Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

I remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the timetable and the time available, however, I hope to take those matters formally, without debate.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

Nesil Caliskan (Labour, Barking)

As outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of the trade unions Unison and GMB.

Liam Conlon (Labour, Beckenham and Penge)

As it says in my entry in the register, I am a member of the unions ASLEF, Unison and GMB.[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

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

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

As per the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union and vice-chair of the APPG on rail.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I am also a member of Unite the union.

Examination of Witnesses

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Network Rail, the Office of Rail and Road, and DfT Operator. We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.10 am. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you for coming. Broadly speaking, we are talking about governance and accountability in this session. I am going to dive straight in, Mr Larkinson. On the appeals process as envisaged by the new ORR, we can see from clause 68 that there is to be no appeal on the merits of economic considerations; it is only to be approached on the basis of judicial review in the High Court, which means only an appeal on a matter of law and procedural issues, and a time limit for applications of just three months. First, will you confirm that that is your understanding of the constraints of this particular appeal process?Q

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q That answer was about the powers you have once an appeal comes to you, but my question was on what kinds of appeal can get in front of you in the first place. Going back to the original question, am I right in saying that, under the Bill, there is no right for an appeal on the merits, and that you cannot have a second look at the decision-making process?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I do not mean to confuse you; I seek to clarify whether an appeal on judicial review principles means that someone who is unhappy with a decision cannot have that decision reconsidered—so there is no appeal on the merits.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q You agree that it is very, very narrow.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q If someone goes through the appeals process on that very, very narrow front and is successful in their appeal, the ORR can order only two things to happen. The first is that the decision is sent back to GBR to have a think again, and the second is to substitute a decision, where the failure has been an error of law and there is only one possible alternative in the circumstances. It is in those very, very narrow circumstances that you can substitute your answer, because there is no other answer.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Given those enormous constraints, can you sit before the Committee and say that this is a strong appeals process?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q You say that it fits with the description of what the Government want GBR to do, but from the drafting of the Bill we can conclude that the Government want GBR to be the final arbiter. There is no appellate course from a decision by GBR, except in an area of law. It is the judge and jury in this.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you very much for being here this morning. Building on the topic of access and charging, which the Opposition spokesperson raised, can you go into a bit more detail on clauses 60 and 63, particularly on best use of the railway and GBR having to have regard for a range of services in deciding best use? Only after that point does the capacity duty in clause 63 come into effect, to make sure that GBR delivers the services needed to run the railway effectively. Alex or Jeremy, perhaps, can you dig into the concerns that have been outlined that this could result in GBR taking more than what it is entitled to within the railway, and the reality of how the clauses ensure that that does not take place?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q When we are considering best use, which is integral to the smooth functioning of the railway and the benefits that it can realise for the UK economy more broadly, we should consider the importance of rail freight. Can you speak a little more on what provisions in the Bill promote the interests of rail freight? Could you also touch on the important issue of rolling stock, and how the rolling stock strategy, although separate to the provisions of the Bill, helps with a joined-up approach to the long-term future of the railway?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you. My final question relates to accountability. There is a suite of measures within the Bill to ensure that GBR is compliant with its duties and the provisions of its licence as enforced by the ORR, but I understand that some people have concerns about the balance of accountability powers sitting between the passenger watchdog, the ORR and the Secretary of State—that they are either too diffuse or too concentrated in certain places—and that we could end up in a situation where the Secretary of State might want to take more control over management of the railway within the Department. From my perspective, this Bill offers safeguards against doing that, and its overriding intent is to ensure that the railway is, in a sense, run by GBR, in a way that is decentralised and taken away from Whitehall, in a system that is very different from what we have today. Do you agree with the assessment that the accountability powers within the legislation are sufficiently broad to allow GBR to be held to account, and for no one stakeholder within that mix of accountability to be able to claw back too much control for themselves?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q My first question is, do you think that the functions and duties of Great British Railways, as set out in the Bill, enable it to be an effective system operator? Also, do you think that this will result in rail travel being more affordable for passengers?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q In your view, is anything missing from the Bill that you would have liked to have seen in it to enable that to happen?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q I have to ask this question. Several years ago, the decision was made to create GBR and have it headquartered in the brilliant city of Derby, and successive Governments, Secretaries of State and rail Ministers have backed that decision. Recently, Mr Westlake, when I asked about the size and shape of the headquarters on the Transport Committee, you said that we are six to nine months away from getting to that point. Given that we are about to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, can anything be done to ensure that we hold to that six-to-nine-month milestone, or improve it?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

I want to go back to the accountability piece. You said to the Minister that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at this on the Transport Committee, and the closest thing I can relate GBR to is the NHS. It is not necessarily run by the Department of Health and Social Care; it is a separate organisation, and then it is devolved into local regions through integrated care boards and things. My experience is that it is incredibly difficult to hold it to account because you do not have direct access to the Secretary of State.Q

I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Q Can I just come back to you on that? One of the other things that came out when we had the Rail Minister in front of us was the devolution aspect, and my understanding is that each of these individual railway lines will still be run as an individual line. It will be like we have it now; they are just going to be publicly owned, rather than privately owned.

The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Q But the responsibility for the delivery of services will be theirs. Going back to my original question about how we hold it to account, are you effectively saying that when it comes down to the individual railway lines and the services, we as MPs will be going to that chief exec and then having to figure out how we escalate it if that does not work?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Good morning. I first have a couple of questions to Mr Larkinson, but if other witnesses wish to come in, please do so.

Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,

“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—

in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Does the removal of interfaces through the Bill make it easier to progress that work?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Moving on, the ORR will remain the regulator in Northern Ireland, as I understand it. It is quite a general question, but how does the role of the regulator under the Bill compare to the system in Northern Ireland, which, am I right in saying, broadly has a more European approach? Also how will it compare to other rail regulators on the continent?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Is it correct that, in theory, it has an appeals function?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q The ORR has taken an interest in the transfer of ownership to DFTO of individual franchises—I think that is recorded in the board minutes from last year. As far as I can see, it has been some time since the discussion was recorded at the board—it is possible that I may have missed one. How do you think those transfers have gone?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q I have one final question for Mr Hynes and Mr Westlake. We talked on the Transport Committee some time ago about progress with shadow GBR and the preparations for implementation. As it has been some time since that was discussed, and this Bill has subsequently been published, could you give us an update on the work that shadow GBR has been undertaking?

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

This question is directed at the chief executive of DFTO. You talk about the benefits of uniting track and train in terms of management and not having too many organisations. Transport for London obviously goes further, by working across buses, trains, cycle and tube. Is there anything in the Bill that improves the connectivity of rail with other forms of transport? I am thinking not just of my Isle of Wight constituency’s connectivity with privatised, unregulated ferry companies, but of probably every constituency with buses under different ownership models. Does anything in the Bill help to the improve connections between rail and other forms of public transport?Q

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

This will probably be the final question; this session has to end by 10.10 am.

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

Thank you very much, Sir Alec. I have a couple of small questions. Mr Hynes, you talked about mayoral strategic authorities. In the south-west, of course, we do not really have any. In that situation, what is the duty to deal with local authorities in a similar way and take account of their transport plans? Is it the same?Q

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

Regardless of the type of authority?

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

Q I am one of the MPs for Cornwall, so that is really good to hear. Mr Larkinson, much of the ORR’s role is monitoring and enforcement after the fact—looking back and looking at appeals. Do you have sufficient powers to look at things before they happen, so at decisions as they are being made, if you can see trouble down the rail—if you see what I mean?

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

Q Do you consider that you will have enough power under the Bill to be able to make your way in at that stage?

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

Q Mr Westlake, on rail freight, we talked earlier about clause 63. I am the MP for Falmouth, so I want to restore rail freight there; there is a passenger rail line there as well. Obviously, there is the duty to grow rail freight but of course there will be immense pressure on capacity in some of the railways. Do you think that will be a manageable friction, and that GBR will be able to take on that duty and the capacity duty, even considering that the capacity duty in clause 63 prioritises passengers?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

We have two minutes and 30 seconds left if anyone wants to creep in and get a response to any further questions.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Q Good morning, panel. Do you think that the new passenger watchdog will provide a more effective route for passengers and their representatives—including all of us, as Members of Parliament—to have their voice heard when raising concerns about poor service and, equally importantly, getting their concerns resolved?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Q Do any other members of the panel want to comment?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Q That makes the passenger watchdog a very effective champion for passengers, whereas, as the ORR—the regulator—you have to hold everything in balance. Is that right?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Q I remind Members that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion, which the Committee has agreed to. We have until 10.35 am for this session. Please could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I thank both the witnesses for coming. There is a lot to get through and we are short of time. I will start with Mr Williams. You have written a report on the future of railway. You proposed the creation of GBR, but to operate through private concessions as opposed to nationalisation. The Government have now taken a very different view. Please can you set out briefly the pros and cons of nationalisation over what you proposed.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I turn now to the Bill, rather than the broader situation. There are huge powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State or the Department for Transport, in relation to setting out the long-term strategy, intervening in fares and their structure, and giving guidance and direction. Those are the key areas, but there are a number of others. Are you a bit concerned that there is going to be some backseat driving going on?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Yes, from Government rather than GBR being the director.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Mr Brown, there are very few references in the Bill to value for money driving competition. In fact, the competition remit of the ORR is specifically excluded for large sections of the operation of GBR, and the Secretary of State has no ability to grant provision of service contracts to private companies—it has to be to a GBR or a subsidiary of GBR. How can operations of GBR be challenged on value for money for taxpayers? Do you think they have the balance right here?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Do you think they have the balance right here? How do we drive value for money for taxpayers given those very significant constraints on competition?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q I am conscious of time, so I just have one broader question about the devolution settlement, which is devolving services and how the railway works, which is mentioned in the Williams review, and I also want to go to Mr Brown’s point about integrated business units. Mr Williams, could you expand a little bit on what the operational reality of a more decentralised railway working in closer partnerships could look like under GBR? The Bill specifically focuses on mayoral strategic authorities as an appropriate unit to engage with to act as a catalyst for economic growth, house building and those things which are really conjoined with rail growth. Can you give us a glimpse of how you feel that the system might work in practice under the Bill’s framework?

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Both of your reviews highlighted an issue of short-term thinking, or a lack of longer-term vision, on the railway. Are you satisfied with the way that the long-term rail strategy is set out in the Bill, and that it will restore a bit more long-term thinking and vision? Do you think it is a problem that “long term” is not defined in the Bill—are we talking about five, 10, 20 or 30 yearsQ ?

