Railways Bill

Daniel Francis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I support some of the aims and intentions behind the Bill, and having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, I certainly agree with her reasons for it, but I do not believe that what she is doing will deliver what she says.

Key parts of the Bill are taken from the previous Conservative Government’s 2023 plans to unite train and track, which were not realised due to the change of Government at the election. That does not inevitably have to be done by nationalisation; indeed, under the last Government’s detailed plans, it would have been done under a concessionary scheme. That is not ideology but pragmatism. It is using the state and the private sector to deliver better railways. That model is very similar to the model used by Transport for London, which was designed by Labour and is run by Labour in London.

It is unfathomable why the Government will not look at that sort of pragmatic scheme for the rest of the UK through this Bill. I suspect that the only answer is the inevitable one offered by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden): this is a matter of ideology. It is about satisfying Labour’s union paymasters and Back Benchers—those Back Benchers who fundamentally run this Government, who vetoed the Government’s attempt to cut the welfare bill last summer, and who ensured that the Budget two weeks ago increased taxes to allow more welfare spending. For the Secretary of State and the Government, this is about a politically prudent pay-off, but it is bad for passengers.

I did some market research earlier. I travelled on a publicly owned service on a publicly owned track from Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo, and it was delayed because of signal failure. In fact, I do market research on that route quite often. The track has been in the public sector for over a decade, and signal failure continues to be the most common reason for delays to the train. The issue is not the train company, which was historically private, but the publicly owned track. It is not inevitable that nationalisation will lead to improved services, and there are no guarantees in the Bill that prices will be held down long term, or that services will improve and more passengers will travel by rail. That is simply a matter of faith, driven by a belief in nationalisation.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Southeastern was nationalised under the previous Government, and it remains nationalised under this Government, but this year, it has been brought into one organisation with Network Rail, and there has been the best customer satisfaction for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and the best journey times you could see. Southeastern is at the forefront of this programme, so does the hon. Member agree that the proof is in Southeastern’s statistics?

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member obviously was not listening to what I said at the beginning, which was that I absolutely believe in uniting the trains and the track; that was the 2023 plan of the previous Conservative Government. If he is right about the improvements in his part of the world, I suspect that the reason is not nationalisation, but bringing the two together, so that they are subject to similar decision-making processes.

The Secretary of State opened her speech by saying that she wanted a railway system that was greater than the sum of its parts. I agree. If she were to buy a National Rail ticket in Shanklin on the Isle of Wight, get on a train there, and travel to London Waterloo or Guildford, she would, like me, use the ferry service that connects parts of the railway. Fares are not being frozen for that part of the rail route, because the Secretary of State has no powers to do that, and is not creating those powers. In fact, the cost of rail travel from Sandown, Shanklin or Ryde on the Isle of Wight through to Guildford or Waterloo will go up if the unregulated ferry companies put their fares up. The Secretary of State is doing nothing to deal with that part of the railway for people who live in my constituency.

In fact, the situation is worse than that, because the Government are extending the emissions trading system levy to Solent travel. The ferry company Wightlink, which connects the railways, will pay £1 million a year in extra charges because of that levy being extended to it. The Government talk about freezing fares for mainland rail travellers, but they are in fact putting up the costs for Isle of Wight train travellers. The use of fossil fuels cannot be avoided in crossing the Solent, because there is not the electric grid capacity in the mainland ports or the Isle of Wight ports to allow the ferry companies to go fully electric, as the trains have done. That grid capacity will not be there until the mid-2030s. The Government are putting that cost on Isle of Wight rail and road users, but they have exempted Scottish ferry companies, because they say that those provide a lifeline service. Isle of Wight ferries are every bit as much a lifeline service for my constituents, who use them to access education, NHS, friends and family and all the things that everyone else enjoys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I rise to support the measures in the Railways Bill. I know that the measures will be supported by my constituents, who predominantly travel from the four train stations of Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Slade Green and Crayford, which are all located in my constituency. Three of those stations are solely served by Southeastern, with the benefits of nationalisation beginning to be seen on the service. For instance, in a new timetable that will take effect next week, the Bexleyheath line will see both additional evening services and increased capacity to Victoria at weekends. I appreciate that more remains to be done, and I will continue to campaign for improvements.

