Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2026.

(Morning)

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

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

Clause 25 - Designation of services by Secretary of State

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 227, in clause 26, page 14, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.

Clause 26 stand part.

Amendment 228, in clause 27, page 15, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, Welsh ministers must—

(a) take account of—

(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and

(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and

(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.

Clause 27 stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room.

Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.

The explanatory notes state:

“The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail. This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.”

The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State?

The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding. This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation.

The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight. Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it.

I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest. Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations.

In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales. It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee.

On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227.

Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228. It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland. Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales.

The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on.

Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales. It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Good morning, Mrs Barker, and to everybody—another day in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, which seek to ensure that the designation of passenger services does not negatively impact rail freight or undermine GBR in network capacity planning activity.

I hope it is helpful if I clarify that clauses 25 to 27, which set out designation powers of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers for passenger services, only describe a very high-level mechanism for assigning responsibility for passenger services. For example, the designation helps make clear who is responsible for the service. Further clarity is provided by exemption from designation to show where services have been devolved to other authorities, such as to mayoral strategic authorities or Transport for London. Designation is not a detailed service specification, nor does it determine network access or capacity allocation.

Last week, we published a draft of the Secretary of State’s designation letter to help clarify that, and copies are available in the room today. Ministers’ designation powers do not override or conflict with GBR’s role in determining network access. The access decision process requires GBR to balance passenger and freight needs. The safeguards in the Bill, including the statutory duty to promote rail freight or the ORR’s oversight and appeals body to protect fare freight access are also unaffected by designation. The amendment is therefore impractical and unnecessary and would not achieve its intended purpose in practice.

Protecting rail freight, which I fully endorse, is already enshrined within the Bill. For absolute clarity, I must emphasise that the access clauses in the Bill set out the stages through which network access is determined. It is not determined or affected by designation. The access clauses include producing the infrastructure capacity plan, which will set out GBR’s view of how best to use GBR’s infrastructure to accommodate freight, open access and publicly funded passenger services, as well as maintenance and improvement of the network. GBR will take into account its infrastructure capacity plan when allocating capacity. In comparison, designation is simply the method of determining whether a service should be devolved to, for example, a local authority, or maintained by the Secretary of State and run by GBR. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw the amendment.

Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism by which responsibility for who should run passenger rail services is determined. Clauses 26 and 27 replicate this, but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. The Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services which GBR or others—including Transport Scotland or Transport for Wales—may run for them. Designation powers will also assist in providing clarity about which Minister has responsibility to provide, or contract for, cross-border services. Ministers can also exempt services from these designations, which is the way that services can be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. That was the mechanism used to allow Transport for London to run its devolved service. As I have mentioned, the new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not include route level or timetable detail. Designation is therefore entirely separate from access or timetabling decisions.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

As I intimated previously, I will put the first amendment to a Division and then we will take a view after that.

Clause 28 - Exemption from designation: power of Secretary of State

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 29 and 30 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Clauses 28 and 29 enable the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to exempt certain railway passenger services from designation. Exempting a service means that the Secretary of State or devolved Ministers will not be responsible for that service. Instead, responsibility can be devolved to someone else—for example, a mayoral strategic authority—for them to run or contract out the service. That mechanism preserves the existing approach for devolving services to mayoral strategic authorities and their transport agencies, such as Transport for London or Merseytravel, and for light rail networks such as in Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State cannot exempt Scotland-only or Wales-only services, because those fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Clause 29 allows devolved Governments to determine which services fall outside designation, offering flexibility in managing their respective networks.

These clauses are necessary to ensure that there is still a way to devolve services, where that can bring benefits and is the best outcome for the network. Exemptions must be made by regulations, ensuring that the allocation of responsibility for passenger services is transparent. Clause 30 provides supplementary provisions for exemptions under clauses 28 and 29. It allows exemptions to apply to specific persons, classes of persons, services generally or parts of services. Exemptions may be conditional or time-limited, so that decisions to devolve services can be tailored to the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states:

“All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.”

That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted. It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement.

Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I can start by confirming that existing exemptions from designation will be retained. I hope that provides an assurance to the shadow Minister. The powers could be used to allow devolved Administrations to determine which services fall outside of designations, and therefore give them flexibility in meeting the needs of passengers relying on services that otherwise could fall through the cracks. I hope that, having provided the shadow Minister with that assurance, he can support these clauses.

Clause 31 - Provision of railway passenger services

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert

“by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.”

This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 170 to 172.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023.

Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers.

Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty.

There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.

Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.

Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well.

Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner.

If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry.

Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity.

Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me.

New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services.

We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future.

I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.

Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards.

The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself.

Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The shadow Minister; you are the spokesperson.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Apologies. One recognises one’s status.

We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.

I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.

The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.

Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.

Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.

The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.

Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister’s response demonstrates an extraordinary lack of confidence by the Government in the efficacy of nationalisation—the very thing that they are seeking to promote in the majority of the Bill. All that amendments 41 to 43 would do is give the Secretary of State flexibility by making them able by law, in certain circumstances, to give a contract for passenger services to the private sector. They would not require it; they are not saying that this is a battle between privatisation and nationalisation. The only ideological battle here is by the Government, who are saying that it is impossible to conceive of any circumstance in which a private business might be able to offer better value for money for the taxpayer and a better service for passengers than a nationalised part of GBR. They are so concerned that a private business might be offered that opportunity, because they are overwhelmingly better, that they are seeking to legislate to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Would the shadow Minister follow the logic of his argument as far as to say that the Conservative Government that passed the Railways Act 1993 were ideologically motivated and acted in an ideological manner, given that that Act barred the public sector from taking on franchises?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I was 23 at the time, and I certainly was not following every clause of the 1993 Act as it went through the House—I accept that that shows a shocking lack of dedication to my future career. We can re-argue the battles of the early 1990s or we can seek to learn from the mistakes of the past, if the hon. Gentleman claims that they are mistakes, but let us not repeat them in the opposite direction, which is exactly what the clause is intended to do. If he is right that that was a mistake then, on his own logic, it is equally right that this is a mistake, and I look forward to him supporting me as we vote on amendment 41.

Clause 32 - Contracts awarded under section 31: supplementary

Clause 33 - Fares

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 148, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes the power to give binding directions over fares.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

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

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

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

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

or in other words,

“they are a last resort”.

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.

As the shadow Minister outlined, amendment 148 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage is not overly dissimilar to Conservative amendment 45 in what it tries to achieve, but I will come at it from a slightly different angle. Clause 33, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue binding directions to Great British Railways on the level and structure of fares. We have said many times that the Bill already grants the Secretary of State extensive influence over GBR. Allowing binding directions on fares risks tipping that influence into outright micro-management. It opens the door to the imposition of short-term political decisions, rather than long-term, evidence-based decisions about fares being made by those responsible for actually running the railways. It is a tool that can be misused, particularly in times of fiscal or political pressure.

Even if the current Government assure us that they would not misuse the power, the problem is that once it exists, it exists for all future Governments. I hope the Government will recognise the inherent risk in that and support amendment 148, thereby preventing not only themselves but all future Secretaries of State from being able to abuse the power.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

On the role of the Secretary of State in setting parameters for fares, we have had a lot of debate in the Committee about the need to ensure efficiency on behalf of taxpayers, who are also passengers on the railway. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has the democratic responsibility to do so; therefore, it is right that the power exists to set broad parameters as they relate to fares. However, that process must be undertaken transparently. Parameters will be set through guidance and public service contracts, which will be published and open to scrutiny. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can direct on fares, but not that she will do so regularly. That is important to the point about overreach, and the exceptional circumstances in which direction might be a wise provision to have in the legislation. I will turn to that later.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Can the Minister give a few examples of the exceptional circumstances that might cause the power to be used?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The right hon. Member is far too eager. I shall turn to that in due course.

Amendment 148 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing directions to GBR relating to fares, and amendment 45 would do the same for directions and guidance. I remind hon. Members that, as I said when we debated the directions and guidance clauses earlier in the Bill, the strategic parameters and guardrails that the Secretary of State will set for GBR on fares may not ultimately be delivered through directions and guidance by default.

Clause 33 already allows for provisions on fares parameters and guardrails to be included in public service contracts awarded to GBR for operating passenger services. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances, which may necessitate a swift reappraisal of the strategic approach to fares. That is precisely what the Secretary of State’s directions-making power allows for, supplemented by the ability to issue guidance, to ensure a clear and speedy response if there is a crisis or unexpected change in context.

Amendments 148 and 45 would remove those options for the Secretary of State and, in fact, for Scottish Ministers where GBR is operating services that they designate. The Government strongly believe that that is not in the interests of passengers or taxpayers. I agree with Opposition Members that we do not want Ministers interfering with day-to-day fares policy. GBR will have the freedom to define its fares policy within the parameters and guardrails set out, simplifying fares, removing duplication and, in turn, improving value for money. It will therefore be set up to succeed from the outset. Contrary to what Opposition Members believe, the powers in clause 33 do not undermine that.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I know it has probably been overused already in the Committee, but I keep returning to the NHS England example. The Government set up arm’s length bodies and Ministers are then invariably unable to resist the urge to tinker. The Government devolve responsibility out and then realise that having something completely arm’s length, which they have no control over, is very unattractive when they are politically responsible. What starts off being explained as happening only in exceptional circumstances invariably becomes day to day. The amendments are an attempt to protect against a repeat of the mistake with NHS England, which the Government are now having to unpick.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

The Minister says Great British Railways, not the Department for Transport, will run the railways. He says that is different from the set-up for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Was that not exactly the reason NHS England was set up, albeit not by his Government: to run the NHS so that the Department did not have to? I do not see the conceptual difference here at all; what I do is see the inconsistency in the Government getting rid of NHS England because that model does not work and bringing in GBR in the context of transport.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I remind colleagues that we are not debating NHS England.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

We may have to hash this out in our own time. There is a principle around the replication of functions between organisations. The principle of GBR is that once those decision-making powers are taken out of the Department for Transport—this is the single-mind approach to access decisions, charging and best use of the railway—there is not replication and burdensome inefficiencies in how those functions are designated and actualised by the different organisations. I believe that the difference lies in that point.

To return to my previous remarks, and on the basis of what I have explained, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

I turn now to clause 33. Currently, under the Railways Act 1993, the Secretary of State can manage the overall level of fares and it is critical that there is continued oversight once GBR is established. GBR will set fares for the vast majority of rail passenger services in the UK, but it is important that that happens with appropriate safeguards, as we have discussed. That will help to reassure passengers that their fares will remain affordable, which is a priority for the Government, and to ensure sustainable use of taxpayers’ money on the network.

I do not think any Committee members will disagree that the current fares system is fragmented, outdated and confusing for passengers. Train operators are incentivised to offer a vast array of fares with confusing terms and conditions to maximise revenue, at the cost of customer experience. The system is also blunt and inflexible, with fare increases implied in a blanket manner that exacerbates regional disparities. In addition, the current annual charge process for fares is inefficient for both industry and Government, and can limit targeted opportunities to deliver reforms that more accurately reflect what different groups of passengers want to see.

The clause therefore delivers a new approach to managing overall fare levels. In the future, the Secretary of State will align setting parameters and guardrails on fares with GBR’s financial settlement. That will allow GBR to consider its fares policy strategically over the settlement period and to tailor its approach to different scenarios, reflecting, for example, the distinct characteristics of the commuter and long-distance markets, and all with a relentless focus on the end user.

The new approach will reduce complexity, improve transparency and reset the fares system that is currently failing this country. I therefore commend clause 33 to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am wholly unpersuaded. The Minister did his best, but he cannot hide from the huge disparity between setting up a stand-alone arm’s length business, which is meant to run itself efficiently and with dynamism, and taking away its revenue-driving function. It is ridiculous. We will end up with an organisation that is second-guessed by the Department for Transport. We all say it is the Secretary of State, but of course it is not; it is many hundreds of DFT officials. They will each no doubt do their best as they see it, but they will be second-guessing the role of the industry organisation. That is not a recipe for an effective management structure, and I will push amendment 45 to a Division.

Clause 34 - Discount fare schemes

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 47 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 51, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 52 to 55, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families.

