Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Edward Morello Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 64, page 36, line 14, at end insert
“and the higher amount does not hinder progress against the Rail freight target set out in section 17.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 255, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(8A) Following an appeal made under subsection (8), the ORR may, if it decides that GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant, direct GBR to revise a scheme.”
This amendment requires that any charge levied by GBR under its charging scheme does not have a detrimental impact on the freight growth target.
Edward Morello
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It will escape no one that, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I have been left with my hand on the wheel. I do not think trains have a wheel, but I am not entirely sure how they work—[Interruption.] They have a stick, yes. However, given that both amendments are in his name and relate to the freight target, I can only assume that they are eminently sensible and that the Government should accept them. If not, we would apparently like to press them to a Division.
Keir Mather
It is, once again, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendment 254 would require GBR, when charging above the cost directly incurred—in other words, when charging mark-ups—to consider its target to increase the use of freight. I can reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset immediately that GBR will not be able to raise charges in a way that is not compatible with its statutory duties or targets.
In practice, that means that when developing its own test of affordability, GBR is expected to establish bespoke criteria for divergent market segments operating on the railway, including freight, as Network Rail set out in its discussion document on charging. That allows GBR to design a test that can support its duties, including those under clause 18, and the targets to increase freight under clause 17.
We intend that the provision will operate in a way similar to the “market can bear” test today. GBR will develop its own test of affordability in consultation with the sector, including the Office of Rail and Road, before publishing it. However, as we move away from European law, in which the “market can bear” test is established, and to the Bill, which carries over the same principles, we must ensure that the language in the drafting is fit for purpose for UK statute. That is why the Bill stipulates that GBR will be able to levy mark-ups only if it is affordable to efficient operators. The Bill preserves that fundamental safeguard for operators, but in a form that can be applied more clearly in the UK context.
The test will be published with clear routes of appeal, as a further layer of protection for any operators, including freight, that are subject to charges when using GBR infrastructure. When hearing appeals, the ORR will consider the extent to which GBR has appropriately considered all factors before levying a mark-up. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for West Dorset that amendment 254 is unnecessary, as the Bill already achieves its intended effect.
Amendment 255 would give the ORR an explicit power, following an appeal against the content of a charging scheme, to direct Great British Railways to revise the scheme in cases where it considers GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. The Bill already provides clear and robust rights of appeal to the ORR in relation to the content of a charging scheme. Those rights are supported by strong and effective remedies where an appeal against GBR is successful, as set out in clause 68.
In the system set out in the Bill, where the ORR upholds an appeal on the content of a charging scheme, it has the power to remit all or part of the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration. That means that the ORR can require GBR to make changes to the charging scheme if it was identified during the appeal process that GBR had acted in a discriminatory manner, inconsistently with its statutory duties or in a way deemed procedurally unfair.
The ORR can also give legally binding directions to GBR, which could include setting out what it failed to take account of in the original decision and what it must do to ensure that those matters are properly assessed when reconsidering it. The amendment would therefore introduce powers that are already provided for in clause 68. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press amendments 254 and 255 to a vote.
Edward Morello
I heard what the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson said but, because of my long-standing and passionate support for freight targets in the context of charging regimes, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 68, page 38, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This amendment, along with Amendments 204 and 205, strengthens the role of the ORR, and reduces the role of the Secretary of State, in considering appeals against GBR access decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 204, in clause 68, page 39, line 10, leave out from “Chapter” to end of line 11.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.
Amendment 205, in clause 68, page 39, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.
Edward Morello
Amendments 203 to 205 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The clause gives the Secretary of State extensive powers to intervene and, ultimately, overrule access decisions made by GBR. As I said in our previous sitting, we must remember that those powers are not just for the current Government, but for all future Governments. The Bill concentrates too much authority in the hands of the Secretary of State, with too little accountability and independent oversight. The amendments would reduce ministerial micromanagement and strengthen the role of the ORR in determining appeals on access decisions. The ORR should be an independent regulator whose job it is to make fair, evidence-based judgments. Access decisions should be governed by transparent regulation, not by political discretion. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR, protect the independence of GBR and prevent excessive control by the Secretary of State, especially without any accompanying accountability—something the Government have continued to refuse when the Opposition parties have tabled amendments. However, I hope we will have a sudden volte-face on amendments 203 to 205.
Rebecca Smith
I shall be brief. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR and reduce the role of the Secretary of State in considering appeals against GBR access decisions. Without further ado, I will say that we will support all three, should the Liberal Democrats press them to a vote.
Edward Morello
I listened to the Minister’s points. I think that the Liberal Democrats have been adamant throughout scrutiny of the Bill that we want to establish clear lines between the ORR, GBR and the Secretary of State in order to limit meddling under any future Government and to protect what this Government are trying to achieve. The Bill needs clear red lines on where Secretary of State power should be, so I will push the amendments to Divisions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
Amendments 175 to 183 and 186 will ensure that GBR can enter into connection contracts with adjacent infrastructure managers and facility owners. A connection contract is a formal agreement that focuses on the physical interface and upkeep of the connection between two rail networks. Connection contracts are important in enabling the smooth passage of trains from GBR’s network to others, such as the Core Valley Lines in Wales. They also allow GBR’s network to be connected to privately owned depots or ports, which will be of importance to freight operators. These technical amendments retain the existing arrangements, enabling GBR and other parties to enter into connection contracts. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.
Edward Morello
I wish to speak in support of amendment 146 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements. We believe that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for train operators and passengers. Access agreements are detailed, regulated contracts that set out service patterns, responsibilities and costs. They are overseen by the ORR and published on its public register. Amendment 146 would remove ministerial powers to terminate those agreements early, limiting the ability of the Secretary of State to micro- manage GBR.
While I risk sounding like a broken record, as I have said before, these are powers that apply to both the current Government and future one. While I understand the desire for the Secretary of State to have the power to terminate agreements, those powers sit better with the ORR and GBR. If we want stability, investment and reliable services, we need to signal to the market that there will not be political intervention that undermines long-term planning. I hope that the Government will see the sense of this amendment.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to except GBR or a subsidiary of GBR from the sections outlining the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. That change would prevent the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. The clause removes GBR from the normal ORR supervised access regime, giving it a special exemption that no other operator has. Since GBR is both operator and infrastructure manager, we believe that this creates an uneven playing field and risks unfair treatment of competing operators. If the Government insist on the current drafting, they must come clean and admit that their intention is to treat competitors unfairly in comparison, and that they are not in favour of competition and reject private investment as a driver of innovation and improvement on the railway.
Given the destruction of the current independently managed fair and level playing field, it is no surprise that the industry has major concerns. Eurostar’s written evidence to the Transport Committee explains:
“The Railways Bill consolidates strategic and operational authority in Great British Railways. While centralising network management offers efficiency gains, it is essential that ORR’s independent regulatory function is preserved, especially for open access and international services. In future Government will have the overarching interest in the Infrastructure Concession (let to LSPH), the Maintainer Operator (Network Rail) and the largest operator on the route (SET). There needs to be an independent referee to balance these interests with those of open access operators.
ORR provides impartial oversight of track access, station allocation, depot facilities, charging, and timetabling. Its independence provides transparent decision-making and safeguards competition, while giving investors confidence in the long-term stability of services.
Decisions such as the allocation of depot access at Temple Mills demonstrate the importance of ORR in balancing competing demands for constrained resources. Without statutory protection, GBR could constrain competition and impede international service growth. In addition, it could reduce transparency in access allocation.
Eurostar recommends that the Bill explicitly preserves the ORR’s independent role in regulating access, charges, and depot allocation for international services. This statutory protection is essential to provide fair treatment for operators and give certainty for the future of UK international rail services.
In international rail terms, the ORR’s role is more important than ever before, given the recent ruling enabling a new entrant to the market to access Temple Mills depot. The regulator will need to perform a strong, independent and objective role in ruling on cost sharing, compatibility and rolling stock issues.
The ORR can also play a role in track access charges – costs for accessing the London-to-Calais stretch of rail are nine times higher per kilometre than the cost of accessing equivalent infrastructure in Belgium, France or the Netherlands.”
Written evidence to the Transport Committee from Lumo and Hull Trains outlines their concerns:
“The ORR plays an essential role in maintaining a fair, transparent, and competitive rail network. Its independence supports confidence among passengers, freight operators, and private investors. Lumo and Hull Trains believe the Railways Bill should preserve this role to help GBR succeed.
To maintain balance across the system, the ORR must retain meaningful regulatory powers to ensure decisions made by GBR on access and charging are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the Government’s growth objectives. The current drafting of the Bill, however, limits the ORR’s capacity to intervene proactively, restricting its powers primarily to appeals after decisions have been made.
Enhancing the ORR’s decision-making and enforcement capability would help ensure that GBR’s commercial and operational decisions remain aligned with the wider interests of passengers and the market. This approach would reinforce the Government’s ambition for a collaborative, competitive, and accountable rail system. A strong regulator also provides stability for investors, ensuring that GBR operates within a framework that fosters long-term confidence and fair treatment for all market participants.
While the Government desires to create a ‘directing mind’ in GBR, coordinating rail with a whole network view, for private operators to have confidence in the system there must be appropriate protections guaranteeing fair access and charging. The ORR is well-positioned to perform that role as an essential backstop, but the correct framework must be built around it to enable it to operate as such.”