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

Q I spend about four hours a week on a train with a toddler, so I know well that inclusion on our railways is not just for those with disabilities, although that is incredibly important. I am interested in whether you think that the provisions in the Bill around accessibility are strong enough and will go far enough to ensure that we have a railway that truly works for everybody, as it needs to if we are to persuade more people out of their cars and on to the railways, and as is right given the endeavour around net zero and the Government’s wider ambitions.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

I have a couple of quick questions, following on from some of the comments that you have just made. Do you think that a 30-year strategy, or whatever, is a realistic proposition, given that the Government can change every five years—it may be more than that, but there is the potential for that—and a new Secretary of State may want to draft their own strategy, which may be completely different from the previous Government’s? That is a factor of politics. By adopting the approach taken here, do you think we bring that political risk even more starkly into this space than it is currently?Q

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Q Thank you. Mr Brown, I think it was you who mentioned the integrated business units and accountability, and you also mentioned communities and passengers. How will the Bill provide direct accountability to individual communities? How will it ensure that those integrated business units are directly and meaningfully accountable to individual passengers or an area, and that the director or MD of a particular integrated business unit is directly accountable to them rather than upwards to the chief executive of GBR?

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

Q I want to build on the points about mayors and the mayoral authorities, in the context of the devolved nations. There is a really complex picture there, particularly with cross-border travel and the different ownership of companies that may operate across the border. Do you think the Bill covers that adequately and can cope with the challenges?

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

OnQ accountability, both this panel and the previous one have talked about the benefits of having a single business unit or chief executive responsible for both track and train. I accept the logic of that and the point that there are mechanisms for local communities and passenger groups to interact with that business unit and for it to have to take local plans into consideration. The step that I am missing is that I can convince the chief executive responsible for my area that we need a new passing loop at Tisbury—he is 100% convinced of that—but ultimately he is still delivering based on the broader business plan. For all of the mechanisms of interaction with my local business unit, how does that translate into delivering within a business plan, if the business plan continues to deprioritise the south-west, for example?

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

Q The Secretary of State will still have to sign off that loop, though.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With 60 seconds for question and answer, I call Baggy Shanker.

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q Mr Williams, how does the Bill reflect the vision of your review that we have a more integrated and passenger-focused railway?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q Mr Brown, how does the Bill reflect the failings that you highlighted in your review about a broken franchising system?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Order. We have reached the end of our allocated time. I thank the witnesses for their time today.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

The next panel consists of representatives of Transport Focus, Transport for All, the Campaign for Better Transport and London TravelWatch. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? We will start with Emma, who is joining us by video link.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Thank you very much. I call the shadow Minister.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you all for coming in person or, Emma, for joining online. I am going to focus on clause 18 of the Bill, which is on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR. In particular, I will jump straight to clause 18(2), which sets out the functions and how they should operate those functions. Paragraph (c) states that one such function is

“to promote high standards of railway service performance”,

itself defined in clause 18(3):

“‘railway service performance’ includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services—

(a) reliability…and

(b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding

My question about that definition of service performance, which is very narrow, is for everyone, but I will start with you, Emma. Are you concerned that the focus is primarily on reliability and overcrowding? What about comfort, heating, wi-fi, food, frequency, cost and all the other good stuff—and disability access?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That would be rational.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Neither of which we have seen.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q The second issue I wish to draw out is the fair treatment of other fare providers. At the moment, a number of independent retailers have very good tech that facilitates passengers using the railway. In the new environment, Great British Railways will be the holder of the data—the holder of the ring—but it is also intending, perfectly reasonably, to be part of the game as well: it will have a retail operation, so it will be directly competing in that retail market. This issue has been considered in other state-owned organisations, such as SNCF, where it was recognised that there was a structural conflict of interest; as a result, the retail side of SNCF is a stand-alone, independent organisation. The Government have chosen not to do that. Do you not think that that is surprising? Would it be beneficial to have GBR retail carved off as a stand-alone?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q What if the Government refuse to carve it off, as has been done in other international examples? The Bill does not require a level playing field. Would you support improving the Bill by expressly stating that GBR must provide a level playing field on data and access for all retailers?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Q I am proud of the passengers and accessibility duty and pleased that it was welcomed by accessibility groups. Am I right in saying that there is no comparable statutory duty that applies to Network Rail or the TOCs—in other words, that this would be an entirely new requirement?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Q I have a quick follow-up for Transport Focus. Will you be able to work effectively with the ORR to deliver for passengers?

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

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

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

Q Can I just check that you do not have any oversight of ferries?

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

Q Ben, I want to come to your proposals around the duty to grow passenger use. Could it not be assumed that that runs throughout the Bill? Why do you think it is needed as an additional explicit provision?

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

Q Do you think that duty could help to ensure that inclusivity is taken in the widest possible sense? I travel with my toddler, and there is a risk when I go to the toilet with him that he will hit the emergency open button and I will be exposed to the train. There is a conflict there: I absolutely recognise that disabled people need to be able to use those facilities and get support, but I also need to be able to use the train safely as a mother with a small person.

How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Q One of the things that has been touched on in that conversation, particularly around universal design and the Bill’s aims to improve accessibility, is that we already have huge discrepancies around the country on each individual line. It is worth asking, for the record, whether you agree that there will be a significant time lag in when this accessibility aim will actually be delivered to the general public. The Minister eventually suggested that it may take 30 years for some of these things to come into place, so do you think it is important for us to be realistic with the public about what the accessibility provision in the Bill will actually mean on the ground?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Q As I understand it, one of the ways that a lot of it will be delivered—the detail of what GBR has to provide—is through the licence. Do you think it is a problem that the Committee has not had sight of the draft GBR licence yet, setting out what we expect accessibility to look like in the Bill versus the reality of what it will look like?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q Do you agree that the accessibility duty, if combined with detailed targets in the business plan, will improve the whole system for disabled passengers?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q If those targets are in the business plan, they cannot just be ignored, can they?

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Q I want to pick a little further at the accessibility point, particularly on step-free access. By way of example, last week I got a letter from the Minister—neither of the two excellent Ministers in the Committee—saying that Sileby station in my constituency, which can be reached only by very steep steps, along with 40% of other stations in the current programme, was being cut from works to improve accessibility on the grounds of funding pressures.