Amendment 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 48, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 53, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 49, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 54, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Amendment 50, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.

Amendment 55, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert

“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled.

The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards.

Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice.

Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue.

Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick.

I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

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

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

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

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Apologies, I will return to that in due course.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

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

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

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

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage for the amendments, which are about discounted travel for members of the UK armed forces, veterans, their families and the police.

On amendments 46 to 55, first and most importantly, the Government fully recognise the enormous contributions made by members of the UK armed forces, UK veterans and their families. I am pleased to confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard, which also covers family members of serving personnel. Those are valuable discounts for people who have sacrificed in the public interest, and the Government are rightly committed to them.

In our view, however, it is not necessary to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill,. The Bill gives continued statutory protection to the discount schemes that are already protected by the Railways Act 1993 to ensure consistency for groups for whom cost has historically been a particular barrier to travel, to ensure that our railway continues to be inclusive and to be consistent with previous Acts. That does not mean that other discount schemes are not at the forefront of our mind and will not continue.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

As I have just mentioned, we want to carry over those schemes to provide consistency for those groups. We are carrying over the role of the discretionary schemes as set out in legislation. We think that consistency is important but, for reasons that I will come to later, we also believe it is important that GBR is able to move in an agile way and think about evolving needs when it comes to concessionary travel. It is important, in terms of legislative carry-over, to ensure that that remains in place.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister says that he wants GBR to remain agile, but does he foresee a situation in which it is agile by removing the veterans railcard? If he says no, as I suspect he will, why does he not put that on the face of the Bill and support our veterans?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

For the reasons I have just outlined. I have already confirmed that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, which include the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard.

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

Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the veterans scheme is incredibly important, that we all agree with it being there, and that there are absolutely no plans to remove it.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Yes, I am very eager to agree with my hon. Friend.

This is a serious point. In my constituency, I see the difficulty that veterans have in attending Selby Abbey to mark the enormous contribution that people in our armed services have made across many conflicts. I would have thought that this is personal to every single member of this Committee, which is why I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Does the Minister agree that there is a comparison with the disabled persons railcard, the criteria for which have been significantly expanded? That change is due to be implemented over the coming months, and that has been possible only because there was not a restrictive statutory definition in primary legislation. Our understanding of disability has changed since the legislation was passed, and we would not want to restrict ourselves unnecessarily for the future.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is absolutely right to note that we want the concessionary schemes to be able to evolve to reflect the needs and lived experiences of those they are designed to help. I will expand on that point in more detail later.

I will make some progress now. We are of the view that minimising the number of listed discounts on the face of the Bill will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements over time, reflecting passenger needs and other objectives. For example, in the future it might be desirable to rationalise the existing concessionary offer for current and former military personnel and their families to ensure consistent terms and conditions between the armed forces and veterans. GBR should be able to consider such options but, if we enshrine the schemes in primary legislation, it will become virtually impossible to amend and improve them.

The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community through travel discounts and other means. For that reason, while I sincerely understand the motivation behind the amendments, the Government do not believe they are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw them.

New clause 51 requires GBR to provide free travel

“to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.”

As I have said, the Government remain committed to all those who serve, and that includes supporting their attendance at events commemorating Remembrance Sunday. Last year, as in previous years, the Government worked closely with the rail industry to ensure that serving members of the armed forces and veterans were eligible for free travel to and from services of remembrance across the country. Likewise, Poppy Day volunteers and collectors—and their children—travelling to the London Poppy Day events were given complimentary travel to support their fundraising efforts on behalf of the Royal British Legion.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

While I do not anticipate provision around the specific instance the hon. Lady described—for example the poppy train being frozen into the licence of GBR—I do expect that GBR will be minded and motivated to continue to ensure that members of the armed forces community, veterans and their families can attend Remembrance Sunday services across the country. In our view, concessionary travel more broadly will improve the ability to do that. It will allow GBR to set provisions in an agile manner through an evolving concessionary fares scheme, rather than freezing them as part of the Bill—and, moreover, to set provisions that are not already locked into legislation and do not therefore need to be carried over, in the interest of consistency for the groups that they affect.

Turning back to my remarks on Poppy Day volunteers travelling to events with their children, I do look forward to that policy continuing in the years to come, although precise arrangements for how that will work will be confirmed closer to the time. All that being the case, we do not see the need for legislative amendments. These are things that the Government and rail industry already strongly support and have been providing for many years. A regulatory framework would only complicate delivery, which is more effectively facilitated at the operational level, so, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of new clause 51, I urged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw it.

New clause 59 requires GBR to provide a scheme enabling free rail travel for police officers and police community support officers who are in full uniform or who are travelling for operational purposes. The Government gratefully acknowledge the service of police officers across the country and all that they do to keep us safe. The speed, skill and professionalism of the response by British Transport police and other brave first responders to the horrific train attack in Huntingdon last year is just one example of how police officers and all our emergency services save lives every day across our country.

While I understand the intention of the new clause in supporting that vital work, the Bill is not the correct place to set out the requirements for such a scheme. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage knows, any new staff travel scheme should be the product of negotiations between the relevant organisations. To prescribe a scheme in primary legislation sidelines that process and risks the creation of a scheme that is not fit for purpose, as well as unfunded financial impacts to the railway. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of the new clause, the Bill is not the appropriate avenue to establish such a scheme, and I urge the hon. Member not to move it.

Clause 34 ensures that GBR will be able to provide discount schemes, such as those offered today as railcards. First, the clause continues the 1993 Act’s statutory protection for young, senior and disabled passenger discounts. Prices are historically more likely to be a barrier to these groups’ accessing rail travel, and they are covered by the protected characteristics of age and disability. Maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation supports equal access to employment, education and essential services. It is worth noting that, while other concessionary discounts are not included in the Bill, the Government recognise that they too are important, and there are no plans to withdraw any of the discounted schemes currently being offered.

Nevertheless, the clause also gives GBR the flexibility required to simplify and modernise discount schemes across the network, and to evolve the offer where that is considered desirable to meet passenger needs in the future. Finally, the clause ensures that devolved operators will still be required to offer the core statutory discounts, and that they will have flexibility over whether to participate in the GBR scheme or to create their own.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

It is extraordinary that the Government say, on the one hand, that age and disability need to be included in primary legislation, but on the other hand that it is totally unnecessary to have the same security for veterans. We on the Conservative side of the House do not accept that logic and we will be pushing amendments 46 to 55, individually, to votes.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 57 to 60, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people aged 26-30.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 58, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 59, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Amendment 60, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

This should be a short debate, since amendments 56 to 60 serve a single function: to defend the long-term provision of discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds. Although clause 34 refers to discounts for the young, there is potential for the definition to exclude discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds—and that is young to me, at least. Amendments 56 to 60 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people in this age group. Given the Government’s willingness to identify some characteristics as worthy of discounts in primary legislation—the young, elderly or disabled—what is the principled objection to including other, equally worthy groups? I will press the amendment to a Division.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments, which would place a statutory duty on GBR and on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to ensure that discounted rail fare schemes are available for persons aged 26 to 30—I do not know whether I should declare an interest, as a holder of one of those railcards.

The Government have stated that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the 26-30 railcard, but we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to list specific age ranges in the Bill in the way proposed. Listing specific age ranges would be unnecessarily inflexible. The Government are absolutely committed to retaining discount schemes for younger people; however, much of the current discount system is fragmented due to its origin in the franchising system, so GBR may want to rationalise the existing range of discount schemes currently targeting younger people to simplify duplicative and overlapping offers and age ranges between 16 and 30, for example, as part of introducing a modernised, more consistent offer for passengers.

Given that Acts of Parliament are drafted to last a generation or more, placing specific age ranges in the Bill would likely remove those opportunities and potentially limit opportunities for young people. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister says that he wishes to have flexibility. The whole point is that we are trying to remove flexibility, so that GBR cannot take away discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds in the future. The Minister’s argument actually increases my concern that that is a realistic prospect in the Government’s mind, and I feel even more strongly that we should divide in order to ensure that discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds are protected in the long term.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 62, in clause 34, page 19, line 10, leave out “lower fare” and insert

“fare that is one third lower”.

This amendment would ensure that discounted fares remain at one third off the price of a standard fare.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

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

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

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

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

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

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

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

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do.

On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense.

I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport.

Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Is the hon. Member aware that, although not in a domestic context, there have in the past been schemes in which, instead of air miles, points or miles have been available—for example, with Eurostar—and they were extremely popular?

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.

It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

It was Plymouth gin!

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Well, there we are.

Let me start by responding to what the shadow Minister described as a probing amendment. He asked me to set out a little more detail on how we envisage the use of conditions on discounts, and I want to reflect the intent that he described. We want to ensure that eligibility for concessionary schemes and discounts is kept up to date, is reflective and is rationalised where necessary. A good example could be changing terms and conditions to change the eligibility criteria for the disabled railcard to include non-visible disabilities, which we have committed to in the accessibility road map. The intent to make sure that discounts are reflective of the lived experience of those who rely on them very much lies behind the provisions.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 61, which would seek to remove GBR’s ability to set conditions on the use of discounted fare schemes. As drafted, the legislation will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements, if necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and passenger needs. More generally, it is worth noting again that the future framework on fares introduces clear and enforceable mechanisms that can be used to hold GBR to account, to ensure it delivers value for passengers and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers. Under this model, the Secretary of State will set parameters and guardrails aligned to GBR’s financial settlements. We believe that strikes an effective balance between strategic oversight and operational independence.

Conversely, the removal of clause 34(3), as proposed by amendment 61, could over-constrain GBR’s ability to keep discount schemes effective and relevant over time. It could, for example, leave GBR less equipped to ensure that eligibility criteria, and the ways the schemes can be accessed, work for passengers. For that reason, I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

The shadow Minister had an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that caused him to reassess some of amendment 62’s provisions, which I will not dwell on. Clause 34 gives GBR autonomy to design and adjust discounted fare schemes over time, to reflect changing passenger needs, affordability and wider policy objectives. Amendment 62 would not allow that flexibility, but the debate has, to a large extent, already happened.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 13, which would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within 12 months of the Bill being passed, a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty schemes for rail passengers. The report specified in the new clause would focus on customer loyalty schemes, but GBR will be charged to deliver a total overhaul of the outdated and complex fares system that passengers suffer today.

Customer loyalty schemes are just one consideration in the wider fares, ticketing and retail reform agenda. GBR must be genuinely empowered to lead the modernisation of fares and ticketing, within the strategic parameters and guardrails set by the Secretary of State. The consideration of the nature and merits of any future customer loyalty scheme should therefore be for GBR to lead. In seeking to steer the reforms and initiatives that GBR should consider, the new clause risks predetermining its outcomes and setting it up for failure from the outset.

To achieve the benefits of establishing an expert body to run the railways, we are reliant on allowing it to have the scope to do so. The benefits will not be achieved by constraining GBR’s ability to consider the railway holistically or by developing ad hoc policy via amendments. But the points made by Opposition Members provide a lot of food for thought—or a lot of gin for thought, I suppose. I urge Members to withdraw their amendments.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

As I intimated, I am happy to withdraw amendment 61, which is more of a probing amendment, and I will not move amendment 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)

We now come to amendments 47 to 50 and 52 to 55. Divisions are granted at the discretion of the Chair. Although I understand the importance to the hon. Gentleman of the principle of the amendments, the Committee has already made a decision on the principles, so I am not inclined to allow further Divisions.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

In the normal course of events I would not seek to have repeated amendments on variations of a theme. However, this matter is politically salient because it deals with a live political issue between the parties on discounted fares, and whether the Government support veterans and veterans’ families. Each amendment deals with a separate part of the veteran community and also with veterans’ families. It is important that we hear the Government’s view through Divisions on every single one, so I ask you to reconsider your determination, Ms Barker, because of the political salience of the individual Divisions. I am sure you will have noticed that in other areas I have been co-operative, and that I do not cause Divisions just for the sake of it, but I ask you to allow Divisions on this occasion.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hear the Committee made very good progress this morning. I am sure you will share my ambition to get through part 2 this afternoon, but that will depend very much on how much progress we make. The official stop is 5 pm but if we have to go over, we have to go over. I also intend to have a comfort break at a convenient point.