Finally, Angel Trains also provided written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“Angel Trains believes that the new access framework must provide equitable access to all parts of the railway, whether operators are GBR-led, Open Access, or freight. As a lessor of rolling stock to both GBR-led and Open Access operators we believe parity among operators is crucial and would welcome greater clarity from the Government on how access and charging decisions will be made and prioritised. As an independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) should be responsible for ensuring a level playing field by intervening if concerns are raised that GBR could have taken a discriminatory decision, for example, around preferential access rights and charging for GBR operators over Open Access competitors.
Beyond access arrangements, we would welcome further detail from the Government about how GBR will be held to account. In its current form, GBR possesses a high concentration of power in its role in setting both strategy and delivery. In order to provide adequate scrutiny and accountability, there must be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that financial, economic, and safety objectives are met.
Angel Trains believes that there should be clear divisions between different parts of the rail system to ensure adequate accountability…As outlined above, it is vital that there is a fully independent regulator to hold GBR to account, for which the ORR could be best-placed. Beyond acting as an arbiter on access and charging decisions, the ORR should be empowered to report on GBR’s performance and issue performance improvements notices to GBR, in addition to other regulatory duties. The ORR must maintain a regulatory function to provide fairness and stability for the rail industry, which encourages investment and ensures financial sustainability by creating a level playing field across the sector and eliminating subjectivity from decision-making.”
We therefore seek to leave out clause 69 and will vote against it. This would keep GBR under the normal access regime supervised by the ORR and ensure a fair system. We have no objections to Government amendments 175 to 183 but, as mentioned, we are less happy with clause 69 as a whole.
Clause 70 amends the 2016 regulations to exempt GBR from the provisions of those regulations that would otherwise apply to its infrastructure. The 2016 regulations will continue to apply to other infrastructure managers. We do not object to the clause.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 256, in clause 72, page 41, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must not make provision for the Secretary of State to direct operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.”
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State does not exercise powers over operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 221, in clause 72, page 42, line 2, leave out from “consult” to end of line and insert
“the Office of Rail and Road and affected facility owners”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the ORR and affected facility owners before making regulations under this section.
Amendment 231, in clause 72, page 42, line 4, 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.
Clause stand part.
Clause 73 stand part.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of amendment 256, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 72 allows regulations that could give the Secretary of State powers over operational matters in freight sidings and terminals. Amendment 256 makes clear that those operational decisions must not be subject to ministerial direction. The amendment comes directly from the freight industry and reflects clear concerns about unnecessary political interference.
Freight sidings and terminals are operational commercial assets, and their day-to-day management should sit with operators, not with Ministers. As we said in previous sittings, the powers would apply to not just the current but future Governments. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I should say that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State too much control and too many opportunities for micromanagement with too little accountability over too many areas. Amendment 256 draws a sensible boundary, protects freight operators from meddling, and supports a stable and efficient freight network.
Rebecca Smith
I will speak to clauses 72 and 73, and the grouped amendments. Clause 72 is another controversial clause. It sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the management and operation of non-GBR infrastructure, which means any network, station or track not operated by or on behalf of GBR; about the rights to operate trains that use non-GBR infrastructure; and about competition in the market for the provision and supply of such operations.
Subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to set access terms and charges for non-GBR infrastructure, overriding commercial negotiation and bypassing the ORR. That cuts directly against the stated principle that the publicly owned operator must not regulate its competitors. It is an extraordinary clause that cuts up contract law and throws it out of the window.
The Rail Freight Group is concerned. It states:
“Clause 72 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to intervene in privately owned rail freight terminals, setting conditions of access and charges amongst other matters. Again, we understand that this is not the intention of the clause (which exists to enable GBR to take over other infrastructure such as HS1, Heathrow Branch or the Core Valley Lines) but nonetheless it is an extant risk to rail freight as presently worded, and we believe freight terminals should be explicitly out of scope for this clause.”
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not arguing that stakeholders are not valid in raising concerns about the issues: they are. I am seeking to ameliorate their concerns by outlining what provisions are in the legislation to offer sufficient scrutiny and ensure that the way in which the process happens offers robust safeguards.
Constraints are built into clause 72 to ensure sufficient oversight, with the Secretary of State consulting persons considered appropriate and making changes in secondary legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that legislation will be subject to full public consultation and subsequently debated in both Houses, which reflects the importance of the regulations in providing certainty for business.
I have already said that the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties to ensure that there is full transparency and industry comment. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 would all narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings, and amendment 231 would exclude freight-only facilities. I have already spoken on why some of the principles that lie behind those amendments are unnecessary.
Let us take my example of GBR changing the date when its new working timetable is to take effect. On the basis of the amendments, other infrastructure managers would forever be misaligned with that new timetable change date, even if they wished to align. The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the owners or operators of private freight facilities on operational matters.
I am happy to reassure the Committee that the power cannot be used to bring other infrastructure managers or operators of privately funded facilities into public ownership, as I know how exercised Opposition Committee members have been about that principle. In the consultation, industry broadly supported the ability to make necessary amendments, although it is of course right to raise concerns when they arise. Most sector bodies agree that it will be important to ensure that there are no regulatory barriers to passenger and freight operators crossing between different networks, and that is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 221 would make the ORR and affected facility owners statutory consultees to the power. That is unnecessary as before exercising the power to make regulations, the Secretary of State is already required to consult all persons they consider appropriate, which would include the ORR and any affected facility owners. If the Secretary of State did not consult such persons, there would be strong grounds to challenge the regulations.
Clause 73 will ensure clarity in how key terms are applied throughout the access chapter of the Bill. It defines “GBR infrastructure”, “GBR passenger service” and “working timetable”—fundamental terms to the operation of GBR. The definition of GBR infrastructure ensures that the new access arrangements developed by GBR apply only where intended. The clause also includes a power to amend the definition, which is necessary to ensure that, as GBR’s network evolves over time, it remains clear to GBR and other infrastructure managers which parts of infrastructure are GBR’s responsibility. The clause is therefore critical to provide clarity and transparency.
Given what I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments. I commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee.
Edward Morello
I have nothing further to add, but we would like to press amendment 256 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Edward Morello Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Western. I wanted to speak briefly in support of new clause 52, which, as the hon. Member for South West Devon indicated, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. It would introduce a duty on train frequency, which is something my constituents—and I am sure those of other Members—write about continuously. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult the public on how often GBR services should run, taking account of local need. It would then require the publication of a report, ongoing engagement with communities, and a binding duty on GBR to deliver the agreed frequency, with regular monitoring.
The new clause is designed to ensure that rural and less well-served areas are properly heard, and that timetables reflect how people actually use the railway and not just what is easiest to operate. If I were the shadow Minister, I would probably describe this as a probing new clause designed to draw out some secret piece of information. I heard what Minister said about it. All the other Liberal Democrat amendments have been designed to restrain the power of the Secretary of State and ensure that GBR is not micromanaged, and I think the new clause probably flies in the face of that. We will leave it there.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for South West Devon and for West Dorset for their contributions. I remain of the view that a unified system under GBR will plan and deliver an achievable, reliable timetable and ensure that the network is actually able to deliver it, so that the services promised to passengers are delivered. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce costs, and through its role in issuing the timetable, GBR will be able to ensure that all services represent the best use of the network, with a strong appeals role for the ORR to ensure that fairness is embedded in the system. I therefore retain the view that the hon. Members should not move their amendments.
Amendment 174 agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Capacity duty
Amendment proposed: 81, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “to” to the end of line 37 and insert—
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.—(Rebecca Smith.)
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.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)
Edward Morello Excerpts(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) The Passengers’ Council must make arrangements for rail passenger groups to be members of a board, committee or panel of the Council.”
This amendment, along with Amendment 209, guarantees representation for passenger groups on the Passengers’ Council.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 209, in clause 37, page 20, line 4, leave out
“so far as it appears expedient”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 208.
Amendment 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.
Amendment 235, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert —
“(3) The Passengers’ Council must, at least once every twelve months, assess the levels of satisfaction of users of public passenger railway services and report their finding in a manner which enables Great British Railways to fulfil its functions under section 3.”
This amendment would require the Passengers Council to assess levels of public passenger railway services’ satisfaction and report these in a manner which enables GBR to fulfil its functions.
New clause 22—Passengers’ Council: Membership and representation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about membership of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) Regulations under this section must make provision that the Passengers’ Council membership includes representatives from—
(a) local friends of stations organisations;
(b) local rail user groups;
(c) regional rail travellers’ associations;
(d) community rail partnerships;
(e) other national passenger groups.
(3) Regulations under this section must include provision about the representation of the Passengers’ Council on any board established by the Secretary of State to govern or otherwise oversee Great British Railways.
(4) Provision under subsection (3) must include—
(a) that any board includes in its membership a member of the Passengers’ Council,
(b) that the member of the Passengers’ Council who is a member of any such board must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the Passengers’ Council,
(c) provision about the operation of any election under paragraph (b), and
(d) that any member of the Passengers’ Council who is a member of a board under subsection (3) may vote on any decision made by that board.”
Edward Morello
I will speak in support of amendments 208 and 209, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 208 would guarantee representation for rail passenger groups within the passengers’ council. In West Dorset, we are fortunate to have active and committed groups such as the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group and the west Dorset western area transport action group—they do have snappier acronyms. These organisations bring together passengers, MPs, councils and local communities to push for better services, improved stations, more resilient timetables and new trains. They lobby operators, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and others. They understand in detail what is working and what could be done better. Groups like these exist all over the country and their expertise and insight should be embedded in the passenger watchdog from the start.
