Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2026.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper.

Clause 15 - Rail strategy

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

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.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

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 (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

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.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will speak to a few of the amendments and new clauses, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, as well as some of those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because some of their ideas are worth noting.

It is obvious why I would support amendment 224, which yet again seeks to include in the Bill more mention of rail freight. As someone who is keen on looking at how we can use rail, and even sea, for freight, I emphasise the necessity of ensuring that it is a central part of the Bill. The Government speak about wanting to tackle climate change and bring net zero into play, but that will be hampered if the rail freight network is not strongly represented in the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will say that it does mention rail freight, but we do not feel it is explicit enough, and we want to ensure that we get it nailed into the Bill wherever we can.

Amendments 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) would require the rail strategy to consider local need, in particular in respect of level crossings and integrated transport. That is something that the Select Committee on Transport, which I am a member of, is also looking at. Indeed, we had our first hearing on integrated transport yesterday, and one thing that came across strongly to me was that we should really have been looking at an integrated transport strategy before this Bill was introduced, because how rail and buses—I have had the privilege of serving on Bill Committees on both subjects—slot into such a strategy is really important. Therefore, having something on the face of the Bill that pushes towards ensuring that we have regard for integrated transport is important.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to look at modal interoperability. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that a level crossing in a conurbation has a negative impact on road use and, in some instances, cuts one side of a town off from the other? Is he right, as I suggest he is, that that should be part of GBR’s consideration?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Yes, absolutely. Indeed, amendment 260, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, would require the forthcoming rail strategy to have specific regard to level crossings. Fortunately, I do not have anything like what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham describes, where a level crossing splits an entire town in half, but I presume that the Government will not want to invest in bridges everywhere there is a level crossing, so having at least some regard for level crossings in the rail strategy, and ensuring that one thing does not negate the other, will be essential. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends.

Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, relates specifically to rural communities, and no doubt it overlaps with amendment 260. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, he has highlighted the importance of good rail connectivity in our rural communities. Again, that came up in the Transport Committee’s oral evidence session yesterday: how do we make sure that we are not just weighting the system in favour of urban areas, and make sure that due and serious regard is given to rural communities? My rural community has only one station, and we are keen to see more stations that will serve rural communities, both in my constituency and others. But ultimately, if we really want to see that modal shift away from cars to the railway, we have to make sure that everybody stands a fair chance of accessing it.

I will turn to new clauses 28 and 29, again in the name of hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The first is about technology and the need for connectivity on the railway. As somebody who does the right thing and uses my mobile phone rather than Great Western Railway’s wi-fi to connect to the internet—because that is what the parliamentary security people tell me to do—I am entirely reliant on my 4G network to work on the train. I sit there for three and a half hours one way and three and a half hours back, if I am lucky—I have that to look forward to later on today—and I rely on that time to complete my work. I am sat in Bill Committees half of the week, so that time on the train, doing my constituency work and reading in preparation for this Committee, is essential. When there is no decent wi-fi or 4G connection, that is a problem.

I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very exciting pilot that GWR has been doing using Formula 1 technology, which is right up my street, as those who know me well will appreciate. It is excellent. Effectively, it uses that thing no one likes because it technically belongs to that American Musk guy—is it Skylink?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Starlink.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

That is it. It still works, though, and provides a very good internet signal.

I suppose that is a question for the Minister: what regard is he giving to such pilots? That might not be on the face of the Bill, but a large part of the population will want to know we have talked about how to ensure that connectivity on Great British Railways is up to date. Connectivity means getting from A to B, but also the ability to work using the internet. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on that point.

I will just briefly speak to new clause 29, on Sunday working arrangements. I have mentioned this already, but those far-flung parts of the country that rely on a possibly hourly service into London that connects all the way through the south-west region need the guarantee of Sunday services. I have to leave at 6.55 am to get here. If I want to get here for an early start on a Monday, I have to leave the night before—if there was no train available, I would lose nearly a whole day just to get to London for a meeting on a Monday morning. It is a privilege to be able to do that, but I would rather not, and more frequent trains would help.

The Minister has heard me make this plea before, but what plans does he have for the GBR’s structure to ensure that seven-day-a-week services are the norm, rather than something that we almost have to be grateful for to be able to work? At the moment it is entirely down to the good will of train drivers, for which I am incredibly grateful, but without them we would be in a bit of a pickle. I thank those who tabled the amendments; they have given us a perfect opportunity to get those issues on the record. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to speak in support of amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, and amendment 261, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The two amendments attempt to deliver the same thing: better integration between rail and other modes of transport. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is a man of great attention to detail, but it was perhaps a little sloppy of him on this occasion not to include in his list of trains, buses, trams and cycling the word “ferries”. Of course, ferries are fundamental in my constituency; we cannot get off the Isle of Wight without using them.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to rebuke me, albeit very politely and gently. I should have worded the amendment in a non-exclusive manner, to make sure that I did not forget any other form of transport. He is right to highlight, as I know he is about to, the critical importance of the integrated transport terminal in Portsmouth harbour for access to and from his wonderful island. There are many other examples of such terminals, including the one in Ardrossan harbour for getting to and from the Isle of Arran in Scotland. I am sure that, if I had had the Government’s resources at my fingertips rather than having bashed away at this over Christmas, I would not have made that error.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

I thank the hon. Member for his apology, if that is what that was; it is accepted. My argument for integration between rail and all modes of transport, although I will use ferries as a particular example, is important. The Minister is also the Maritime Minister, and is well aware of the specific issues that my constituency faces.

The two amendments seek to deliver integration through strategy. If we think back to the evidence given to this Committee last week by the future Prime Minister who is currently apprenticing as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he said that integration is essential—and he would know, being in charge of a combined mayoral authority. We are due to get a combined authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the amendments can be viewed as mirroring the strategic responsibilities put on combined mayors, who have responsibility for travel and the interoperability of transport connections in their areas.

What the amendments—and particularly amendment 137 —seek to do is ensure that the Minister and the Government also have the responsibility to ensure co-operation. That is explicit in amendment 137, which calls for

“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”.

The amendments would end situations such as, for example, the one where, if I was to travel home on the 3.30 train from Waterloo down to Portsmouth Harbour station, the train would arrive five minutes after the ferry had departed. I imagine those are frustrations across pretty much every constituency in the land between trains and other forms of transport. If that situation is not addressed in the explicit way set out by the two amendments, it will continue to be a significant problem that will never get dealt with. Giving more attention and powers through the Bill will help to deliver improvements even for modes of transport, such as Isle of Wight ferries, that are not regulated by the Government and where they do not have explicit and express powers.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

The Transport Act 1981, which privatised British Rail’s ferry operations, including the Sea Link service to the Isle of Wight, contained no passenger interest provisions of the type contained in this Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that such an omission was an oversight and an historical missed opportunity?

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

I do. It is not difficult for me to agree and accept that the way Wightlink, which was part of British Rail, was dealt with was more than a missed opportunity; it was a bad decision. Locally, I work cross-party with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on that.

This Government have an opportunity. I thank the Minister for the work he is doing and I hope he will be prepared to intervene in a way no Government have done. There are clearly opportunities to make small improvements to the Bill, and accepting the amendments would do that not just in my constituency, but in others. I will leave the Minister with a question: if he does not support the amendments, how else might he use powers in the Bill, or would he be prepared to introduce amendments of his own, to improve connectivity for other modes of transport that do not have any formal regulation?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address.

Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed.

Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I just want to give the Minister some further clarity about what amendment 25 actually does. He is right that it says,

“The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods”,

but that should be read in the light of subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State express power to

“keep the rail strategy under review”,

and paragraph (b), which says that they

“may revise or replace it.”

Does he accept that it is quite clear that the amendment, read in conjunction with subsection (4), does not prevent reacting to new events?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.

I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.

The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.

Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.

The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.

On amendment 136, I agree that electrification is important to improving passenger comfort and reliability and reducing the long-term cost of operating the railway. However, the long-term rail strategy is not intended to go into specific operational requirements of the nature included in the amendment. The strategy will set the strategic direction for Great British Railways through strategic objectives that include environmental, passenger, connectivity and financial considerations.

Amendment 224 would require the strategy to include freight. I am happy to confirm that the long-term rail strategy will consider and reference the rail freight target required by clause 17, supporting the Government’s clear ambition to grow the rail freight sector and therefore making the amendment unnecessary.

I turn to amendments 260 and 261, which the shadow Minister spoke to, but which were tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. These amendment also seek to add things to the long-term rail strategy: a level crossing strategy and an assessment of connectivity and multimodal journeys respectively. The level crossing amendment would require my Department to undertake a review of every level crossing in Britain, of which there are more than 6,000. Such a review would quickly become outdated, as risks and issues with regard to level crossings change regularly. It could also have implications for the legal framework with regard to the safety regime.

Network Rail already considers the level crossing impact on local communities of any changes to rail operations, and GBR will continue that work, with ORR oversight. GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local and national priorities, and is firmly grounded in evidence.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his job in highlighting some of the practical challenges that the amendment might entail. The important bit is not so much the strategy; I think what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to get at is that, when Network Rail or GBR assesses the function of a level crossing, it also needs to take account of the impact on the society in which it is based: for instance, cutting a town in two or stopping vehicular access for multiple periods during a day. Does the Minister not agree that, if GBR did not consider that—it was not in the list of considerations that the Minister mentioned a moment ago—it would not be doing its full job?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I very much identify with the sentiment identified by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. This is something that impacts Selby town, much as it affects communities across the country. It is right that GBR has regard to managing the way in which level crossings impact road users as much as it does the way that railway infrastructure and passenger services do.

My question is whether that obligation is best placed in this part of the Bill. Network Rail already has a system for considering the impact of changes on local communities, and that will be mapped over into the way that GBR functions. I believe that the transfer of that process, in a way that is reactive and operationally agile, is probably the best way to ensure that those considerations remain integral to how GBR carries out that work.

On connectivity and multimodal journeys, I am happy to confirm that strategic objectives in the long-term strategy will already include supporting better connectivity between communities. This will provide direction on the long-term trends affecting the railway. However, as with others in this group, amendment 261 would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term assessments of passengers’ ability to change between rail services or different modes—things that could change frequently, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in a document that sets out long-term strategic aims.

However, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be pleased to hear that we will soon be publishing our integrated national transport strategy, which will set out the Government’s vision for domestic transport across England. It will focus on a transport network that works well for people across the country, including improving integration across modes, but I will of course take the sage advice of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about my personal role as part of that process.

Amendments 225 and 213 both seek to make the strategy subject to additional procedural requirements. Amendment 225 requires consultation with operators during preparation of the strategy. I can reassure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Government have already committed to consultative engagement with key stakeholders, including freight and passenger train operating companies, which will be essential for gathering evidence and informing the strategy’s development. Therefore, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 213, meanwhile, requires regular reporting from the Secretary of State to Parliament on delivery of the strategy. However, as GBR will be the principal organisation responsible for delivering the vision and outcomes that will be set out in the long-term rail strategy, it will be for GBR to report on its progress in delivering it. GBR already must have regard to the strategy, and will respond to it through its business plans, on which it will report regularly. Given that and other existing reporting mechanisms, the amendment would be duplicative.

The new clauses in this group all propose new strategies or reports—for example, on rolling stock, cyber-security and technology, Sunday working arrangements or signalling. Those all naturally cut across the long-term rail strategy and, if accepted, would, in my view, risk GBR being busier completing strategies than actually running the railway. However, I would like to take each new clause in turn to give them due regard.

On new clause 27, the Government absolutely agree with the principle of a long-term rolling stock strategy. In fact, we would go a step further and say that this strategy should cover not just rolling stock, but the related infrastructure as well, in a single integrated strategy. Such a strategy was sadly lacking during the last three decades of privatisation, with decisions about rolling stock and related infrastructure taken to meet short-term and route-specific needs of operators seeking to maximise their profits. It is this Bill, establishing GBR, that will put that right.

However, I do not agree that the Bill needs this as a duty on GBR. Rather than creating a duty for GBR to deliver at some time in the future, we are already working with relevant parties across the industry to develop a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy to be published this summer. GBR will inherit that strategy and act on it to deliver improvements for industry, taxpayers and passengers.

Likewise, there is no need for a reporting requirement relating to cyber-security and technology. Cyber-security remains a priority for my Department; we are committed, through both existing cyber legislation and policy, to ensuring that GBR operates safely and securely. While new clause 28 reflects priorities that the Government share, the measures it proposes, such as on artificial intelligence, digitalisation and innovation, are already being delivered without the need to include them in this Bill.

On new clause 29, relating to Sunday working arrangements, I would first like to say that I have no doubt that creating GBR to improve both the quality and dependability of train services on Sundays will drive up demand and allow more people to benefit from the railway. We want a railway that operates reliably and sustainably, seven days a week, on a lower net subsidy than today, with built-in resilience and a diverse workforce. However, this is not an overnight change, but a long-term one, and not a process that, in my view, needs to be set out in legislation. Rather, we will continue to work with staff, managers and unions across the future railway to deliver this change collaboratively.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister is touching on a key issue that the railway will have to address if he is serious about achieving a reliable Sunday service, and that is operating a seven-day schedule with a six-day roster. Does the Minister intend finally to address the six-day roster issue and to move working practices on to a seven-day roster?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

We want GBR to be empowered to address and deal with all these questions relating to personnel and timetabling in a way that is consultative and in partnership with both unions and private sector operators. My point merely remains that it is not appropriate to freeze them in aspic as part of this Bill, in a way that might prevent GBR’s ability to work properly through those considerations with the workforce once it exists. Producing a separate report on the demand for Sunday travel would duplicate the work that GBR already has to undertake through its business plan, which will set out the outcomes and key deliverables for GBR, including train service levels, which will be agreed with the Government and published accordingly.

Finally, new clause 54 relates to a signalling strategy, and again there is no need to place such requirements in this Bill. Network Rail has released its approach to digital signalling for 2024 to 2029, setting out the routes that will be converted to digital signalling. GBR will take over that approach and would be expected to develop it in its future business plans.