The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do?

I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q I have a follow-up about passenger growth targets and freight growth targets. This question is not new: the freight growth target is inherited and was included or announced in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail White Paper. Mr Plowden, I am conscious that this was before your time in your present post, so perhaps this is for other witnesses. Given that we cannot question the previous Government in this Committee, based on your conversations and representations, why did the previous Government decide not to bring forward a passenger growth target alongside a freight growth target?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Forgive me; I am particularly interested in policy development over time with this question.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Andrew Ranger, you have 50 seconds for question and answer.

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

Q It is a very quick one, so you could please just give me a one word answer. It is a question to the whole panel. After all we have discussed, in your opinion, will this Bill produce a railway service that better serves its passengers?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Does anybody have anything to declare? No. We will now hear oral evidence from First Rail, Rail Freight Group and ALLRAIL. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you for attending to give oral evidence. Maggie Simpson, we heard from the chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road this morning that the appeals process is very tightly constrained. Is it worth the paper it is written on?Q67

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Moving on to access decisions and charging, on your reading of the Bill, does the ORR have enough power to hold GBR to account? If your answer, as I suspect it might be, is that it does not, what changes need to be made to improve the Bill?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you. Mr Thomas, in your view, under the Bill, will the railways be regulated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner? I am talking about the relationship between open access—the non-nationalised parts of the railway—and GBR. If not, why do you say that, and how would you suggest it is fixed?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Mr Montgomery, will you say whether you agree with that position, as well as answering this final question? In areas of capacity and access, the Bill anticipates the Secretary of State being granted power to change capacity decisions and access agreements without notice. If that is the case, what impact will that have on the ability of open access operators to build a business case for investment in the future? What impact will it have on future investment?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you all for appearing before the Committee. I will start by asking you a macro question about the provisions in the Bill. There are two fundamental protections for freight within the Bill: the freight target and the freight duty, and not just GBR but the Secretary of State and the ORR will be accountable for them. The consultation response published alongside the Bill mentions freight 100 times. There will be a freight rep on GBR’s board and a specific freight team within the organisation. I understand that you met the Rail Minister and had the opportunity to discuss some of the concerns. In the overall context of the provisions in the Bill, do you think that GBR, as it will be set up through the Bill, will have due consideration of the needs of freight and an interest in promoting it?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Absolutely. It is a really fair point that, in the context of rail policy over the last two decades, it is right to have a healthy degree of scepticism about the willingness of sequential Governments to commit to this target. That is why I think that the legally binding duty regarding freight is so important. I also take the point that you have raised about the appeals process, as well as the point about clauses 60 and 63, on the capacity duty and best use of the railway.

It is important that we clarify that GBR has to set out what it means by “best use” before we get into questions of the capacity duty. It has to have due regard for freight in the network, open access in the network and the provision of passenger services before the capacity duty is triggered. That means that GBR has to deliver the services it has identified as being necessary to run the railway effectively, but the appeals process is enormously important. Do you think the fact that freight operators would be able to appeal GBR’s interpretation of “best use” in relation to its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of freight, provides a safeguard to ensure that freight is considered when GBR is deciding what constitutes best use of the railway overall?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you; that is really useful insight, and I think it is incumbent upon the Government to make clear the sequential nature of the clauses, with best use coming first in deciding overall provision within the railway, and then the capacity duty locking in GBR’s responsibility, essentially, to the Secretary of State and taxpayers to deliver the services that it says it requires to run the railway properly. It is really important that we make that clear to stakeholders, so thank you for bringing that to light.

May I ask one final question to Mr Montgomery, as it relates to open access? We have an overall issue with capacity in this country. The Government’s view is that, by running a single, unified approach to the railways, GBR will be able to allocate capacity in a way that is more reasonable, makes more sense and balances those interests around best use. Can you set out briefly how that contrasts with the open access regime as we currently find it? How is capacity on the railways perhaps holding back competitive movements in the open access market as it stands?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

We can set that out a little later, probably in the evidence that I give, but thank you all very much. I will let other Members ask questions.

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

InQ the existing framework, open access applications are routinely refused due to lack of capacity, or perceived lack of capacity. That pitches passengers against freight all the time. What is good about that system that you would want to keep? What would you like to see change?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q Are you saying that we do not need any changes in this area?

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

AQ brief question from me: in this morning’s session my colleague Ms Smith highlighted 19—and counting—different documents, plans and strategies that are referred to here. This Committee has not had any sight of drafts of them yet and I am conscious that nor will you, but they will be fundamental to how this works or does not work in practice. Recognising that you have not seen the documents, what assessment would you make of the Bill’s provisions on how, for example, the access and use and the infrastructure capacity policies will be produced? How should they be produced to properly reflect both the needs of an effective railway and the multiple groups with a stake in this? How can they be framed to ensure that GBR, which will essentially be a monopoly provider with a weakened regulator, is meaningfully held to account for what it puts in those policies?

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Q Gentlemen, do you have anything to add?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

As I did in this morning’s session, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I have a few short questions, primarily to Ms Simpson to start with. We heard from some of our witnesses in this morning’s panels that they would like to see a passenger growth target in the Bill on an equivalent basis to the freight growth target. I am interested in your reaction to that proposalQ .