Clause 35 - Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 2

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It is a pleasure to serve yet again under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 35 provides definitions for key terms used in chapter 1 of part 2, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpretation. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I agree.

Clause 36 - General duties of the Council

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, after “of” insert

“all users, and potential users of the railways, including”.

This amendment ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 64, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, leave out

“make efficient use of those funds”

and insert

“ensure value for money through a cost benefit analysis.”

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to consider value for money, rather than efficient use of public funds.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for agreeing to chair this afternoon’s deliberations.

Here we are at clause 36, on the general duties of the passengers’ council. The clause requires the passengers’ council to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons when it exercises its rail functions. It also places a duty on the council to consider costs and the efficient use of public funds when it exercises its functions. That updates the council’s duty on value for money, which we can see in section 76(7) of the Railways Act 1993, and is consistent with the duty the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways will have if clause 18(2)(f) makes it into the final Act.

Clause 36(a), however, is silent on the general travelling public; it only mentions having particular regard to disabled persons. It seems like an odd omission for a provision on a passengers’ council to not mention passengers in the round. For the rest of the public, the council only has to

“keep under review matters affecting the interests of the public”,

under clause 37(1)(a).

The current drafting risks the creation, inadvertent I am sure, of a skewed body, directed to focus on disabled passengers and silent on the rest. I know that would not be the intention of the Ministry or anybody else in this Committee, but that is what the draft text would require of the council under its statutory obligations. It sits uneasily alongside clause 18(2)(a) on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR, which we all remember, and which frames disabled people within a wider body of all users, stating that it is to

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

Why is different language being used? There is a difference, within the same draft text, between clause 18 and clause 36. The effect is to leave the passengers’ council operating statutorily on a narrower basis than GBR. The Minister will need to explain the intention behind that, because I do not believe it is intentional. If it is, he needs to explain why he wishes to constrain artificially the application of the passengers’ council to an area which is less wide than that covered by GBR, which it is meant to be monitoring.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

I do not wish to interrupt the shadow Minister mid-flow, but I hope the Government will take on board his amendments and new clause. If they do not, perhaps they might like to amend the name of the passengers’ council to the “disabled passengers’ council”, because, in effect, that is the work it will be doing, so why not name it appropriately?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, although unfortunately he did interrupt my flow—though it was very kind of him to say that he did not want to in the process. He is quite right. Although I obviously love chucking half-bricks at the Government, I do not believe for a moment that there is a serious intention on the part of the Department for Transport to skew the passengers’ council in the way that the drafting currently requires. I am highlighting the provision in the best interests of improving the drafting of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will find a reason not to agree with me in a few minutes’ time, but I hope that he, or his officials, will go away and have a quiet look at it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Subsection (b) provides only a duty to “take into account” the costs of recommendations. Surely, as legislators, we want the organisation to balance the public benefits against the likely costs—a cost-benefit analysis, essentially—and not just to consider costs to be met from public funds, because this also involves farebox income. Amendment 63 therefore

“ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway”,

preventing a skewed council with competing interests, borrowing the language used by the Government in clause 18.

Amendment 64 would require the passengers’ council to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis, rather than merely the “efficient use” of public funds, which is only half of the issue. There is a key difference here: value for money focuses on achieving the best balance of cost, quality and outcomes, whereas the good use of public funds also requires spending to be transparent, fair and aligned with the public interest and wider policy objectives. That makes this amendment important in achieving the lowest possible cost for the taxpayer.

New clause 7 would give the passengers’ council a statutory purpose to champion the interests of all railway users and potential users of the railway. The passengers’ council would advocate for the reliability of passenger services, for safety and security, and for passengers’ comfort and on-board experience, which we have discussed a number of times. It would also advocate for affordability and value for money, passenger growth and network expansion. It is important to have a clear set of directions for this new passengers’ council at its inception, and the new clause would help to provide that.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

As ever, Mrs Hobhouse, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will speak primarily to amendment 63, as articulated, typically eloquently, by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister.

We have heard some extremely powerful interventions during the course of this Committee, particularly from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about the importance of ensuring that the system—if I can call it that—genuinely recognises and is responsive to the needs of those who are disabled, have mobility issues, or face a whole range of things. He has made that case very powerfully, and I can understand what the Minister is seeking to do.

I suspect—although I do not wish to put words in his mouth—that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary because it is inherent in the purposes of a passengers’ council that, of course, all passengers will be considered, and that the amendment simply draws out a particular aspect that must be highlighted. I can understand that. If that is the case, the Minister could accept this amendment without any adverse effects, and without any challenges to the drafting of the Bill or the integrity of what he is seeking to do with the clause, because the amendment emphasises that responsibility but does not lose sight of the particular needs of disabled people and others in the operation of the railway—I am sure the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford would make a point about the importance of that.

Looking at the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, very little—if anything—would undermine the integrity or policy intent of what the Minister is seeking to achieve with the clause. It would simply draw it out and make it much clearer, and remind the passengers’ council, in explicit terms in the legislation, of what it is there to do. I hope that the Minister, in recognising the intent behind it, can move some way to meet my hon. Friend and I by potentially accepting the amendment, or at least, if he is not able to do so today, by committing to take it away and consider whether he might accept it at a later stage.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

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

I hear what was said about amendment 63, and I will wait to hear what the Minister says. I have sat on a passenger watchdog, although not this one, and worked in that role alongside Passenger Focus, as it was back then—it is now Transport Focus. I served as a member of the board of London TravelWatch, which is referred to as the London Transport Users Committee in the legislation, for four years, although that was a long time ago now. Many of the provisions we will see in later clauses are inherent in the aims and work of such organisations. Investigations, reports, representations and referrals come to the attention of the organisation from all passengers.

The amendment is not necessary. I did this work as a member of a board for four years, and chaired many meetings of sub-committees looking at some of that work, and, in the work of a watchdog, these issues are there, they are referred to the organisation and they are in the reports that are presented on behalf of all passengers.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The hon. Gentleman notes that clause 36 is about the general duties of the council. It sets out what the passengers’ council is for and those general duties. Does he not think that it is odd that the clause does not refer to passengers, other than one subclass of passengers? Would it not be better for the general duties of the passengers’ council to refer to all passengers?

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clauses in the group, he will see that there are significant issues that the passengers’ council needs to take into account for all passengers, which come to the door and—as I know, having sat on a watchdog for four years—come in the form of casework and meetings. I am sure that I will talk later about why nationalisation, and having trains, signals and rolling stock under one operator, is much better for a passengers’ council, but those issues come to the organisation’s attention anyway.

I fully support the need to look at the issues for disabled passengers who come to the council’s door, and I will hear what the Minister has to say, but I believe that how things are investigated and brought to the organisation’s attention are set out in the legislation, just as they are, in many regards, for Transport Focus and for the London Transport Users Committee. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, but also right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee for their contributions on this important point.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is correct that I intend to argue that the passenger watchdog will focus inherently on the needs of passengers. I believe that that is self-actualising, to an extent, in creating one in the first place. But he is also right to push me further on specific provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made some really important points, first about the fact that the duties and responsibilities inherent to the passenger watchdog demonstrate how it will serve the interests of passengers. Having an independent monitoring power for the passenger experience, investigation powers, enforcing minimum consumer standards—this is inherent to representing passengers on the railway.

I also think, on a point that the shadow Minister did not raise directly, but which is contingent on the accessibility drafting’s being so clear within the creation of the passenger watchdog, that we want the passenger watchdog to have regard to those powers specifically in relation to people with disabilities, so that they can be championed by GBR and throughout our railway. That is really the core of the argument that I will make on amendment 64.

To begin with amendment 63, though, this attempts to ensure that the passenger watchdog has regard to all users and potential users of the railway. I can reassure the shadow Minister that the amendment is not necessary, as the watchdog will consider the needs of all users by virtue of being a passenger champion—it is being set up with the sole focus of delivering for passengers. The amendment would in fact dilute the intention of the specific accessibility duty, which I note has been welcomed by passenger groups representing disabled passengers.

The accessibility duty in clause 36 will ensure that the passenger watchdog will consider specifically the needs and interests of disabled passengers when carrying out its functions. Its aim is to ensure that the watchdog pays specific attention to underrepresented passenger groups, so that it can fairly represent all passengers. The Bill also gives the watchdog a statutory duty to keep all passenger matters under review, so looking after passengers is already central and inherent to its role.

New clause 7 seeks to put a purpose for the passenger watchdog into the Bill. In order to set up the new passenger watchdog as quickly as possible we are building it from the existing passenger watchdog Transport Focus—which has the legal name the Passengers’ Council and was established via the Railways Act 2005 as a multi-modal passenger watchdog. As well as rail, it will continue to cover bus, coach and tram passengers and some road users. Therefore, although I recognise the intent of the amendment, I do not think it is appropriate as it focuses on the purposes of the passengers’ council as they pertain to rail, when it has statutory functions for other modes. In addition, by setting out the areas of passenger interest the council will cover, it could have the unintended consequence of limiting those in the future.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister has come up with an ingenious argument, but if he takes the trouble of actually reading the opening sentence of clause 36, he will find that it says, under “General duties”:

“When exercising its functions relating to railways and railway services”—

So, arguments about buses and other modes of transport are clearly outside the scope of this clause, are they not?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

But they are not outside the scope of the passenger watchdog as a whole. We would not want to be prescriptive in one place, only for us not to be able to make the passenger watchdog agile and adaptive in dealing with the needs of other modes. There could be unforeseen issues in which the passenger watchdog will need to represent passengers, or new developments, for instance those arising from new technology, where we would want the council to be able to advocate for passengers in the future.

The Bill already gives the council a purpose: via a combination of the functions and duties set out in the Bill and the Railways Act 2005, the council’s purpose and railways functions are set out sufficiently and are rightly broad.

Amendment 64 replaces the passenger watchdog’s duty to make efficient use of funds with a duty to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis. The revised duty being suggested by the shadow Minister and the duty in the Bill are to all intents and purposes the same. The watchdog will need to conduct some form of analysis to ensure it is making efficient use of funds when deciding which issues to investigate. Therefore, the amendment is duplicative and in my view unnecessary. With all this in mind, I urge the shadow Minister not to press these amendments.

Clause 36 places two general duties on the watchdog, which it must consider when carrying out its rail functions. The first is a duty to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, which is designed to ensure that the watchdog will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled passengers. The second is a duty to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds when it exercises its rail functions, which will ensure that the watchdog takes the overall cost of the railway into account when carrying out its functions—for example, when advising GBR or the Government. This will ensure that its recommendations are realistic and actionable, and therefore carry more weight in the industry. These duties will enable the watchdog to be an effective passenger champion, with the needs of disabled people at the heart of its priorities.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

You will not be totally amazed to learn, Mrs Hobhouse, that I am not persuaded by the position that the Minister has taken. The obfuscation, chucking in other modes of transport when that is clearly excluded by the wording of the clause, does not persuade me and I wish to press both amendments to a vote.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, at end insert—

“(2) The Passengers’ Council must make arrangements for rail passenger groups to be members of a board, committee or panel of the Council.”

This amendment, along with Amendment 209, guarantees representation for passenger groups on the Passengers’ Council.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 209, in clause 37, page 20, line 4, leave out

“so far as it appears expedient”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 208.

Amendment 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.

Amendment 235, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert —

“(3) The Passengers’ Council must, at least once every twelve months, assess the levels of satisfaction of users of public passenger railway services and report their finding in a manner which enables Great British Railways to fulfil its functions under section 3.”

This amendment would require the Passengers Council to assess levels of public passenger railway services’ satisfaction and report these in a manner which enables GBR to fulfil its functions.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I will speak in support of amendments 208 and 209, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 208 would guarantee representation for rail passenger groups within the passengers’ council. In West Dorset, we are fortunate to have active and committed groups such as the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group and the west Dorset western area transport action group—they do have snappier acronyms. These organisations bring together passengers, MPs, councils and local communities to push for better services, improved stations, more resilient timetables and new trains. They lobby operators, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and others. They understand in detail what is working and what could be done better. Groups like these exist all over the country and their expertise and insight should be embedded in the passenger watchdog from the start.