To bring the focus of the discussion back to clause 15, the long-term rail strategy will ensure that the railway will always have long-term direction from this Government and future Governments. Such directions are vital for stability and confidence within the rail industry. The strategy will help to prevent the constant short-termism that has been called out by both the industry and its supply chain.

I hope that, following my response to these amendments, the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw them, and I commend clause 15 to the Committee.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I call Olly Glover—Mr Glover?

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I apologise, Mr Western; I had forgotten I was due to speak, because we started to discuss this group the other day.

I do not have too much to say. I can understand some of the Minister’s points, but I certainly disagree with others. There is, of course, a balance between being too prescriptive and something being so woolly that it ends up being—this is a very tenuous analogy, but it could end up being like a glass of Ribena for a two-year-old, or predominantly water. That is the debate that we have been having, but I shall not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to press these two amendments to a Division, as I stated on Tuesday.

Also, I have a thought for our subsequent proceedings. We talk a lot about preserving things in aspic, but for the interest and attention of the Committee we may need a different analogy. Perhaps we should preserve things in stone, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) did in the 2015 general election. Perhaps we should turn to that analogy a bit more.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

We turn to amendment 25.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment 25, particularly his comments on the Secretary of State, so I will not press it to a Division.

Clause 16 - Duty of Great British Railways and ORR to have regard to strategies etc

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 16, page 9, line 11, leave out “have regard to” and insert “seek to achieve”.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 218, in clause 16, page 9, line 20, after “and” insert

“each single strategic authority, and”.

This amendment would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities when exercising its statutory functions.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The usual procedure applies again. Clause 16 requires both GBR and the Office of Rail and Road to “have regard to” a number of different requirements, such as the long-term rail strategy, the statutory transport or rail strategies published by the Welsh and Scottish Governments respectively, the mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. There is a key political question within this clause: why has the Minister chosen to apply a duty on GBR and the ORR to only “have regard” to those strategies? In practice, that means only that GBR and the ORR will consider transport plans, not that they must, or even should, follow or prioritise them.

That seems a slightly unusual position for the Government to take, given their keen approach to oversight of GBR in other clauses, such as 7 and 9, where it looks like they wish to maintain their role as key stakeholder over that of the devolved Governments and the mayoral combined authorities. The weak obligations are shared, whereas the strong obligations are kept primarily to themselves. It is a surprising approach, particularly given that clauses 7 and 9 effectively strip GBR of operational independence. I recognise that the Scottish Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government in Wales have their own clauses to guide and direct, but the mayoral combined authorities certainly do not. I wonder whether this clause is directed at overweening powers demanded by certain mayors, but I could not possibly look into the depths of the psychology of the Labour party as it struggles with its issues at the moment.

It is very noticeable, as Mayor Andy Burnham said to us last Tuesday in oral evidence, that there is a substantial difference between the Government’s proposed treatment under the Bill of mayoral combined authorities and that of Transport for London. There does not appear to be any rationale for that deliberate divergence—or at least not one that the Government have identified.

As other mayoral combined authorities come online, the Bill provides no formal mechanism for their wishes to be respected. Members of the Committee who were in the oral evidence session will remember that Andy Burnham said he would “insist” on greater authority in that area. The Bill as currently drafted does not provide that avenue for him or for others, so those looking for advancement in the future might like to consider their voting strategy on this clause. After all, page 33 of the Labour manifesto states:

“Mayors will have a role in designing the services in their areas.”

Can the Minister outline the mechanism for existing and future mayoralties to be put on a statutory footing, and for their local transport plans to be given greater consideration from GBR and the ORR?

There is one other question regarding this clause. It relates to subsection (3). What does GBR do if the strategy of a mayoral combined authority or Transport for London conflicts with that of the Secretary of State? How are potential conflicts between strategies resolved, and who will be the arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will there be an independent structure? With that in mind, the clause should be strengthened to ensure that GBR and the ORR respond more clearly and act under greater requirements.

That is where amendment 26 comes in. It would replace the very weak “must have regard to” with “must seek to achieve”. That change seems small on the face of it, but it would strengthen the requirement on GBR and the ORR to engage and work with mayoral combined authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Mayor of London. Will the Minister support this modest proposal to strengthen that relationship?

The clause currently restricts the duty of mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. It is silent on other strategic authorities, yet the same arguments apply to areas that are not yet or will never be mayoral combined authorities when identifying regional needs for current and future transport. We heard that concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. I hope that she will be able to expand some of her thinking on this in a moment. We have heard examples from the west country where local government reform is floundering, as it is around the country, including in Norfolk where I am a Member of Parliament. It is already delayed until 2028. That is perhaps just the first of further delays as well, as this Government lose steam. There is no idea where, when or even if it will go ahead.

There are also many areas that will never have a mayoral combined authority because of the structure of their local government settlement. We do have local transport authorities, though, which are the base level of local government that has responsibility for local transport co-ordination. It seems like a very significant omission that the Bill currently only relates to mayoral combined authorities. That is the lowest level of regional government to which it deigns to provide any form of requirement for co-operation with the ORR and GBR. Why is that? Where there is, for sound local reasons, no mayoral combined authority, why are the Government designing out the ability of local government representatives, the local democrats, to co-operate and co-ordinate with the ORR and—more importantly in this instance—GBR? What happens to their interest? There is simply no explanation as to why these large authorities, which will be the local transport authorities in their own right, have been excluded from consideration. That leads me neatly on to amendment 218, which adds them to the list.

New clause 33 requires the Government, or rather GBR, to set out a long-term rolling stock leasing framework. The clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework, and require GBR to comply with that framework. It mandates a minimum 15-year lease, save in exceptional circumstances. That is because the longer the lease, the better the value for money for the taxpayer.

Longer leases lead to lower costs, which will lead to more UK investment, more trading and better value for taxpayers, as the industry and supply chain are able to plan ahead and produce effective business plans. There is a consequence to the leasing’s being done by the public sector, rather than the private sector: the Government will have to consider the impact of the cost of leasing on the national debt. That is, after all, the logical consequence of their political decision to nationalise the railways—the operating companies. There is a cost that comes with it, and that is moving from the private sector balance book on to that of the public sector. The Government need to own the financial consequences of their political and ideologically driven decision, and that is one of them.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the positives of new clause 33 and its attempt to rectify things as they stand, is that it is not throwing private investment in our rolling stock out of the window? We have heard in evidence and throughout the Bill process, whether that is in Transport Committee evidence or the Bill Committee, that millions and millions of pounds have been accepted by this Government by the private sector for rolling stock investment. If we are not careful, we will completely dissuade them from being involved. We are already seeing them moving to Europe with that investment instead.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clause 33(3)(a) to (d) is aimed at reducing short-term decisions and focusing more on long-term efficiency and savings. I am sure there are many former business people on the Labour Benches—or maybe not, actually—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are. There are many former business people on these Benches, and all those who have run businesses will know that predictability of the future is one of the key drivers of economic success and of driving down costs. New clause 33 will help to achieve that for the taxpayer.

GBR will also be mandated to produce an annual public report that enables Parliament and the public to properly hold GBR to account. We have heard time and again how light the Bill is on the ability of the public and of Parliament to hold GBR to account; we are the representatives of the people and we are being denied, by design, the opportunity to do that adequately. Yet it will be spending £20 billion-plus each year, about 50% of which, at the current rate, is public money. Why are the Government running scared of public oversight of these operations?

Alstom UK and Ireland, in its written evidence to the Transport Committee, said this:

“We also welcome the commitment to a Long-Term Rail Strategy and a five-year funding period review but believe these must be underpinned by a legally anchored long-term investment pipeline covering rolling stock, electrification, signalling and enhancements. The absence of a stable pipeline increases costs, undermines innovation, weakens the domestic supply chain’s global competitiveness and ultimately costs jobs.”

This new clause listens to Alstom and other manufacturers and seeks to apply the direction that they are looking for and to address their concerns.

New clause 36 would require a rolling stock investment framework, so it develops the arguments that I have already made. It aims to provide a long-term view of opportunities for the market to support the delivery of modern rolling stock to GBR. The removal of the periodic franchise process will remove a predictable source of rolling stock improvements, so GBR needs a framework to replace that.

Just in my own region of east Anglia, Greater Anglia’s franchise renewal bid rested on a complete renewal of all rolling stock. The franchise turnover every seven or eight years—let us call it every 10 years—gave an opportunity for bids to come in that said, “We are not just carrying on with the status quo; we’re not just shaving off a bit here and adding a little bit there; this is our bold renewal programme.” That is what Greater Anglia did, and it really has transformed the passenger experience in the east of England.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I think this is an opportune moment to ask a question, as a Derby MP with Alstom in my constituency— the only place in the UK now where a train can be designed, engineered, manufactured and tested. Under the previous Government, Alstom had to make thousands of redundancies because there was just no certainty about work and there were delays on various projects. Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government did not take any steps to come up with a rolling stock strategy?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not.

As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well.

New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain.

The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base.

There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise.

New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states:

“Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”,

which we have already considered, and it dictates:

“The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year”

and

“how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”.

At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include

“freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”,

which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted,

“integration with housing and local transport”

and

“the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.”

The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector.

Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action.

This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I should have said earlier, Mr Western, that it is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship as we debate another exciting group of amendments. I want to make some brief remarks on the Conservative amendments in this group. I eagerly await the Minister’s polite but withering put-down.

Amendment 26 is a matter of wording. Alas, unlike the shadow Minister, my only experience of the law is occasionally watching “Kavanagh QC”, a reference that no doubt reveals my age. I shall await the Minister’s comments on that amendment and shall reach a view in the no doubt incredibly nail-bitingly tight Division on it. On amendment 218, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to get mayoral consultation right, and to have plenty of it.

New clause 33 seems sensible, given the Conservatives’ and Labour’s total obsession with rolling stock leasing rather than purchase, which I find utterly bizarre. Rolling stock leasing can make sense, particularly when gilt prices or the cost of capital is high, but it is quite expensive on a whole-life cost basis. Otherwise, why would rolling stock companies do it? There are some very nice people in them, but they are not charities. Rolling stock leasing happens elsewhere in Europe, but it is not as universal as it is here. However, that feels like either yesterday’s war or tomorrow’s—probably not today’s.

On new clause 36, I note that the shadow Minister has tabled amendments about the private sector to similar effect in group 36. I politely suggest to him that, in the same way that members of the governing party can sometimes be too ideologically committed to the idea that public sector is automatically better, the evidence does not necessarily support the view that private sector is automatically better in the rail context. It is context-dependent. ORR benchmarking from 2012 showed that our train driver and rolling stock maintenance costs, both of which have been in the private sector for some time, were generally significantly higher at that time than those of our European counterparts. I do not believe that those trends have changed significantly.

I would be interested to hear from the shadow Minister and from the Government the evidence that private sector is automatically better than public sector, or vice versa. I think it depends on the context. Perhaps more important is getting requirements and specifications for tenders right or deciding in each individual context the best way to get value on a whole-life cost basis. We definitely have a problem on the railway, and perhaps as a nation as a whole, with being obsessed with getting up-front capital costs down, but there is not quite the same level of attention for a decent appraisal of whole-life costs and deciding how to move forward on that basis.

On new clause 37, I understand the intention of an annual business plan, but my slight worry is that it could undermine the logic of the five-year funding review period. Perhaps the shadow Minister can address that when he sums up.

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

I have a couple of small points to make. Cornwall has a very well-developed local integrated transport plan and devolution of bus franchising as well. Will the Minister reassure Members representing non-mayoral areas that GBR will have some regard to the solid local plans we already have in place?

The shadow Minister commented on running businesses. In a previous life, I was an equity partner in a law firm. Some of us have done a lot of other things. It might be worth considering how many shadow Ministers now in opposition worked in the public services they ran as well.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

I want to make a few comments in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham. He suggested that I might want to make some comments on amendment 218. I acknowledge the comments and the request for clarification and reassurance from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who, like me, often speaks about issues with railway service in the far south-west. What is going on in Cornwall is good. It is a devolved county that has been given foundation status. Devon has something similar, but Plymouth is not part of that, so the way in which transport strategies are being developed at the moment is further complicated. Local government reorganisation will not solve that problem; it will take further devolution. I believe Devon has been told that it will not be in the next round of opportunities to be a mayoral authority.

Therefore, we are looking several years down the line before key parts of the country—in my case, notably significant chunks of the south-west—are in a position to have their views taken into account by this Bill when it comes to developing their rail strategy and wider transport strategy. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham on the importance of inserting each individual strategic authority, and on the need to have regard to transport authorities in that.

There is a lot of good work going on in those local transport authorities; they are on the ground figuring out what is needed. In my constituency, work is being done to secure a new train station that will be essential to developing the defence work being undertaken in the city, which is vital to the country’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

If we do not have a voice at the table within GBR, beyond just having a role within a business unit, I am not convinced, as the Bill stands, that that voice will be loud enough or that regard will be taken into account. We have heard the evidence given by mayors. Consistently, over the last 18 months in my role on the Transport Committee, the number of times mayors from the large mayoral authorities have been before us, extolling the virtues and benefits they can get for their public transport systems, must be heading towards at least half a dozen. It is brilliant to hear what they get to do, great for them—that is amazing. What they are doing is really exciting. They are able to deliver for their communities, but the rest of the country is just not like that, and it will not be like that for some considerable time.

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

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

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

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety.

The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea. If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them.

First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs.

On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR.

The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

Will the Minister give way?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate.

For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables.

We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway.

New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement.

New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements.

On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy.

Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments.

Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

This is now a common refrain in our deliberations. The Minister says, “Don’t worry. All these things will be taken care of at some future date in documents that have not been drafted and certainly haven’t been shared with the Committee.” With the greatest respect to him, I do not take it on trust that the Government are looking carefully and in sufficient detail at these matters, so I will press the amendments to a Division.

Clause 17 - Rail freight target

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, at end insert—

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

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 219, in clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take into account in all relevant decisions and demonstrate that it has taken into account”.

This amendment would require GBR to take into account the freight target when making all relevant decisions and to show how this has been taken into account.