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Returning to freight, I understand there is a problem at the moment with the ORR refusing longer-term applications, which presumably has a dampening effect on investment—at least, I would assume so. Do you think there is least the potential under GBR to take a longer-term view, and hopefully to reflect that in longer-term access agreements?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q I turn to clause 64 on the charging scheme. Subsection (4) allows GBR to levy lower charges for the purpose of introducing new services, including for the carriage of goods. How would your members like to see that power applied?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I have one final question, if there is time.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Very quickly, please.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q I will make it very quick. Mr Montgomery, I saw a document that rail partners published a few years ago called “Working together for a better railway”, which suggested that the ideal mix of passenger contracts would be concessions for commuter services and franchising—I do not think it used the word “franchising”, but maybe something similar—for longer-term services. Is that your personal point of view?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q But for inter-city, something similar to franchising?

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

I have a question about GBR’s licence. What can we glean from the provisions for that licence in the Railways Bill, without having seen a draft of the documentQ ?

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

Q What role would industry expect to play in the production of that licence?

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

I am afraid that the next question will probably be the last to this set of witnesses. I call Sarah Smith.

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

In my constituency, we have a potential site for a rail freight terminal, and I welcome the commitment to rail freight growth in the Bill. As I understand it, GB Railfreight has invested in 30 new locomotives so far, and has raised more than £218 million of debt available for capital investment. Do you not agree that that demonstrates industry confidence, and that those steps, plus the other things happening in the industry at this stage, suggests that the industry is not unnerved by the progress being made by the Government and what is currently outlined in the Bill?Q

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

Q I have a very short question about a slightly different area. John, I understand that you have worked across Europe and looked at different approaches across the world. In Finland, as I understand it, they have gone all out on family-friendly trains and ensuring inclusive access to trains in the widest possible sense. Is there anything we can learn from that part of the world on how we can meet the ambitions for accessible services laid out in the legislation?

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Order. That brings us to the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask questions, I am afraid. On behalf of the Committee, I thank witnesses for the evidence they have given this afternoon.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

We will now hear oral evidence from Trainline and Independent Rail Retailers. We have until 3.05 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you both for attending to give oral evidence. This section is about independent rail retailers. I am going to start with what the Competition and Markets Authority said about this. I am quoting it. It is saying that it is

“important to give the right signals from the outset that TPRs will be competing on a level playing field with GBR—to encourage that competition and investment which will benefit passengers directly”.

That is what the CMA says. Mr Davies, do you agree with the position that the CMA has taken? If you do, do you think the Bill as currently drafted gives a level playing field between GBR and independent retailers? If not, why not, and what would you do to fix it?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Other witnesses have strongly argued for an express duty on the face of the Bill that GBR should be fair and non-discriminatory in its approach. Would you agree that that would be helpful in this circumstance as well?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q In other similar organisations, such as SNCF in France, the decision was taken to recognise the structural conflict of interest, and set up the retail arm of SNCF as a standalone organisation, presumably to prevent or reassure investors that there would be no cross-subsidising. First, do you think that would be a better solution in the United Kingdom? Secondly, if we got that through, could you explain or provide more details to the Committee on what impact it would have in real life?

I have in mind, for example, LNER currently being able to offer a full refund with one click on its website, and that service and facility not being made available to independent retailers even under the current system. Can you elaborate on quite how important that is for the independent sector? I would then like Catriona Meehan to come in with her views, too.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you both very much for taking the time to come and speak to us today. I suppose the existing system is that retailers rely on what is often quite a complicated web of contracts with the Rail Delivery Group operators and Network Rail to get access to the data and the systems that they need to operate. When things go wrong at the moment, your backstop is litigation, which can be incredibly costly and time-intensive for your organisations. In that context, would having a straightforward code of practice backed up by the ORR with an enforcement power be a simpler, more streamlined and predictable and less costly way to do business than the existing system?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you; that is really important. You raised another important point about transparency. That is an aspiration in creating the code of practice in the first place. To turn to the point about being fair and non-discriminatory, GBR, as a body set up under this law, will be bound by public law principles to be fair and non-discriminatory. In that regard, do you think that it is necessary to restate a legal reality within this Bill to provide surety that GBR is going to follow the law? I feel that in a lot of these conversations we expect GBR to be fully compliant with the law and to have robust mechanisms to ensure that it is. Do you think that it is necessary to replicate that legal reality within this legislation?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q I agree with you in principle that you cannot have just retrospective protections. Having a firm legal bedrock upon which GBR behaves in a way that is fair and non-discriminatory gives long-term certainty that that compliance factor has to be there in its decision making. But you are right to point out that, ultimately, a robust code of practice will assure day-to-day co-existence in a competitive environment for third-party retailing. I do not have any further questions at this time.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will certainly take that away.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q So the concern is about potentially losing access to some data flows that currently exist.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Does that data flow come through Rail Settlement Plan at the moment?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Q Finally, I will continue a line of questioning from the Transport Committee. As you know, we had an exchange about executive remuneration; in the subsequent written evidence that Trainline provided, it referred the Committee to the annual reports of published information. It also said that that salary or package was set in comparison with similar, comparable companies. Are you able to provide that information and name which companies you are talking about?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