Amendment 209 would strengthen that further by removing the vague caveat that representation should be included only

“so far as it appears expedient”.

The Bill promises a powerful new passenger champion that sets standards, investigates poor performance, and holds operators and GBR to account. We envisage that amendments 208 and 209 would do exactly that. I hope the Government will see the logic of supporting them.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling these amendments, and the hon. Member for West Dorset for speaking to them. They seek to make changes to the governance and obligations of the passenger watchdog.

I will turn to amendments 208 and 209, which seek to ensure that rail passenger groups are represented within the passenger watchdog. The passengers’ council currently operates under the name Transport Focus and is led by a board of non-executive directors, including members for Scotland, Wales and London. These are statutory appointments as defined in the Railways Act 2005, and we are not amending those arrangements via the Bill.

Although we are not mandating specific representation of rail passenger groups on the board, the watchdog is a body that represents passengers, just like other rail passenger groups, and will directly engage with them. As mentioned, to ensure that happens, the Bill already requires that the watchdog must consult anyone who it thinks is appropriate and co-operate with other bodies representing the interests of passengers, including other rail passenger groups.

Amendment 209 seeks to delete the words

“so far as it appears expedient”

from the watchdog’s requirement to keep matters under review. Although the watchdog will be a powerful champion and will have resources to reflect that, we must ensure that it can focus its time and resources on the matters that have the most impact on passengers and prioritise its work as it sees appropriate. Without that caveat, it would be required to keep all matters affecting passengers under review, no matter how minor or trivial, which is not a reasonable duty to place on the watchdog.

Amendment 65 would set a deadline of one month for the Secretary of State and GBR to respond to any representations made by the passenger watchdog under clause 37. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that it is important for representations from the watchdog to be responded to efficiently, but more complex issues raised by it need careful consideration. Setting a uniform deadline could have the effect of rushing that consideration, which might not lead to the best outcomes for passengers. In fact, allowing more time to consider representations would increase the chances of actions being taken that might require a commitment of funding, so I do not think that such a deadline necessarily serves passengers. Additionally, having a duty to respond within a time period in the Bill that would be enforceable only through the courts could result in issues taking much longer to resolve. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.

Finally, amendment 235 would require the passenger watchdog to assess and report on passenger satisfaction at least once a year. Assessing passenger satisfaction is currently a well-established practice of the passengers’ council, which operates under the name Transport Focus, and that will not change with its transition into the new passenger watchdog. Transport Focus has a long record of collecting passenger feedback in the form of its rail user survey.

In addition, a new rail customer experience survey has recently been introduced. This is an industry-wide survey of customers’ experiences. It provides a crucial insight into rail customers’ experience, supporting the industry to achieve a better understanding of where it does well, where improvement is needed and what elements of the journey matter most to passengers. New survey data is provided every four weeks and the passenger watchdog will have access to the raw survey data to enable it to carry out its own independent analysis of the results.

The watchdog will publish its own analysis on a regular basis, as Transport Focus does currently, in the form of rail operator scorecards—including a GBR scorecard—that will be found on their websites and that will demonstrate to passengers which operators are performing well on passenger matters and which are not. Given Transport Focus’ long-established role in assessing rail passenger satisfaction, and the introduction of the new rail customer experience survey, I believe continuous monitoring of passenger experience is well established without this amendment. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We are now slightly out of sync because the Minister has responded before the shadow Minister could make the case. I remind Members to bob after I put the question, even if the amendment itself is not mentioned when I put the question. I know it is slightly difficult. I will call the shadow Minister, then the Minister will respond very briefly.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I would not want to prevent the Minister from agreeing with me at some length. We have a slightly odd grouping here, because amendments 208 and 209 would amend clause 36, but the other amendments in the group would amend clause 37—perhaps that is where we have gone wrong.

I will not really speak on amendments 208 and 209, because the Liberal Democrats spokesman has indicated that he will not push them to a vote. In so far as they guarantee representation for passenger groups on the passengers’ council, we support the direction of travel, but as they are not progressing further, I will not say more.

Clause 37 deals with keeping matters under review and collecting information. The Minister has already set out a précis of what the clause—

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but you should be talking to amendments you have tabled, amendment 235 and new clause 22, but not clause 37 itself.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I understand where you are coming from, Mrs Hobhouse. The problem is that the amendments relate to clause 37, not clause 36, so it is inevitable that I have to describe the clause. I am not speaking to the clause, but explaining how my amendment fits within it.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I understand.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am not going to repeat what the clause does, but it establishes only a passive role. The council must “keep under review” and “make representations”, but it has no proactive duty to investigate or intervene. That is quite a big omission, and it contrasts with what the Minister said in answer to written parliamentary question 76652. The Minister gave an assurance that the new watchdog will deliver clear and robust oversight, but the co-operation duty is narrowly drawn, excluding wider consumer and accessibility organisations.

As drafted, the council lacks a clear purpose—in fact, it does not even have a purpose clause—and the practical tools needed to act as the strengthened passenger watchdog the Government have promised. Without a purpose clause, there is no direction as to what the council should be making representations about. Even the title of clause 37 is anodyne: “Keeping matters under review and collecting information” is hardly a strong description of a watchman for the interests of the passenger. Having kept matters “under review”, its only power is to “make representations”, which of course is meaningless.

The Urban Transport Group expressed similar concerns in its written evidence to the Transport Committee:

“The Bill must ensure that the Passengers Council exercise their powers in relation to GBR as they would any other operator and that these hold weight. It is not enough for GBR to only be held meaningfully to account by the Secretary of State, who has varying responsibilities outside of rail, and who may not have the time to investigate instances of poor performance to the relevant level of scrutiny.

Further consideration should be given to the explicit powers and levers the Passengers’ Council will have”—

they are going to split the infinitive—

“to meaningfully hold GBR to account on behalf of users.”

There is a risk that the passengers’ council will be just a busy talking shop, with no ability to effect change. As drafted, it rather feels like an afterthought. For example, there are no enforcement powers, save for referral to the Office of Rail and Road. Under clause 37(1), the council will have the authority to

“make representations to…such persons as they think appropriate”

on

“matters affecting the interests of the public”.

In reality, that will mainly be to the Secretary of State and GBR, but there is no corresponding duty for either the Secretary of State or GBR to respond in any way to those representations. Consider that for a moment: there is a duty to make representations, and no duty to respond at all. It could not be more toothless if it tried.

Amendment 65, in my name, would go a modest way to rectifying the toothlessness of this representative body. It would simply require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the passengers’ council makes under this clause. Surely members of this Committee and the Government would agree that that is a reasonable expectation for the passengers’ council and the passengers it represents.

Amendment 235, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the passengers’ council to assess levels of satisfaction with public passenger railway services and report these in a manner that enables GBR to fulfil its functions. Any amendment, and this is one of them, that ensures greater transparency and therefore a better service from this organisation—

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

If the shadow Minister is talking about 235, that is one that he tabled, not me.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

No wonder I agree with it so strongly. I put “LD” by it, but that is being unduly generous to the Liberal Democrats. It is an excellent amendment. As I was concluding, it would ensure greater transparency and, therefore, a better service from this organisation, so I have no hesitation in supporting amendment 235 and I hope that the Liberal Democrats join me in doing so.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The Committee will be glad to hear that I do not intend to re-rehearse the argument that I pre-emptively set out in response to the amendments. On the broader point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham about the passenger watchdog and its capabilities, I am of the view that having independent monitoring powers for the passenger experience, having investigation powers, having the ability to demand information by a deadline, enforcing an independent dispute resolution service, and making sure that minimum consumer standards are protected with the ability to escalate to the ORR for enforcement is a suite of measures that will allow the watchdog to fully account for the passenger experience. That relates both to this clause and ones that I am sure we will arrive at in short order. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 37 - Keeping matters under review and collecting information

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 38 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I am pleased to speak to clauses 37 and 38 relating to the passenger watchdog’s duty to keep matters under review and its power to collect information. Clause 37 ensures that the passenger watchdog proactively monitors any matters affecting passengers, whether they relate to passenger services or stations. It also requires the watchdog to consult relevant people and to co-operate with other bodies that represent passengers, such as London TravelWatch. Clause 37 also gives the watchdog the power to collect information so it can effectively monitor the passenger experience.

The clause will ensure that the watchdog is proactive and has a good overview of any emerging issues that may impact passengers. It will also ensure that the watchdog engages and co-operates with relevant bodies and seeks information to effectively address potential issues with the passenger experience. I hope hon. Members will agree that that power is fundamental to the effectiveness of the watchdog as a passenger champion.

Finally, clause 38 will enable the passenger watchdog to enter into agreements with other public bodies so that, if necessary, they can perform the functions under clause 37 instead of the watchdog itself. The Secretary of State’s consent is required before entering into agreements under the clause. The clause replicates section 76A of the Railways Act 1993, which we wish to retain for cases where another body could keep certain passenger matters under review more effectively than the watchdog. That could, for example, happen in a certain geographical area where there is an effective devolved body with specialised local knowledge. The clause supports the watchdog to operate as an effective passenger champion by ensuring that it can flexibly co-operate with local bodies to the overall benefit of passengers.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am not going to reheat the discussions that we have already enjoyed on clause 37, and clause 38 simply replicates the 1993 Act. We are happy for the clauses to proceed without amendment.

Clause 39 - Investigations

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 39, page 21, line 19, at end insert—

“(1A) The Passengers’ Council must not investigate a matter unless the matter has been considered first by Great British Railways and is subject to an appeal for further consideration.”

This amendment makes Great British Railways the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the Passenger Standards Council the appellant body should the complainant not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

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

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I can be very concise, Mrs Hobhouse. We consider the provisions on the passengers’ council to be among the stronger components of the Bill. Some sound thinking is involved.

Amendment 142 is a very basic amendment that aims simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. All it would do is ensure that when a complaint is submitted, the first stage is for GBR to look at it. It will be a GBR issue, because GBR is going to run everything. If the appellant body is not satisfied with the response from GBR, the complaint can by all means go to the passengers’ council for investigation.

If the complaint goes first to the passengers’ council, what will happen in pretty much every case is that the council will have to go to GBR to find out the facts. How else will it know them? I hope that the amendment is uncontentious, but if the Minister does not agree I am sure he will give a typically eloquent explanation.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The clause sets out the circumstances in which the passengers’ council must—that is “must”, not “may”—investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. I could provide a long description of the clause, but I will leave that to the Minister, who I know will want to explain it to the Committee.

Essentially, the Bill largely lifts the current framework into the GBR model, so I can see why no amendment would be needed, although Ministers should clarify how the national and London watchdogs will co-ordinate on cross-boundary issues. I will be grateful for an explanation of how the Minister will undertake the balancing act between GBR and the London Transport Users Committee.

There is, however, a big issue with the current wording of the clause. It requires the council actively to

“investigate any matter relating to the provision of railway passenger services”

put to it by members of the public, as well as others. That sounds great, but from a practical perspective, there are 1.75 billion passenger journeys each year. The potential issues with the service that passengers receive will run into the tens of thousands every year, yet the drafting of the clause will impose a legal duty on the passengers’ council to investigate every single one of them, unless they are “frivolous or vexatious”.

“Frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms. To demonstrate that something is vexatious is a very high bar for the passengers’ council: it would typically have to provide evidence of multiple previous complaints on a similar subject that came to nothing. That is what “vexatious” means, and “frivolous” is not far off it. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, is creating an enormous a legal duty and a vast workstream for the host organisation that is becoming the passengers’ council, which has fewer than 30 members of staff.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I wonder whether the shadow Minister’s line of argument actually supports the Liberal Democrat amendment. The vast majority of those claims could be resolved by GBR via a repayment or penalty, without ever getting to the passengers’ council in the first place.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a sequence of complaint. Before going to an external body, one would typically be expected to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the organisation against which one is complaining. It would be perfectly reasonable for the passenger watchdog’s first questions to be, “Have you complained to GBR? If so, what did it say?” In fact, that might be its working definition of frivolousness: going straight to the watchdog without having made a complaint.