Amendment 209 would strengthen that further by removing the vague caveat that representation should be included only
“so far as it appears expedient”.
The Bill promises a powerful new passenger champion that sets standards, investigates poor performance, and holds operators and GBR to account. We envisage that amendments 208 and 209 would do exactly that. I hope the Government will see the logic of supporting them.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling these amendments, and the hon. Member for West Dorset for speaking to them. They seek to make changes to the governance and obligations of the passenger watchdog.
I will turn to amendments 208 and 209, which seek to ensure that rail passenger groups are represented within the passenger watchdog. The passengers’ council currently operates under the name Transport Focus and is led by a board of non-executive directors, including members for Scotland, Wales and London. These are statutory appointments as defined in the Railways Act 2005, and we are not amending those arrangements via the Bill.
Although we are not mandating specific representation of rail passenger groups on the board, the watchdog is a body that represents passengers, just like other rail passenger groups, and will directly engage with them. As mentioned, to ensure that happens, the Bill already requires that the watchdog must consult anyone who it thinks is appropriate and co-operate with other bodies representing the interests of passengers, including other rail passenger groups.
Amendment 209 seeks to delete the words
“so far as it appears expedient”
from the watchdog’s requirement to keep matters under review. Although the watchdog will be a powerful champion and will have resources to reflect that, we must ensure that it can focus its time and resources on the matters that have the most impact on passengers and prioritise its work as it sees appropriate. Without that caveat, it would be required to keep all matters affecting passengers under review, no matter how minor or trivial, which is not a reasonable duty to place on the watchdog.
Amendment 65 would set a deadline of one month for the Secretary of State and GBR to respond to any representations made by the passenger watchdog under clause 37. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that it is important for representations from the watchdog to be responded to efficiently, but more complex issues raised by it need careful consideration. Setting a uniform deadline could have the effect of rushing that consideration, which might not lead to the best outcomes for passengers. In fact, allowing more time to consider representations would increase the chances of actions being taken that might require a commitment of funding, so I do not think that such a deadline necessarily serves passengers. Additionally, having a duty to respond within a time period in the Bill that would be enforceable only through the courts could result in issues taking much longer to resolve. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
Finally, amendment 235 would require the passenger watchdog to assess and report on passenger satisfaction at least once a year. Assessing passenger satisfaction is currently a well-established practice of the passengers’ council, which operates under the name Transport Focus, and that will not change with its transition into the new passenger watchdog. Transport Focus has a long record of collecting passenger feedback in the form of its rail user survey.
In addition, a new rail customer experience survey has recently been introduced. This is an industry-wide survey of customers’ experiences. It provides a crucial insight into rail customers’ experience, supporting the industry to achieve a better understanding of where it does well, where improvement is needed and what elements of the journey matter most to passengers. New survey data is provided every four weeks and the passenger watchdog will have access to the raw survey data to enable it to carry out its own independent analysis of the results.
The watchdog will publish its own analysis on a regular basis, as Transport Focus does currently, in the form of rail operator scorecards—including a GBR scorecard—that will be found on their websites and that will demonstrate to passengers which operators are performing well on passenger matters and which are not. Given Transport Focus’ long-established role in assessing rail passenger satisfaction, and the introduction of the new rail customer experience survey, I believe continuous monitoring of passenger experience is well established without this amendment. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
Keir Mather
The Committee will be glad to hear that I do not intend to re-rehearse the argument that I pre-emptively set out in response to the amendments. On the broader point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham about the passenger watchdog and its capabilities, I am of the view that having independent monitoring powers for the passenger experience, having investigation powers, having the ability to demand information by a deadline, enforcing an independent dispute resolution service, and making sure that minimum consumer standards are protected with the ability to escalate to the ORR for enforcement is a suite of measures that will allow the watchdog to fully account for the passenger experience. That relates both to this clause and ones that I am sure we will arrive at in short order. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw his amendment.
Edward Morello
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Keeping matters under review and collecting information
Amendment proposed: 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause sets out the circumstances in which the passengers’ council must—that is “must”, not “may”—investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. I could provide a long description of the clause, but I will leave that to the Minister, who I know will want to explain it to the Committee.
Essentially, the Bill largely lifts the current framework into the GBR model, so I can see why no amendment would be needed, although Ministers should clarify how the national and London watchdogs will co-ordinate on cross-boundary issues. I will be grateful for an explanation of how the Minister will undertake the balancing act between GBR and the London Transport Users Committee.
There is, however, a big issue with the current wording of the clause. It requires the council actively to
“investigate any matter relating to the provision of railway passenger services”
put to it by members of the public, as well as others. That sounds great, but from a practical perspective, there are 1.75 billion passenger journeys each year. The potential issues with the service that passengers receive will run into the tens of thousands every year, yet the drafting of the clause will impose a legal duty on the passengers’ council to investigate every single one of them, unless they are “frivolous or vexatious”.
“Frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms. To demonstrate that something is vexatious is a very high bar for the passengers’ council: it would typically have to provide evidence of multiple previous complaints on a similar subject that came to nothing. That is what “vexatious” means, and “frivolous” is not far off it. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, is creating an enormous a legal duty and a vast workstream for the host organisation that is becoming the passengers’ council, which has fewer than 30 members of staff.
Edward Morello
I wonder whether the shadow Minister’s line of argument actually supports the Liberal Democrat amendment. The vast majority of those claims could be resolved by GBR via a repayment or penalty, without ever getting to the passengers’ council in the first place.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 43, page 23, line 21, leave out
“may prepare a report of its findings”
and insert
“must publish and lay before Parliament a report of its findings”.
This amendment requires the Passengers’ Council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensures any report is laid before Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish any report on a matter investigated under section 39.
Amendment 70, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The report must be published within six months of the completion of the investigation.”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation.
Amendment 140, in clause 43, page 23, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment removes the requirement that the Passengers' Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State, by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers.
Clause stand part.
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend, who is departing the Committee, and I are tag teaming, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 43 sets out the powers of the passengers’ council when it investigates problems affecting rail users. Amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen transparency, independence and parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 138 would require the passengers’ council to publish its findings and lay them before Parliament after an investigation, rather than that just being an option. It would ensure that evidence was made public and that Parliament could see clearly where the system was or could be failing passengers. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the passengers’ council to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before publishing a report where the investigation had been referred by Ministers. We have all lived through the experience of reports going into the bottom drawer of desks, never to be seen again, and we would like to create a situation here where that does not happen.
A watchdog cannot be effective if the person who triggered the investigation can also control whether its conclusions are published. The amendments would ensure that the passengers’ council had teeth, could operate independently and could report honestly without political interference. Together, amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen accountability, protect the integrity of the passenger watchdog, and ensure Parliament and the public are properly informed when things go wrong on our railways. On the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, we intend to press amendment 138 to a Division.
Daniel Francis
London TravelWatch is a large organisation, and I used to chair some of its casework committees. It deals with and reports on a huge range of issues and, like Passenger Focus, it deals not just with trains but with other modes of transport. I made recommendations on a range of issues. I remember making recommendations to Eurostar about issues regarding disabled passengers. I remember making recommendations regarding changes to timetables. There were some significant issues that one would want to issue a report on. There was an issue back then for South Western about how Network Rail and the train operator were integrating, and a report had to be commissioned. There will be reports that are really to say to the operator, “You need to look at this specific issue.” We do not need to make it mandatory that all those reports are tabled in this House, with the bureaucracy that brings.
Edward Morello
I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are snowed under with paperwork in this place at the best of times. I think there is a difference between providing a report to Parliament as standard, allowing Parliament to make the decision on whether it needs to be scrutinised, and the council or any other part of the regulator having the power to decide itself whether a report should go before Parliament.
The issue is where the balance of power should lie regarding whether Parliament has the right to scrutinise a report. All our amendment seeks to do is, by making it mandatory, to return the weighting and the power to Parliament on those issues.
Daniel Francis
I do not think this provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. These issues already exist; there are examples where the passenger watchdog and the Transport Committee would be looking at the same matter. There would be examples with other Departments where an ombudsman would also be looking at something in a similar vein to a Select Committee. My view is that it would be an overly bureaucratic system. Passenger watchdogs issue many reports, and some are on very serious matters, but sometimes they need to issue a report that is not at that level, and I do not believe these amendments are necessary.
Edward Morello
I will speak briefly to new clauses 16, 17 and 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, and new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. Accessibility is still inconsistent, poorly enforced and often treated as optional. If railways are to work for everyone, accessibility has to be planned, delivered and monitored.
New clause 16 would require a full review of the Access for All programme, including past spending decisions and future investment needs. Too many stations, particularly small and rural ones, still lack step-free access to platforms, entrances and exits. New clauses 17 and 18 focus on accessible passenger information on trains and at stations. Reliable audio and visual announcements on safety, stops and interchanges are essential for passengers with sight or hearing loss, and should be consistently monitored and enforced. New clause 53 would ensure that ticket machines are accessible, standardised and usable independently by all passengers. Machines must work for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments or limb differences, older passengers, and visitors without apps or digital access, offering the same tickets and interfaces across the network.
