great British Railways”.

This amendment and amendment 140 would ensure that Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 applies to subsidiaries of Great British Railways.

Amendment 140, page 91, line 35, at end insert—

“79A In Article 3 (definitions), at the end insert—

“19. ‘subsidiary’ has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.””

See the explanatory statement for amendment 139.

Amendment 141, page 92, line 33, at end insert—

“88A (1) Regulation 3 is amended as follows.

(2) In the definition of “railway undertaking”, after “means” insert—

“(a) Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways, but only in relation to the provision of services for the transport of passengers by rail where the operation of the trains providing the services is authorised by a licence under section 7B of the Act; and

(3) At the appropriate place insert—

““subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006;”.

88B In regulation 8(1), after “Railway undertakings” insert “(other than Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways)”.”

This amendment would include GBR and its subsidiaries in the definition of railway undertaking in the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016. It would exempt them from management independence requirements under regulation 8, because the Bill includes similar requirements in relation to them.

Amendment 142, page 93, line 1, leave out paragraph 90 and insert—

“90 (1) Regulation 12 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (2)(c), omit “the strategy referred to in regulation 11 and”

(3) In paragraph (4) after “railway undertaking” insert “(other than Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways)”.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment would exempt GBR and its subsidiaries from the business plan requirements under Regulation 12 of the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016, because the Bill imposes similar requirements on them.

Third Reading

18:40

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to start my remarks with a short story. This time two years ago, like many colleagues on the Government Benches today, I was not a sitting MP. I was a parliamentary candidate standing for the first time to represent my home town of Swindon, a place with a proud railway heritage, with its people unashamedly ambitious for the future. When I stood in that election, I stood on a promise of renationalising our railways.

There were some who doubted whether we would ever do it, but as this Bill heads off to the other place for its next stage of parliamentary scrutiny, I say to the doubters that this is what change looks like: a Government doing what they said they would do in their manifesto; a Government delivering for the ordinary men and women who use our railways, the businesses that depend on our railways, and the staff who work on them; a Government replacing a privatised system, which was corroding in a state of perpetual decline, with one where there is now new hope.

When I stood at London Bridge station last December, as we unveiled the new Great British Railways branding and train livery, I saw hope in the eyes of the passengers I spoke to—hope for a better, more reliable railway; hope for an end to waiting for trains that never arrive; hope for the basics of working toilets, enough seats and simple fares—because if we are honest, hope has been in short supply on the railways for far too long. For years, the industry delivered poorer performance for higher prices. As a nation, we spent billions on upgrading infrastructure, but a fragmented system could not translate that into passenger benefits. We have had 30 reviews since 2006, all diagnosing the same problem—re-diagnosing it time and again—yet the previous Government were not able and were not willing to do the hard work to create solutions. Today, we make that change.

Thanks to this Bill, we will deliver the biggest reform to our railways in 30 years. Where there is fragmentation, we will bring integration; where decisions used to be made for private profit, they will now be made for the public good; and where passengers were forced to navigate multiple companies and unclear accountabilities, they will soon deal with one railway and one team with one mission, which is to deliver better services for the travelling public.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) and I have a hope, which is that parking at Worcestershire Parkway station can expand. We have been told by Great Western Railway that it can no longer do that, because it is now the responsibility of Great British Railways. Can the Secretary of State reassure my hon. Friend and me that the wonderful entity she is creating through this legislation will expand the parking, so that my constituents can hope for a parking place at Worcestershire Parkway?

[Heidi Alexander]

People obviously need to be able to get to the railway station. This Bill gives me the power to establish Great British Railways. I will talk to Great Western Railway about the issue the hon. Member raises—the company is still in private ownership—and I will write back to her with further detail.

I would like to summarise the main features of the Bill and remind Members what we have already achieved. Over half of operators are already under public control, thanks to legislation we introduced weeks after entering office. The benefits are starting to be felt: around 40 new Arterio trains on South Western, rolling stock that was sat for years in the sidings under privatisation, now released into service; performance among operators under public control now outstripping those still in private hands; pay-as-you-go ticketing being rolled out to more stations across the south-east; easier to understand fares in Greater Manchester; and passengers keeping more of their hard-earned cash thanks to the first rail fares freeze in 30 years.