I warn the Minister that the current wording is an open chequebook. It could lead to a huge amount of work for an organisation that is not currently set up to deal with it, and which would require significant funds from somewhere to do so. What assessment of demand has been undertaken for council investigation powers? What budget has been earmarked for the huge increase in workload? Transport Focus, the host organisation, currently has fewer than 30 staff—I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but when I visited there were something like 22 staff. To what size does the Minister anticipate expanding Transport Focus or the new passenger watchdog?

Amendment 142 would make GBR the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the passenger standards council as the appellant body should the complaint not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways. I doubt whether it needs an amendment to primary legislation, but it would be the right sequence for any complainant to exhaust the in-house complaints procedure first. Does the Minister not mean the passengers’ council to have the authority to pick and choose its investigations? If he does not, he should stick with the current wording; if he does, he should think again.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The shadow Minister asked about the interaction between Transport Focus and London TravelWatch in instances in which cross-border services might need active deliberation between the two organisations. They currently operate under a memorandum of understanding, and I understand that they are planning to update it when the Bill becomes more mature, which will allow them to develop a consistent framework for dealing with cross-border issues. Where a case is under investigation and is fully within the London railway area, it falls within the remit of London TravelWatch: rightly, the passenger watchdog must refer the case to London TravelWatch as the independent expert on travel in the London area.

The shadow Minister also asked some operational questions about the passenger watchdog’s budgetary planning and the size of its staff. Those matters will be actively developed later in the process, once we have set the legislative foundation for the organisation to be created.

The shadow Minister made a fair point about the principle of investigation, but intensive investigations are one thing, and the ability to have regard to complaints that are not vexatious is quite another.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That is all very well, but it is not the wording of the Bill. The text does not say “have regard to”; it is a mandatory requirement to investigate every single allegation. I totally understand where the Minister says he is coming from, but unfortunately his Bill does not agree with him.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

My point is that the shadow Minister’s interpretation of the term “investigation” might diverge slightly from mine in respect of what we expect the passenger watchdog to do in relation to each individual complaint that it may receive, and especially to those that are vexatious or frivolous.

On the broader point, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would require the passenger watchdog to wait until GBR has considered an issue before investigating it itself. He is right to point out that individual passenger complaints should go to operators, including GBR, in the first instance. If the passenger is unable to get a satisfactory resolution to their complaint, they can raise the issue with the watchdog through the service provided by the rail ombudsman for independent dispute resolution. As the amendment suggests, that is a very sensible process.

However, there are times when the watchdog will need to investigate issues before or instead of operators. For example, if an issue falls outside the scope of the ombudsman service, or if the issue is systemic and persistent and cannot be appropriately dealt with by a single operator, the watchdog may decide to open its own investigation.

We expect the watchdog to actively investigate a wide range of issues beyond individual passenger complaints and GBR services. They could include systemic or cross-industry issues in the provision of passenger assistance, such as the issues that we have unfortunately seen on the railway in the past, or persistent issues with punctuality, open access or devolved services. The amendment is therefore not appropriate, as it would unnecessarily restrict the watchdog’s ability to act freely on behalf of the passenger. I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I recognise that the Minister has his line to take and that there will be lots of angry people sitting behind him at tea time if he makes any concessions. However, a simple amendment to the wording of the mandatory requirement in clause 39(1), paragraphs (a) to (e), would give the passenger watchdog the ability to pick and choose. Changing “or” to “and” at the end of paragraph (d), before

“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate”,

would surely provide the flexibility that everyone probably thinks is necessary.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will happily let the shadow Minister intervene again, because I would like to seek clarity on how inserting “and” would allow the watchdog to choose whether it has to investigate something in the first instance.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

In the wording of clause 39(1), at the moment paragraphs (a) to (e) are additional. If the “or” in

“or…it appears to the Council”

at the end of paragraph (d) were replaced with “and”, there would be a two-part test. The council would receive complaints from all the kinds of people in paragraphs (a) to (d), and the second part of the test would be that

“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate.”

That would give agency to the council to monitor and choose the most important things for it to investigate.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I see.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I remind the Minister that this is not part of the amendment that has been proposed. Could he therefore wind up? The shadow Minister is welcome to table a new amendment, but his proposal is not relevant to this afternoon’s discussion.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I was just trying to be helpful.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. Perhaps, in slower time, he can walk me through each specific provision and we can come to a determination as to the intent that he outlined, but for the moment—at your discretion, Mrs Hobhouse—I will proceed with the matter at hand.

I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate. The watchdog will already be working closely with GBR to ensure that GBR can respond to its own passenger issues effectively and according to best practice and will not duplicate investigations unless it is necessary to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw amendment 142.

Clause 39 will enable the passenger watchdog to investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to conduct investigations in certain circumstances. For example, the watchdog must investigate any matters referred to it by passengers, potential passengers or organisations representing passengers provided that the matters are not vexatious. It must also investigate any issues referred to it by the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or the ORR, and anything that it appears to the watchdog that it ought to investigate.

If the matters fall wholly within the London railway area, the passenger watchdog must refer it to the London Transport Users Committee. Transport Focus, the body out of which the watchdog will be built, has a duty to investigate matters referred to it, but the clause expands the list of people who may refer cases for investigation, to reflect the central role of the watchdog, its role in the reformed railway and the importance of passenger experience to this Government.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 40 - Power to obtain information

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 40, page 22, line 11, leave out subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) and insert

“the Passengers’ Council may take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate.”

This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council enforcement powers when its requests for information are not met.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 41 stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

It is much easier when I start with the amendment, because then I know where I am. This clause is about the power to obtain information. I will leave it to the Minister to give a précis, but it seeks to create a sensible power for the passengers’ council to be able to require the provision of information. However, the council has no power to compel compliance—it may only refer the matter further, to the Office of Rail and Road—so we begin to get into one of the problems with the passengers’ council, which is that it has no enforcement powers at all. Any teeth that are associated with the works of the passengers’ council come only from the economic regulator, soon to be just the safety regulator: the ORR. That will lead to some serious problems.

There is no proposal to require the ORR, as a regulating body with no enforcement powers, to take the preparatory work of the passengers’ council as automatically worthy of acceptance without reinvestigation. That is quite a serious point, because when an investigation undertaken by the passengers’ council comes to a roadblock that it feels requires some kind of enforcement action, it has to go to a separate body, the Office of Rail and Road, because the Government do not intend to give the council any real powers of its own. The ORR, as an independent regulator and enforcement body, then has to start the investigation de novo. It has no ability to take as read the investigation work of the passengers’ council.

That will create the bizarre situation of the ORR having to reinvestigate as an enforcing body, which is a quasi-judicial function, and then come to a decision every single time the passengers’ council refers any matter to it. Surely the Minister can do better than that, with all the resources of his many civil servants and drafting professionals in the Department. That messy process will lead to delay and uncertain enforcement—hardly the stuff of empowering passengers.

I fear that those on the Treasury Bench have asserted that the watchdog will be a nightwatchman, but the Department has granted it no enforcement powers or powers to compel. That will be bitterly disappointing to many rail passenger groups and advocates. When an issue arises and the council begins an investigation, it will inevitably require information. If it is unable to get that information, it must ask the ORR to step in and take over. We heard a lot about that in evidence to the Transport Committee. For example, Emma Vogelmann of Transport for All said:

“In terms of the watchdog itself, I have briefly touched on this already, but we feel very much that the passengers’ council really needs to be given enforcement powers to be able to take proper action on cases that are involving accessibility breaches. In cases where things do get referred up to the ORR, we would like there to be a statutory duty on them to act on those referrals made by the passengers’ council, and to have those outcomes within a clear timeframe.”

Another point she makes is that the ORR does not have to do anything. The passengers’ council can refer a matter to the ORR, but the ORR can say, “We’re busy, thank you, and we don’t think it is important.” It has no obligation to act.

Another issue with the clause is the timeframe. There are no requirements as to the time within which information must be provided. Government Departments may hate having timeframes for when they must answer parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests, but such timeframes are there for precisely that reason: organisations get lazy, they do not like to be held to account and they need to be forced to respond, to enhance accountability and to enhance enforcement powers. Emma Vogelmann is right. She and Transport for All do great work on passenger advocacy. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister agrees with her assessment. If he does not, perhaps he agrees with Ben Plowden at the Campaign for Better Transport, who told the Transport Committee

“my assumption is that the process would be that the passenger watchdog would hand over a whole set of documentation to the ORR and say, ‘We are not satisfied with the response that GBR has given us, or what it has done in response to our concerns, which we have sought to negotiate with it. Can you please enforce against our findings of inadequacy?’ That introduces a new process into the system, and the question is: will that be effective and efficient? If not, should the passenger watchdog be given some enforcement powers as well?”

I ask Mr Plowden’s questions to the Minister: in the Government’s view, would a doubled-up process be effective and efficient? If the Minister believes that it would be, can he outline why?

Evidence to the Transport Committee states

“the Bill creates confusion and potential overlap of duties between the ORR and proposed Passenger Council. For example, the Passenger Council will have the power to issue improvement notices and yet under clause 40 (2) there is no requirement on the Council to refer a contravention or likely contravention to the ORR. This means the Council can withhold relevant information from the enforcing authority undermining other potential enforcement activity.”

That commentary just about sums up the clause. The clause allows the passengers’ council to, at least in theory, obtain information until the door is closed in its face, at which time it can do nothing about it. Amendment 66, in my name, would give the passengers’ council enforcement powers when its requests for information are not met. If the Government are serious about standing up for passengers and giving them a real champion for their interests against a monolithic and nationalised GBR, they will support this amendment. If not, we will know that they are siding with the organisation over the people.

Clause 41 deals with the “Protection of confidential information” and does what it says on the tin: it protects confidential information if the passengers’ council obtains it under clause 40. That is a sensible requirement to which I have no improvements to suggest.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I turn first to the shadow Minister’s point about either diffusing enforcement capabilities between the ORR and the passenger watchdog or seeking to double them up as part of legislation that is designed to rationalise and simplify notions of accountability and enforcement within the railway. Under the system outlined in the Bill, the ORR can use the findings of the watchdog; the watchdog just has to make its own assessment of the materials given to it by the ORR. In my view, that does not constitute the same thing as reinvestigating a matter. The intention is for the ORR to be made aware of the passenger watchdog’s work at every step toward referral by the watchdog itself. There is therefore a low risk of the ORR having to retake steps, given that it is actively consulted as that process unfolds.

I will now speak directly to amendment 66 and clauses 40 and 41. As the shadow Minister has outlined, amendment 66 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when its requests for information were not met. The Government are creating a strong passenger watchdog that will have powers to monitor passenger experience, and to hold GBR and others to account. Although it will not have full enforcement powers, it will be able to demand information from operators to a deadline, investigate problems, demand improvement plans and refer cases for enforcement action to the ORR. It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers creating additional bureaucracy would be too high.

The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will enforce all other railway licences to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. We expect our licence proposals to include a condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog. That will help to ensure that other licensed operators co-operate with requests from the watchdog. That type of provision is typically found in operator licences. For example, there is a similar requirement for operators to co-operate with Transport Focus today. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary.

Turning to clauses 40 and 41, clause 40 gives the passenger watchdog the power to request the necessary information to effectively carry out investigations into issues affecting passengers. That information could be requested from train or station operators including, of course, GBR. The information must be provided to the watchdog within a reasonable timeframe, unless the person did not have, or could not reasonably obtain, the information. If the watchdog did not receive a satisfactory response to its information request, it could refer the matter to the ORR, which will continue to act as the enforcement body for the rail sector. The watchdog’s power to request information from operators to a deadline is a new one, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to a strong passenger champion that can make an impact on the railway. That will ensure that the watchdog can carry out its investigations effectively and in a timely manner.