I have a long-standing interest in these matters, having served for four years as a member of the board of London TravelWatch—or, as it is technically known as and referred to in the Bill, the London Transport Users Committee. That experience lives with me, and it is the reason why I support the Bill. On far too many occasions at board meetings, I heard excuses from train operating companies and Network Rail blaming each other for issues relating to punctuality. That led to the lunacy of hundreds of staff being employed to establish who should cover the cost of delays.

Earlier this year, we saw the Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route unite under a single leadership team to form South Eastern Railway. The partnership is delivering improvements, with increased customer satisfaction and reduced cancellations. Initiatives include shared planning, daytime track access without service disruption, and trials of drone and AI technology.

I welcome the measures included in the Bill to help ensure that the railway is made more accessible for all. Hon. Members will have heard my tales of my experience using public transport as the parent of a wheelchair user and my requests for the introduction of a National Rail accessibility app. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State has named accessibility as one of the six key objectives for the railway.

Having one national operator, rather than competing operators, will improve the assistance offered and the simplification of ticketing for disabled passengers. Importantly, paragraph 49 in schedule 3 to the Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that the public sector equality duty applies to GBR. I welcome the Government’s road map to an accessible railway based around seven priority themes.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of an expanded passenger watchdog, having served on the board of London TravelWatch and having worked alongside Transport Focus on some aspects of joint working during that time. Those changes in London to the London Transport Users Committee include the expansion of the current role for my constituents, which will see a

“particular regard to the interests and needs”

of disabled people.

For the reasons I have outlined, I look forward to voting against the amendment this evening and voting in favour of the Bill on Second Reading.

Railways Bill (First sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

As it says in the register, I am a member of GMB, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Community union.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

As outlined in my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of GMB and USDAW. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

As per my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Q Emma, further to your previous comments, will you say a little more about the current general duty in the Bill to promote the needs of disabled passengers being vague and unenforceable? Do you have any further suggestions for how it could be strengthened, perhaps using examples from other sectors? I am interested to hear what the rest of the panel has to say about that as well.

Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.

Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.

Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.

On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.

Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.

Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.

[Daniel Francis]

Q This question is predominantly for Michael and Alex, but others can come in. On the watchdog and current enforcement, I understand that under the new regulations, the enforcement power would go to the ORR. Could you expand on whether that is an improvement or a backwards step from the current arrangements? Many years ago, I was a member of the London TravelWatch board. There are clearly continuing issues with cross-borough arrangements in London—I speak as a London MP. How do you see the new arrangements working for my constituents, for instance, who will sometimes take a London-only journey but sometimes take a London-into-Kent journey?

Alex Robertson: I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out. I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans.

You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done. We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that.

Michael Roberts: There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach. It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later.

Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world. We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role.

Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.

We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.

[Joe Robertson]

Q My question relates to the interconnectivity of rail services and other public transport. We have heard evidence today about the Bill supposedly offering potential for integrating rail-to-rail connections. Let me give an example: a rail ticket from London Waterloo through to Ryde Pier Head can be bought through National Rail—one ticket, one payment—but the train that leaves Waterloo at, say, 3.30 pm will get into Portsmouth Harbour five minutes after the ferry departs for Ryde Pier Head to complete that journey. This Bill gives no powers over, for example, Isle of Wight ferry companies, which are privatised and unregulated. Is there anything in the Bill that might help to deal with that? I use ferries as an example, but clearly buses and other travel providers are relevant elsewhere. Is there anything in the Bill that can deal with that sort of timetabling issue, so that it becomes a thing of the past? If not, do you see an opportunity to bring in some provisions in this Bill, and perhaps you could identify what that would look like?

Ben Plowden: As we heard in the previous panel, the provisions in the Bill for GBR to engage with and to take account of the strategies and interests of communities in the regions and localities are very important, because understanding of anomalies is likely to be much greater closer to where they occur.

Whether the Bill could require the list of people that GBR is required to engage with to be extended—for example, to ferry operators—to make sure that services, including the planning of timetabling and fares or ticketing, were more properly integrated, is an interesting question. I do not know how you would do that in the Bill, but certainly the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and local authorities in this process will help. It is an interesting question whether the Bill could make specific provision for the additional transport providers and operators that GBR would need to engage with to achieve that integration.