The new clauses are designed to deliver practical and enforceable accessibility that improves passenger confidence, independence and safety, and I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of them.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which relate to the standard-setting role of the passenger watchdog and to accessibility. I will speak first to those related to the passenger watchdog.
Amendment 71 would allow the passenger watchdog to set accessibility standards for all users and potential users of the railway, replacing the current reference to disabled passengers and those needing assistance. It is important that all passengers can access the railway, and I support the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that that happens. However, clause 46 already covers both users and potential users of the railway who require assistance to access services. Furthermore, the list of areas in which the watchdog may set standards is not exhaustive; it can set accessibility standards for anyone it deems appropriate, potentially including passengers travelling with prams or some of the other examples that were outlined. Let me also clarify that the wording of the clause is not exhaustive, so as well as the examples given in the Bill, the passenger watchdog can set standards on any other matters relating to passenger experience, at its discretion. That allows it to be responsive to passenger feedback and passenger needs. For that reason, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary.
Amendment 72 would expand the list of example areas where the passenger watchdog may set standards. First, as I mentioned, the clause already allows the passenger watchdog to develop standards covering all areas of the passenger experience. The list in subsection (2) sets out matters that may be covered by the standards and is not exhaustive, so it does not prevent the passenger watchdog from developing further standards in other areas in time; in fact, we expect that it might do so, for some of the very reasons that the shadow Minister suggested. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as it would not make a practical difference to the watchdog’s powers. Let me also clarify that standards on safety and security would significantly expand the remit of the watchdog, and are best left to expert safety bodies such as the ORR.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has described the function of clause 48, the lead measure in this group, but there is one notable exception from the list of bodies that can refer to the council for advice under clause 48(1)(a) as drafted. It includes mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London and Ministers—whether the Secretary of State, Welsh or Scottish Ministers—but there is no room for local transport authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is not in her place, because she made the point powerfully in previous sittings of the Committee that some areas of the country do not have mayoral combined authorities and never will, because of their geographic or demographic set-up—that is particularly the case in the south-west. Those areas still have local transport needs, and a local transport authority, yet under the Bill as drafted, those authorities are excluded from asking the advice of the passenger body. We have heard that there are many areas that will never have an MCA but that still have rail-related concerns and issues. I seek advice from the Minister: what is the thinking of the Government, that they have deliberately excluded local transport authorities from the clause?
Clause 49 deals with “Consultation about railway passenger services and station services”. Again, I have left it to the Minister to explain what the clause does, but it sets out the policies and procedures that GBR should consider consulting the passengers’ council on. It gives GBR discretion to decide whether to do so based on its assessment of the impact on passengers. That is, again, quite important. The clause creates a duty on GBR to consult the passengers’ council, but only where GBR itself decides that a policy change will significantly affect passengers. The explanatory notes confirm that that judgment is entirely for GBR. GBR, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will all owe consultation duties to the council, but the Bill imposes a duty only on GBR, and even then only on GBR’s own assessment of significance. There is no parallel duty on Ministers, meaning that major ministerial decisions affecting passengers could fall entirely outside statutory consultation. The list in clause 49(2) once again seeks to sideline the passengers’ council by limiting its remit. The list does not cover the issues that
“significantly affect the interests of the public in relation to…passenger services or station services”,
as described in clause 49(1)(b); far from it.
Amendment 75 would require GBR to consult the passengers’ council when GBR is developing or changing its procedures, with reference to the passenger-focused KPIs outlined in proposed new clause 2:
“reliability, including punctuality…short-forming…key connections… safety and security…comfort and on-board experience”
and
“affordability and value for money”.
Those are issues at the heart of the passenger experience. Let the passengers’ council do a proper job.
Clause 50 gives the passengers’ council the power to publish information and advice for
“users or potential users of railway passenger services”.
The clause only allows the passengers’ council to publish information; it does not require it to publish information. That means the council can choose not to publish anything at all. The clause also gives no sense of what should be published, or how often. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the reasons he has not decided to require publication when it is about information and advice; that seems a bit odd.
Clause 51, which is on the power to make exclusions, will be watched by many, as it is really important to rail enthusiasts. Committee members should be careful when commenting on it, because people are keenly interested in this power. Actually, on this occasion I think the Government have got it about right. The clause replicates similar provisions in the 1993 Act—specifically, sub-sections (7B) and (7C) in section 76.
Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to exclude services from one or more of the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48 through regulations, or modify those duties for particular services. However, before making changes, the Secretary of State must consult the passengers’ council and the London Transport Users Committee.
There are currently two exemptions from the similar requirements in the 1993 Act in place, one of which excludes services without through-ticketing facilities and which are exempt from holding a licence. Charter and heritage railway operators fall under this exemption. The Government assert in the explanatory notes to the clause that,
“it would be burdensome and unnecessary for the Passengers’ Council to be required to investigate heritage railway operators,”
which only operate for tourism and recreational purposes, not for the mainline network. I agree that those potential exclusions are reasonable. The Government rightly point out that burdening heritage rail with unnecessary regulation when the hospitality and tourism sector is facing serious challenges—admittedly, because of this Government—would be disproportionate.
Very few constituencies do not boast a heritage railway, so I declare an interest, Mrs Hobhouse: the Bure Valley Railway and the start—or the finish, depending on which way a person is going—of the Wells and Walsingham Light Railway run in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham.
Jerome Mayhew
I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been on that railway. I would continue on that, but I have gone on long enough by saying, “and another thing—I remember”.
Rail charter services are a different matter that must also be considered. Those with children may have travelled on one of the many Christmas polar expresses that are chartered services. They are very important to tourism and to the financing of the railway, as they make an economic contribution to the running of it. They sit in a unique space of quasi-open access and are a useful component of the railway. Mainline heritage rail routes, such as the Cambrian express—although the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Hendy, still needs to do some work to restore steam, rather than diesel, locomotives to that heritage route—as well as services with the Flying Scotsman, or Sir Nigel Gresley, which is the last working version of the Mallard class, the A4s, are very important, and crowds of people gather to watch them steam past.
I applaud the Government for that sensible exemption. All I ask is that they continue to do what they can to facilitate and support heritage and chartered railways, and I would be grateful to hear the Government’s plans to do so, if there are any. I would propose no amendments to clause 51. Clause 52 is the interpretation chapter, and I am happy for that to continue without amendment.
That leaves me solely with the pleasure of discussing new clauses 68 and 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. New clause 68 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. Network Rail is often cited as a poor neighbour, with no interest in co-operating with other transport modes, or frankly with adjacent landowners— I have had more than one letter of complaint from constituents on that—to minimise disruption not on the railway. The Opposition support the intentions behind the new clause. Culture change is needed in the successor to Network Rail, and a duty to co-operate would at least help. The Minister needs to recognise the existing problem of Network Rail’s culture being—I think it is fair to say—deeply suboptimal in relation to this, and set out his proposals for improvement.
New clause 70, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, sets out the requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and are fully communicated with stakeholders. I read the new clause into the record, but I do not propose to press it to a Division when the time comes.
Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)
Edward Morello ExcerptsTuesday 3rd February 2026
(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2026 - (3 Feb 2026)
Jerome Mayhew
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?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
As the shadow Minister outlined, amendment 148 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage is not overly dissimilar to Conservative amendment 45 in what it tries to achieve, but I will come at it from a slightly different angle. Clause 33, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue binding directions to Great British Railways on the level and structure of fares. We have said many times that the Bill already grants the Secretary of State extensive influence over GBR. Allowing binding directions on fares risks tipping that influence into outright micro-management. It opens the door to the imposition of short-term political decisions, rather than long-term, evidence-based decisions about fares being made by those responsible for actually running the railways. It is a tool that can be misused, particularly in times of fiscal or political pressure.
Even if the current Government assure us that they would not misuse the power, the problem is that once it exists, it exists for all future Governments. I hope the Government will recognise the inherent risk in that and support amendment 148, thereby preventing not only themselves but all future Secretaries of State from being able to abuse the power.
Keir Mather
On the role of the Secretary of State in setting parameters for fares, we have had a lot of debate in the Committee about the need to ensure efficiency on behalf of taxpayers, who are also passengers on the railway. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has the democratic responsibility to do so; therefore, it is right that the power exists to set broad parameters as they relate to fares. However, that process must be undertaken transparently. Parameters will be set through guidance and public service contracts, which will be published and open to scrutiny. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can direct on fares, but not that she will do so regularly. That is important to the point about overreach, and the exceptional circumstances in which direction might be a wise provision to have in the legislation. I will turn to that later.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member is far too eager. I shall turn to that in due course.
Amendment 148 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing directions to GBR relating to fares, and amendment 45 would do the same for directions and guidance. I remind hon. Members that, as I said when we debated the directions and guidance clauses earlier in the Bill, the strategic parameters and guardrails that the Secretary of State will set for GBR on fares may not ultimately be delivered through directions and guidance by default.
Clause 33 already allows for provisions on fares parameters and guardrails to be included in public service contracts awarded to GBR for operating passenger services. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances, which may necessitate a swift reappraisal of the strategic approach to fares. That is precisely what the Secretary of State’s directions-making power allows for, supplemented by the ability to issue guidance, to ensure a clear and speedy response if there is a crisis or unexpected change in context.