Amendment 252, in clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out “have” and insert

“as far as possible have due”.

This amendment requires GBR to pay greater attention to the freight growth target.

Amendment 149, in clause 17, page 9, line 34, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must publish a national freight strategy.

(6) A strategy as set out in subsection (5) must make provision for the electrification of freight routes and infrastructure improvements to support increased freight capacity and utilisation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce a national freight strategy which includes the electrification of freight routes.

Amendment 220, in clause 17, page 9, line 34, at end insert —

“(5) The Secretary of State must take into account the rail freight target in all relevant decisions and demonstrate how the target has been taken into account.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take into account the freight target when making all relevant decisions and to show how this has been taken into account.

Amendment 250, in clause 18, page 9, line 34, at end insert—

“(5) Any target set under this section must provide that the proportion of goods carried by rail relative to any other form of transport increases at a rate higher than the rate of projected economic growth for the same period as is covered by that target.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the ‘rate of projected economic growth’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify.”

This amendment would require that any freight growth target is set in such a way as to exceed the rate of overall economic growth, with a view to increasing the proportion of freight carriage on rail relative to other forms of transport.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

It is good to see you back in your place, Mrs Hobhouse. Something happened during our short recess: I was in the Tea Room, at the right end, but down at the wrong end I heard someone singing “Happy Birthday”. It occurred to me that today is the Minister’s birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear!”] We are not going to sing, but I think we should all take the opportunity to say happy birthday to the Minister. What better activity could one choose for their birthday than for all of us to be together, like one big happy family?

I know that the icing on the cake will be clause 17, which requires the Secretary of State to set a target to increase freight on the railways. The Government tell us that this should be a measurable target that establishes the goal, as an amount or percentage, for how much growth is sought—although that is not specified in the Bill, like so much else. Great British Railways must have regard to the target when carrying out its statutory functions, and it should also have regard to any freight growth target or strategy set by Scottish Ministers.

This appears to be good news for the rail freight sector, and it will be a relief for it that it has been mentioned in the Bill—I believe that this is a relatively late inclusion. However, the duty is merely for GBR to “have regard” to the freight target, and we have explored such wording in the debates on other clauses. It requires that GBR only considers the target, not delivers it, which undermines its effectiveness as a statutory growth driver. The Rail Freight Group, in its written evidence to the Transport Committee, set out:

“To succeed and grow rail freight customers and operators will need to be assured that…a. they can secure access to the network in a fair, consistent and timely way for their services, including those on new routes and to new destinations as they arise…b. that the costs of rail remain competitive when compared to road freight…c. that the network remains reliable and fit for purpose for freight trains (for example, to handle heavy or high gauge container trains)…d. that there is independent oversight and a right of appeal if freight is unfairly treated or disadvantaged…e. That they can invest in rail freight assets (wagons, terminals, locomotives etc) with the confidence that they will have a long term use of those assets.”

It went on to say:

“The current provisions in the Bill provide some positive elements in support of these requirements, but also increase the risk in others. Overall, the Bill is not sufficient to assure rail freight of the key points ahead as currently presented.”

The main takeaway from the Rail Freight Group is that it does not feel that the target can be met, however well-intentioned it might be, if the Bill’s current wording remains.

Rail Forum, in its written evidence to the Transport Committee, said:

“From Rail Forum’s perspective there is nothing specific in the Bill that will guarantee improved travel for passengers. Improvement is predicated on the goodwill of GBR and others driving things in the ‘right direction’. In our view the key to improvement is culture change within those organisations coming together to form GBR. Creating GBR from Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (NRIL) will not signal the need for change and creates a risk that the current Network Rail culture will be seen as the norm and hence the status quo will prevail.”

We have discussed this a bit. The Minister has taken the view that this cultural change does not exist. If he continues with that belief, he will condemn this nationalisation experiment to almost certain failure. The vast majority of the wider sector agrees that organisational culture is the single most important ingredient for the Bill to get right, yet time and again the Government have resisted amendments suggested by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to drive an improvement in culture and focus on the right things. Having set the target for GBR, the clause uses very weak language for what comes next: just “have regard to”. It is too weak.

Amendment 262, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is not a member of the Committee but drafted this amendment along with a couple of others that we have already debated, seeks to highlight his constituents’ concerns about the negative impact that level crossings can have on communities. He is right to stand up for his constituents and that freight is one more part of the jigsaw when we look at the juxtaposition between the needs of the railway—whether it is passenger services or, as in the case of this amendment, rail freight—and the knock-on consequences for the wider economy of a community whose economic and social heart is bisected by a level crossing. He is right that those three sometimes competing issues need to be balanced, which is the intention of amendment 262.

Amendment 219 in my name would leave out “have regard to” and insert

“take into account in all relevant decisions and demonstrate that it has taken into account”.

That is a stronger line to take and makes it easier for freight organisations to hold decision makers to account. They need to have the power to challenge the historic approach of freight being secondary to passenger travel. Accommodation is needed for both in a sector where we all hope that both passenger and freight will grow, but we need to recognise that it is a capacity-limited structure and that there will therefore have to be some compromise. Historically, freight has always played second fiddle to passenger travel. We need accommodation for both, and the new wording would strengthen the hand of freight to ensure that its proper position is maintained by GBR. I will seek to divide the Committee on that amendment if the opportunity arises.

Amendment 149, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require a national freight strategy, including electrification of freight routes and infrastructure improvements. It is unobjectionable, and in fact quite good. I would support it should the hon. Member press it to a vote.

Amendment 220, which is in my name, would strengthen the accountability of the Secretary of State by adding a new subsection that states:

“The Secretary of State must take into account the rail freight target in all relevant decisions and”—

importantly—

“demonstrate how the target has been taken into account.”

The key word there, of course, is “demonstrate”. It would keep the duty high in the mind of officials and make it easier for independent rail freight operators to hold the Government to their duty. Without that strengthening, the clause would achieve very little. We go through the whole process of having this rail freight target—“Isn’t that wonderful? We’ve done a great job. We as policymakers think this is excellent”—and then the delivery organisation just has to “have regard” to it and can leave it on the shelf. As currently drafted, it looks as though the clause is a last-minute bung to the loud rail freight sector.

We all heard the oral evidence from Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group. She is, without doubt, the doughtiest of campaigners on behalf of the members of her organisation. She is very effective, but it was clear to me that clause 17 was a late accommodation for her advocacy, but it is only half cocked. That explains why, while Maggie Simpson was trying not to sound too churlish in relation to what the Government have done so far, she nevertheless went on to say it is still deserving of criticism. This amendment seeks to improve further what the Government have started.

In relation to the rail freight target, new clause 47 requires an annual report on rail freight. It would create

“an annual reporting and oversight mechanism, requiring GBR to set out how freight access, performance and corridor capacity are being supported, and requiring the ORR to publish an independent assessment”.

That would strengthen the clause, which the Rail Freight Group says does not go far enough—I have already set out its quote in relation to that.

Once more, we are back to the accountability of a new nationalised industry. You get what you measure, and without requirements for GBR to report, there is a serious risk of getting lost in the weeds. The decision to nationalise is the Government’s; it is a political decision based on their ideology, but we have to accept that it does remove market forces. Some people say there are negative elements of market forces, but there are undoubtedly positive elements as well; we just need to be open-eyed about it. If we remove market forces as a driver of competition, efficiency and innovation, then they need to be replaced by duties in the legislation or accompanying documents. The duty to replace the incentives with cumbersome regulations and control is an inevitable consequence of the decision to nationalise. That is what new clause 47 is intended to achieve.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Hobhouse.

Liberal Democrat amendment 252 is intended to strengthen the freight target in the Bill, which—as I have previously said—is something that we welcome. Amendment 149 on freight electrification and the need for a freight strategy highlights the fact that freight is neglected on our network. The percentage of freight that moves by rail is much lower than in comparable western and central European countries, therefore there needs to be additional thought as to how that is going to be changed. The strategy should be a step towards how the Government intend to achieve their eventual freight target. We support Conservative amendments 219 and 220 as they are similar in spirit.

We are not quite so persuaded by the Conservatives’ new clause 47. One of the recurring debates we are having on this Committee is the balance between accountability in the form of annual reports and making sure that GBR is not drowned by the demand for them. That is our reservation about new clause 47.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I begin my remarks, may I seek a piece of advice on amendment 250? We are considering it as part of this group, but if it has not been moved and has been proposed by a Member who is not on the Committee, am I required to speak to it?

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

You can speak to it, but we will not put the Question for Division.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank all hon. Members for their amendments, which seek to make changes to the provisions on the rail freight growth target. I also thank the shadow Minister for his very warm birthday wishes. I agree with the sentiment that he expressed: what more of a gift could I have received than working through the amendments in this group?

Amendment 262 seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of how targets to increase freight on the rail network could impact level crossings. As I said in a debate on a previous group of amendments, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that any future decisions on rail operations—passenger or freight—are well informed and responsive to local needs and those of the railway more broadly. GBR will continue to manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, as enforced by the ORR, that reflects local and national priorities, and that is firmly grounded in evidence at a local level.

Amendments 252 and 219 would both require the freight growth target to play a larger role in GBR’s decision making. The Bill already requires GBR to take the target into account when making relevant decisions. The amendments would not alter that, and could be seen as weakening the obligation. I agree that GBR needs to be held accountable against the growth target if it falls short of our expectations. To that end, we will expect GBR to set out a credible pathway in its business plan for meeting its freight growth targets. If GBR fails to meet those targets, we expect it to explain why, and in extremis, both the ORR and the Secretary of State can take action to ensure that its behaviour improves. Therefore, though I share the intent of the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham, amendments 252 and 219 are not substantively different from what is already set out in the Bill, and the existing accountability procedures are sufficiently robust.

Similarly, amendment 220 seeks to have the same effect, but on the Secretary of State, by requiring that they take the growth target into account on all relevant decisions. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to set the rail freight growth target and to publish it; the target is also supported by the duty to promote rail freight in clause 18. That duty will apply to decisions by both the Secretary of State and GBR when exercising their functions relating to railways and rail services. Therefore, although I appreciate the intent of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, the amendment is unnecessary, as protections for rail freight are already enshrined in the Bill.

Amendment 149 requires the Secretary of State to publish a national freight strategy. This Government appreciate the importance of long-term certainty, clarity and confidence for freight operators and investors. That is why, alongside the freight growth target, the Secretary of State will be required to issue a long-term rail strategy. The strategy will set out the Secretary of State’s vision for the railways and will further reinforce the Government’s commitment to the freight growth target. The strategy makes the proposal to publish a similar document, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, redundant.

New clause 47 would require GBR to publish an annual report setting out how it has had regard to the growth target. We will expect GBR to set out a clear and credible pathway for how it will meet the freight growth targets in its business planning. If GBR failed to meet these targets, we would expect it to clearly set out why. There will also be a representative on GBR’s board with responsibility for freight, embedding our ambition to grow the sector at the top of the organisation. The ORR, which will be subject to the duty to promote rail freight, will have an enhanced monitoring function that will enable it to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State on GBR’s delivery against its approved business plan. This Government have already set clear accountability mechanisms in place to safeguard our ambition to grow the freight sector.

Finally, as we have already discussed, the freight target will support the growth of freight and the associated environmental and resilience benefits. I urge the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham not to press their amendments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister will not be wholly surprised that I do not agree with his analysis. I intend to press amendments 219 and 220—and, in the fullness of time, new clause 47—to a Division, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 262.

Clause 18 - General duties of Ministers, Great British Railways and ORR

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 18, page 10, line 12, leave out “They” and insert

“Each person or organisation designated under section 18(1)”.

This amendment clarifies that the statutory duties apply to those listed in section 18(1), namely Ministers, Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

This is one of the more important clauses, so I look forward to discussing it with the Committee. It sets out the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the Office of Rail and Road. In other words, it sets out the things they must seek to achieve when carrying out their functions. GBR will have freedom to consider which duties are relevant and what weight to place on each duty, but should be able to demonstrate how it has had regard to its duties. Subsection (1) sets out to whom the general duties apply. In addition to GBR, they apply to the Office of Rail and Road, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers when they carry out their railway functions.

There is an exception for the ORR’s safety-related functions and train driver licensing functions. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that is because when it is exercising its safety functions, the intention is for safety to be the priority and to not be second guessed. The ORR should not have to weigh it against other duties. The Bill does not change the current safety regime and the official Opposition wholeheartedly agree with that position.

There is also an exception for the functions of the Office of Rail and Road under the Competition Act 1998. When the ORR acts as a concurrent competition regulator with the Competition and Markets Authority, as we previously discussed, both bodies should be applying the same duties, otherwise there really would be confusion.

I am going to go through the clause in some detail. It will take some time, but it is an important part of our consideration. The duties listed in subsection (2) require GBR and the sector bodies to consider the following.

Subsection (2)(a) provides that they must

“promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway”—

that is passengers and potential passengers—including the needs of disabled people.

Subsection (2)(b) provides that they must promote the use of rail freight. This duty, combined with the rail freight target in clause 17, recognises the importance of freight to the economy and the environment.

Subsection (2)(c) provides that they must promote “high standards” in railway performance. Subsection (3) then defines “performance” as meaning

“(a) reliability (including punctuality), and

(b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding.”

That definition is wholly inadequate, as we have discussed at some length on previous days.

Subsection (2)(d) provides that they must ensure that railway service providers, such as GBR, devolved operators, freight operators and open access operators can plan, invest and make decisions about their own business. We will come on to consider that point in more detail.

Subsection (2)(e) provides that they must run the railway “in the public interest”—so far, so good—which is defined in subsection (3) as including social, economic and environmental interests.

Subsection (2)(f) requires them to make efficient use of public funds—that is, to carefully manage the amount of public subsidy required to run the railway.

Taken together, the functions in clause 3, which are what GBR must do, and these duties, which are what GBR must think about, demonstrate GBR’s purpose—those are my words. We have put that together into a purpose clause, which I look forward to voting for when we consider the new clauses.