Emma Vogelmann: At Transport for All, we very much look at every journey as multimodal—exactly what you were describing. We have found through our research that interchanges, specifically those between modes of transport, are one of the most significant barriers that disabled people experience on any journey. Where in the Bill this could be dealt with is a really interesting question, but as well as integration with other transport modes, such as ferries and so on, we also need to look at the immediate surroundings of stations, where I do think this Bill could have some influence.

We know that disabled people may not use a particular station because, although it is step-free, there is no blue badge parking around the station, meaning that there is no way for them to get safely to it, or there no dropped kerb to allow them to use that station. If we are going to look at journeys as multimodal, we really need to see this as an opportunity, potentially in this Bill, to look at the areas surrounding railway stations themselves.

Alex Robertson: I do not know what could be changed within the scope of the Bill to directly address your issue.  It is partly a question of how effectively local transport is integrated, and then how that integrates with national transport.

I did want to mention that we are passenger watchdog not just for rail, but for buses and the strategic road network, and we look at it through the lens that has already been talked about. Emma particularly highlighted that the perspective we would bring is to ensure that, when decisions are made and priorities are set, they are thought about in the round—how they affect people in their door-to-door journeys—and not narrowly in terms of rail.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I will certainly take that away.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Q I should declare that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users—one of my children is a wheelchair user. Having used SNCF’s retailer to book assistance, I will say it is not the best game in town. Under the new arrangements, do you see that there could be advantages for bringing accessibility information together, particularly given the way it currently works across train operating companies? How would that be sold to disabled passengers?

Catriona Meehan: You raise a really good point: having only one retailer offering certain things, such as accessibility information, is a problem. That is why we need several retailers, to have that competition and to work on those products and make better offerings. That is something we do in the third-party retail market.

John Davies: There is always more that can be done in this space, of course. Trainline has been in discussion with the Rail Delivery Group regarding access to its central system, which would enable us to offer passenger assistance to customers and to book the kind of assistance they need at stations or on board trains. That was what I was referring to earlier as one of the features that we have been unable to secure access to. Of course, giving the broadest possible access, in the right way, to customers with additional needs is an extremely important part of what we all do.

[Daniel Francis]

Q I hear the merits of having different retailers, but where you have one operator—as we see in London with the TfL Go app—do you see benefits in having all the accessibility information in one place, because that operator is able to collate it and pull it together?

John Davies: I think it is a bit like there being one central seat reservation system that every train operator uses. Every customer who books a ticket, via whichever operator, accesses the same seat reservation system—there is one definitive record. The same could be true of passenger assistance bookings.

Rail Delivery Group, or its successor, which will be part of the retail industry and management function in the future, could have a system—a definitive record—of all availability of assisted services on offer in the industry. That could be accessed by any retailer, so that customers can book assistance as they need it, for stations or on board trains, and the staff at those stations and on those trains know who to expect and the kind of assistance that is needed. It would all be aggregated in one place, but drawn upon by as many retailers as needed.

[Laurence Turner]

Q In Trainline’s written evidence—possibly to the Transport Committee rather than this one, or possibly to both—there is a reference to a view that there might be some particularly sensitive data within GBR that Trainline believes should be firewalled off from any ticketing function. I think the suggestion is that there may be some operational information to which GBR’s ticketing function should not be given privileged access. I was wondering whether you could expand on that point and explain what types of information we are talking about. John Davies: What we are advocating for is that whatever flows of data or information are necessary for, say, a GBR online retail function to do the work of helping customers engage with the rail industry—to book tickets, to travel and to do all those things—all those sources of information should be made available equally, at the same level and without discrimination, to whoever has a legitimate cause to use them.

One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.

Railways Bill (Third sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Laurence Turner]

I must start by slightly disagreeing with the Minister on his approach to railway puns. The shadow Minister referred to the discussion on amendment 257 as a dispute; I reassure him that this is not a case of pistons at dawn—[Laughter.] It is going to get so much worse. Before I come to the Minister’s substantive response, I will briefly respond to a few other comments that have been made in the debate.