So that is privileged information.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Thank you. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We move to the next panel.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Scotland and the Welsh Government. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you both for coming to give evidence. I will be fairly brief—I always say that, but never am. Mr Reeve, I will start with clause 8, which is on the potential powers for Ministers in Scotland to give directions to GBR. On the face of it, that all looks good: they have to consult the Secretary of State, and she or he has the power to overrule the Scottish Minister. Do you think that the Bill has the balance of responsibilities and powers right there?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q A recurring theme of this evidence today is the saga of the missing memorandum of understanding and/or draft licences. We have not seen 19 and counting documents that will form a crucial part of the governance of GBR in the future. Have you any idea about those? Have you seen a draft of the MOU? Do you know what is going to be in it?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Okay, but nothing yet. Let us move on to clause 10, which gives the Scottish Ministers power of guidance over GBR. Some people have expressed concern that there could be so much political control over future GBR that it will be hard to work out whether the guiding mind is Ministers or GBR. What is your take on that?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q It is interesting that you indicate that the guidance is a last resort, not a first resort. It does not say that on the face of the Bill. Do you think it should?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I turn to Mr McDonald. It is very different in Wales. The vast majority of the Welsh railway crosses the border with England, as opposed to Scotland, where there is more of a discrete railway—if I can put it like that. I think only the core valley railway is wholly within the gift of Welsh Ministers. Bearing that in mind, and that there will then have to be consultation with the Secretary of State on the vast majority of railways that affect Wales, do you think the Bill has the right line between consultation and decision making for Welsh Ministers, since it affects so much of their railway?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Would you accept that the Committee is flying blind substantially on a lot of this, because we do not have the MOUs or a lot of the information that is core to the successful running and governance of GBR at the moment?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That is quite a significant risk, isn’t it?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you both so much for coming to give evidence. Mr Reeve, would you be able to speak to the overall level of working that has taken place between DFT, yourself and the Scottish Government? The most unlikely of advocates for the way in which this process has been developed is the SNP Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who said that

“the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 210.]

That is impressive, isn’t it? Do you have any reflections on how this process has been worked out in consultation with yourself and the Scottish Government and whether it might provide instructive lessons for how GBR might seek to engage on a four-nations basis once it is established?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q I am glad to hear that. For the sake of the record, I should say that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens was actually quoting the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—so that is two SNP MPs for the price of one.

My second question relates to the issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson about the publishing of documents, consultations and memorandums of understanding relating to this Bill. Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald, you are storeyed in your working on the railway and deal with these issues on a daily basis. What do you think the requisite trade-offs are when designing a railway fit to serve four nations and 67 million people through legislation that is hermetically sealed, as opposed to working in consultation to develop the documents over time, in an iterative process throughout the Bill's passage?

The Government have been in power for about 18 months now and are seeking to progress this work at pace. Is this usually how the process of engagement happens with railway stakeholders when you are trying to achieve macro change in a short amount of time?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Absolutely. Lord Hendy mentioned in his testimony to the Transport Committee that upcoming elections in Scotland and at the Senedd in May will focus minds as those discussions progress. I also think that is a very healthy basis on which to drive the conversation forward on these really important matters of detail. For the moment, I have no further questions.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Olly Glover.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Mr McDonald, it is an interesting that the extent of rail devolution in Wales and Scotland is at rather different levels; perhaps I can put it that way. The Welsh Government have long called for greater devolution of rail policy. Does the Bill, and all that comes with it, give you hope for progressing that ambitionQ ?

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

Thank you both for coming in. This question is for both of you. Clause 80 of the Bill puts a duty on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers if it appears that a decision that it makes would “significantly affect the interests” of the Scottish or Welsh economy, or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland or Wales. Is “significantly affect” the right test? Is it a strong enough term to ensure consultation, or is there a risk that it will allow GBR and different personnel to make such a determination based on their own judgmentQ ?

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

Q I live in north-east Wales, but across many other parts of the country the complexity of cross-border services is also significant. In the Welsh case, the Welsh Government own TfW, which carries out lots of services in north-west England and Manchester; there are other such examples around the country. Are the mechanisms in the Bill appropriate for managing those complexities? What about the implied extra level of agreement and the working with different bodies, such as mayoralties, local authorities and the new devolution going on around the country? I would be interested in your views.

Andrew Ranger (Labour, Wrexham)

Q Mr Reeve, do you have anything to add?

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses, Mr McDonald and Mr Reeve, for their evidence today. We move on to the next panel.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Angel Trains, the Railway Industry Association and Siemens. We have until 4.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you, all three of you, for agreeing to give oral evidence today. I will start with Mr Brown, who represents Angel Trains: first of all, can you say a little bit about Angel Trains?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q That is an awful lot of money, and that comes down to the meat of it: this Bill changes the relationship between GBR and the supply chain—between GBR and ROSCOs, in your case. Does it provide your company, and companies like yours, with the long-term view needed for the supply chain and, by extension, investors? If not, what is needed to fix the gaps?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q There is reference, obviously, to a long-term strategy for rail in the Bill, but how long that is is not defined. Let us give the Minister a helping hand: for the ROSCOs and for the supply chain, what do you mean by “long-term”? What is helpful, and what is just too far in the future?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q So if you have a degree of certainty for the next 10 years and a forward look for, say, the next five after that—the Minister is right here, so shall we say 15 years for a long-term strategy? Is that what you are suggesting?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q What is missing from the Bill, from your perspective?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Mr Morris, you have just been referred to. At the moment, you have a control period of five years where the funding is locked down and there is a degree of forward certainty. Under the Bill, that certainty will be removed. It is not giving you more certainty for the future; it is giving you less. How important to the supply chain is certainty about the control period?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q You make an important point that enhancements should be included in this, not just maintenance. Coming back to the question, the Bill introduces for the first time an ability for the Secretary of State to change the funding settlement within a five-year period and without notice. You would agree that that is a backward step in certainty for the supply chain?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you for that. Mr Caplan, you represent RIA. Please explain to the Committee what RIA is and how important your organisation is.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q You are saying that schedule 2— I think you referred directly to paragraph 7(4)—increases risk and uncertainty for the supply chain, and that, as with any business, you price risk. That draft might be a Treasury draft, and I do not want to blame DFT—it may have been imposed, and who can possibly lift up the secrets of the boudoir in government—but do you agree that the outcome of that draft is that it increases risk and uncertainty, and that gets priced into the contract, so either investors will withdraw because they have no certainty, or if they remain, the cost to GBR and therefore to the taxpayer inevitably increases? It reduces, rather than increases, value for money; do you agree with that statement?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I am going to cut you short. You say absolutely. What about the other two?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you. I rest my case.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you all very much for giving evidence today. Mr Morris, I will begin with you for the Siemens perspective. I have had the opportunity to visit your fantastic production plant in Goole, and your local skills work is also commendable. I take the point about the need for long-term certainty in the rail industry, not only on rolling stock, but on those infrastructure improvements. On what Mr Brown referred to as the “building blocks” that sit throughout the legislation, the long-term rail strategy will provide a vision over 30 years—longer than 10 or 15 years—about the direction of the railways, and the rolling stock strategy is being developed in tandem with the Bill’s progress through Parliament, on which I believe stakeholders will be thoroughly consulted.