The functions under clause 18(2) contain nothing about growing passenger numbers, increasing private sector investment in the network or encouraging open access. Apart from scattered references elsewhere to discounting schemes or the passengers’ council, clause 18(2)(a) is effectively the only substantive accessibility duty in the Bill. It reads as a bit of a bolt-on, rather than a clear, integrated obligation.

Subsection (2)(d) is meant to provide certainty for operators, but in practice it offers little reassurance to manufacturers or the wider supply chain. Without statutory planning cycles, which we have discussed, procurement obligations or long-term fleet strategies, which, again, we have discussed, the duty is too vague to give industry the confidence needed for investment.

How can GBR be confident in achieving the purposes of clause 18(2)(d) given the ability of the Secretary of State to direct at whim, issue guidance, set the rail strategy and so on? For business, it would be impossible to know when a decision has been taken, since each one can be second-guessed by the Department for Transport. Businesses cannot even take for granted the funding allocations in the control period either, because, for the first time in 30 years—I stand to be corrected; we are in CP7, so 30 to 35 years—inter-year control period funding can be changed without notice on the whim of the Secretary of State.

Subsection (3) gives only a narrow definition of “railway service performance”—punctuality, reliability and overcrowding—but omits other core standards such as cancellations, journey time, customer experience, wi-fi, mobile phone connectivity, accessibility, disruption handling and information provision. There are probably a few others as well. This limited list weakens the duty and leaves major aspects of service quality outside the statutory framework. There is no explanation for that. Why are some core elements of the customer experience included in the Bill, establishing the precedent that it is the appropriate place for them to be considered, and then—deliberately, one assumes—are many factors of profound importance to the travelling public and their experience of the railways omitted?

Amendment 34 aims to achieve some housekeeping on the drafting of the Bill. Clause 18(2) does not make it clear which of the three bodies has which responsibilities —it simply refers to “they”. That is a recipe for confusion and potential buck-passing. We have three organisations or groups, each with combined duties under this clause. They are, of course, Great British Railways, the Ministers and the ORR. It is not clear which one, in a given situation, is responsible under the clause.

The duties set out are joint duties. Anyone who has been a student and rented a flat with multiple occupancy knows painfully the difference between liabilities that are joint and several, and ones that are simply joint. I believe that the intention of the drafters was to have clear lines of accountability; if that was not their intention, the Minister needs to make that clear. However, the problem with having joint liability is that one organisation could say that is not their problem, but one for one of the other organisations—GBR, the ORR, or the Minister. As landlords have found many times over to the cost of tenants, the beauty of joint and several liability is that each operation is responsible for all of the duties, and that clarifies where responsibility lies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation as to why that is not the case in this clause.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I will briefly speak to clause 18 stand part. At the outset, I remind Members that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wheelchair users, and one of my children is a wheelchair user.

I do not believe that some of these details need to be set out in the Bill. I am a London MP. The details of how Transport for London operates on accessibility issues are not set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1989, yet, in my mind, TfL leads the way, particularly with its TfL Go app, on the accessibility of the information that it provides to disabled passengers. As the Minister and other colleagues know, I constantly say that I would like to see that kind of app being rolled out for Great British Railways. It would be show people which stations were accessible, live information about which lifts were working, and where there were accessible toilets.

For my constituents in Bexley and Crayford, we have a nationalised railway, in the main, through Southeastern, although we also have Thameslink at Slade Green. We already have an exceptional service for disabled passengers. Sometimes, passengers will need to book, but I could give the Committee a list of stations that are staffed constantly and that provide a very good service for disabled passengers. Equally, we continue to see the roll-out of changing places toilets. Toilets are a key issue for many disabled people, including my child, who cannot use a standard toilet. We have seen that roll-out from Southeastern at Margate through what was Network Rail at London Bridge and Waterloo, and very soon we will see it at Charing Cross.

I accept that disabled passengers still have poor experiences on many parts of the network, and we need to improve that. However, as I say, we already have, through Transport for London, an app that leads the way. I had a terrible experience last year in Paris, when there was no live information and a lift was not working. I had to carry my child up a set of escalators, while my wife carried the wheelchair behind us. Information about those kinds of things does not need to be on the face of the Bill, but, as we have already seen with TfL, we can lead on that provision, and I believe that Great British Railways should lead in due course. Those things do not need to be set out in the Bill; we already have examples of them with Southeastern and others, who are providing the facilities here and now.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will start with the point about accessibility, which the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford have both spoken about. I reiterate how essential it is that accessibility provisions are hardwired into the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work that is already taking place in that space, whether that is delivering the next phase of the passenger assist programme, rolling out welcome points more broadly or widening eligibility for the disabled persons railcard. He is right to say that there is a lot further to go.

We are all responsible, through the creation of GBR, for ensuring that accessibility is wired into the heart of it through its duties and in the functioning of the passenger watchdog—to which we will turn to later in our deliberations. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about accessibility of railway functions through an app. GBR will have a one-stop-shop app where people will be able to book train tickets and passenger assist all in the same place, which will hopefully go some way to addressing the concerns that he has outlined.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister refers to the booking app also offering the ability to ask for assistance. Will he undertake to provide access to that data so that independent retail operators can provide a similar service in their booking systems?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It is my understanding that the system this Bill creates for GBR to engage with third-party retailers through ticketing will include the sharing of necessary data. I presume that would apply to such things. However, I will clarify that for the hon Member and get back to him on that point as I do not have the exact answer at the moment.

Amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to clarify the application of the general duties in clause 18, and I thank him for it. It is important for the reformed sector that there is a set of duties shared by the key sector bodies, and that these duties apply to Ministers, GBR and the ORR. I am happy to reassure the hon. Members that clause 18(1) already sets out clearly that the duties will apply to Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR when carrying out the functions specified in clause 18. There can, in my view, be no question as to who and what they apply to. In that regard the amendment is unnecessary from a drafting perspective, and does not provide greater legal certainty.

The hon. Member also asked about GBR’s purpose. Those functions and duties are quite literally GBR’s purpose. It seems to me that all this amendment does is rewrite them in a different format, but the functions themselves are clearly segregated for each organisation to which they apply. However, the duties apply to all and must be balanced by all.

On that basis, I commend clause 18 to the Committee. It sets out the general duties which will be shared by key players on the railway. The duties apply to GBR, the ORR, the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The duties will apply whenever those bodies carry out their relevant functions. The shadow Minister has already outlined what the duties are. If Members wish to have a look at them, they are on page 10 of the Bill, so I will not repeat them.

We believe that this common set of goals across the key sector bodies provides shared incentives to ensure that everyone works together to create the railway that we all want to see. The new duties also reduce the confusion, complexity and duplication that exists in railway legislation, allowing everybody to be clear on what their objectives are. While the functions in clause 3 of the Bill explain what we expect GBR to do, these duties set out what we want GBR to think about and achieve. Together, these two clauses set out the purpose of GBR, as the Government promised we would during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024.

To conclude, clause 18 is a critical part of the Bill. It sets the foundation for how the key sector bodies will operate, guided by the public interest and empowered to deliver a railway that works for its users, taxpayers and the wider public. These duties are the core criteria that should guide every decision that GBR and others make about the railway. They are therefore imperative to the proper functioning of the future railway. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I do not intend to stand in the way of the clause standing part of the Bill. It is quite clear that it should do so in some form. However, I respectfully disagree with the Minister’s assessment of the consequence of the drafting where the duties are joint rather than joint and several and I will seek a vote on the amendment.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 18, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 31, in clause 18, page 10, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must set out in an annual report laid before both Houses of Parliament how it has balanced the requirements of paragraphs (2)(a) to (g).”

This amendment would require Great British Railways to set out an annual report of how it has balanced the delivery of its duties.

Amendment 32, in clause 18, page 10, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

In oral evidence before the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:

“We have a question about the difference in the duties between the way that freight is treated and passenger travel is treated: the duty on GBR and Secretary of State in relation to passengers is ‘to promote’ their ‘interests’, whereas it is ‘to promote the use of the…network’ for freight. Our view is that in order to incentivise GBR strongly—once it is set up—to grow the network and to grow passenger demand, there should be equivalent duties about passengers in clauses 18 and 17, so that GBR is required to promote the use of the network for passengers and future passengers, with a corresponding duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target. Our concern is that otherwise, the risk is that GBR might manage demand as a steady state, achieving its other objectives without necessarily seeking to grow demand by expanding the network or making better use of existing capacity.”

Hon. and right hon. Members will recall—although the only right hon. Member has done a runner—that Ben Plowden made a substantially similar point in oral evidence to this Committee. I think he prayed in aid the experience post covid, when all sorts of targets were met, but that was because there were not any trains running. He went on to say to the Transport Committee:

“It seems to us that the logic would suggest that if it is important for GBR to have a statutory incentive to promote a growth in freight traffic, it also ought to have a statutory incentive to do that for passenger growth. We know that the expansion and increase in capacity and connectivity in the rail network has huge socioeconomic benefits. Look at the Northumberland line that recently reopened; look at Crossrail. There are huge benefits from expanding network capacity and increasing the number of people who are able to travel by rail.

If you look at the Bill, it is interesting that service performance is defined in terms of ‘reliability (including punctuality)’ and ‘the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding’. There could be a scenario whereby GBR decided that, in order to meet its reliability duty”—

and this is the point—

“it reduced services to smooth them out and improve reliability, and in order to avoid overcrowding, it then introduced fares that”

managed

“demand, as has been suggested might happen on the west coast main line in the context of HS2.

There might be scenarios where, for perfectly logical reasons, internally GBR might decide that it did not want to increase passenger demand either on a particular route or overall. It seems to us that it would be sensible to have an equivalent duty or pair of duties in the Bill on passenger demand as it has for freight. GBR would need, as we were just discussing, to work out how to optimise that objective versus the other objectives it has set out in the duties and functions.”

That is a long quote, but I think that the Campaign for Better Transport makes a good point. The current drafting creates a duty to promote freight, but no such duty to promote passenger services. Amendment 33 would rectify that oversight by adding a number of excellent objectives: passenger growth, economic growth, private sector investment, reducing the need for public subsidy, increasing passenger satisfaction, and improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services. The amendment responds to the concerns of the passenger sector, which has clearly identified problems with the current drafting. Does the Minister have any intention of listening to the constructive advice from experts in the sector? I wait with bated breath, but I do wonder.

Amendment 31 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on how he or she has balanced the requirements, to allow for better scrutiny. It is a cracked record from the Opposition that scrutiny and accountability need to be designed in. Who could disagree with that?

The other key part of clause 18 is the definition of “railway service performance” in subsection (3), which we have touched on a number of times. It is telling about current attitudes in the Department for Transport that reliability and avoiding overcrowding are all that the definition is—that is it. That is extraordinary. The definition of railway service performance is reliability and avoiding overcrowding. That is the most basic definition; there is no ambition to improve the service. I am concerned that we will see more of that approach when we have a nationalised GBR: a basic service where you get what you are given, you have no ability to demand improvement and you are meant to be grateful.

Amendment 32 challenges that approach and would inject some ambition into the Bill and—with a bit of luck—into GBR and its ability to strive for excellence once it is created. The amendment would insert into the definition:

“reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections”—

—we have heard from hon. Members how important connectivity is to the customer experience—as well as

“safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance…passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities”.

Those are very important to passengers, and their experience of what it means to take a railway journey, as opposed to—if they have the ability—going by car. The definition would also include

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

and

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

Finally, clause 18(2)(f)—it is tacked on to the end—is the only reference to value for money for taxpayers. It is right to focus on efficient use of funds, but does it need to be to the exclusion of much of the sector, with no comparison with costs or alternative provision? It is an important amendment, given that the Government are failing to show any customer focus. The drafting of the Bill appears to confirm the fears of the wider sector that GBR is going to be engineering-led and dominated by the historical culture of Network Rail. That shines out in this very bald definition of service.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

Clause 18(2)(a) reads:

“in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”.

Is that not specifically saying that it is a duty to promote the needs of passengers and potential passengers? That is about passenger growth.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, but it needs to be much clearer than that, because we are talking about the general duties of GBR. GBR will be able to rely on the definition and say, “We’ve satisfied our general duty under clause 18(2) because we have improved railway service performance as defined by the Minister,” which is reliability and the avoidance of passenger overcrowding. That is clearly wholly unacceptable and does not support the significant improvement that we all wish to see in the provision of passenger services.

We think that amendment 32 is important, since the Government are not showing a customer focus and are being overly led by an engineering mindset. It feels like they have chucked in a passengers’ council, which can be ignored because it has no enforcement powers, and then lip service is paid to the experiences of the passenger.

We already know that Great British Railways as an organisation is dominated by Network Rail. It is an organisation with about 41,000 members of staff, to which is added every six weeks or couple of months another operating company of 2,000 to 4,000 staff. It is quite apparent where, without intervention, the dominating culture will come from. We have to focus on improving customer experience as a whole, and it is for that reason that I will press the amendment to a vote.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I will speak briefly and specifically on the attempt to introduce a passenger growth target. I think we have had the substantive discussion before, but it is worth briefly repeating the key points.

The railway, arguably, is already incentivised to prioritise passenger services. That is partly a financial matter, as the revenue coming in from passenger services is greater. However, I fear that the shadow Minister’s noble intent to move away from some current cultural practices is at odds with the clause. In the engineering culture, from a certain mindset, because freight trains are heavier and cause more damage to track, there is a convenience to allocating those rare paths to passengers services instead.

The shadow Minister quoted evidence, and I wish to read into the record some other comments that we heard, from Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group, someone of whom I think the shadow Minister and I share a high opinion. Of a passenger growth target, she said:

“people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary”.––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 46, Q78.]