The shadow Minister spoke about changes in passenger numbers over the years, which is a good illustration of why it is important to look across a whole time series, and to bear in mind the old maxim that correlation is not causation. After all, passenger numbers were already falling by the time that we got to vesting day in 1948. The railways were exhausted after years of war—indeed, passenger numbers halved between 1920 and 1947. In fact, the actual nadir in passenger numbers was not in the early 1990s but in 1983. I thought that Opposition Members might have wanted to take pride in the successful sectorisation experiment under the Thatcher Government, perhaps aided by some benign neglect from that Administration, which was sadly not repeated by the subsequent Major Administration.

We have some good explanations for why exactly passenger numbers rose so dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. For a long time, I think we could have all substituted our political explanations for why that happened. However, in 2018, a very good study, led by eminent modellers and academics, was published by the Independent Transport Commission on precisely that question. It found that passenger growth was overwhelmingly driven by changes in the job market—the types of roles being created and the areas of the country in which they were being created. It was also aided by changes to tax incentives for company cars in the early 2000s, which led to an additional increase in rail traffic.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. For my constituents, in the period since the railways were privatised they have twice needed to be brought back under public ownership: once in 2003, when Connex failed, and again in 2021, when Southeastern failed. However, on both occasions, there was no impact on passenger numbers; rather, the factors that my hon. Friend is describing correlated and led to those passenger numbers. Does he agree that over the last 30 years, whether the service has been under national or private ownership has had no impact on the passenger numbers on trains in my constituency?

[Laurence Turner]

I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory.

I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Crown status etc

Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Morello]

I could not possibly comment, Minister—I was going to say tea. But there are basic human rights that we should be respecting here—and a gin and tonic might be one of them.

On rail journeys lasting more than two hours, access to food and drink is a basic expectation. As anyone who has done the trip to Exeter or Dorchester South from London will know, numerous stations on that line do not have a café on the platform, or even one close by. I hope we are also going to achieve a reduction in the number of delays on that line, but once someone is on it they are on it; their options for access to anything are incredibly low. Whether for a parent travelling with children, older passengers on long journeys or commuters trying to work on the move, access to basic amenities—reliable wi-fi and food and drink—should be mandatory.

New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to introduce a passenger charter as a core function of GBR. It would set out clear expectations for passengers, and clear accountability for operators. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage laid out in his ten-minute rule Bill, it would include guarantees on value for money, service quality, adequate seating for journeys over 30 minutes, and improved accessibility across trains.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

If my constituents travelled from London Bridge this evening and caught the 5.34 to Barnehurst or the 6.50 to Bexleyheath, in zone 5, those journeys would take 31 minutes, so do you actually believe that, under your guarantee, my constituents—many of whom, you would expect, would rather just get on a train and expect to stand for some of the journey—would get compensation if they did not have a seat for that commuter journey home of an evening?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that I do not believe one way or the other; please talk through me, not to me.

[Daniel Francis]

I am sorry, Sir Alec.

[Edward Morello]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for the clarification, and I thank the hon. Member for his question. I understand the premise of the point: whichever number we put in, there is a risk that someone could come up with such an example. I think the point is that, for journeys over 30 minutes, for older passengers, for example, the guarantee of a seat may be an issue of whether they want to travel or not, so we must find a line to draw in the sand; I hope that able-bodied Members would stand up for the elderly, but it is not always the case. I would like us to move to a system where we do not have to stand on trains and where there is an expectation of seating—not least so that the drinks trolley can get through and get a cup of tea to me when I need one.

The charter would also set targets for reliability and a clear timetable for improving passenger accommodation, including seat design, reliable wi-fi and mobile signals, power outlets—I honestly cannot believe we are still questioning whether or not we should have power outlets on trains—luggage and bicycle storage, clean and accessible toilets, and onboard catering for journeys of more than two hours. We must focus much of our innovation on the passenger experience and not just the journey time, whether that is wi-fi for commuting workers or accessible toilets for everyone. Crucially, it would also extend delay repay principles to cover failures in onboard amenities and move towards automatic digital compensation that does not place the burden on passengers to fight for refunds—hopefully that speaks to the teeth that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned.

Those are not luxuries. Almost every rail user has stood despite booking a seat, lost their signal mid-journey, missed a connection because of a delay, struggled to find a clean toilet—or a working one—or found nowhere to store a bag, yet too often there is no meaningful redress for those inconveniences. That undermines confidence in the railway.