Amendments 148 and 45 would remove those options for the Secretary of State and, in fact, for Scottish Ministers where GBR is operating services that they designate. The Government strongly believe that that is not in the interests of passengers or taxpayers. I agree with Opposition Members that we do not want Ministers interfering with day-to-day fares policy. GBR will have the freedom to define its fares policy within the parameters and guardrails set out, simplifying fares, removing duplication and, in turn, improving value for money. It will therefore be set up to succeed from the outset. Contrary to what Opposition Members believe, the powers in clause 33 do not undermine that.
Edward Morello
I know it has probably been overused already in the Committee, but I keep returning to the NHS England example. The Government set up arm’s length bodies and Ministers are then invariably unable to resist the urge to tinker. The Government devolve responsibility out and then realise that having something completely arm’s length, which they have no control over, is very unattractive when they are politically responsible. What starts off being explained as happening only in exceptional circumstances invariably becomes day to day. The amendments are an attempt to protect against a repeat of the mistake with NHS England, which the Government are now having to unpick.
Keir Mather
We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.
Edward Morello
I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.
It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.
Keir Mather
Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
Edward Morello ExcerptsThursday 29th January 2026
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 January 2026 - (29 Jan 2026)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the support given to rural communities in accessing rail travel, and
(d) the co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities for greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to set out the long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options.
Amendment 207, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the consideration of the national rail network as a whole, and
(d) the development of national and regional integrated timetables including—
(i) any infrastructure enhancements necessary to facilitate such development,
(ii) strategies at a local or regional level to deliver these enhancements in line with the 5-year funding periods; and
(iii) a system of prioritisation of connections between services, taking into account interchange times and overall end-to-end journey times resulting from those connections.”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration.
Amendment 224, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the development of rail freight network usage.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to include developing rail freight.
Amendment 25, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods.
(1B) A control period as set out in subsection (1A) must be no shorter than five years.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to remain in place for three control periods at a minimum.
Amendment 260, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, 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 261, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, 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 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include a network electrification strategy to—
(a) require that any new rail lines are electrified, and
(b) set criteria for determining which existing rail lines should be fully electrified, based on current and potential operation of those lines, and set a timetable by which electrification should be completed.
(3B) In preparing the network electrification strategy under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must take into account the current and potential future—
(a) maximum operating speed of,
(b) average number of trains in an hour using,
(c) average volume of freight transported on,
(d) maximum potential reliability of rolling stock using, and
(e) acceleration requirements of
trains using the relevant lines.”
Amendment 225, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, at end insert
“, and persons wishing to operate services for the carriage of passengers or goods on Great British Railways’ infrastructure.”
This amendment requires consultation with freight operators during the preparation of the rail strategy.
Amendment 213, clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out any progress on the rail strategy.
(9) The report under subsection (8) must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
(10) 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 requires regular reporting to Parliament and the House of Commons Transport Committee on delivery of the rail strategy.
New clause 27—Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national rolling stock strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out rolling stock requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Great British Railways must align each strategy to the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60, the rail strategy in section 15, and each funding period as set out in Schedule 2.
(4) Great British Railways must set out how the strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a national rolling stock strategy each year, setting out the expected rolling stock requirements per operating region and route, aligned to current and future planned infrastructure, and aligned to the long-term rail strategy and 5-year funding periods.
New clause 28—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 29—Railway services: Sunday working arrangements—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) current figures for use of railway services on Sundays, and
(b) projected figures if services on Sundays were increased.
(3) The report must identify and set out actions that can be taken to increase demand for railway services on Sundays.
(4) When setting out actions under subsection (3), the report must have due regard to five-year funding periods for Great British Railways.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a report on current Sunday demand, suppressed Sunday demand, and identify actions to be taken to increase demand for railways services on Sundays in line with the 5 year funding periods.
New clause 54—National signalling strategy—
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national signalling strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out expected signalling renewal requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Signalling requirements as set out in subsection (2) must be informed by the principle that new or renewed signalling will be digital and based on standards set by the European Train Control System.
(4) Great British Railways must align each strategy to—
(a) the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60,
(b) the rail strategy in section 15,
(c) each funding period as set out in schedule 2, and
(d) current and future planned infrastructure including electrification and rolling stock changes.
(5) Great British Railways must set out how each strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause introduces a national strategy for digital signalling rollout to create an approach to signalling renewals, enhancements, and interfaces with rolling stock, and to realise signalling safety, capacity, and performance benefits of digital signalling.
Clause stand part.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am doing a rapid rewrite as this speech was full of witticisms and pithy things to do with speeches that none of us can remember from earlier this week— or last week; whenever it was. I would like to speak in support of amendments 134, 137, 136 and 213 and new clause 28, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Amendment 134 would require the rail strategy to cover a 30-year period. That matters because decisions on electrification, rolling stock, workforce planning and passenger experience simply cannot be made on short political cycles.
Amendment 137 is particularly important for rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Too many rural communities are poorly served by rail and have limited alternatives when services fail. The amendment would ensure that the rail strategy explicitly supports rural access and strengthens co-operation with local and regional transport authorities so that trains, buses, and cycling and walking routes actually connect. No one should miss a bus just because a train arrives three minutes late or wait 40 minutes because timetables were not aligned in the first place—an experience familiar to anyone arriving at Crewkerne.
Amendment 136 would place electrification at the heart of the rail strategy. Electrification is not just about missions; it improves reliability, efficiency and resilience.
Amendment 213 would introduce a vital safeguard, which the Government refused to put in place earlier when they rejected our new clause 26, to prevent Great British Railways from hiding from accountability to those who gave both it and the Secretary of State their power. The amendment would require regular reporting to Parliament and the Transport Committee. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has agreed to provide an annual update to Parliament on how we are doing against our climate and nature targets. I would hope that what is good enough for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is good enough for the Department for Transport.
New clause 28 would require a cyber-security and technology strategy. We need to know whether and how GBR will use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate, develop resilience and improve the passenger experience. I know from my work on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy under your leadership, Mr Western, that the threats to national infrastructure are real and increasing. We must make sure that our public and national infrastructure remains safe and protected.
At the same time, we continue to campaign for passengers to be placed at the heart of the Bill. They deserve modern, accessible services, reliable wi-fi, real-time information and inclusive design. For these and future technologies to benefit the passenger now and long into the future, we need real investment and real innovation so that we will always have a modern railway planned over the long term.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I can see the intent behind amendment 134 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would ensure that the strategy covers a 30-year period, and I think it is important that one looks to the future. Given our relative ages, I suspect that, notwithstanding any decisions by the electorate, the Minister may be the only person who is still in this place to assess whether the strategy has worked in 30 years’ time. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was right to highlight that a 30-year strategy would set a baseline, but, as with any strategy, it would be right to refresh and, if necessary, amend it every few years to reflect changing externalities or new Government who wish to tweak it in a different direction. I think that is a sensible approach.
Amendment 137 has an important focus on rural transport links. I have four stations in my constituency: Syston, Bottesford, Sileby and Melton Mowbray. Apart from Melton Mowbray and Syston, those stations are in relatively small villages that are served by only irregular buses. The intent behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to not only focus on investment in those rural services, but ensure that there are linkages so that people in outlying villages or elsewhere can access them. I know that my constituents would very much welcome that.
Amendments 207 and 261 focus, in different ways, on interchanges and integrated transport, which are hugely important. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly highlighted the experience, which I expect many of us and our constituents have had, of landing at a railway station five minutes after the train has gone because the bus service is not integrated in its timetabling.
I gently caution the Minister that a national integrated transport strategy may not be something he wishes to take on himself. If I recall, that was something mooted in “Yes Minister”, and Jim Hacker took on the job, in an episode known as “The Bed of Nails” because it was deemed virtually impossible to win when trying to integrate all aspects of transport strategy. Fond as I am of the Minister, I would counsel him not to take on that role, even if the Bill has the right intent of trying to integrate transport a little better.
Amendments 224 and 225 would rightly require freight services to be considered carefully, and would require consultation with freight operators. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken a number of times about the potential tension between passenger services and GBR’s own services, and the need for freight services to be protected and supported, as well as whether there is an explicit target for freight versus passenger services. Again, I think the amendments are sensible.
Finally, I think new clause 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require an assessment of the need for Sunday services, is extremely sensible, and I hope that others on the Committee will speak to it. I mentioned Sileby station in my constituency. Sileby is a large village, but on a Sunday it has only one bus to Leicester first thing in the morning and one bus back from Leicester in the afternoon. That is the extent of the public transport available to that large and growing village. Constituents have written to me to ask what can be done to better understand the demand for and possible implementation of a Sunday rail service there—even if it is only irregular, running once or twice a day, it would be something—to give them that option, so I know that they would welcome new clause 29.
Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)
Edward Morello ExcerptsTuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 January 2026 - (27 Jan 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I want to make a few remarks about the Conservative new clauses, on which we have mixed opinions. New clause 34 perhaps has some merit in terms of its intention to strengthen protections for the five-year funding review period process. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will speak to our new clause 26 shortly.
We feel that some of the other Conservative new clauses have not necessarily been fully thought through or recognise the reality of how railways work. For example, new clause 40 seeks to end GBR’s reliance on taxpayer funding. Of course, in an ideal world we would love all public services to end their reliance on taxpayer funding—that would be paradise because we would not need taxation—but the reality is that extremely few railways in the world are entirely independent of taxpayer funding. We invest public money in railways because they are significant enablers of all sorts of economic and social benefit, so we have some concerns about new clause 40.