I think she put it very well: there is a real risk that if we put into the Bill both a freight growth target and a passenger growth target, with no prioritisation between them written in, one will have the effect of neutralising the other.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the logic of the lobby group for rail freight saying that we should focus on rail freight while the lobby group in favour of the passenger, which I quoted earlier, says that there should be a passenger growth target? Does he not think that those representing passengers are better qualified to express an opinion on passengers than the rail freight lobbyist?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I am not sure that I follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Our job here is to look at the network and the service as a whole. This is an integrated, engineering, safety-critical industry of many parts, all of which interact with one another. This is a key point, and we have said it before: sometimes, hard choices need to be made about prioritisation. I fear that if we have the two growth targets sitting alongside each other with no weighting between them, what we will actually get is the status quo. Freight is, of course, essential to the economy and to decarbonisation, and we cannot run the risk of it being squeezed out.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendments. Amendment 33 would add further duties to clause 18. The proposed duties are either duplicative of existing provisions in the Bill or would constrain GBR’s operational priorities, undermining the directing-mind approach that the Bill implements.

Specifically, the proposed duty on passenger growth duplicates the existing duty to

“promote the interests of users and potential users”

of the railway. That duty will already require GBR to consider how to bring more passengers to the railway. As a passenger service operator, GBR will naturally be incentivised to grow passenger numbers in order to raise its own revenue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield so ably outlined.

The proposed duties on economic growth would also duplicate the public interest duty, which explicitly requires GBR to consider economic benefits when making decisions on the railway. The proposed duty on passenger satisfaction would duplicate the minimum consumer standards that we expect to include in the GBR licence. On the shadow Minister’s point about enforcement powers relating to the passenger watchdog, it is worth saying that the watchdog will set those minimum consumer standards, covering things such as accessibility and passenger information, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the ORR. It can also request enforcement from those bodies, as well as improvement plans from GBR. There are mechanisms to ensure that accountability takes place.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

The Minister says the watchdog can request enforcement. Does it have the power to compel enforcement?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

As I said, it has the power to request enforcement, and that is important because, ultimately, GBR needs to be able to take those decisions but have robust accountability from the ORR and the Secretary of State should it not have regard to things such as its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities. But the watchdog plays an incredibly important oversight function in ensuring that GBR is not remiss in its duties.

The proposed duty on efficiency and productivity is already in the Bill: there is a cost-efficiency duty in clause 18. On the proposal to increase private sector involvement, we want GBR to co-operate with the private sector to create the best possible railway for everyone, but not to increase private sector involvement as a stand-alone goal. There will be times when increasing private sector involvement will be needed, such as when it comes to freight growth, and the Bill already provides for that, but it should not be an end in itself. Rather, GBR should focus on delivering for passengers and taxpayers in the best possible way, using all the options available to it. The duties in the Bill are clear, and introducing additional, duplicative detail will not help GBR to deliver effectively. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw amendment 33.

Amendment 32 would replace the current definition of railway service performance in the Bill with a longer list of criteria, including reliability, safety, passenger comfort, affordability, passenger growth and the establishment of new services. Those are all important issues, but the Bill already requires GBR to focus on performance, including specifically reliability, punctuality and the avoidance of overcrowding. Those are top passenger priorities when it comes to train performance. Matters such as cleanliness, passenger comfort and value for money will already be considered as part of the passenger interest duty and through minimum consumer standards, which the passenger watchdog will set.

Clause 18 already requires consideration of the social and economic benefits that can be derived from the railway, which will include considering where new services might be needed. That is one of the core benefits of GBR: it will be able to look across the entire network holistically. There will be greater opportunity to maximise our limited capacity and potentially create new services compared with the current system.

Sarah Smith (Labour, Hyndburn)

Does my hon. Friend agree that under this provision, with the right economic drivers, there could be consideration in future for family-friendly trains—a service seen in some parts of Europe, where entire carriages are set aside for toddlers and children to travel in comfort, which might no doubt also increase the comfort of passengers not travelling with children?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution as part of this debate, and throughout our proceedings, on the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities and for parents with children. She has already shared with me, for my benefit, examples from across Europe of where family-friendly accessibility measures are baked into the way train services operate. One notably striking example was of a children’s playground in a railway carriage in Finland.

We hope that accessibility in all its forms can be embedded into GBR’s operational processes, including where it creates new opportunities for things like additional passenger services. I also point my hon. Friend to the fact that the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is a really important piece of the puzzle in ensuring we have rolling stock that is unified in its capacity to offer better services for passengers with disabilities and for families travelling on our railways. Her point is very well made.

The Government are committed to ensuring that Britain’s railway continues to rank as one of the safest worldwide and, as promised, the Bill does not change that safety regime. In my view, there is no need for further safety duties in the Bill. In short, everything that amendment 32 seeks to do is already in the Bill’s provisions, so to include it would be duplicative and would muddy the definition of “performance”.

Amendment 31 is intended to require a report on how GBR has balanced the general duties in clause 18, but the amendment is unnecessary. The clearest account of how GBR has balanced its duties will be set out in its published business plan, which the ORR must advise on and the Secretary of State must approve—both reviewing the plan with those same duties in mind.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Will the Minister clarify his argument? I ask because a business plan by its nature looks forward, whereas a report looks backward and marks homework. How can the business plan mark homework?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Regard will have to be paid to the business plan over the period for which it is implemented. It will also be possible to tell, on the business plan’s completion, whether it has been completed in a way that is cognisant of and reflects GBR’s duties. The Secretary of State will review the business plans with the duties in mind, as set out in clause 18. That approval process is in itself an assessment of how GBR has balanced its duties, affording lessons as to how they have been applied in the past but also, as the hon. Member is right to point out, for the future.

The approval process is designed so that the bodies can provide checks and balances on each other, through co-operation and constructive challenge, ensuring that the common objectives are achieved in the best way possible. The business plan and the advice relating to it will be published, so Members can follow along and scrutinise whether GBR is appropriately balancing its duties at all times. This is already a transparent reporting system. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw or not press these amendments.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am aware that we need to make progress in this Committee, so I will not press every amendment to a Division. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments in relation to amendments 32 and 33, but I will not press amendment 31 to a Division. I wish now to press amendment 33 to a vote.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 18, page 10, line 41, at end insert—

“(5) In this section, Great British Railways must make an assessment of the effect of procuring services from businesses in the private sector in meeting its duties under subsection (2)(f).”

This amendment would require GBR to assess whether procuring services from the private sector would help it meet its value for money duty.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 42, in clause 31, page 17, line 2, after “public” insert “or private.”

This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

Amendment 43, in clause 31, page 17, line 8, after “public” insert “or private.”

This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 98, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—

“(d) whether the procurement of services from the private sector would represent a more efficient use of public funds.”

This amendment would require the ORR to consider whether GBR procuring services from the private sector would be a more efficient use of public funds.

Amendment 236, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—

“(d) whether the procurement of services from private sector suppliers would allow for more efficient use of public funds.”

This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to assess whether procuring services from the private sector would better enable it to meet its value for money duty.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Let us go straight into amendment 36, which would require GBR to benchmark the cost of its activities against similar provision through the use of the private sector. That is important, because if competition is removed, there is literally no benchmark against which to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation. Without comparison, where is the value in clause 18(2)(f), which says:

“taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,”?

What benchmark will the organisation have if it does not cross-reference against alternative providers?

The amendment would require GBR to assess whether

“procuring services from…the private sector”

would help it to meet its value for money duty. I should make it clear for Labour Members who are considering supporting this amendment that it would not require GBR to choose a private sector provider, but it would require it to benchmark against the private sector.

Procuring from the private sector could enable access to specialist expertise, innovation—dare I say that?—and competitive pricing, helping to deliver better value for money and more efficient outcomes for taxpayers. Will the Minister listen to the concerns of the industry and support this amendment, which seeks to make GBR an organisation that cares about passengers and taxpayers at the same time?

Amendments 42 and 43 would amend clause 31, on the provision of railway passenger services, which we will get to in due course. The clause currently allows the Secretary of State to award a licence only to a public-sector company. It cannot be in the best interests of the taxpayer to exclude even the consideration of alternative providers based on their ability and value for money. This is one of the most blatant examples of political ideology trumping pragmatism. The amendments would grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make an award to the organisation, public or private, that is best placed to undertake the operation. It seems obvious that we should allow that degree of flexibility to the organisation and the Secretary of State in future.

Amendment 98, which is tabled in my name, would require the Office of Rail and Road to consider whether it would be a

“more efficient use of public funds”

for GBR to procure services from the private sector. It echoes the other amendments in this group but would amend clause 74, which, as everyone will remember, relates to the ORR’s monitoring duties towards GBR. Amendment 236 would also amend clause 74 to require the Office of Rail and Road to assess whether procuring services from the private sector would better enable GBR to meet its value for money duty.

New clause 43 relates to a private sector growth target. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a target for increasing private sector involvement in railway services and infrastructure for each financial year, including its involvement in supply chains and open access. Just because we want GBR to be a success, let us not forget that, even once established, it will be a minority interest in relation to the rail sector as a whole. There is not just open access—there are all sorts of other users of and suppliers to the railways—so we can have both duties. They are not mutually incompatible. The new clause would require that the target must be kept under review and that GBR must have regard to it when exercising its statutory functions.

The private sector is best at providing us with innovation and efficiencies and should therefore be used to ensure that GBR can be the best version of itself. In more common parlance, we need the private sector to keep GBR honest. The Bill designs the ORR and the Secretary of State out of comparing GBR against a thriving private sector. Surely it makes sense to give the Secretary of State all the tools in the box to allow her to drive efficiency in GBR and cross-check value for money for the taxpayer.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Could the shadow Minister advise me whether there is anything in his amendments or new clause that would exclude foreign state-owned railway enterprises from that definition of “private sector”?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The hon. Member is as capable of reading the amendments as I am of drafting them. I do not want to get hung up on that, but my working assumption and my assertion to him is that the ownership structure internationally may be a state-owned organisation, but the delivery body in the United Kingdom would be a for-profit, private organisation, so it would pass the test of being in the private sector. Jolly good news too—if the British taxpayer can benefit from the largesse of the foreign taxpayer providing a more competitive service for whatever the Secretary of State is seeking to contract for, that is a wonderful thing. That is a gift from abroad, and we should be encouraging it.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Before I get into to my substantive points on this amendment, I want to circle back to a query the shadow Minister raised earlier, via an intervention, about accessibility and data sharing. I have a little more specificity to share with him: independent retailers will have the same opportunity as GBR to provide passenger assist to customers, and we are absolutely committed to a fair and open market. As part of this, the ORR’s code of practice will ensure that retailers get sufficient access to systems and data.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am very grateful.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Amendment 36 would require GBR to make an assessment of how procurement from the private sector could help it meet its value for money duty. The amendment is drafted on the basis that GBR would otherwise be uninterested in working with the private sector, but I highlight to the Committee that that is not currently the case for Network Rail and will not be for GBR either.

Currently, Network Rail spends, on average, around £8 billion per year with more than 4,000 rail suppliers. We expect that, in future, at least 60% of expenditure by GBR could feasibly be spent in the private sector. By providing a more integrated approach across track and train, and greater long-term certainty, GBR will be in a position to give the private sector the confidence it needs to invest, support innovation and promote the adoption of new technology.

When discharging its duties under clause 18, GBR must consider the efficient use of taxpayers’ money, and it must be able to decide the most appropriate way to do that. That is the basis of the principle of decentralising decision making away from Government and empowering GBR to run the railway. Prescribing a specific assessment of potential private sector involvement, which might not always be relevant every time GBR discharges that duty, would itself be an inefficient use of funds.

Amendments 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate passenger trains for Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership is the only way to make the railway run better, with the whole system working to one set of clear objectives.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

If that is the clear objective of the Government, why are they allowing open access to continue?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The shadow Minister pre-empts what I am sure will be a spirited debate about open access in later clauses. Open access provides a proportionally very small percentage of passenger services on the railway, but it makes a really important contribution, especially in terms of inter-city links, which I personally benefit from with Hull Trains running from Selby to London. GBR does not want to lose the benefits that open access can provide. In fact, having a more streamlined and cohesive railway, as a result of GBR’s responsibility for capacity, could even increase the ability for open access services to run on within the network.

That does not change the fact that, in our view, overwhelmingly across the UK, public ownership is the right way to make the railway run better, as it can work to a whole-system approach and a clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers. Privatisation created conflicting priorities and complex contracts that cost the taxpayer £150 million annually in unnecessary fees. A 2020 report found that Network Rail and train operators were employing hundreds of people just to work out who was to blame for disruption.

That system was outrageous, and it was symptomatic of a privatised system in which operators were financially incentivised to point fingers instead of fixing problems. We cannot continue with no one in charge, and the Bill makes it clear that, in future, GBR will be responsible for making the railway work, and no one else.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

When the Minister talks about wasting money on people being employed to argue with each other about who is to blame, I think of what his colleagues are doing in the Department of Health and Social Care with NHS England, by removing that culture and not having two state organisations delivering health. Does he envisage a problem here with the Department for Transport and GBR both having some responsibility for delivering rail and getting into a situation where they are doubling up on capacity and arguing about who is responsible for what?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

With respect to the hon. Member, I do not think that those two examples are analogous. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to set out the long-term rail strategy, to guide how GBR will work over the decades to come, but in terms of access, charging, passenger experience and making sure that our railway runs for every part of the United Kingdom, GBR will be solely responsible for that work. Therefore, I do not believe that the NHS England comparison works in this instance.

Both amendments 98 and 236 would require the ORR to consider whether GBR procuring services from the private sector would be a more efficient use of public funds. In carrying out its monitoring role, the ORR is already under a duty to consider the efficient use of taxpayers’ money, alongside duties to promote the interests of passengers, the use of rail freight and the public interest. Prescribing a specific and focused test that the ORR must apply when monitoring the delivery and outcomes of GBR’s activities is ideologically driven and adds nothing to the already comprehensive monitoring role that the ORR possesses.

The ORR’s monitoring and advisory role, His Majesty’s Treasury spending controls and external scrutiny will all ensure proper value-for-money scrutiny. If the ORR thought there was a significantly better value-for-money way of achieving a certain objective than the one proposed in the business plan put forward by GBR, the ORR could highlight that to GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill therefore already delivers this intent.

New clause 43 would require the Secretary of State to set a private sector growth target. I agree that the private sector has a vital role to play in our railways. That is true across the supply chain—in rolling stock, freight, open access services, ticket retail and innovation—and nothing in the Bill seeks to exclude or marginalise that contribution. However, we do not agree that imposing a statutory growth target for private sector involvement is the right approach.