The data is stark. Only 32% of passengers believe that the rail network meets their needs, and just 59% are satisfied with value for money or onboard internet. Last year, there were more than 62,000 complaints about punctuality, nearly 40,000 about overcrowding, and more than 24,000 about onboard facilities. All those things act as a drag. They are why people do not want to travel on the trains and why they are choosing car journeys instead. If we want people to choose rail for economic, environmental and social reasons, we have to deal with these frustrations as well. New clause 8 puts passengers back at the heart of the system, where they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 6 deals with co-operation between GBR and Transport for London. The clause seems to exist in direct juxtaposition to clause 5, and, interestingly, to the general spirit of the Bill expressed in other clauses. While many aspects of the Bill bring powers back to the Department for Transport, GBR and the Secretary of State’s office, the clause is unusual in being one of few examples where those on the Treasury Bench do not seem to want to be involved. That is out of character. Through the clause, the Government seek to remove the Secretary of State’s position in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and replace that responsibility with a similar one for Great British Railways. That is not based on enhancing accountability or strengthening value for the taxpayer, which should be core principles of the Bill.

The clause presents special status for Transport for London that is not enjoyed by other mayoral combined authorities; that relates to a point that Committee members will recall Andy Burnham making during our oral evidence session on Tuesday. He expressly referenced the difference in how the Greater Manchester mayoral combined authority is treated on transport matters compared with how TfL is treated. We need to ask why that is. Mayor Burnham’s evidence highlighted that difference, yet the Government have given no effective answer about the rationale behind treating large, regional mayoral combined authorities differently from Transport for London.

The amendments in this group seek to correct that, proposing that, until such a time when the other mayoralties require their own special dispensation, which clause 5 of the Bill actively prohibits, clause 6 should be amended to maintain reference to the Secretary of State, and include the Secretary of State and GBR side by side, so that the relevant subsections of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 refer to both “the Secretary of State” and “Great British Railways”. That would ensure that the Secretary of State continues to have a duty of co-operation with TfL, alongside GBR.

[Daniel Francis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, and as a former member of the London TravelWatch board who understands some of the passenger watchdog issues in London, it is incumbent on me to speak to some of the clauses.

Of course, the GLA Act 1999 originally gave the liaison power to the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Secretary of State, and it was the Railways Act 2005 that amended the words “Strategic Rail Authority” to “Secretary of State”. Clause 6 will in fact put back the relationship that was there in the original 1999 Act, so that the actual rail operator, rather than the Secretary of State, has that liaison right with Transport for London.

Look at how the passenger interacts with some of those services. Some people living in the very northern part of my constituency—I have a very small part of Abbey Wood in my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency—use Abbey Wood station, where rail usage has trebled since before the pandemic. During that time, we have seen the introduction of the Elizabeth line and the nationalisation of Southeastern, and the station has been transferred from Southeastern’s operation to Transport for London’s. Yet there are three different railway services serving that station: the nationalised Southeastern, the privatised Thameslink and the Elizabeth line, which is operated by Transport for London. There therefore absolutely has to be liaison by the operator, not the Secretary of State. Under this arrangement, Southeastern and Thameslink would come under one ownership, under Great British Railways, and with Transport for London.

Also, if my constituents catch the Bexleyheath or Barnehurst service to London Victoria, or to Denmark Hill, if they are using King’s College hospital, they will use a service that is currently operated by Thameslink but on a line that also has Southern and Southeastern services on it, as well as TFL services on the Windrush line. The liaison power should therefore be with the operators, not the Secretary of State. If we went down the Opposition’s route, we would be saying that that liaison should be between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London. However, it should rightly be between the rail operators, given that stations such as Denmark Hill or Abbey Wood have Transport for London services, and there will be some stations operated by Transport for London, but some stations, such as Denmark Hill, will be operated by Great British Railways. That is where the liaison powers should lie, and as I say, that will bring us back to the original arrangement under the 1999 Act. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments and support clause 6.