Some of the other Conservative new clauses have good intentions. For example, new clause 41 seeks to require the publication of data on financial performance. But it also seems to be over-fixated on GBR needing to reach a self-financing state, which seems somewhat unlikely.
I have said enough. I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on his new clauses and of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset comment on ours.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. In simple terms, the new clause would ensure that Great British Railways’ funding is reviewed, published and scrutinised by Parliament halfway through each funding cycle, so that there is transparency and accountability on public money and it is spent effectively.
Any long-term rail strategy, particularly one that involves large sums of public money, must be open to proper scrutiny, regularly reviewed and accountable to Parliament. This is especially important as the Bill in its current form gives the Secretary of State a significant concentration of power over the future, shape, funding and direction of the railways. If Parliament is to be asked to confer that level of authority, accountability should increase alongside it. New clause 26 provides a sensible and proportionate mechanism to do exactly that without dragging Ministers or officials into day-to-day micromanagement.
As currently proposed, Great British Railways risks becoming the rail equivalent of NHS England—a fear raised previously in Committee—a large, centralised body distant from accountability and with blurred lines between ministerial direction and operational responsibility. Transparency is the safeguard to protect against ending up with another unaccountable arm’s length body.
The new clause would require a statutory funding review halfway through each five-year settlement. That review would set out, in clear figures, exactly how much funding GBR had been allocated, how much revenue had been raised from fares, and how much Government subsidy had been received. Crucially, it would also be sent directly to the Transport Committee, thereby ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny. That matters because taxpayers are funding the railway twice: once through general taxation and again through ticket prices. Passengers and taxpayers alike deserve to know where their money is going, how it is balanced between subsidies and fares, and whether it is being spent evenly and effectively across the funding cycle, not just all at the start or at the end.
A mid-point review would also allow us to see what is working and what is not, particularly given that GBR will be a new organisation. It would give time to correct course when things are failing, and to continue or scale up when results are delivered. Above all, it is about hardwiring trust into the railway system, with clear information, published transparently and scrutinised by Parliament, with a focus on passengers. We believe new clause 26 would strengthen the Bill and hope the Government will give it due consideration.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mr Western, for allowing me a second bite at the cherry. I misdirected myself in dealing just with clause 12 in itself, rather than the new clauses in the group.
A forward view of funding certainty is key to stopping the stop-start approach to infrastructure funding. The Committee has received plenty of evidence from the industry—both in written evidence and in the oral evidence we heard on Tuesday last week—that this is a major concern. The date in schedule 2(1)(d) is therefore important, and needs to be a minimum of two years prior to the start of the next five-year funding period. That is because, given that we currently have five-year control periods, funding certainty decreases in the run-up to the end of one control period and the beginning of the other and, as a result, the amount of work undertaken and committed to by Network Rail decreases proportionately. We therefore get a wind-down of activity, with specialist staff being laid off by the supply industry, before it all grinds up a gear at the beginning of the next control period. We end up with a bell curve of activity.
We have heard strong evidence—I will read some out in a moment—about how that uncertainty disrupts the ability of the supply sector to service Network Rail and its infrastructure development plans efficiently. It does two pretty terrible things: first, it drives up costs for Network Rail and therefore for the taxpayer, and secondly, it means that less work gets done per pound. It is expensive and it takes longer.
In written evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Forum states:
“The Bill states in Schedule 2 Part 1 that the SoS can ‘vary the financial assistance’ previously agreed as part of the GBR five-yearly settlement during the five-year term. This flies in the face of providing the stability that the Transport Committee was seeking to address through the ‘Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust’ inquiry earlier this year. Re-opening of the settlement should only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances that should be explicit in the legislation.”
Why has the Minister moved away from the position that was previously articulated? Why is the sanctity of the funding settlement within a five-year control period—which has been, albeit imperfect, so valuable for the industry—actively removed by schedule 2? To put it another way, why is the Secretary of State being granted new powers to vary the financial settlement without notice?
The Rail Industry Association, which represents the supply sector for the railways, states:
“The railway, and rail supply businesses, need stable funding to be able to plan effectively and be efficient. Changes to the Control Period style five-year infrastructure funding settlement (Schedule 2) undermine this and amplify the uncertainty already faced by suppliers.
RIA and our members are very concerned the current Bill drafting allows the Secretary of State for Transport to remove railway funding mid-period, at no notice and with very limited transparency over the impact, for example, on safety, performance or efficiency.
We disagree with the principle that the Secretary of State should be able to remove funding mid-period. Stable multi-year funding settlements are a longstanding principle for infrastructure networks because short-notice funding changes reduce the efficiency of spending and make it harder for suppliers to plan ahead with any confidence.
Supply chain confidence in the UK rail market is already historically low with 64% believing the rail market will contract in 2026 and 62% freezing recruitment or reducing headcount (over one in three business leaders plan to lay off staff in 2026), according to a RIA-commissioned Savanta survey of rail business leaders.
There is…currently already a lack of full work visibility to the end of the current Control Period, which completes in March 2029, and companies are now repositioning themselves away from rail to target other industrial sectors in the UK and overseas rail markets—the ability for the Secretary of State to remove funding would clearly exacerbate this situation…Concerningly, even on its own terms Schedule 2 does not require transparency over the impacts on efficiency, performance and safety if there are changes within a funding period and longer-term.”
Mr Western, you cannot tell me you agree that that is a very troubling statement from the industry, but I am sure you do agree, or are likely to. The difficulties with the current system are only going to be exacerbated by the proposed changes under schedule 2.
The statement of funds will indicate what the Secretary of State
“reasonably considers may be…available”.
That gives no certainty of funding, which is a key concern of the sector. It would be a backward step from the status quo. Paragraph 4(3)(c) of schedule 2 contains no focus on minimising the cost for the taxpayer, but merely refers to
“how Great British Railways proposes to meet those costs.”
Paragraph 4(5)(b) refers only to “good value for money” and not to good value for money for the taxpayer.
Under paragraph 4(7)(a), regarding the business plan, Great British Railways could retain a huge amount of information from potential open access operators, thereby preventing a level playing field.
Finally, paragraph 7(3) removes the whole point of funding periods, which is to provide funding certainty for five years. On its own, that provision removes that funding certainty—which is obviously a backward step. The RIA has stated:
“The railway has benefited from 5-year funding settlements for infrastructure for over 30 years, but the legislation proposes that the Transport Secretary will be able to reopen these at any time without consultation. Any deviation from 5-year funding stability risks increased future costs for taxpayers and a deteriorating experience for passengers.”
Edward Morello
As always when following my hon. Friend, I find myself with little to add. All of the very good points have been made, but it is probably worth reinforcing why we think amendments 216, 147 and 215 are important.
Amendments 216 and 215 speak to an absurd anomaly. I am probably unusual in this Committee in that I am not a rail expert—far from it—but the absurdity of not having aligned funding cycles for passenger and infrastructure strikes any outsider as madness. As somebody who regularly travels on the Salisbury to Exeter line, which is in need of electrification and new rolling stock, I ask any Minister who is responsible to tell me when the operator should make a decision on whether to buy new rolling stock, when they do not know whether electrification is going to happen. Do they wait for the electrification and then buy the rolling stock, having just spent all this money extending the life of diesel carriages? Having the two interoperable is just common sense. I would hope that making the two funding cycles run simultaneously would be a non-contentious idea.
On amendment 147, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage gave the example of the outbreak of war, which is definitely an extreme one, but we must also insulate any piece of legislation against future politicians—Ministers—wanting to meddle and perhaps not adhering to the desire that it was designed around. The amendment is intended to make sure that Ministers, whether in the Department for Transport or the Treasury, cannot rip the funding carpet out from under the rail operators. If the Bill really is about long-term planning, then there has to be long-term security of funding as well, and amendment 147 is about making sure that there is an additional safety net should any future Government, of any make-up, not want to adhere to the spirit of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give consideration to our amendments.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 119, which would require the Government to commit funding for a five-year funding period at least two years before the period starts. I can appreciate and identify with his desire to provide certainty to industry, and agree with the ambition that the amendment presents to generate a stable operating environment for the railway. However, as I said in response to new clause 34, I believe that the desire to require funding to be committed so far in advance is misplaced. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances and new projects will surface. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance may be redundant before it starts.
I can assure the hon. Member that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railway with certainty and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendments 120 to 123 aim to strengthen GBR’s value for money and wider performance duties. As drafted, paragraph 2(2) in schedule 2 only gives the Secretary of State the option of tying performance objectives to granting public funds. The performance objectives should be at the core of the granting of funds, so amendments 120 and 121 seek to change the wording of the current drafting by replacing “may” with “must”. In other words, they would make it clear that it is not an option but core to the application of the process, and should therefore be mandatory.
Amendment 122 would make it clear that Great British Railways should aim to increase passenger services. I do not know why this has become such a hot topic; I would have thought it would be obvious—I was about to use unparliamentary language for a moment there. Increasing passenger services should obviously form part of the functions and aspirations of GBR, and that should be included on the face of the Bill. It should be clear that GBR aims to increase passenger services, not just freight. In addition, the list of objectives in the schedule is missing a specific objective on productivities or efficiency, which amendment 123 would add.