Clause 41 protects any information where the person who provided the information has requested that it be held in confidence. That will ensure that confidential or sensitive information is not published or disclosed by the watchdog, with some sensible exceptions such as ensuring that the watchdog can refer the matter to the ORR for enforcement and that relevant law is complied with. Clause 41 also ensures that information held by a rail operator that may help an investigation but is sensitive or confidential—due to its commercial nature, for example—will not be published in any investigation reports. That will encourage operators to share information and ensure that the watchdog can carry out any investigation effectively while protecting confidential information.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister’s argument is clearly—is it parliamentary to say nonsense? I hope it is. His argument, that the industry will be confused if the passengers’ council is able to enforce its own deliberations, is ridiculous; he just has to think about it. The ORR has its areas of competence on which it enforces, and the passengers’ council has its areas of competence; they are discrete. Where confusion might really arise is if the passengers’ council thinks it is trying to get information and is stymied by the ORR taking a different view, which is the position the Minister has put forward. I have no hesitation in pushing the amendment to a vote.

Clause 42 - Representations and referrals

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 42, page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 68, in clause 42, page 23, line 17, leave out subsection (3)(b)(ii).

This amendment would require the ORR to take action where a contravention has been referred to it.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The amendments relate to clause 42, so I will explain what that clause seeks to achieve. Its title is “Representations and referrals”, and its focus is on introducing a power so that

“the Passengers’ Council may make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate for the purpose”,

such as train or station operators, to resolve a matter under investigation.

If the passengers’ council believes that an operator

“is contravening, or likely to contravene”

its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly, as we will discuss further when we consider clause 47, and/or refer the matter to the ORR and notify the Secretary of State. There are various other things that clause 42 does, but those are the main things.

The clause makes it clear that even after a passengers’ council investigation has identified a licence breach, the ORR retains complete discretion on whether or not to act. Once again, that will create a two-stage process in which the council must refer breaches that it cannot resolve itself, but the body receiving the referral is not obliged to act on it, or to intervene. Therefore, the watchdog investigates, but only the ORR can enforce, which it can choose not to do. That structure falls way short of the supposed strengthened passenger accountability model described by Ministers, and it serves only to risk causing prolonged delays for passengers who face ongoing harm, to the extent that a licence provision is breached, without a guaranteed remedy.

Thus far, we have not seen a clear rationale as to why the Government would create a watchdog only for it not to have any enforcement powers. It prompts the question: “What’s the point?” Evidence to the Transport Committee was very clear—the passengers’ council needs to have enforcement powers of its own to do the job envisaged for it. At the very least, if the ORR is to remain the enforcement body, there should not be a weeding process between the decisions of the passengers’ council and the ORR; the ORR should at least get on and enforce. That is what amendments 67 and 68 would achieve, by requiring the ORR to take action when a contravention had been referred to it.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which would require the ORR to take action in the event of a referral from the passenger watchdog.

First, I will point out that enforcement actions by the ORR are not the only way in which problems can be solved. The Bill gives the watchdog the power to request improvement plans, to allow operators to explain their planned improvements and agree them with the watchdog before issues are referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action. That is likely to be a faster way to get improvements for passengers than going straight to enforcement action.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that the watchdog will be listened to; it is an intention that the Government support. However, it is also important that the ORR, as the sector regulator, is able to take a broader view before deciding whether enforcement action is appropriate. That is because the passenger watchdog is only a passenger champion—it has a sole focus—and, by comparison, the ORR is the regulator for the whole sector and has to take into account a wide range of matters. If that were not the case, enforcement decisions could be taken that were good for the passenger but had a negative impact on the network as a whole. Each time that the ORR makes a decision, it must transparently explain its rationale to the watchdog on that basis. Therefore, in our view these amendments are unnecessary and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw them.

Clause 42 will give the passenger watchdog the power to:

“make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate”,

in order to resolve a matter under investigation. If the watchdog believes that an operator is currently

“contravening, or likely to contravene”

its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly to request an improvement plan or refer the matter to the ORR and inform the Secretary of State that it has done so.

If the case is referred to the ORR, the ORR can choose whether to take enforcement action or not. It must then inform the watchdog and the Secretary of State of its decision. That will ensure that the watchdog can act independently to resolve problems through engagement with operators and by directly engaging with the ORR when necessary. Without clause 42, the watchdog would not be able to effectively resolve matters that it had investigated and follow up on them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am not persuaded by the Minister. There are two amendments. In order to save time, I will press the first one to a Division, and the outcome of that will determine whether or not I press the second one to a Division.

Clause 43 - Reports

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I call Olly Glover to move amendment 138.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will do the honours.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 43, page 23, line 21, leave out

“may prepare a report of its findings”

and insert

“must publish and lay before Parliament a report of its findings”.

This amendment requires the Passengers’ Council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensures any report is laid before Parliament.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 69, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish any report on a matter investigated under section 39.

Amendment 70, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The report must be published within six months of the completion of the investigation.”

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation.

Amendment 140, in clause 43, page 23, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes the requirement that the Passengers' Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State, by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers.

Clause stand part.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

My hon. Friend, who is departing the Committee, and I are tag teaming, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 43 sets out the powers of the passengers’ council when it investigates problems affecting rail users. Amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen transparency, independence and parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 138 would require the passengers’ council to publish its findings and lay them before Parliament after an investigation, rather than that just being an option. It would ensure that evidence was made public and that Parliament could see clearly where the system was or could be failing passengers. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the passengers’ council to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before publishing a report where the investigation had been referred by Ministers. We have all lived through the experience of reports going into the bottom drawer of desks, never to be seen again, and we would like to create a situation here where that does not happen.

A watchdog cannot be effective if the person who triggered the investigation can also control whether its conclusions are published. The amendments would ensure that the passengers’ council had teeth, could operate independently and could report honestly without political interference. Together, amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen accountability, protect the integrity of the passenger watchdog, and ensure Parliament and the public are properly informed when things go wrong on our railways. On the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, we intend to press amendment 138 to a Division.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

London TravelWatch is a large organisation, and I used to chair some of its casework committees. It deals with and reports on a huge range of issues and, like Passenger Focus, it deals not just with trains but with other modes of transport. I made recommendations on a range of issues. I remember making recommendations to Eurostar about issues regarding disabled passengers. I remember making recommendations regarding changes to timetables. There were some significant issues that one would want to issue a report on. There was an issue back then for South Western about how Network Rail and the train operator were integrating, and a report had to be commissioned. There will be reports that are really to say to the operator, “You need to look at this specific issue.” We do not need to make it mandatory that all those reports are tabled in this House, with the bureaucracy that brings.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are snowed under with paperwork in this place at the best of times. I think there is a difference between providing a report to Parliament as standard, allowing Parliament to make the decision on whether it needs to be scrutinised, and the council or any other part of the regulator having the power to decide itself whether a report should go before Parliament.

The issue is where the balance of power should lie regarding whether Parliament has the right to scrutinise a report. All our amendment seeks to do is, by making it mandatory, to return the weighting and the power to Parliament on those issues.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I do not think this provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. These issues already exist; there are examples where the passenger watchdog and the Transport Committee would be looking at the same matter. There would be examples with other Departments where an ombudsman would also be looking at something in a similar vein to a Select Committee. My view is that it would be an overly bureaucratic system. Passenger watchdogs issue many reports, and some are on very serious matters, but sometimes they need to issue a report that is not at that level, and I do not believe these amendments are necessary.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Under clause 43, the passengers’ council can prepare, send and publish a report of its findings in an investigation, but it must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral. Similar provisions exist for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The wording of subsection (3) makes publication discretionary even after a full investigation and subsection (4) requires ministerial consent before publishing any report arising from a referral.

As the explanatory notes confirm, that structure gives Ministers an effective veto over publication. Why should the Minister have a veto over publication when the organisation being investigated is their own creation? If the state has created a toothless investigation watchdog body that, despite its lack of enforcement powers, has managed to do an investigation, write a report that is no doubt critical of the state, GBR or perhaps even the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State, or the Scottish or Welsh Minister can, for whatever reason they like, veto its publication. They can muzzle the watchdog at whim.

That risks undermining the whole process—where is the transparency?—and weakens the credibility of the new watchdog. If the aim is to strengthen passenger oversight, investigation reports should be published as a matter of course, with only narrowly defined exemptions for confidentiality or commercial reasons. Transport for All explains in its written evidence to the Transport Committee how that will affect passengers:

“Clauses 42-47 empower the Passengers’ Council to receive complaints, investigate issues, and identify potential breaches of licence conditions. However, the Council has no power to compel corrective action, issue penalties, or enforce compliance. If it identifies significant accessibility failings, it must refer the matter to the ORR, which retains full discretion over whether to investigate or take enforcement action.

Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and this indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability. We worry that it will create further delays, weaken enforcement, confuse passengers, and result in inconsistent redress. A watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passengers’ rights or drive accessibility improvements.”

Amendment 69 requires the passengers’ council to publish any report on a matter investigated under clause 39. That will create greater transparency and accountability in the new watchdog. Frankly, if the Government are serious about supporting the rights of passengers, rather than designing in an ability to hide embarrassing conclusions, they must support this amendment.

Amendment 70 would require the passengers’ council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation. Having in statute a specific timeframe in which a report must be published would create a sense of urgency, or at least of purpose, and a culture would develop within the organisation that placed high importance on those reports—exactly as it should.

Amendments 138, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats—presumably the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—would require the passenger’s council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensure that any report is laid before Parliament. It is another attempt to strengthen the reporting requirements from a different angle and should be supported because it is seeking to achieve a similar outcome to my own amendments.

Amendment 140, also in the name of the hon. Member,

“removes the requirement that the Passengers’ Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 69 is a mandatory requirement that they must publish every report. If that is not acceptable to the Government for whatever reason, then amendment 140 is a slight variation on the theme in that it takes the discretion away from the Secretary of State and leaves it where it properly lies, if there is to be discretion: with the passenger watchdog. That body, surely, having undertaken the investigation, written the report and come to a conclusion, are best placed to decide whether it is in the public interest to publish, not the owner of the nationalised industry that is being investigated.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank hon. Members for these amendments, which all relate to the passenger watchdog’s investigation reports. I will begin with amendments 138 and 69, which both require the watchdog to publish its investigation reports. Amendment 138 also requires the watchdog to lay the reports before Parliament.

First, I would like to reassure the Committee that the passenger watchdog will routinely publish reports of all its investigations. The watchdog also has an obligation under the Railways Act 2005 to prepare a report of its activities at the end of each financial year, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. That obligation will remain unchanged and will ensure there is transparency and parliamentary scrutiny around the watchdog’s activities.

However, it is worth saying that, for matters referred to it by the Government and the ORR, there must be an opportunity for the referees to review the watchdog’s findings and consider next steps before reports are published. The watchdog’s investigations may also uncover issues that need to be kept confidential, for instance commercially sensitive issues that should not be shared publicly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. The existing transparency and security requirements on the watchdog are comprehensive enough to ensure that the public and Parliament have access to investigation results and general reporting without compromising sensitive information.

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendment 70, which would require the passenger watchdog to publish reports of its investigations within six months of completing them. Although we would expect the watchdog to publish reports of all investigations within a reasonable timeframe, it is important that it has some discretion. The watchdog’s investigation may uncover issues that need to be considered carefully and some investigations will naturally be more complex and time-consuming than others, for example investigations into persistent cross-industry issues involving multiple operators and regions.

Transport Focus has raised concerns that setting a deadline may force it to hasten or reduce the scope of investigations, which is not in the passenger’s interest. Transport Focus also has arrangements in place to raise urgent issues with operators, which would continue, so it can act quickly to solve problems for passengers in parallel with investigations if needed. In some cases, reports may benefit from being shared in draft, with time allowed for those impacted to consider improvements. The watchdog should have the flexibility, in that instance, to seek the best outcome for passengers. For those reasons, I do not support a statutory requirement to publish all investigation reports to a six-month deadline.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for amendment 140, which proposes to remove the requirement for the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State to consent to the publication of an investigation report on issues that they referred to the watchdog. Clause 43 is intended to ensure that Ministers have an opportunity to review the investigation report on matters they have referred to the council before the report is published. That is especially important where the matter under investigation is sensitive and needs some discretion to raise issues carefully and privately, as that may be the best and quickest way to get action for passengers. One example would be issues relating to availability of funding, where Ministers will need to weigh that up carefully against other priorities.