This Bill will be the most significant step yet. For decades, the industry has been crying out for coherent direction and leadership. With Great British Railways that is what it will get: a single national leader co-ordinating track and train, setting timetables and fares.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new powers in the Bill, particularly on timetabling. To give an example from my patch of how the new powers could be used to improve passengers’ experience without having to build any new railway infrastructure, hundreds of people have told me that they want a faster service from Hastings to London that does not stop at every single station along the way. That could shave a long time off people’s morning commute. On the other line I represent, passengers in Rye constantly miss their connection at Ashford because of the late-arriving Marshlink service, and face either missing their train or an extremely dangerous dash through Ashford station, where people fall over. If we could better co-ordinate between Southeastern and Southern Railway, that could be alleviated.

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend has been a dogged campaigner on the railways for her constituents in Hastings and Rye. I believe her proposals are worthy of consideration by Southeastern, a company in public ownership. I would be happy to pursue that further on her behalf.

GBR will sweep away decades of inefficiency and waste. We will finally bear down on spiralling costs. We will wave goodbye to a system riddled with perverse incentives, in which armies of lawyers argue over whose fault a delay is. Instead, GBR will be a publicly owned and commercially agile company run by industry experts, not politicians. We will turn a web of competing interests into one railway that makes decisions in customers’ interest and their interest alone.

[Graham Stuart]

I speak to the staff on Hull Trains, which are used by the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleagues—to her left, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and to her right, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather). I speak to the customers of Hull Trains and I see the huge economic benefit that Hull Trains, an open access operator, has brought to our region and all the other areas it serves down to London. They are fearful of the perverse incentives of a GBR that does not necessarily have any regard for open access operators. What is there in the Bill to protect Hull Trains when it seeks access to rail track in future?

[Heidi Alexander]

I have always been clear that there is a role for open access operators on our network where they provide value for money.

If I may now turn to passengers, I am not ashamed of the fact that GBR will be obsessed with delivering for its customers. In fact, it will have a statutory duty to promote their interests. That starts with ticketing, which is currently a mind-bendingly complex system. I have said it before and I will say it again: buying a ticket should be effortless. Fares should be simple and consistent, and passengers should know they are always getting the best value—and under GBR, they will.

A new ticketing app and website will give passengers the ability to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all from the palm of their hands—no booking fees, no navigating lots of websites; just a 21^st-century way of paying for a service. If passengers are let down, if accessibility falls short or if performance is not up to scratch, they will have a powerful champion fighting their corner: a strengthened passenger watchdog.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will not give way.

GBR will also manage access decisions in relation to track capacity, enabling us to unlock the full potential of the whole network. That also means unleashing the huge economic and environmental potential of freight. Rail remains the best way to send bulky goods long distance, which is why GBR will have a legal duty to promote rail freight in line with our 2050 target.

GBR represents a simpler, more transparent railway to do business with. No longer will suppliers need to make their case to multiple parts of the network. GBR will be the single decision maker, able to take a long-term view, giving the private sector the confidence and certainty it needs.

I finish by thanking all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill so far—particularly those on the Transport Committee for their diligent approach.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

No. I am conscious of giving time to the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee for completing the painstaking task of line-by-line scrutiny. I also thank Members on the Front Bench, as well as those sat on the Back Benches, for their vital perspectives. I particularly thank the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation for handling the passage of the Bill so dutifully and ably. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Rail Minister, and give a huge thanks to all the officials in my Department who have worked so hard to get the Bill to this stage.

This Government promised to fix what was broken in our economy and reform what does not work. That is why the Bill matters. We will fix our broken railways. While I cannot promise it will be achieved overnight, I say this: will GBR put the needs of passengers and freight users above all else? Yes, absolutely. Will passengers soon see the difference in ticketing and reliability in a railway that is easier to use? Most definitely. Will GBR help to unlock economic growth, house building and opportunity across the country? Undoubtedly. The Bill draws a line under the decline and dysfunction of the past. Today, we are bringing hope back to our railways. I commend the Bill to the House.

18:51

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out.

We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters.

Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government.

That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong.

Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.

[Wendy Morton]

The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point.

If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control.

Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off.

We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire.

When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway.

The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:56

Division 22

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 278

Noes: 149

Bill read the Third time and passed.