This series of simple amendments seek to perfect the currently imperfect drafting, to put performance at the heart of the Bill and to recognise that the pursuit of increased passenger numbers should be a key objective of GBR, in addition to its focus on growing rail freight, which we all agree with.
Edward Morello
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 206, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The amendment goes to the heart of what we Liberal Democrats believe the Bill should be about: putting passengers first. It would expand the objectives that the Secretary of State sets for the rail funding settlement to include customer experience and satisfaction explicitly. In other words, it would ensure that when decisions are made about money, priorities and trade-offs, the people who actually use the railways are not an afterthought.
Making customer satisfaction central to GBR would help to rebuild trust in the railways, which many people currently feel have stopped working for them. If we are serious about encouraging people to shift away from the convenience of cars and toward more sustainable public transport, customer experience has to be central. People will not make the switch because they are told to; they will do so because trains are easier, more comfortable and more reliable.
The creation of customer satisfaction targets and objectives that are tied to rail funding settlements will create the incentives for change. It will make it more likely that investment decisions will focus on what actually improves journeys for passengers, rather than just on what is cheapest in the short term. It will find the balance between what is affordable and what is best for users.
Jerome Mayhew
From the Government’s perspective, yes, it would be, but we have recent experience—this is a slight tangent, but I hope the Committee will bear with me—of Governments passing key objectives to achieve long out in the distance. I am thinking of the Climate Change Act 2008 and its objective of achieving net zero by 2050. That all sounds good in 2008, but in my view it does not achieve the objective of balancing democratic accountability with a long-term direction. Look, we are slightly arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both parties agree that we want a long-term strategy, but should it be 15 years or 30 years? In a sense it does not really matter, but it needs to be significantly beyond the current five-year control period.
Amendment 137, also in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the strategy to set out a long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options. It is a worthy objective, although we would want to go further if extending clause 15(1) beyond the railway network and railway services—the catch-all descriptors. The amendment is slightly a halfway house, but it nevertheless points in the right direction, and in so far as it makes progress, we are happy to support it.
Amendment 207, again in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, would introduce a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration. There is perhaps a better solution tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is engaged somewhere else as we speak—there may be a better way to achieve that outcome.
Amendment 224, which I tabled, would add paragraph (c) to clause 15(1). As drafted, the provision requires the Secretary of State to
“prepare and publish a document that sets out”
her
“long term strategy for…(a) the development and use of the railway network in Great Britain, and…(b) the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided in Great Britain.”
This important amendment would add a focus on “rail freight network usage”. Rail freight does, in a sense, come under “railway services”, but we need to give it particular focus, and the amendment offers a good opportunity to do so.
Amendment 25, which is also in my name, would require the rail strategy to remain in place
“for a minimum of three control periods”,
which would be 15 years. We have already debated whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but the provision would provide the industry with a genuine long-term strategy and mean that that strategy is less likely to be used as a political football when Governments come and go. The period of 15 years is short enough to have political weight, but long enough to give the certainty that the industry also seeks.
I will briefly mention amendment 260, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I know that the subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart because he has told me so, multiple times.
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, repeatedly, which is great, because my hon. Friend is absolutely fighting for his constituency and his constituents. He has told me of a repeated trouble that communities experience when a level crossing closes very frequently and for long periods with no regard to the economic impact of that on the town in which it is based. That can cause long periods of tailbacks, but there is no consideration of that when the usage of the piece of line is set, and the Bill, as drafted, makes no provision for GBR even to take that problem into account. Amendment 260 would insert clause 15(2A), which states that the
“rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”)”,
and clause 15(2B), which states:
“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.”
That is actually a very sensible point, because it recognises that the railway does not impact just trains. If a level crossing temporarily closes arterial routes, there is an impact on other modes of transport, so it would be sensible for a strategy to take into account the full impact of the changes that the Secretary of State has in mind.
Amendment 261, which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also tabled, would insert an alternative subsection (2A) in clause 15, stating:
“The rail strategy must include an assessment”
of
“the ability of passengers to change between…main line rail services”
and from rail services to
“other modes of public transport.”
The amendment would also provide that the
“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.”
This is, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge standing up for his constituents and the particular issues that they face with the co-ordination of services. Having heard the experience of Mayor Burnham with the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the Committee could argue that the increased integration of all modes of transport should properly be a focus of GBR, and the amendment would apply that integration to areas that are not mayoral combined authorities. Later in Committee, we will consider an amendment that seeks to extend the same courtesies to local transport authorities as the Bill extends to mayoral combined authorities, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon will be keen to speak to that.
Liberal Democrat amendment 135, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the Secretary of State to make an international rail strategy part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. That would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase channel tunnel and London St Pancras high-speed rail capacity.
Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)
Edward Morello ExcerptsThursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
Olly Glover
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government.
I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead.
New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use.
Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank hon. Members for the amendments and new clauses in the group. Before I turn to amendments 3 and 4, however, I will pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon earlier about people across the country having an understanding of GBR and its functions, and knowing how it will impact the railway and their lives. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has consistently given the statistic that 60% of functions on the railway will still be done by the private sector, once GBR is established—
Edward Argar
I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.
I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.
The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage’s passenger charter. I recommend that any Member who was otherwise engaged to go and listen to his ten-minute rule Bill, which outlined it in far greater detail than I will today.
Edward Morello
It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.
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?
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.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very supportive of the intent behind this new clause. Where the Government have taken the political decision to put all their eggs in the nationalisation basket, it becomes even more important that we add as many clauses to the Bill as possible to force them to focus on the passenger experience.
Nationalisation has been tried before, not just in the railways but in a number of other organisations, and not a single one of them is a byword for individual customer choice, so if experience is anything to go by—and if we are, as seems likely, going to be forced to have a nationalised approach to the railways—the legislation needs to bend over backwards to keep reinforcing the point that the passenger experience is the central element that the organisation should be aiming for.
At the moment, the Government are woefully unambitious in their definition of railway services. If you look at clause 18(3)—which I am sure you have already, Sir Alec—you will see that the definition for railway service performance
“includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services”.
I was expecting a long list of all the good things that customers travelling on the railway should expect, but what do we get? We get “reliability, (including punctuality),” and
“the avoidance…of passenger overcrowding”,
and that is it. What poverty of aspiration. It really is very striking.
It may be that the wording of new clause 8 could be improved—I am sure that the Government have the drafting firepower to do exactly that—but what is listed in subsection (2)(c)(i) to (vi) is a good starting point, and certainly much better than what the Government managed to come up with in clause 18. I support it.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for new clause 8 and amendment 130, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have offered contributions in support of the notion of seeking to require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as zealous as he is in pursuing not only the rights of passengers, but their ability to have happy, fulfilled experiences on the railway—whether through a G&T, a cup of tea or whatever else.
Although I fully endorse the aim of raising passenger standards, I do not agree that a statutory passenger charter is the best approach. Great British Railways, not Government, needs to be in charge of the passenger offer, and it is being set up to be an expert-led directing mind, not a Government-led directive mind. There would be little value in reforming the system, only for the Government to continue to micromanage the railway, down to the level of specific seat designs.
Edward Morello
During my conversations with the sector, one of the challenges that came up about returning, for example, the buffet trolley or other services to trains is that services have already been sold on station platforms. There is direct and inherent competition between any service that someone might receive on the train and something that might be provided, and has already been sold, leased or franchised out, on the platform itself. How can the Government put passengers’ interests at the core of service delivery when they will have an inherent business or profitability conflict with some of the services that are already in existence?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member can intervene again if I have misunderstood his point, but I think there is a lot of utility in the fact that GBR, by being able to direct passenger services as well as having responsibility for long-term infrastructure such as stations, provides a coherent basis on which to tailor the passenger experience across the multitude of ways in which passengers engage with the railway and its infrastructure. From my perspective, it actually removes issues in cases in which competition may not be what is best for the passenger—where there is an offer in the catering car on their service down to London, but also a small business running a café from the station. We will have more of an opportunity to offer a holistic service for the passenger.
It is also important to me that we do not want to fix the passenger offer in statute. We want GBR to be able to adapt to passengers’ needs as they change over time. For example, I cannot imagine that many were thinking about wi-fi when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but we know how fundamental it is to social and economic connectivity for passengers on the railway today.
To ensure that GBR does a good job of managing the passenger offer, the Bill will also establish the passenger watchdog, which will have strong powers to act in passengers’ interests. The Government and GBR will have to consult the watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer, and GBR will be expected to take account of the watchdog’s advice. The watchdog will also set minimum consumer standards, covering areas such as accessibility and passenger information.
The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy.
Railways Bill (Third sitting)
Edward Morello ExcerptsThursday 22nd January 2026
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 January 2026 - (22 Jan 2026)
Olly Glover
I look forward to hearing all the figures. The point is that it is not always about coming up with the exact cost for absolutely every measure. There are plenty of things that are the right thing to do, and that can earn a return on investment. The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training is a significant barrier to economic growth. This measure, by making it easier for young people to use the train to access jobs, is likely to earn a significant return by getting more people into employment and paying taxes.
Before I accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that we want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland. If that sounds absurd, the Netherlands has it at this exact moment—and there is much that we can learn from that example. We want a guarantee to be issued that whatever ticket passengers purchase, via any means, is the best value fare. There should be no inequality in fare for the same ticket purchased via different means, which can be the case now because of the proliferation of ticketing platforms.