Duties for GBR also exist in the Bill. One of those duties is

“to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance”.

In a five-year business plan you may have fluctuations in spending to reflect fiscal reality, but would you say that through those building blocks, long-term certainty is offered to the industry, and GBR has to reflect industry needs and build a railway that is coherent in serving their interests over the long term?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you. That is a really important piece of the puzzle. I suppose we have argued today that passenger growth is inherent to the functioning of GBR. If, through its duties, GBR is required to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, alongside a system where open access can play its role through considering best use, that creates a wide basis on which incentivising passenger growth can take place, but that does not contradict your point about long-term certainty.

Mr Brown, you point to those building blocks, which are really important. On the one hand, you have the obligation for the Government to provide industry with certainty, but on the other, there is the point about not being overly prescriptive or deterministic in driving the outcomes of the private competitive basis on which a lot of these services are procured. Do you think the Bill strikes the right balance between offering that certainty through the building blocks and not freezing in aspic any perceptions of the railway today that might be outdated in, say, 30 years’ time?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you. I take your point about the long-term rail strategy having to offer that certainty, but the LTRS also has to be compatible with a set of duties that GBR is bound to through this legislation, including to ensure the rights of passengers with disabilities, freight performance with a freight target, and long-term certainty within the system for providers such as yourselves. If that set of duties aligns with a long-term rail strategy that you feel is sufficiently ambitious for the future of the railway, do you think that there is enough harmony between the duties and the LTRS for you to be able to plan for the long term?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Forgive me. I suppose the point I am driving is that these are legal duties, and therefore the long-term rail strategy cannot be incompatible with them.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Okay. Thank you very much.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Q You have made some really good points about the complexity of rail and the criticality of the relationship between renewals, electrification, signalling and rolling stock, and all the interfaces and dependencies between them. At risk of putting words in your mouth—hopefully I am reflecting back what you said—would you agree that some of those interfaces and the decisions around them have been, historically, a bit suboptimal? In that context, do you think there is enough in the Bill that recognises that and gets us to a better future? In particular, should the Bill explicitly state that there is a need for a rolling stock strategy? I know the Department for Transport says that it is making one, but it is not specifically in there. Do you have any thoughts about how the Bill deals with all those issues?

Baggy Shanker (Labour/Co-operative, Derby South)

Q I suppose the crux of this is: do you guys, with your organisations and trade bodies, believe that the creation of GBR will make things better going forward? I am thinking of things like giving stability to what UK rail looks like; being able to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock; collaboration between industry and organisations such as GBRX for innovation and bringing in best practice; and having an investment pipeline to give certainty to what you guys are trying to do to drive your businesses forward—all while making sure UK Rail plc, call it what you like, is in a better position than it is now.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Order. Sorry, Mr Caplan, but props are not allowed.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I am grateful that we got a little more time to explore that. At the moment, we are in control period 7, so that takes us—

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Yes. That is the last 30 to 35 years or so. A control period is a five-year investment cycle. The period is agreed at the start of the CP, or shortly before the start of it, and that funds the maintenance or improvement works.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q What you have shown us in your smuggled-in prop—

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Contraband.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am going to put words into your mouth, but please correct me if I am being unfair. In each control period, you get a bell curve of activity. You start with a low level of activity, because people did not know that there was certainty of funding, and then in years 2 and 3 it gears up and you get peak activity in year 2.5, roughly. Then, as you get towards the end of the control period where the medium term funding dries up or is uncertain, you get a drawdown of activity. That is the point that you were trying to make—is that correct?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Would it be a better system if you had control periods that had a greater certainty looking forward at any one time between the decision when money was tied down—if indeed it is tied down under the terms of the Bill—and the date at which the activity would then take place? For example, for the current control period of five years, if you take the decision on funding for the next control period, let us say two years out, would that be effective in increasing certainty, reducing the need for a bell curve of activity, and thereby reducing costs for the supply sector and, by extension, for the Government and taxpayers?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q I am just going to interrupt you. That is a different point from the one that I am asking about. I am talking about the cost of planning and implementing renewals and about having a degree of certainty looking forward regarding when that money will be spent. If you always have a minimum of, let us say, 24 months for planning and commitment to funding, does that make it easier for the supply chain to commit resources, and therefore cheaper?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Can you illustrate that with electrification, for example?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q What sort of sums of money are we talking about in the control period?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q So 30% of £40 billion is an increased cost as a result of this process.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That is amazing.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q And your combined evidence—again, I am putting words into your mouth, but correct me—is that the Bill as drafted not only does not solve that problem of 30% of increased costs, of the £40 billion every five years, but actually exacerbates it, because it removes what little certainty there currently is.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q So for the people in that space, yes.