The Bill establishes Great British Railways as the single directing mind for the railway, responsible for balancing its statutory duties in the round. Those duties include promoting the interests of passengers and potential passengers, making efficient use of public funds, promoting the use of rail freight and enabling providers to plan for the future of their businesses. Those are the right incentives to create the railway that we want—one that is reliable, connected, effective and brings together the best of the public and private sectors to deliver for the general public. Private sector growth in isolation, without regard to those aims, could drive the wrong incentives and will not create the railway that we all want to see.

The Bill is designed to secure the best of both worlds. GBR will simplify engagement and provide clearer long-term direction and greater certainty, while continuing to procure billions of pounds’ worth of goods and services from private sector suppliers. We expect that a substantial proportion of GBR’s expenditure, once established, will continue to flow through the private sector. Open access operators will continue to play a role where they add value and represent best use of the network, supported by fair and transparent access and charging arrangements, with appropriate regulatory safeguards.

The supply chain will benefit from longer-term strategies and more coherent planning than the fragmented system delivers today, and the duties reflect the need for private sector providers to plan with certainty. What matters is not meeting an arbitrary target, but delivering better outcomes for passengers, freight and the taxpayer. A statutory private sector growth target would add rigidity where flexibility and judgment are required. In the light of all those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press the amendments and the new clause.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before I call the shadow Minister, I advise him that we will only decide on amendment 36 at this point; decisions on the other amendments will come later.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse; I am grateful for that guidance. Amendment 36 is a bench-marking amendment. It is absolutely crucial to keep GBR honest in the future when it comes to value for money, in particular for the taxpayer. I will certainly press it to a Division.

Clause 19 - Safety duty of Ministers and ORR

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Clause 19 ensures that the existing safety duty under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 will be preserved in full and continue to apply to the relevant sector bodies. Safety is a critical priority for the Secretary of State and for this Government. The clause is necessary to fulfil the Government’s commitment that the Bill will not alter the existing legal framework underpinning rail safety, which has led to Britain’s railways consistently ranking as among the safest in the world. That is all I have to say on the clause.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I can beat that. The clause appears necessary, and it is not one that His Majesty’s Opposition will object to.

Clause 20 - Competition duty of ORR

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 20, page 11, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under schedule 2 from its competition duty.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 20, page 11, line 22, leave out paragraph (d).

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

Amendment 210, in clause 20, page 11, line 22, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).

This amendment removes the exemption of the ORR’s duty to promote competition in regard to GBR’s access process.

Amendment 238, in clause 20, page 11, line 23, leave out paragraph (e).

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

Amendment 239, in clause 20, page 11, line 24, leave out paragraph (f).

This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions exercisable under section 67(3) of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.

Amendment 240, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (g).

This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 69A of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.

Amendment 267, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 38, in clause 20, page 11, line 27, after “competition” insert

“and deliver value for money”.

This amendment requires the ORR to exercise its functions in the manner best calculated to promote competition and delivery of value for money.

Amendment 268, in clause 20, page 11, line 28, at end insert

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

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

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I hope I am not going to miss out any of those amendments, Mrs Hobhouse, but it is going to be quite a challenge. Clause 20 concerns the “competition duty” of the Office of Rail and Road; it sounds pretty good when you read that title but the clause gets progressively less and less good once you delve into it.

The clause requires the ORR to promote competition in the exercise of its functions, subject to certain exceptions. Exempt activities relate to safety, train driver licensing, the funding of GBR, GBR’s access process and decisions in relation to railway infrastructure, licence enforcement, functions under the Competition Act 1998, and monitoring GBR, where the Government believe that other considerations are equally or more important than the need to promote competition.

The Government claim that they want the Office of Rail and Road to have a powerful role to monitor GBR and to promote laudable objectives such as

“competition….for the benefit of users of railway services.”

On the face of it, that is welcome. It is a sound principle, after all, that monopolies—whether they are public or private—are rarely in the interests of the consumer. It is for that exact reason that we created, over time, arms of the state such as the Competition and Markets Authority to break up anti-competitive monopolies in the private sector, although GBR is another monopoly that the Government are setting up, in the other direction.

However, when we dig into the detail of what subsection (1) of the clause exempts from the competition duty, the picture becomes considerably less attractive. Excluding from the competition duty chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill means that key parts of GBR’s operation, such as the access and use policy and capacity duty—two very important issues—are not covered by the duty of competition. That effectively makes GBR all-powerful over any other operator, be it devolved, open access or freight. That is not competition; that is a designed monopoly.

The Minister has said that the Government have taken that decision because they want GBR to be a single controlling mind, but GBR will not be the only operator on the railways. The Minister, just a moment ago, said that there are circumstances in which he would wish open access to flourish and grow, yet the Bill as drafted does not give any confidence to that sector that an operator can put forward a business case and attract investment because such an operator does not know whether there will be fair competition around crucial elements of its business case—elements as basic as whether it will get access to the railways. In the Bill, such competition is specifically, expressly excluded.

The exceptions in the clause are key to understanding the true intentions of the Government. Despite the appearance that the clause allows the Office of Rail and Road to promote competition, examination of subsection 1(d) shows that the Office of Rail and Road is required to promote competition unless it gets in the way of the access and use policy, which—as the Committee will discuss later—does not promote competition at all.

Elsewhere, the Government appreciate the positive impact of competition. Look at international rail. Lord Hendy took the trouble to write to the Office of Rail and Road in July last year, and said:

“The Government firmly believes that the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

I could not have written it better myself. The Government are clearly sending out extraordinarily mixed messages: competition is good, except when it is against the Government. Those statements cannot both be right, can they?

Let us see what the evidence demonstrates. The ORR quarterly figures on passenger rail usage are a valuable source to evaluate the impact that open access operators—competition—have made on the rail market. Three long-distance open access operators in the UK operate on the east coast main line. In comparison, the Great Western main line and the west coast main line currently have no open access operations. The ORR figures enable us to get what is admittedly a high-level understanding—there will be other factors at play, but it is instructive—of the impact that open access operators can have on the rail network by comparing east coast main line passenger demand to the Great Western main line and the west coast main line. These are Government figures for April to June 2025, and they were published on 30 October last year. They showcase that all long-distance operators on the east coast main line are growing against 2019 figures.

Combining the operators on the east coast main line, the route is currently seeing journey growth of 30%, compared with the pre-covid level in 2019. We must bear that in mind. One of those is nationalised—LNER—and the others are open access, but in combination there has been 30% growth. LNER passenger growth was 23% in 2024-25, compared with 2018-19—pre-pandemic levels. Grand Central passenger growth was 20% in 2024-25, and Hull Trains passenger growth was 54% in 2024-25, compared with 2018-19. The fact that long-distance passenger growth on ECML, including Lumo, was 30% in a year clearly demonstrates that all operators are growing on the east coast main line. That includes the impact of Lumo commencing in October 2021.

In comparison, the two dominant operators on the Great Western main line and the west coast main line have seen 9% and 10% fewer journeys than in 2019 respectively. That is really important. The Great Western main line data is impacted by the transfer of suburban services to TfL Rail in 2019, so it is not as good an indication—I am highlighting a potential difference—but there is still a noticeable difference in the direction of travel of performance. The Committee should ignore it at our peril, because we would be turning our face against the data to advance our political beliefs.

The difference between the east coast main line and the west coast main line is further amplified when comparing the latest Civil Aviation Authority data from September 2025, which records passenger movements between UK airports. Although rail journeys figures on the east coast main line have grown by more than 30%, the number of people travelling between Edinburgh and London by air has fallen by 13%, from 3.4 million to 2.9 million journeys. In contrast, the number of people travelling between Glasgow and London by air has fallen by only 9%, broadly in line with the overall west coast main line rail market, which has seen a 10% fall in journeys.

We have to ask why that is. Although those rail figures reflect markets on the route and not specific flows, it can be assumed that air has lost market share to rail on the east coast main line between Edinburgh and London, and not on the west coast main line, where there is no open access challenger between Glasgow and London. The difference between the east coast main line and the west coast main line is therefore stark, with all the east coast main line operators experiencing significant rail passenger growth volume while the west coast has still to get back even to 2019 levels—a difference that is amplified by the larger drop in air passenger demand between Edinburgh and London versus Glasgow and London.

While several factors will be contributing to the difference between passenger demand performance for both, the biggest difference is open access operations, which are providing choice, value and capacity to grow the market. The evidence, if we are interested in evidence, is overwhelming that competition drives down prices and drives up services, just as Lord Hendy said it would in relation to international travel.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I do not dispute some of the points that the shadow Minister makes on open access, but could he tell us a little more about how this relates to his perspective on the access regime? One of the reasons open access is unable to thrive on the west coast main line is insufficient capacity, and part of the access challenge is created by Network Rail and the ORR not having a cohesive system for managing access and timetabling in a way that makes sense. Would having one unified body to manage that access regime not allow open access opportunities to be realised in shorter order?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

It may well do, in short answer. The Minister makes a valid point: having a single point of contact for this may well have a benefit. Of course, it could be the Office of Rail and Road as opposed to GBR, but the real problem, which we will come on to in a few hours—or days—is the drafting of clause 63, which concerns the capacity duty and the very onerous level that open access operators will have to get above in order for GBR to consider that there is sufficient excess capacity to allow for new services. As clause 63(2) states:

“Great British Railways must exercise the functions so as to ensure that it retains sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for…the operation of GBR passenger services and of railway passenger services that it expects will in future be GBR passenger services”.

That is a bar, I suggest, that no open access application could ever get over. GBR gets a get-out-of-jail-free card.

No one likes competition. When I ran businesses, I did my best to avoid competition as much as I could. The inclination of GBR will be no different. It will not want to be shown up by competition. It will not want its market to be pinched by competition. All it will have to do is look at clause 63 and say, “There you go. At some stage in the future we might think about having something there,” and Bob’s your uncle. Then what can the open access operators do? They could say, “That is a terrible decision. We’re going to appeal it. Even though the bar is so high in legislation that it is almost impossible to appeal, we’re going to the ORR because clause 67 says that any organisation that is disgruntled at such a decision has a right to appeal.”

Look at what the appeal duty provides for: organisations can go to the ORR, and there is an appeal akin to judicial review in the High Court, meaning that there can be no appeal at all on the application’s merits, which cannot be reopened. No evidence regarding whether there is a good business case can be considered—just whether there has been an error of law, or whether an organisation properly constituted could have come to that decision without irrationality. That is what the judicial review principles mean. Furthermore, organisations have to put in their application for judicial review within three months of the commission of the event against which they are complaining. It is incredibly onerous, and perhaps the single biggest problem with the drafting of the Bill is a combination of those two issues.

That was a very enjoyable aside, but I need to get on to the amendments—you are probably relieved to hear that, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendments 237, 37, 238, 239 and 240 essentially all serve to apply the ORR competition duty to GBR functions, to serve the passenger rather than the organisation of GBR. That is what we need to focus on time and again: this organisation is to serve the passenger, not itself as an organisation. The amendments would keep alive the role of open access operators as challenger brands to GBR, forcing GBR to up its game and stay honest, just as we have seen with the nationalised operator on the east coast main line.

Just because there would be competition, that does not mean that GBR would wither and decline. As we have seen on the east coast main line, competition drives increased performance and results from all organisations when properly applied. Competition is always uncomfortable. I complained about it many times in my previous business career. Many businesses, including my own, would have loved to be able to regulate it away. All the more reason for the Government to stand up to GBR in the interests of passengers.

The Minister was quite right to say that it is a positive step that GBR will have oversight of the whole network. However, we want to see the ORR’s competition powers in these areas restored as a way to ensure that GBR, while having a reasonable duty to look at and balance the needs of the network as a whole, does not unfairly discriminate against other operators because we have GBR as referee and player. That is clearly a designed, structural conflict of interest. We need to have the ORR focusing on competition and holding the ring.

Amendment 237 deals with funding, amendment 37 deals with access, amendment 238 deals with railway closures, and amendments 239 and 240 deal with advice to the Secretary of State and amendment 240 also deals with advice to the Secretary of State. I know all Members will have read those amendments, so I will not take the Committee through them one by one in the interests of time.

Amendment 38 would insert

“and deliver value for money”

after “competition” in clause 20, page 11, line 27. We do not need the Office of Rail and Road just to fight the cause of competition; it is also about value for money for the taxpayer. We have already heard that about 50% of all money spent on the railways at the moment is taxpayers’ money, not farebox money. It is therefore crucial that the ORR should have a duty to ensure that GBR delivers value for money. The general duty, as set out in clause 18, is to have regard to the “efficient use” of public funds. That is clearly insufficiently strong. In the absence of other private passenger operators, whether via open access or a devolved concession, which would be equally powerful as a comparator for GBR’s performance, against what will GBR’s efficiency and performance on value for money be measured? Amendment 38 would correct the language in clause 20. I have not made it up myself; it has been considered and approved of by the sector as a whole—people standing up for passengers. On amendments 37, 41, 42 and 43, Rail Forum said:

“Again, this is desirable to ensure some competition.”

I have spoken to all my amendments, but I would also like to speak about amendment 210, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The amendment also removes the exemption of the ORR’s duty to promote competition in regard to GBR’s access process. It is a variation on a theme. We are all pushing in the same direction because we are trying to stand up for passengers, and I hope the Government will too.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

As the shadow Minister said, amendment 210 is our attempt to strengthen the ORR’s role in access decisions, so we agree with some of the Conservative amendments, but not all of them.

Let me explain the context. In an ideal world, I would not want to see competition between passenger services decided by the ORR, for two reasons. First, the current way that open access is run on our railways can be complicated, suboptimal and inefficient, although in certain places it is producing good results, such as on the east coast main line, as the shadow Minister said.