[Keir Mather]

Let me begin by addressing the point made by the shadow Minister about the discrepancies in the system in Greater Manchester as it applies to London. It is not wholly correct to say that we are treating these two things inherently differently. The co-operation clause, which applies to all MCAs including Manchester, is new, but for TfL it is also set out in the GLA Act. To make this work for TfL, we have therefore to tweak the legislative system.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendments 7 to 10, which together propose including the Secretary of State, alongside Great British Railways, in the clause requiring co-operation with TfL. Clause 6 requires that GBR and TfL co-operate on railway matters. That includes co-ordinating TfL and GBR passenger services and sharing relevant information. It will also enable GBR to work collaboratively with Transport for London to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.

The railway responsibilities included in the clause, such as the co-ordination of passenger services, will be GBR’s, not the Secretary of State’s. Including the Secretary of State here would risk undermining the principle that GBR is the railway’s directing mind, and would widen the scope of the Secretary of State’s role under the new regime.

The shadow Minister will have heard the Government make clear commitments that this will not be a railway run by politicians. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not need to be involved in GBR’s relationship with Transport for London or in its passenger service responsibilities. Those relationships are operational ones and do not need political interference. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments to a vote.

Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

On devolution, the Bill draws a line at the requirement for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to be the final level or tier of local government that are consulted. That does not reassure me that we will not end up with a country in which great strides are made in those mayoral communities. We heard from Mayor Burnham last week. They are very excited—quite rightly so—because it is going to give them even more power. However, it will also highlight that those areas that have no power will continue to have none for some time. I appreciate the continued reassurance of the Minister, but ultimately amendments such as this highlight how we need to improve.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member, who is advocating for her constituents. Within London, Transport for London operates at least four lines—the Elizabeth, Central, Lioness and Metropolitan lines—all of which leave the London boundary. They would therefore potentially enter the boundaries of strategic authorities. If the amendment were passed, which would Great British Railways need to have regard to: the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority’s transport strategy?

[Rebecca Smith]

I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard. I do not see how that would be contrary to what is going on in London.

I will briefly speak to the new clauses and then bring my comments to a close. It is worth looking at the rolling stock leasing framework, and I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about pursuing a leasing framework. At the end of the day, let us be real: the Government and the country at this point in time are not in a position simply to buy new rolling stock just because GBR comes into ownership. Forgive me if I am wrong—I am not an expert on this—but ultimately there will be some requirement to continue leasing. As much as it would be great to have brand-new trains that all look identical and all do the same thing, realistically we are just not in that position.

That leads me to one point that has come up in some of the evidence sessions I have sat in, which is accessibility. I know that a lot is being done to ensure that accessibility is central to the Bill and that people who need access to trains are considered. The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised this issue specifically for those outside the disabled community, including people of particular ages who have mobility needs. We heard from Lord Hendy that it could actually be decades before we see an improvement to accessibility because of the rolling stock. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham would give due regard to putting some system in place to ensure that that those accessibility improvements are looked at strategically and on a rolling basis—so to speak. I believe that the amendments add something, given the argument for accessibility.

We have talked a lot about supply chain manufacturing, which amendment 36 is about. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Derby South. Ultimately, we need to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for our manufacturing sector. I have already mentioned the defence sector; we have a huge requirement for our advanced manufacturing at the moment and we need that certainty. We have seen the role that private sector investment plays in the development of rolling stock. That is not to say that the private sector is better than the public sector—I happen to believe that they are both important in the right proportions—but we have had so much investment from the private sector while the railway has been privatised. To just walk away from that on an ideological basis does not seem right.

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services.

Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion.

If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions

“are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”,

or in other words,

“they are a last resort”.

The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that in recent years, when Transport for London was negotiating its fare settlements, the previous Government dictated the level of fares that should be charged not just for the congestion charge, but for passenger rail services? The Conservative Secretary of State and Government were doing that very thing in negotiations with Transport for London for rail passenger services in London.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I think we have to decide what GBR is going to be. Is it going to be a stand-alone organisation that is trying to run itself efficiently, providing value for money for the taxpayer and hopefully, one day, a check on the Secretary of State? Or is it going to be a creature of the Department for Transport that is told what to do and having its decisions second-guessed? This is a big decision that the Government have to take.

