Railways Bill

Brian Mathew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). I am still trying to work out what a Lib Dem Bill would include that this one does not.

I welcome the Bill, which is universally agreed to be long needed. It is the essential next step in ensuring that rail in Britain is more unified and that we deliver a rail system that is reliable and safe and provides value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.

The Railways Act 1993 led to 30 years of a poor deal for passengers, other customers and taxpayers, with 17 different organisations providing track and trains, multiple fare options and prices, hundreds of staff employed to attribute the cost of delays, staff shortages and no single voice to address individual systemic failures of service. Yet the railways have a workforce who are universally committed to delivering a high-quality service to passengers and customers.

I particularly welcome the proposal that the Secretary of State will issue a long-term rail strategy setting out objectives and the direction of travel for railways for the next 30 years. That will please so many stakeholders, including, in particular, investors in rail as well as mayoral authorities—in fact, all those who work in and use rail. I welcome that clause 18 includes duties on GBR to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, which specifically includes disabled passengers, and to run the railway in the public interest—in other words, to meet social, economic and environmental objectives.

Clause 18 sets out a series of significant duties for GBR, including the promotion the use of rail freight. But while clause 17 requires the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a target for growth in rail freight, there is no such target in the Bill for growth in passenger demand.

My Committee launched an inquiry on the Bill on 5 November—the day that the Bill was published—focusing in particular on three core aims of the reform: improving rail travel for passengers, network access, and devolution. We have published the evidence we have received so far, and the oral evidence taken on 26 November is tagged as a relevant document for this debate.

First, passenger experience is central to all our constituents who travel by rail—or who would do if it was more accessible, more reliable or cheaper. The passenger watchdog is a new voice providing advocacy and advice, sharing best practice and providing alternative dispute resolution. Clause 36 says that it will have a duty to have “particular regard” to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. It will set standards on how travel information is provided, including when there is a disruption. It will handle complaints and delay compensation, and it will require operators to make services accessible. Those powers in London and on Eurostar will be covered by an expanded London TravelWatch.

On the detail of enforcement powers, clauses 42 to 47 give the passenger watchdog powers to receive complaints. That is helpful, but I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. Will the Passengers’ Council be sufficiently independent, powerful and resourced to challenge GBR to deliver meaningful change if needed? What will the governance relationship be between the watchdog, the ORR and the rail ombudsman? What remedy will passengers have if the passenger watchdog’s recommendations are not adopted? Who will appoint the members of the council and the chair? Will passenger groups and disabled people be represented on the board?

Accessibility is a particular interest of the Transport Committee, following the publication of our report “Access denied” in February. I welcome the fact that clause 18 explicitly includes the needs of disabled passengers as a general duty, but that is only one of six duties that will have to be balanced. What guidance will be provided to GBR on balancing those needs, to ensure that disabled people do not lose out yet again? The wording in clause 18 on accessibility could also be said to be slightly objective. What safeguards are there against a future Secretary of State cutting costs and altering, diluting or even removing accessibility requirements?

On fairs and ticketing, we welcome a unified system. On network access, there is slightly less clarity on the future role of passenger open access. If the Government want to end open access for passengers, do they have a plan for retaining its benefits, such as filling gaps, opening up new routes and promoting price competition? On freight, how will the targets be aligned?

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a danger of a conflict of interest? At present, the ORR, an independent body, holds the power to grant track access rights. Under the Bill, those powers will transfer to GBR, while the ORR’s role is watered down. If GBR is able to block applications, it becomes judge and jury. Open access operators such as Go-op may struggle to get the access rights that they need to run new services, including through Melksham.

[Ruth Cadbury]

There are questions about the relationship between the Secretary of State, GBR, the ORR and the passenger watchdog, which we will certainly pursue—and so, I am sure, will others.

Devolution is central to the Government’s vision, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and elected mayors will have greater control of their areas. Will there be an oversight role, so that local decisions do not conflict with national priorities, such as providing access to rail freight?

In conclusion, I really welcome the Bill, although the two Opposition amendments do not. The Bill will work if it relieves the Secretary of State of day-to-day operational decision making, and lets those who understand the rail system get on with delivering for the benefit of passengers, the economy and the environment.

Railways Bill

Brian Mathew Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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.