The second reason is that the ORR does not always cover itself in glory in its current form, as per its notorious decision, quickly reversed, about the 0700 express from Manchester to London. I have tabled new clause 56, which we will come to later, which suggests a different way of promoting competition on the railway: it would institute a centrally decided timetable, and some of the paths on routes that have more than one train an hour would be auctioned off. For example, three trains an hour run on the London to Manchester route, and GBR would intentionally introduce competition by auctioning off one train path an hour, which hopefully would encourage both sides to pull their socks up. We have increasingly seen that happening on the Italian high-speed network and in France. Absent that, we feel—with those caveats having been issued—that it would be beneficial for the ORR to retain stronger powers in relation to access and competition. That is why we have put forward amendment 210.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The amendments in this group relate to the ORR’s competition duty and primarily look to remove the various exemptions set out in clause 20. I will begin by saying that we of course recognise the benefits that competition can bring to railway users and the economy at large. In the supply chain, competition drives innovation and efficiency. In the online retail market, competition provides choice and drives up the quality of passenger experience. However, although competition may be a powerful means of achieving a goal—such as innovation—there are many railway functions where it would not be appropriate, and could even be counterproductive, to treat competition as a goal in itself. That is true of many of the ORR’s functions in the new model.

Amendments 237 and 240 look to apply the ORR’s competition duty when it is advising the Secretary of State on GBR’s business plan, and when monitoring GBR’s activity against that business plan. It would also apply the ORR’s competition duty when it was monitoring GBR’s activities against its railway safety purposes. Our view on this matter is clear: if competition is not improving the railway for the passenger, taxpayer or economy, we will not be pursuing it. Competition for competition’s sake is ideological and does not help us to achieve the goal of making the railway work better.

When creating its business plan, GBR will need to take into account economic considerations, as set out in the public interest duty in clause 18; and when the ORR reviews the business plan to ensure that it offers value for money, it will be applying the same tests relating to the economy and cost efficiency. It would not be right for the ORR to overlay an additional competition objective on to that advice when the purpose of the advice, as clearly set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise GBR’s proposed business plan to ensure that GBR can deliver on the Secretary of State’s objectives in a value for money way. That should be a simple assessment of performance, not a way to pursue separate goals.

Amendments 37 and 210 would require the ORR actively to promote competition when hearing access appeals. The nature of the appeals role is a broader point, which we have covered to a small extent today and which I am sure we will cover in greater detail in a few days’ time, so I will endeavour to be brief now. The Bill establishes a robust and fair framework to enable GBR to take decisions on the best use of the network. The ORR’s appeals role is designed to ensure that GBR acts lawfully, fairly and consistently with its duties, but it is not there to supplant GBR as the directing mind by wholly retaking strategic decisions or applying a different decision-making framework.

An active duty for the ORR to promote competition at the appeal stage would undermine that, effectively creating two decision makers, applying two different yardsticks, at different stages in the process. In fact, two different bodies taking decisions based on different criteria is exactly what we have at the moment with Network Rail and the ORR, and this is fertile ground for exactly the kind of conflict, disagreement and delay that plague the current access regime and that our approach is designed to fix. That is part of the system that has failed to deliver for passengers and taxpayers and that we absolutely must move away from if we want a better railway.

Amendment 210 would have the additional effect of applying a competition duty to the ORR’s enforcement of GBR’s licence. That is also the focus of amendment 238. The ORR’s task when enforcing the licence is to ensure compliance so as to provide legal and regulatory certainty. Applying a competition duty to this function would distort the purpose of these powers. The amendment would therefore undermine the regulatory framework and be counterproductive.

Flirting with tautology, amendment 239 would require the ORR to promote competition when exercising its competition powers under the Competition Act 1998. The Railways Act 1993 establishes the ORR as the competition regulator for the sector, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure effective regulation, the two must act according to the same rules, without interference from sector-specific priorities. That is why neither the ORR’s railway competition duty nor the other ORR-specific duties apply when it is acting as a competition regulator. This is a continuation of the current approach to regulating competition in legislation and not one from which we should deviate.

Amendment 38 is not necessary, as it simply duplicates clause 18(2)(f), which already requires the ORR to take

“into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”.

An additional requirement to consider value for money would therefore be redundant.

Amendment 268 seeks to ensure that the ORR exercises its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect issues such as passenger rights, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds. I support the spirit of this amendment and its focus on safeguarding passenger rights, the smooth operation of the railway and the public purse. It is precisely because I agree with those aims that clause 20 already ensures that the ORR will not be subject to a duty to promote competition when carrying out certain functions.

Further, the Bill already protects public funds through clause 18. It includes an obligation on the Secretary of State, the ORR and GBR to consider cost efficiency, which should ensure that the value for money that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham is looking for is delivered. When the ORR considers value for money in the context of GBR’s business plan, the Bill ensures that it will not be distracted by the irrelevant consideration of promoting competition.

Regarding passenger rights, the ORR’s competition duty, where it applies, is specifically to

“promote competition...for the benefit of users of railway services.”

It will therefore not be promoting competition except for the benefit of passengers. That wording, plus the fact that the ORR will continue to be the enforcer of passenger rights and consumer law, means that the ORR is already set up to recognise the importance of passenger rights. The Bill already sufficiently protects passengers’ rights, effective running of the network and taxpayer funds ahead of competition, so there is no need to duplicate efforts by making the amendment.

In summary, clause 20 rightly requires the ORR to promote competition when it exercises its functions, subject to some specific and necessary exemptions, which I have just explained in detail. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

You will not be wholly surprised, Mrs Hobhouse, to know that I am entirely unconvinced by the Minister’s arguments. This is one of the key differences of opinion between the Government and the sector, and I seek to give the sector a voice through my amendments and my submissions. I will look to you, Mrs Hobhouse, for guidance on the exact process; I intend to press some amendments to a Division, but not all of them, to save a bit of time for everyone.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press amendment 237 to a vote, once that is decided, the other ones will follow.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

To give you an advance clue, I intend to press amendments 237 and 37 to a vote. Depending on the outcome of the vote on amendment 37, I may not seek to divide on the others, apart from amendment 38.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Okay. Olly Glover, do you intend to press amendment 210 to a vote?

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

One moment, Mrs Hobhouse.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

My opinion is that they all basically deal with the same principle. I also remind the Committee that we need to move on to other issues.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I shall not then, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for your guidance.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I now propose a short suspension of 10 minutes.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before the next debate, I advise the Committee that we hope to get through clauses 21 to 24 and adjourn the sitting before we start consideration of part 2 of the Bill. I hope that is agreeable. We aim to end the session with clause 24, but we will see how it goes.

Clause 21 - Duty of ORR to have regard to Secretary of State’s guidance

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 22 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Clause 21 preserves the Secretary of State’s current ability to issue guidance to the Office of Rail and Road under the Railways Act 1993, and clause 22 does the same for Scottish Ministers. The clauses are necessary to maintain the ability of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to issue guidance to the ORR when exercising relevant statutory functions, alongside the ORR’s duty to have regard to such guidance, which must of course be published to ensure that the safety regime that underpins the railway does not change.

Both clauses confirm that neither the Secretary of State nor Scottish Ministers can issue guidance to the ORR in relation to its functions as an enforcing authority under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This is to ensure that the safety regime remains completely independent of Ministers. In addition, guidance cannot be issued to the ORR when it carries out functions relating to train driver licensing, or its functions under the Competition Act 1998 to main consistency in the arrangements for competition regulation between the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority. That will also provide further protection for the private sector.

The guidance issued under the clauses is intended, as is currently the case, to support the ORR in discharging its relevant statutory functions. Guidance can provide for a better common understanding of an area or encourage a strategic focus on specific issues, whether that relates to supporting freight growth, driving efficiency or improving passenger experience. Furthermore, the ORR will be afforded the flexibility to balance any issued guidance against its wider statutory duties and requirements.

The ORR confirmed at the Transport Committee that it can balance receiving ministerial guidance with its role as an independent regulator, and that it does so effectively already. Therefore, the clauses will help to ensure that the ORR’s regulatory role remains aligned with the strategic priorities set by the Government in a manner that is practical, proportionate and does not undermine the ORR’s independence as a regulator. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The principle the Government continue to establish is important for the relationship between the state and the ORR when it comes to safety-related duties. I recognise the Government’s work to ensure that the clauses protect the ORR’s independence in many regards, rather than encroaching upon it. The protection of that independence is vital. When it comes to the relationship between Great British Railways, the ORR, the Department for Transport and Ministers, as well as the various devolved Governments and mayoralties —not forgetting the fact that passengers count—the Opposition have thought long and hard about how we can ensure that the ORR maintains its standards of excellence as a regulator.

I want to take this opportunity to review the safety record of the railways overseen by ORR as the safety regulator since its inception in 2004. The ORR publishes masses and reams of data as part of its continuing mission to provide transparency and oversight. By most key metrics, safety has improved significantly, with the UK being praised as one of the safest railways, if not the safest railway, in Europe. We really should stop and consider that achievement, whether it relates to nationalised or privatised parts of the industry. Government Members criticise privatisation, but it has not impinged on safety, and that is quite an achievement. It is vital that the ORR can continue its strong work in delivering not only a safe railway but a transparent one.

The ORR has consistently worked by acting as a critical friend to the franchise operators and Network Rail. In the new age of GBR, it is important that the Secretary of State, who will direct both the ORR and GBR, should be mindful not to create an environment in which the ORR feels it cannot be critical of GBR and its actions. Committee members will struggle to find many sectors where stakeholders praise their regulator, but it is right that Ministers should get out of the way of the work of the ORR, because its oversight work is the difference between life or death. I acknowledge that that is the Minister’s intention in clause 21.

Clause 22 sets out the duty of the ORR to have regard to Scottish Ministers’ guidance, and clause 22 mirrors that, enabling Scottish Ministers to give guidance except on the safety-related issues I have mentioned. I have a query about clause 22—I am not leading up to some devastating amendment—in respect of the dispute resolution process, if one exists, between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers.

Under clause 21, the Secretary of State must consult Welsh Ministers—that creates a clear direction for the conversation—but there does not appear to be an equivalent provision in clause 22. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that seeming contradiction and expand further on what happens in a situation where the guidance issued by the Scottish Minister contradicts that issued by the Secretary of State, or perhaps the other way round. Would that be covered by the memorandum of understanding, which of course we have not yet seen? Or is a tightening of statute on the horizon that we are not yet aware of? The Minister might not be able to whip an answer out of his back pocket, but perhaps he can clarify that issue once he has consulted his officials.

Naturally, Scotland has had oversight of Network Rail for many years, so the working relationship between the ORR and GBR north of the border is not likely to change, but, similarly to my concerns about clause 21, protecting the ORR’s independence is important to the entire smooth functioning of the railways. I know the Minister would not wish to speak for Scottish Ministers, but I would very much appreciate it if he could outline the dispute resolution mechanism between the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers. The Minister will be delighted to hear that, beyond that query, we do not oppose clause 22.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments about the safety regime on our railways, and join him in the sentiment he expressed about the ORR. The Committee can argue about the merits of privatisation versus nationalisation, but the fact remains that the people who work across our railways do so with safety first and foremost in their considerations. The shadow Minister is absolutely right to recognise that we have a formidable safety record in the United Kingdom because of the hard work of people across the railway network.

With regard to situations in which UK and Scottish Ministers could give potentially contradictory directions to GBR, the Bill explicitly provides for the MOU to make provision about the use of directions powers, and the intention is to use that to agree how those powers will be used to avoid giving GBR contradictory directions. We have discussed that with Scottish Government colleagues. If the shadow Minister requires further information on that point, I will be happy to provide it for him. In the meantime, I am glad that he sees the sense in the clauses, and I commend them to the Committee .

Clause 23 - Memorandum of understanding: Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 23, page 13, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) The memorandum of understanding must be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy.

(4) The memorandum of understanding must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of two months before it can come into force.”

This amendment would require the memorandum of understanding to be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy, and laid before Parliament for two months before it can come into force.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I do not know why I bothered going to the gym this morning, Mrs Hobhouse, because I have been doing squat thrusts every time I rise to speak to a new group of amendments.

Clause 23 deals with the memorandum of understanding, about which we have heard so much but know so little, and the relationship between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. It sets out the key arrangements between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, stating the intention for the memorandum of understanding to include steps to facilitate the integration of GBR infrastructure and Scottish railway services. The elephant in the room is that is none of that is set out in the Bill. The Opposition believe it is vital for Ministers to outline, at the very least, the broad framework for the basis of the memorandum if they will not commit to provide core elements in the Bill itself.

It really is very frustrating: we are paid to come to this Committee to give the Bill line-by-line consideration, set up the function of GBR and improve the relationship among Ministers in Whitehall, Edinburgh and Cardiff, the ORR and the other organisations affected by GBR, yet time and again we get the blank answer, “Oh well, this is going to be sorted out somewhere else.” It is very hard to say with confidence that we have scrutinised the Bill and come to an improved outcome when the Government have not done the work on the detail. This is not the first time Members have heard me say that—

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It won’t be the last!

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I hope it will be the last, but I fear I will not be.

I have some key questions for the Minister. I understand that the memorandum of understanding has not yet been finalised; has the work to scope it out even begun? The Minister should at least be able to answer that. At what stage in the deliberations between the two Ministries has it got to? What is the timeline for a memorandum of understanding under the clause being finalised and therefore made public? How often, if at all, must the memorandum of understanding be reviewed, updated or renegotiated? Or is it a one-stop shop?

It currently seems that the memorandums will have no statutory force. Unless I have missed something in the Bill—I always enjoy being corrected when I have missed something—it is not in there at the moment. Is that by design? What legal standing will the memorandums have? They do not appear to have statutory force, and there is very little democratic accountability, as I have mentioned. As far as I can see, the memorandum is essentially a handshake agreement. Not a single member of this Committee is any the wiser about what will be part of the memorandums.

Finally, what happens if no agreement is reached on a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers? The Minister can give evidence about his willingness to reach agreement, but he cannot give evidence on the part of Scottish Ministers. They can be willing to negotiate, but he cannot say with confidence that they will achieve full agreement until such time as that agreement is reached. I stand to be informed by the Minister, but my current understanding is that that agreement has not yet been reached.