The clause creates a huge risk of stasis, as GBR gets bossed around and becomes a passive recipient of instructions from the Department for Transport. I worry that it is a recipe for future disaster, so I have questions for the Minister. What factors will the Secretary of State take into account when deciding the general level and structure of fares? Why is the Secretary of State in a better position to take those decisions than GBR is, given the objects that she has set the organisation? What additional information will she use that is not available to GBR? I will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. At least it is clear that any future failure of the railways will be down to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, not to GBR, since the power to guide and then direct and then set fares lies expressly with the Secretary of State.

My amendment 45 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, thereby preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set and making that decision separate from political influence. When considering amendment 45, Rail Forum said:

“We support this as it should be for GBR, as an arm’s length body and the directing mind, to determine fares not the Secretary of State.”

Amendment 148 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would remove the power to give binding directions over fares—another version of our approach.

The clause as drafted is overreach by the Department for Transport and exactly the kind of micromanagement that the Minister claims will not happen. Why do we need these powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see.

Our new clause 51 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 GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity. 

The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice.

On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.

[Daniel Francis]

I will briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 does not have many of these components. Yet the Mayor of London allows a number of discounts, including for veterans, care leavers, apprentices and people who are unemployed and seeking work. They are not on the face of that legislation, but those exemptions do exist, including for veterans, and I am sure the Minister will cover those points in due course. However, there is other legislation where that is the case. At no point in their 14 years did the previous Government attempt to amend that Act to provide that exemption for veterans, so that is the position that remains.

I remind Members of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 causes some concern with its reference to fares being “one third lower” because in many cases that would represent a fare increase for wheelchair users and blind passengers.

[Hon. Members]

Amendment 62 is in the next group.

[Daniel Francis]

Apologies, I will return to that in due course.

[Rebecca Smith]

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on amendments 46 to 50. I too am surprised that the Government are not seeking to enshrine the right to a veterans railcard on the face of the Bill. While it is laudable that they want to ensure that those long-fought-for discount fare schemes remain for young, elderly or disabled people, I believe that not making the veterans railcard a statutory discount is a backward step and will send a particularly strong message to that community, who we know are quite agitated by a lot of what is being done by this Government, particularly around the prosecution of veterans for previous conduct. Not to use this Bill as an opportunity to put this provision on the statute book is a retrograde step.

I want to pay tribute to the former Member for Plymouth Moor View, Johnny Mercer, who drove putting the veterans railcard in place in the first place through the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He said at the time that it underlined the “debt of gratitude” that we owe to our veterans. They are ultimately men and women who have fought hard for our country, and the opportunity to receive that discount in perpetuity—whether they have served one day or 100—is something that we should be proud of as a country and should seek to enshrine in legislation. The same goes for the opportunity for serving personnel to travel with their families.

I will be very surprised if the Government vote against the amendment: that would send a very clear message to our veterans community that they are valued more greatly by the Conservatives than by Labour. Although I am sure there is no ill intent behind the omission of the veterans railcard in the Bill, we have to think about the messaging and the political point that is being made. It would be relatively easy to put the veterans railcard in law so that it cannot be changed in the future, and I would support that. As has been said, the Bill does not prevent it from being added later, but I wonder why we are not seeking to enshrine it in law now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that.

Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it.

New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.

[Daniel Francis]

I again declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.

Amendment 62 appears to refer not to railcards but to all ticketing. As I have said, it would result in an increase for many tickets for wheelchair users and blind and visually impaired people. As the parent of a child who is a wheelchair user, I know that the discount on a ticket for wheelchair users is 75%, and it is the same for an adult day return. For blind and visually impaired users the discount on an adult day return is 50%.

Some discounts also apply to the carer or companion of the wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. That provision is not included in the Bill, yet the Opposition thought it was more important to table an amendment to introduce a discount for 26 to 30-year-olds than to table one on a discount for the carer of a wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. I anticipate that the Government will confirm that the discount remains for carers and companions, and in my mind that does not need to be included in the Bill. I certainly do not support amendment 62, as it would undo the current, more generous discount arrangements for wheelchair users and blind or visually impaired passengers, and cause an increase in their fare.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This may shock the Committee, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and his expertise has exposed a lack of knowledge on my part. I was not aware that the discount in that circumstance was in excess of one third. Given that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful for his contribution.