For those reasons, I do not support removing the requirement for ministerial consent before the council sends or publishes a report of an investigation resulting from a referral by the Secretary of State or by Scottish or Welsh Ministers. We are not expecting Ministers to refuse consent to publication, but the clause is a necessary safeguard to protect confidential information, to allow issues to be weighed up carefully and to ensure that problems are fixed for passengers as swiftly as possible. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Finally, clause 43 will enable the passenger watchdog to prepare, share and publish reports of its investigation findings. As I have already set out to the Committee, the watchdog must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the Secretary of State. Similar provision is in place if the investigation has been undertaken following a referral from Scottish or Welsh Ministers. If the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the ORR, the watchdog must inform the ORR before publishing a report of its findings. The clause will ensure that findings of the investigations are transparent and available to the public and Parliament, so that train operators, including GBR, can be held to account for the way they are treating passengers.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does the hon. Member for West Dorset wish to put amendment 138 to a vote?

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

We do.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I propose a short break of 10 minutes. Please be back here at 3.43 pm.

Clause 44 - Dispute resolution

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 45 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

With your permission, Mrs Hobhouse, I will speak to the clauses now and address the new clause once I have heard the shadow Minister’s remarks.

Clauses 44 and 45 relate to complaints and dispute resolution. Clause 44 designates the passenger watchdog as the body that will deal with complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. Retained EU law on rail passenger rights includes requirements on operators to provide travel information to passengers and assistance to passengers who need it to travel.

Transport Focus is currently the body designated to receive complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. The Bill consolidates the existing regulation to ensure that Transport Focus retains that role when it becomes the passenger watchdog. The clause therefore replaces the existing regulations on this matter. That will ensure that operators are held to the same, or indeed higher, standards for passenger experience, and that there is still a body clearly responsible for monitoring and addressing such complaints.

Cause 45 places a duty on the passenger watchdog to provide an independent alternative dispute resolution service to users and potential users of train and station services. The watchdog will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR to fulfil that duty, ensuring that the watchdog provides an independent service to rail passengers that can handle disputes between passengers and service operators fairly and impartially.

Transferring the sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman to the passenger watchdog will provide an effective independent service that has the appropriate third-party accreditation. That includes ombudsman status, which gives it the power to require remedial action from operators on passenger complaints that it upholds. The clause will ensure that the watchdog has the legal obligation to continue to provide an alternative dispute resolution service, even after the existing contract with the Rail Ombudsman expires in 2028.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I have nothing to add on clause 44. Clause 45 provides a duty for the passengers’ council to secure independent dispute resolution arrangements. As the Minister just said, it is anticipated—according to the explanatory notes, at least—that it will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR in order to fulfil that duty.

I want to ask the Minister what powers the dispute resolution function will have, because the Bill and the explanatory notes are entirely silent. That is the modus operandi that we have become used to during the course of these Bill proceedings: there is endless putting off, and the detail has not been thought out—or, certainly, not shared. This seems to be a similar case.

New clause 46, in my name, would ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continued to publish data on complaints in the same manner as it currently does. During a significant transition such as the creation of GBR, it is crucial that data collection and publication are maintained in a manner that allows for accurate comparison—another small but important point. The new clause would achieve that objective. The alternative is to risk an inability to make like-for-like comparison, which of course would let the new organisation off the hook. Without continuity of data collection and publishing, GBR would be able to avoid comparative scrutiny.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. We consulted the industry and the public on the future of the content and functions of the alternative dispute resolution service, and identified that the transfer of the Rail Ombudsman sponsorship to the watchdog represents the simplest option with the least disruption to the passenger experience. That choice was supported by both Transport Focus and the Rail Delivery Group.

In the current service, decisions on disputes are made by legally trained staff. That gives passengers and operators assurance and confidence that disputes are handled fairly and correctly. The resolutions are binding, and the impartiality and neutrality between passengers and operators ensures that disputes are resolved fairly. Passengers achieve fair solutions, and operators are required to issue reasonable compensation. That places the balance of duty on operators while ensuring that the passenger experience is at the heart of what the ADR service is there to facilitate. If the shadow Minister requires any further information, I will happily seek it out and provide it.

On new clause 46, I assure the shadow Minister that the ORR will retain its role as the official publisher of rail statistics. As now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, which enables flexibility and allows the collection of data to be proportionate and needs-based and ensuring necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the ORR in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it is established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency and we do not propose to reduce that going forward.

The passenger watchdog will have access to the data collected by the ORR and be able to use it to identify issues in areas for improvement for passengers and to follow up. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will feel that this matter is already addressed by the Bill and existing legislation and will seek to withdraw his amendment. I also thank him for his contributions.

Clause 46 - Standards

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 46, page 24, line 26, after “for” insert

“all users and potential users of the railways including, in particular,”.

This amendment allows the Passenger Council to set access standards for all users and potential users of the railway.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 72, in clause 46, page 24, line 33, at end insert—

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

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

(g) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, 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,

(h) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort and on-board experience and affordability of railway passenger services.

Amendment 141, in clause 46, page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment removes the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State (and the Office of Rail and Road) before the Passengers’ Council sets, varies, or revokes standards.

Amendment 73, in clause 46, page 25, line 1, leave out “and the ORR”.

This amendment means the Passenger Council does not need the ORR’s consent to set, vary, or revoke standards.

Amendment 144, in clause 46, page 25, line 3, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment aims to ensure the independence of the Passengers' Council by removing the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent to publish new standards.

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Clause 46 gives the passengers’ council a power to set consumer standards for operators of rail passenger services and station services, which will be imposed on them via licence conditions. Of course, we have not seen any of those licence conditions, so we will just have to take it on faith. The clause sets out matters that the standards may cover, including passenger assistance, provision of travel information, a process for compensation if services are disrupted, and complaints about passenger services. The council must seek the Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s consent before setting new standards or varying existing ones, and it must publish them, and any variations or revocations of them, and monitor how operators are complying with them.

In summary, the clause gives the passengers’ council a standard-setting role in areas such as assistance, information, compensation and complaints. What about standards on core passenger priorities, such as punctuality, reliability, crowding, staffing, cleanliness, safety and ticketing transparency? Would the Secretary of State be minded to grant consent for such standards, and if not, why not?

Requiring both the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to any new standard creates two veto points, limiting the council’s independence. The result is a standards framework far weaker than the broader watchdog model described in the consultation. As we have discussed, subsection (2)(a) makes no direct reference to general users of the railway; the only reference is to disabled people. While I understand the additional focus that disability access requires, the current wording risks a wholly unbalanced approach for the new organisation.

Amendment 71 would solve that drafting imbalance and encourage the passengers’ council to set standards for all users and potential users of the railway. In drafting it, all I did was take the Government’s own words in clause 18, which, in describing the general functions, refers to all users, both able bodied and disabled. It does not seem to be an enormous stretch to require the passenger watchdog to have a similar functions scope as the organisation that it is watchdogging.

Amendment 72 would require the passengers’ council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort, onboard experience, and affordability of railway passenger services. These are the key issues of importance to passengers. Why do the Government not allow their key champion to tackle the real problems and not just the peripheral ones? Instead of focusing on information provision and complaints processes, let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us have a watchdog that can actually draft and implement standards, and enforce improvement on a large nationalised organisation in the interests of passengers—that is what they actually want—rather than tipping a cap towards it and saying, “Oh yes, we’ve got a watchdog but it has no enforcement powers. It can write standards, but only about what information you receive, not about the really important stuff.”

If the Government really want to put

“passengers at the heart of the railway”,

why do they not vote for these amendments and enhance the powers of the passenger watchdog? They cannot have it both ways. At the moment, it looks like they are just pretending; they have a superficial watchdog that ticks a box but has very limited practical use for passengers.

Amendment 73 would remove the passengers’ council’s need to obtain the ORR’s consent to set, vary or revoke standards. A truly effective passenger watchdog needs to have its own real powers, and the ability to set its own standards without the consent of another organisation. Why does the Minister not have faith in his own passenger watchdog to do that? If his answer is that such an objection from the ORR would relate to safety-critical functions, why does the Bill not just say that? The Government are planning on stripping most of the competences away from the ORR, save for the remaining aspect of safety, but they do not say, “If the watchdog has a standard that has an impact on the safety-critical application of the railway, it needs to get the permission of the ORR.” That would make sense. Instead, the ORR has a blanket veto.

Amendment 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would remove the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State and the ORR before the passengers’ council sets, varies or revokes a standard—a similar approach to that which I have put forward. I would be minded to support it, were it to be pressed to a Division.

Amendment 144 comes from a similar quarter. I am sure it is unintentional, but it contains a drafting mistake. The notes to the amendment make it clear that it seeks to delete subsection (5), but the wording as it stands relates to subsection (6). I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what has happened.

New clause 16, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, would require a review of the Access for All programme. It seeks to ensure that step-free access at stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain historical spending decisions and set out recommendations for future spending. I will leave new clauses 17 and 53 to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

New clause 69, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would mandate GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years, to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and to report annually on its progress against that strategy. I welcome that approach to transparency and the focus on accessibility. It deals with the Minister’s arguments about imposing onerous reporting targets on GBR. Given the number of stations involved, the requirement is limited to once a decade, which would be a reasonable compromise. Without such data, how can GBR expect to allocate resources efficiently? The Minister needs to set out how GBR will address accessibility investment without such data. I anticipate an argument that it would be imposing onerous conditions on GBR for it to have an idea as to accessibility around the country. Every now and again, it should know what its own business is up to.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

The shadow Minister is right to say that our amendments have similar intentions to his; we may have taken slightly different avenues but we are heading in the same direction.

Amendments 141 and 144 are intended to reduce the Secretary of State’s role in the passengers’ council’s abilities to set standards and go about its work. The shadow Minister is quite right to point out that there is a typo in amendment 144, which I had not spotted—the intention is to delete subsection (5) and not subsection (6). I thank him for drawing our attention to that.

Our new clauses are intended to strengthen accessibility provisions. New clause 16 would require a review of the Access for All programme in order to put it on a firmer footing. It is felt that progress on the programme has slowed somewhat in recent years, which is regrettable because its benefits are great, and not just for people using wheelchairs or similar. Of course, making our stations more accessible via lifts, for example, is also helpful for those carrying heavy luggage—that seems, from my observations, to be an increasingly frequent occurrence—and those with bicycles, pushchairs and so on.

In Oxfordshire, for example, there are stations that are definitely not seeing their potential realised because of the lack of accessibility upgrades. Radley station, which sits between Didcot and Oxford in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has ramp and step-free access to the northbound platform heading towards Oxford, but not to the southbound platform heading towards Didcot, which can be accessed only by a set of stairs and across a narrow passenger footbridge. That significantly limits the ability of those with accessibility needs to use the train to work, travel and socialise.

Like many parts of the country, Oxfordshire is plagued by endless traffic, which drives people mad, so anything we can do to make better use of our rail network is welcome. Radley is not alone; in my constituency, Cholsey station has no accessible access at all, despite some other stations between Didcot and Reading having already been upgraded. Cholsey has slightly but not statistically significantly lower levels of use, so we hope that at some point it will receive similar treatment to stations such as Tilehurst.

New clause 17 is intended to improve the accessibility of trains by improving their passenger information systems. It seeks better consistency, by requiring all passenger railway service operators to ensure that their trains provide passenger information announcements that are accessible for passengers with sight or hearing loss. Many trains do so already, but they also plague us with endless announcements, the likes of which I have never heard in any other country, constantly reminding us of the presence of CCTV or not to use luggage unattended, or whatever else. As a peripheral observation, it would be wonderful if GBR were able to do something about that and make sure that the announcements on trains are pertinent and welcomed by passengers, rather than being there just to tick a Department for Transport box. New clause 18, which is related to new clause 17, would require the provision of passenger information that is accessible to passengers with sight or hearing loss at stations and railway premises.

New clause 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to improve the accessibility of ticket machines at stations. Ticketing is currently very fragmented, with different machine interfaces and options used in different parts of the country and by different operators. That creates barriers for passengers with disabilities, older passengers, tourists and occasional users who may not have sufficient digital confidence to buy tickets on their phone. Standardising ticket machines would improve accessibility and ease of use, reduce maintenance and replacement costs, and deliver a more consistent national service.