I am going to move to Siemens now. Historically, during the period of privatisation, rolling stock improvements have been inextricably linked with franchise bids. As franchises have come up for renewal, different operating companies have been in a bidding process, through competition, to make the most attractive proposal to the Department for Transport. Some of that would be in cheques to the Treasury, but a lot of it has been in improving rolling stock infrastructure. My own operating company, Greater Anglia, entirely renewed its rolling stock right across its area as part of its franchise bid.

That impetus for improvement of rolling stock is being removed entirely and replaced by GBR, a nationalised bidder. It has various duties. I look at clause 18(3), which we discussed a little earlier, under which it has a duty to improve “railway service performance”, but that is defined as being, in the main, reliability and passenger overcrowding. There is no reference to improved customer experience, to quality of rolling stock and to improved services that would come with new rolling stock. For Siemens, are you concerned that moving to GBR will lead to a reduction in the pace of improvement in rolling stock?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q At the moment, all of that is missing from the Bill, is it not?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Where is the incentive to carry on and accelerate that process in this Bill? Where is the incentive for GBR?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q To conclude with a broad-brush question, if we set up GBR with the ability to have an integrated view of the entire rail network, especially on a passenger basis, as an organisation that has real buying power and long-term certainty about the requirements it needs, and that sits alongside a rolling stock strategy that has been developed in consultation with industry for the long term, specific duties on GBR to provide certainty to those who provide railway services and a duty to promote the needs of future passengers, which I believe inherently means having a rolling stock pipeline which improves that experience, does that not offer quite a positive departure from a franchising system that, to an extent, was the definition of boom and bust in its short-term thinking and the unforeseen consequences that could often arise in the system?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

That is a really important point that I will be certain to take away. Does anyone else have any observations?Q

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

That is a really important point. To confirm that point, from your perspective, that specific duty is about essentially enabling you guys to be able to plan with certainty—I would have thought that consultation would be inherent to the fulfilment of that duty. Do you feel that more needs to be done to explain how far we intend to go in making that a reality?Q

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Absolutely. Thank you.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. Mr Caplan, if you would like to submit your props or diagrams, the Committee would be very grateful to receive them in written form.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Q We will now hear evidence from the Urban Transport Group, Greater Manchester combined authority and West Yorkshire combined authority. Ms Brabin is on her way; she is in the building and will join us shortly. We have until 5 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves, please?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Thank you both, as ever, for coming to give oral evidence; it is very helpful. Mr Burnham, I am going to focus on you. It is difficult, isn’t it? You have a national rail network, where you have to have a degree of national organisation, but you have devolved areas as well, which rightly have ambitions for an increased level of control, as I believe you do for rail. There will inevitably be a degree of tension between them. Part of the Bill’s job is to do its best to get that balance right. Inevitably—I speak as the shadow Minister—it will be very hard to be perfect, but we need to do as much as we can to get the Bill as good as we can by design at this stage.

I will start with the Bee Network up in Greater Manchester, which you have organised on the basis of concessions let by you, the mayoralty. The benefit of that is that the fare box is kept locally and it is operated privately. It does not have to be; you could run those concessions through a wholly owned subsidiary. I accept that. That approach of keeping the fare box local does not work with GBR because the fare box stays with GBR. Even if you have a greater level of devolvement, it feels a bit like it is going to be GBR in Greater Manchester, just painted yellow. Is that what you wanted from the Bill, or did you have aspirations for a bit more control?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Welcome to the Committee, Ms Brabin; I am sorry that we started before you managed to get in.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Q Is there not a bit of a problem then, Mr Burnham? That is not what is in the Bill. At the moment, the Bill has a duty to consult, but it does not give the level of power to mayoral combined authorities that you were just identifying. In your answer, you said that you will insist on getting more. Well, you will not get more powers under the Bill, as currently drafted—those powers are not given to you. What do you say about that, and how do you think it should be changed?

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Order. The sitting is now suspended, and we will resume in 15 minutes.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Q Thank you everyone for coming back so quickly. Ms Brabin, welcome. Would you like to take the opportunity to introduce yourself?

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Thank you. The shadow Minister is whipping at present, so for the time being, until he rejoins us, I will move on to the Minister, Keir Mather.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Splendid. Thank you, Chair, and we eagerly await the rest of Jerome’s questions. Welcome to you all and thank you very much for coming in and giving evidence today.

I want to start with a more thematic question about the overall purpose of the Bill, and the DFT’s approach to transport more broadly. We unashamedly stand behind the view that our transport network is not just something to get people from A to B; it is an important catalyst for this Government’s missions, particularly around economic growth and delivering the housing that people need to live in dignity and flourish as individuals.

On that basis, the Railways Bill lets us take on lots of devolved work with mayoral strategic authorities, because we believe that is the right size of unit of devolved power and economic focus to drive those priorities. I know, Mayor Brabin and Mayor Burnham, that those priorities are also crucial to your local plans, so how do you feel they marry up, using this Bill as a catalyst to achieve some of those shared ambitions?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Q Thank you; that is a really important point. It is worth stating for the record that a number of my constituents live in your combined authority—

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Indeed, and many of them have similar aspirations around connectivity and growth. Mayor Burnham, was there anything you wanted to add before I hand back to Jerome?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Thank you both. I hope you feel that GBR having a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, especially those with disabilities, is a signal that we want accessibility to be hardwired into the Bill, and not something that comes after the operational decisions about the railway have been taken. I have more questions, but I am conscious that we should hand over to the shadow Minister.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Before I bring the shadow Minister back in, I make colleagues aware that the session will run until 5.15 pm.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.