The lack of oversight is clearly at the core of this issue. Parliament is expected to allow the Secretary of State and her Scottish counterpart to set the tone of the nature of rail operations without any say from this House, beyond this clause. The Government criticise the franchise system, but at least the parameters for its operation were clearly set out. Memorandums of understanding are nothing more than IOUs to the trust of parliamentarians, and we should not willingly give those out.

There is a further issue at stake here: the Scottish parliamentary elections. This is a matter of practicalities, as opposed to principles. The pre-election period, or purdah, is rapidly approaching for the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that it will be coming into force in late March, which is only weeks away. Given that the Minister will be eager to ensure that all the appropriate orders and memorandums are in place as quickly as is reasonably possible, what thought has he given to avoiding a rush job ahead of the election, or to the timetable for the memorandums of understanding being reached with any change of Government in Scotland? This is actually quite a significant question. Is the Minister going to rush it through to get it in before March? What happens if there is a change of Administration north of the border?

It is with that uncertainty in mind that we believe the clause ought to have a clear timeframe for the publication of the MOU. The memorandums of understanding should be laid before Parliament for approval. Parliament is being asked to give broad Executive powers as if an international treaty were being negotiated, but this is not an international treaty. Parliament ought to have the right to approve the memorandums to ensure, in particular, that Members whose constituencies are affected by them have a say on behalf of their constituents. That is what amendment 39 would provide, by providing two additions: that a memorandum be published at the same time as the rail strategy, which would give a concrete timeframe for the delivery of that important document, and that it be laid before Parliament for a period of two months before it can come into force. I look forward to the Government’s response.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

I will endeavour not to detain the Committee for long. In the Committee’s second sitting, when Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald gave evidence—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham alluded to—Mr McDonald stated:

“In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December…We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 56, Q104.]

That is encouraging in the case of Wales, but Mr Reeve was unable to offer any similar assurance as to where things were with Scotland. He said:

“We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be”.––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 55, Q100.]

He also said it remains a priority.

A different pace appears to be being reached in Wales compared with where we are with the MOU with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight the fact that in both cases we will, in a few short weeks’ time, be entering the pre-election period for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. In the case of Wales, there is a degree of reassurance. Will the Minister update the Committee on where the discussions with the Scottish Government have got to; when the DFT and Scottish Government will publish the heads of terms, as the Welsh Government published them in December; and whether he is still convinced that the March timescale will be met and that we will see both MOUs published?

Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is pragmatic and proportionate. It simply seeks to put a degree of certainty around the timescales and, quite rightly, as he highlighted, to give the process a degree of transparency by gently nudging all Administrations concerned to lay the MOUs before the House so that right hon. and hon. Members can consider them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Before I speak to amendment 39, I will respond to the questions about the timings of the MOUs, but may I bring the Committee’s attention to the fact that, by reaching this clause, we are now one quarter of the way through the Bill? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The hard work progresses.

Work has begun on negotiating the MOUs with Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The MOUs are subject to negotiation with the two Governments, but as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston pointed out, the heads of terms for the Welsh MOU have been published. It is our intention to publish the Scottish MOU as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham imagined a nightmare scenario in which we are not able to publish the heads of terms because we do not reach an agreement. Both the testimony we heard at the Transport Committee and what Scottish Ministers, including Fiona Hyslop, have had to say suggest that the negotiations are progressing, as are deliberations on the Bill overall.

The hon. Gentleman was right to ask what the pre-election period means for the publication of the MOUs. I refer him to the noble Lord Hendy’s testimony on publication to the Transport Committee, in which he essentially conveyed the message that we are cognisant of the fact that that period is approaching and that we are working on the development of the MOUs on that basis.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

I want to tempt the Minister. I hope he will look at me and not catch the eyes of his officials, because I am very well aware, from my time as a Minister, of phrases such as “in the fullness of time”, “at the appropriate juncture” and “in due course”, and exactly what they mean, not least as a keen student of “Yes Minister”. I am sure that, on occasions, I used them myself. May I tempt him a little further as to whether he is going to put an actual timescale on this?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

As tempting as the right hon. Member’s requests are, if he would like me to use another phrase, I will say: as soon as possible. I say to the shadow Minister that, although he has to keep asking me about publication of the MOUs today, he may not have cause to do so in the future. That is something we are working to progress as quickly as possible.

The shadow Minister is right to point out—this is an important point—that the MOU itself is not legally binding or enforceable; it does not create new legal powers or obligations beyond those in the Bill. However, its preparation and publication are a statutory requirement; both parties are legally required to produce and publish it. That ensures the transparency and public accountability piece of the puzzle. The MOU is being designed to set out practical arrangements for co-operation between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to provide clarity on governance, track and train integration arrangements, and accountability, without altering statutory responsibilities.

Amendment 39 would require the memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government to be published alongside the long-term rail strategy and laid in Parliament. Unfortunately, it is our view that that would serve to undermine the effectiveness of the MOU, which is intended as a flexible mechanism for inter-governmental co-operation, setting out principles and objectives jointly agreed between Ministers. Requiring it to be published at the same time as the long-term rail strategy would unnecessarily lock both Governments into the same rigid timeline for two unrelated documents that serve different purposes. The long-term rail strategy sets out long-term priorities for the network, while the MOU is designed to support intergovernmental co-operation. There is no rationale for linking them.

Further, clause 23 already requires that the MOU be published, providing a meaningful process of transparency without the unnecessary delay that the two-month review period would introduce. Amendment 39 would therefore be counterproductive, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Clause 23 provides a sensible legislative basis for the MOU to ensure that appropriate collaboration and accountability mechanisms are in place between the two Governments. That statutory commitment to the MOU enables the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to ensure that decisions on Scotland’s railways are taken in a way that reflects Scottish and UK transport priorities. The MOU also enables a route for joining track and train in Scotland, which will ensure that Scotland is able to benefit from these reforms to the same degree as the rest of Great Britain while preserving the devolution settlement. As the Committee will be aware, there is full support from Scotland for the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am interested to hear the Minister’s strong hints that the memorandum of understanding may be much more advanced than we had previously been led to believe. The intention of amendment 39 was to flush out the MOU—it sounds like it may well have already achieved its purpose. Taking the Minister’s words at face value, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 24 - Memorandum of understanding: Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I beg to move amendment 169, in clause 24, page 13, line 29, at end insert—

“(da) contain provision about the use to be made of the power to give directions under section 7,”.

This amendment makes further provision concerning memoranda of understanding between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 40, in clause 24, page 13, line 31, at end insert—

“(3) The memorandum of understanding must include details of the allocation of ticket sales from cross border routes that are operated by Transport for Wales.

(4) The memorandum of understanding must be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy.

(5) The memorandum of understanding must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of two months before it can come into force.”

This amendment would require the memorandum of understanding to include arrangements for the distribution of fare revenue from cross border services, require the memorandum of understanding to be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy, and laid before Parliament for two months before it can come into force.

Clause stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

We have already discussed amendments 166 to 168, which provide clarity on the situations in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when issuing directions or guidance to GBR. Amendment 169 will provide the opportunity for further clarity by encouraging the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to address how the power of direction and consent requirement will be used within the terms of the memorandum of understanding. That mirrors the provision in clause 23 for the MOU between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. The amendment is a sensible mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will work together to hold GBR to account against their own priorities within a stable and co-operative framework that supports the operation of the whole system. I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 24 provides the legislative basis for the MOU with the Welsh Government. Just as clause 23 does for Scotland, clause 24 requires the preparation and publication of the MOU and states some of the areas that it may cover. The areas the MOU may cover for each devolved Government are different to reflect their distinct devolution arrangements. For example, clause 24 explains that the MOU for Wales may contain joint objectives for the railway within the Wales and borders area. That creates a practical mechanism to drive co-operation and to set out the detail of how the railway will be run. It will encourage both Governments to carry out their functions in a joined-up way, while ensuring appropriate accountability and transparency. In turn, that will drive better outcomes for passengers on both sides of the border. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Government amendment makes further provision concerning the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. I have no objection to it.

The Minister is absolutely right that clause 24 is similar in intention to clause 23, but there are huge questions about the role that Welsh Ministers are to have in the governance and management of GBR in their jurisdiction under the memorandum of understanding, and whether the Secretary of State will have any role in the governance and management of Transport for Wales. The Welsh settlement is very different from the Scottish one, in both geography and degree of devolution— I suppose that is how it can be most simply described.

The relationship between the Welsh and UK Governments is far more nuanced and complex than the relationship in the case of ScotRail and the management of rail in Scotland. Transport for Wales covers a significant number of cross-border rail services. I stand to be corrected, but I think that as many as 80% of all its services have an element of cross-border movement. This harks back to the former private sector franchise of Arriva Trains Wales, which ran many England-only services and joint England-Wales services. That system of rail service provision persists under Transport for Wales; it is much more blended than is the case in Scotland.

I have some examples. Shrewsbury station, which, for the geographically challenged, is in England, is managed by Transport for Wales. From there, it manages services that run exclusively in England, such as Shrewsbury to Manchester. It also runs all manner of cross-border services, such as the Heart of Wales line, of which about 5% is in England, and Aberystwyth to Birmingham, which is 50:50 England and Wales—on it goes. Any memorandum of understanding will have to outline in detail, one assumes, how the allocation of moneys for tickets will be divided.

This works both ways. Former Great Western Railway and Avanti services from London to Holyhead and from London to Swansea via Cardiff have significant portions of their routes running through Wales as well as England. Taxpayers in both nations will rightly presume that the value of ticket sales will be distributed proportionately between both railways, as they will both be Government-run, rather than going to the operator whose livery happens to adorn the locomotive. The issue is relatively small in the discussions about Scotland, where I think only 3% of services are cross-border between England and Scotland. In Wales, the proportion is much greater, and I am concerned that there is no clear mechanism for how the allocation of ticket sales is set to be achieved or agreed.

Will GBR and Transport for Wales—or, more accurately, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers—come to a profit-sharing or fare-box sharing agreement as part of the memorandum of understanding? This is at the core of the issue of value for money, so it should be an important consideration, and I look to the Minister to provide reassurance that it is in the mix.

I have a compounding concern, which I expressed in relation to clause 23, about the timeline of the publication of the memorandum of understanding. Again, a purdah period is approaching: the elections for the Welsh Senedd are in May. I think I am right in saying—my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston mentioned it—that it was suggested in the oral evidence that the heads of terms have already been agreed, but that is not the same as the memorandum of understanding being agreed, so we need a bit more detail from the Minister, if he is able to give it.

There is a big caveat for Wales in particular, where—though I do not want to ruin anyone’s sleep tonight—it is very likely that Labour will be removed from office come May, and that there will be a new Government in Cardiff. It would be improper for a rush job to take place in order to shoehorn through a memorandum of understanding between two like-minded Administrations.

I have tabled amendment 40 to clause 24 for the same reason that I tabled amendment 39 to clause 23. Amendment 40 seeks to introduce a degree of control over the timeline for the publication of the memorandum of understanding. In the Transport Committee evidence session on 17 December, Peter McDonald, who is the director for transport, spoke on behalf of the Welsh Government. He spoke in some detail about the future relationship between GBR and the Welsh Government, and how it relies on the memorandum of understanding. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the Committee about the safeguards or timeline the Government have in place? Do they believe it would be helpful to have a clearer timeline, especially considering the electoral sensitivities and, if the opinion polls are to be believed, the likely change of Administration in Cardiff Bay?

I have plenty more to say about this, but I am aware that it is getting dark outside and we have been going on for some time. Those concerns are the rationale for amendment 40, which would apply similar requirements to those that amendment 39 would have applied to clause 23. I tried to be understanding with the Minister in not pressing amendment 39 on Scotland to a vote, because of the direction he was able to hint at in his response. I look forward to being similarly reassured in respect of Wales.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

On the shadow Minister’s point about profit sharing, the MOU is designed to set out the operational arrangement between GBR and Welsh services. In that respect, the MOU will not affect the existing profit-sharing arrangement between the Governments for cross-border services.

The shadow Minister also asked me for a little more information on how the MOU will affect cross-border services between England and Wales. The clause allows the MOU to identify services in England that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers would like to be provided alongside Welsh-designated services. It lets UK and Welsh Ministers set objectives for integration and steps to facilitate it, as well as the arrangements for sharing information. That will hopefully provide a clear framework for co-ordinating cross-border operations, enhancing efficiency and passenger experience, and supporting seamless connectivity across the Wales and borders area.

The shadow Minister’s amendment 40 would require the Welsh MOU to be published at the same time as the long-term rail strategy, and to be laid in Parliament for two months before coming into force. I refer the Committee to my previous comments. The MOU serves a different purpose from the LTRS, and linking them would add unnecessary complexity for little apparent gain.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I understand the point the Minister is making about the lack of relationship between those two documents. In the debate on the previous group, he was able to give an indication of the likely timeframe for publishing the Scottish memorandum of understanding. Can he give a similar hint on the Welsh memorandum of understanding? [Interruption.] There seems to be a bit of nodding on the Government Benches, but it is entirely up to him, because he decides.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

As Lord Hendy was fulsome in explaining, those involved in negotiations for the MOU are extremely cognisant of upcoming election dates in Holyrood, and I would say that they are similarly cognisant of upcoming election dates in the Senedd. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with the indication that he may need.

Returning to amendment 40, the MOU with Wales has the same publication requirement as the MOU with Scotland, meaning that transparency is already baked in without the need for a two-month review period. As the shadow Minister set out, the amendment would specifically require the MOU to include details of the allocation of ticket revenue from cross-border routes. That would add unnecessary complexity by effectively embedding granular, technical review formulas into a document designed to set out a strategic agreement between Governments. This detail is an operational and commercial matter rightly governed by established industry settlement mechanisms and bilateral contracts.

The Bill already provides a statutory framework for fare setting and transparency, enabling GBR to set fares for its services while devolved operators manage their own. Including these details in the MOU would duplicate existing processes and could conflict with the Bill’s intent. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to move the amendment and commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Having heard the semi-reassurance of the Minister, I will not move amendment 40.

Written evidence reported to the House