We want a national railcard to be introduced across the country. Many other countries, including Germany and Switzerland, offer national discount cards, but it is a bit of a postcode lottery here, with the network railcard in the London and south-east England area and a number of other regional or local railcards. We want open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rate databases for third-party retailers. That would build on the useful example demonstrated by Network Rail about 15 years ago, when it made the data feeds for its performance and train running systems available for the public to use. That created a wonderful ecosystem of useful train running and disruption apps that were much better than the official ones provided by train operators.
We also want to see greater collaboration with local and regional transport authorities, so that we see much more multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks. That would help us to get the integrated transport system we need to deal with the first and last-mile issues that are often a barrier to people deciding to take public transport over the car. Where a single journey involves travel on multiple rail services, or at least one rail service and another form of public transport, we want steps to be taken to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel.
We believe that our new clause makes a number of proposals that would put our fares and ticketing system on a much better footing. It would deliver value to the taxpayer as well as reduce cost, because it would stimulate many more people to use our railway and therefore increase revenue. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect.
Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage.
The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities.
The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?
Edward Morello
At one point, going through all the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill, I concluded that accepting them all would mean that the only people who would pay for a full-price ticket would probably be working-age men aged 35 to 45—they would have to single-handedly fund the entire rail network. I am not sure that that is a desirable long-term system, but a simplified system is ideal. I accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s intervention: the regionalised or localised railcards have their own benefit. But invariably we are just creating more and more carve-outs, and a simplified national system may be fairer and easier to sustain over the long term.
A move towards a national tap-in, tap-out system would modernise the network and make it far more user-friendly. In West Dorset, passengers too often step off a train only to have to wait 45 minutes for a bus, because timetables are poorly aligned. Enabling multimodal ticketing would allow rail, bus and other services to work together, making journeys smoother for residents and visitors.
New clause 9 would require Great British Railways to report on and plan for fair fares, modern ticketing, innovation through an open-source system and integration across all transport nodes. Like new clause 8, it would allow us to advocate for passengers, which should be the central theme of the Bill.
Airport Drop-off Charges
Edward Morello Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.
What should be a simple act of kindness—giving someone a lift to an airport, as we have all done—is increasingly being met with extortionate airport charges. This is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is why we believe the Government must now look seriously at regulating the fees. For constituents like mine in West Dorset, who live in a hugely rural area with limited public transport, where many villages do not even have a reliable local bus service, let alone a direct rail link to a major airport, it is increasingly painful. For my constituents to get to Exeter, Bristol or Bournemouth airports, let alone Heathrow or Gatwick, means driving, booking a costly taxi or, more often than not, asking a family member or neighbour to help.
If we want to drop someone off, we have to use the airport system and pay its charges. At Bristol, that now means £8.50 for 10 minutes, or £30 for an hour. Bournemouth airport promotes what it calls a passenger pick-up offer of up to 90 minutes to meet and greet friends, for the small fee of £6. For many people, that £6 will be spent on merely five minutes’ activity. For families who are already paying inflated air fares, baggage fees and taxes, it is just another hidden cost added to the journey.
The charges have risen rapidly across the country, far beyond inflation. Gatwick now charges £10 for just 10 minutes—double what it charged in 2021. What began in 2007 as a £1 security-driven charge at Birmingham airport has become a nationwide revenue stream. Airports often justify the increases by citing environmental goals or the need to encourage public transport use, but unless the charges are accompanied by serious, accessible and affordable public transport investment, they do not change behaviour; they simply extract more money from those who have no alternative.
The charges hit some groups particularly hard, including disabled passengers, people with reduced mobility, parents travelling with young children, and those from rural areas who are least able to use public transport and most dependent on car access. Although airports have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, statutory provisions for blue badge holders do not apply in private car parks, and many people fall through the cracks.
The Competition and Markets Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm in surface access charging. That assessment is now out of date. Since 2016, charges have risen sharply. Free drop-off zones have all but been removed, and on-site payment options have been closed in favour of online or phone systems that are confusing for most.
As people try to avoid the charges, police have reported increased dangerous behaviour, with cars stopping on motorway hard shoulders to pick up passengers. That is unsafe for drivers, passengers and emergency services and is a direct result of an unfair pricing system. It is also worth remembering, as has been highlighted, that these charges are not normal across Europe. Passengers at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Madrid do not pay to drop off loved ones. If it can be done there, it can be done here.
Airports argue that they face financial pressures, particularly from business rates, which were recalculated after the pandemic. We Liberal Democrats sympathise, and passing the bill directly to passengers through drop-off fees may be the easiest lever to pull, but it is not the fairest or most effective one. The Department for Transport has previously said that it has no plans to monitor or limit parking fees at airports, and I believe that position is no longer acceptable.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we want to reduce the environmental impact of flying, but it has to be done in a way that is fair and effective. We support investment in zero-carbon flights, reforming aviation taxation so that frequent flyers pay more, taxing private jets, improving rail alternatives and banning short domestic flights where fast rail options exist. What we do not support is offloading the cost of climate policies on to families, friends, disabled people and rural transport.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I rarely intervene on another spokesperson’s speech, but this raises a question: if the Liberal Democrats want these expensive policies and say that consumers should not pay, who should pay?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my point. It is not about whether the consumer pays; it is about whether the airports are using the revenue they claim they are generating to support climate policies for that purpose, or whether it is simply another revenue stream for them. Airports and providers must use the money correctly, rather than just levying another tax on passengers.
Regulation could take several forms. There could be a cap on drop-off charges linked to inflation. There could be a requirement for a free short-stay grace period. There could be mandatory exemptions for disabled passengers and carers. There could be greater transparency on how revenues are used and whether they genuinely fund sustainable transport.
What we cannot do is to continue to allow airports to exploit their control over access to extract ever higher fees from consumers who have no meaningful choice. It is time we recognised that airport drop-off charges have become unfair, unregulated and disconnected from their original purpose. I hope the Government will act.
Railways Bill
Edward Morello ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I am looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee, because this Bill is a long-awaited opportunity to reshape our rail network for the better. It is an opportunity to deliver real value, reliability and affordability for passengers across the whole of the country, but especially in underserved rural communities such as West Dorset. I welcome key provisions such as the commitment to a long-term strategy, a more integrated approach to track and train, the retention of the important regulatory role of the ORR, a strong focus on accessibility and the ambition to simplify a fragmented structure that, for too long and too often, has pushed infrastructure and operations in different directions.
My constituents repeatedly tell me that they want reliability and affordability above all, which is why we also welcome the freeze in rail fares—long campaigned for by the Liberal Democrats—that was announced in the Budget. West Dorset’s rural rail network, including the Salisbury to Exeter line, is crucial for our communities, yet its infrastructure remains outdated and fragile. The recommendations of the “Connecting South West England” report are clear: electrification, upgrading single track sections and additional passing points such as the much-needed Tisbury loop would dramatically improve reliability and capacity, and reduce the delays that plague the line today. Too often, rural lines are left with old, uncomfortable and unreliable trains.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for?
Edward Morello
I agree 100%. I very much hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to improve that level of service.
End-of-the-line stopping services should not be defined by graffiti, broken heating, limited seating and high fares. What we want are modern trains with reliable wi-fi, working toilets, clear visual and audio information systems for disabled passengers, and safe, well-lit stations.
If the Bill delivers anything, I hope it will deliver the return of the buffet trolley. On rail journeys lasting over an hour, a guaranteed minimum level of food and drink provision should be a basic expectation of modern public transport. Whether it is a parent travelling with children, an older passenger managing a long trip, commuters trying to work on the move, or maybe a Member of Parliament hoping for a gin and tonic on the way home, access to refreshments is important.
I would also like the Bill to support our climate commitments. That means accelerating electrification, expanding battery and hydrogen use where appropriate, and setting clear standards for freight and passenger emissions. A long-term rail strategy must be transparent, regularly reviewed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and designed with future climate pressures in mind, including the modelling of environmental impacts, such as the soil moisture deficit—already mentioned—that has severely disrupted services in Dorset.
There are elements of the Bill that cause concern. Many will rightly question whether Great British Railways, as currently proposed, risks becoming a rail version of NHS England: a large, centralised body with limited agility, limited parliamentary accountability, and simply an opportunity for ministerial micromanagement. If the Secretary of State wants more power, then accountability to Parliament must increase alongside it.
Passengers deserve clear, measurable outcomes on affordability, reliability and accessibility, not vague commitments that cannot be scrutinised. We need to be able to get answers and get change for our constituents if standards fall below acceptable levels, and not have to deal with arm’s length bodies.
Passengers must be protected from excessive charges and hidden fees. The GBR app and website should never add unnecessary booking fees or administrative costs. Instead, we should push for open-source fare systems that allow passengers easily to find the best deal. Expanding discount schemes, especially for young people through “rail miles” systems, would help people travel more and reduce costs for families.
Finally, the Bill must lead to a railway where back-office systems are rationalised, data is used to improve passenger experience, and long-term planning is not sacrificed for short-term crisis management. Passengers deserve honesty about upcoming delays, clarity on long-term upgrades, and confidence that today’s problems are not simply passed on to tomorrow’s Parliament.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a railway that works: for commuters, for rural communities, for disabled passengers, for young people seeking opportunity, and for the climate. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues from across the House to strengthen the Bill in Committee and deliver a railway worthy of the people we serve.