For example, Transport for London offers ticket machines with up to 17 language options, while provision outside London varies significantly, which makes it significantly harder for visitors to travel confidently across the UK, particularly if they are making the most of a rail miles programme, should that ever be implemented. The new clause would help to ensure that passengers can expect the same functionality, language options and accessibility standards regardless of where they board a train, reducing long-term costs and operational complexity and improving user experience while delivering better value for money.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I will speak briefly to new clauses 16, 17 and 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, and new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. Accessibility is still inconsistent, poorly enforced and often treated as optional. If railways are to work for everyone, accessibility has to be planned, delivered and monitored.

New clause 16 would require a full review of the Access for All programme, including past spending decisions and future investment needs. Too many stations, particularly small and rural ones, still lack step-free access to platforms, entrances and exits. New clauses 17 and 18 focus on accessible passenger information on trains and at stations. Reliable audio and visual announcements on safety, stops and interchanges are essential for passengers with sight or hearing loss, and should be consistently monitored and enforced. New clause 53 would ensure that ticket machines are accessible, standardised and usable independently by all passengers. Machines must work for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments or limb differences, older passengers, and visitors without apps or digital access, offering the same tickets and interfaces across the network.

The new clauses are designed to deliver practical and enforceable accessibility that improves passenger confidence, independence and safety, and I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of them.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which relate to the standard-setting role of the passenger watchdog and to accessibility. I will speak first to those related to the passenger watchdog.

Amendment 71 would allow the passenger watchdog to set accessibility standards for all users and potential users of the railway, replacing the current reference to disabled passengers and those needing assistance. It is important that all passengers can access the railway, and I support the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that that happens. However, clause 46 already covers both users and potential users of the railway who require assistance to access services. Furthermore, the list of areas in which the watchdog may set standards is not exhaustive; it can set accessibility standards for anyone it deems appropriate, potentially including passengers travelling with prams or some of the other examples that were outlined. Let me also clarify that the wording of the clause is not exhaustive, so as well as the examples given in the Bill, the passenger watchdog can set standards on any other matters relating to passenger experience, at its discretion. That allows it to be responsive to passenger feedback and passenger needs. For that reason, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary.

Amendment 72 would expand the list of example areas where the passenger watchdog may set standards. First, as I mentioned, the clause already allows the passenger watchdog to develop standards covering all areas of the passenger experience. The list in subsection (2) sets out matters that may be covered by the standards and is not exhaustive, so it does not prevent the passenger watchdog from developing further standards in other areas in time; in fact, we expect that it might do so, for some of the very reasons that the shadow Minister suggested. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as it would not make a practical difference to the watchdog’s powers. Let me also clarify that standards on safety and security would significantly expand the remit of the watchdog, and are best left to expert safety bodies such as the ORR.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I think the Minister may have misunderstood my point. I was not for a moment suggesting that the passenger watchdog should take over responsibility for safety-critical functions. I was anticipating that he might argue that the ORR needs to retain a veto right because there might be clashes with its safety-critical functions, in which case the clause could be redrafted to make it clear that that is the area of focus.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification.

Amendment 141 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to standards that may be set, varied or revoked by the passenger watchdog. Amendments 73 and 144 would both remove the requirement for the ORR and the Secretary of State respectively to consent to new standards. It is my view that the watchdog must seek the Secretary of State’s consent before the standards are referenced in associated licence conditions, and therefore before they becoming binding on operators, because that is one of the only ways to ensure that the standards are affordable and actionable.

Ultimately, the Secretary of State is funding GBR, and if the Government are not able to provide the funds to support a new standard, which could in theory add costs for operators, the standards are doomed to fail. Similarly, the ORR will remain the sector enforcement body, enforcing all licences. It is therefore important that it gives consent to standards before they become binding on operators. That will ensure that all standards are fair and enforceable. These measures are necessary to ensure that the new rail system will work effectively. The Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s input into the standards will provide constructive challenge, ensuring that all standards are high quality and serve the railway as well as possible.

All three bodies are subject to the duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled passengers, so they will share a common goal of improving the passenger experience. There should therefore be no concern that the process will weaken or undermine standards; rather, all bodies will be committed to improvements for the passenger. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage not to press their amendments.

New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to review the Access for All programme, which delivers step-free access upgrades at stations across Great Britain. I recognise that passengers with accessibility needs often find rail travel challenging, as facilities and assistance frequently do not meet expectations. Many of Great Britain’s 2,581 railway stations predate modern accessibility standards, making navigation difficult for disabled passengers. That is why the Access for All programme was introduced in 2006, and why it is so important. More than 270 stations have benefited from it so far.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has proposed a review of the programme, and I am delighted to inform him that the Government agree with him so strenuously that a review was already conducted in late 2024. The Department and Network Rail have acknowledged that the delivery of the programme from 2019 to 2024 was disappointing, which led to the late 2024 review. The national Network Rail Access for All team has now been strengthened to improve governance and financial control, and accessibility has been given a higher priority by all Network Rail regions. That review, and the associated changes, resulted in almost 34 projects being completed in the last 18 months, compared to 36 in the previous five years. I think that that demonstrates our commitment to improvement.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Does the Minister also recognise that the review has led to cuts of about 20 individual programmes? That was not done on the grounds of accessibility—although the letter I received from his colleague the noble Lord accepts that there is clearly a significant accessibility challenge in the case of station in my constituency—but by imposing on the scheme a match funding requirement that was never, as I understand it, part of the original scheme.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The right hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient with the Government’s pace in achieving accessibility improvements at stations in his constituency and across the country. He is right to point out that even though the number of stations that have been upgraded and improved has increased, that does not mean that all stations have done been, and the Government need to work at pace to deliver improvements across the piece. However, given that the review the new clause requests has already happened, and that measurable improvements have already been demonstrated by the Government, although there is more work to achieve, I encourage the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw new clause 16.

I thank the hon. Member for new clauses 17 and 18, which together would ensure that accessible passenger information is provided for those with hearing or sight loss. Our commitment to the outcomes sought by the new clauses is clear and unambiguous. Accessibility is at the core of what we are here to do, and it will be central to GBR from day one. Both legislation and the GBR licence will ensure that accessibility is always considered.

I also recognise the importance of ensuring that timely information is provided, and that it is provided in a format that all passengers can access. To that end, the Bill lays the foundation for GBR’s licence, and establishes a powerful passenger watchdog with a mandate to act in disabled passengers’ interests, setting licence standards and holding GBR to account. The objective of these new clauses is best achieved there, where licence conditions can set out the necessary detail about what accessibility standards are needed, rather than in primary legislation.

To acknowledge that, the Government have already committed that accessible travel policies will be included in GBR’s licence. Those policies will include requirements, as they do now, about accessible information, including specific mention of visually and hearing-impaired passengers. The standards for accessible information included in the licence will be monitored by the passenger watchdog and enforced by the ORR.

The Government’s proposals for accessibility build on the work of the accessibility road map, published in November 2025, which is taking clear steps to improve real-time information provision on the railways, and rolling out welcome points across the network in England. Those will include closed-loop and British Sign Language capability. Despite the positive measures we have committed to in the Bill and in the licence, we are not waiting: we are acting now to improve things for people with disabilities. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

New clause 53 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the accessibility of ticket vending machines. I reassure the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that all station operators are currently required through their station licence to comply with an accessible travel policy, which includes assisting disabled passengers in relation to ticket facilities. Subject to consultation, we expect GBR to have a similar requirement in its new licence.

Additionally, the Secretary of State’s “Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations” code, which she is required by the Railways Act 1993 to produce, requires all new, refurbished or replaced ticket vending machines to meet standards such as having a wheelchair reachable interface, clear high contrast displays, easy to use controls, and lighting and placement that support visually impaired passengers. The code will continue after the passage of the Bill and is enforced by the ORR. We therefore expect that all ticket vending machines will meet a much higher accessibility standard in the future than they do today. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clause.

New clause 69 would place a duty on GBR to publish a 10-year accessibility strategy and report annually on its progress against it, and I am keen to reassure hon. Members on this point. The long-term rail strategy, which I know is a source of considerable interest to the Committee, will include a strategic objective about meeting the needs of future passengers, including measures aimed at significantly widening accessibility. GBR will also be required to produce a business plan setting out how it will deliver for passengers, including those who need assistance, in line with its accessibility duty under the Bill, and to work towards delivering the long-term strategy. The business plan will be published, and both GBR and the ORR will publish reports on GBR’s progress against it. That should hopefully satisfy any transparency or reporting requirements that hon. Members may have around accessibility.

The Government recognise that our railway too often does not meet the accessibility needs of our customers and that customers—especially our most vulnerable passengers—do not get the support they need or deserve. That is why, alongside the Bill, we have published the Department for Transport’s road map to an accessible railway, which sets out what we are doing now to improve the day-to-day travelling experience of disabled passengers in the lead-up to GBR being established. There is no hesitation from us; accessibility must get better, and we are committing to sorting that out. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press the new clause.

Now—with, I am sure, considerable relief for all members of the Committee—we reach clause 46. The clause will enable the passenger watchdog to set minimum consumer standards for train and station operators, including GBR, which they must meet as part of their licence conditions. It sets out what areas the standards may cover, including passenger assistance, the provision of travel information, the process for compensation if services are delayed or disrupted, and complaints about passenger services. That list is not exhaustive, and the watchdog can create new standards covering any aspect of the passenger experience it considers appropriate. We want the watchdog to set consumer standards so that most consumer functions sit in one body—our passenger champion—which can drive up standards, advocate for improvements for passengers and hold operators accountable in a meaningful way, while having a powerful but proportionate voice in the industry. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed assessment of the new clauses and amendments. In the interests of time, I do not propose to press amendment 71, but I do not swallow the explanations given in relation to amendment 72. We need to focus the passenger watchdog on important issues for passengers, so we will press that amendment to a Division. However, on amendment 71, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 47 - Improvement plans

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 47, page 25, line 23, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert

“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”

This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Clause 47 deals with improvement plans. It allows the passengers’ council to request improvement plans from licensed rail operators

“where it judges them to be, or likely to be, non-compliant with the standards it sets and therefore, the consumer licence conditions”—

not that we have seen them, and the

“improvement plans would be requested from operators to allow them to explain their planned improvements before issues were referred to the ORR or potential enforcement action”—

although we do not know whether they would choose to enforce either.

The clause highlights—again—just how toothless the passengers’ council will be. It still has no direct enforcement powers, and the explanatory notes confirm that these plans are only a precursor to possible ORR action. If an operator ignores a plan, the council can do nothing about it at all, except refer the matter to the ORR, which may

“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate”.

This is another two-stage approach from the Government, with no guaranteed remedy, and it leaves the council structurally dependent on the ORR for all meaningful enforcement. There is no requirement for the ORR to do anything at all, when provided with a file from the passengers’ council. There is no ability for the ORR to adopt a passengers’ council investigation as its own, and any enforcement action will be required to consider the matter afresh. I accept the Minister’s earlier point that the ORR will be able to read documentation presented by the passengers’ council, but that is it. That will take time and add cost, and it will fail the consumer all the way through the process. It is not the ORR’s fault; it is how the Government are designing the system, which falls well short of the Government’s stated aim of creating a genuinely empowered passenger watchdog. Subsection (2) says:

“If the person fails to take the steps set out”

in the improvement plan, or does not prepare one

“within a reasonable time, the Passengers’ Council must refer the matter to the ORR”.

That part is mandatory, but the ORR’s response is not mandatory. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister can help us out.

The new system needs to be able to stand up for passengers, with a watchdog worthy of the name. Amendment 74 would give the passengers’ council the power to enforce improvement plans, and new clause 45 sets out how that will be achieved. It would require the Secretary of State to provide the passengers’ council with enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the Office of Rail and Road under the 1993 Act. The Government want to put passengers at the heart of the railway, but they have created a passenger watchdog with no teeth—or power—to enforce any of its decisions. To give an advance indication, I will seek to divide on both amendment 74 and new clause 45.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for amendment 74 and new clause 45. Amendment 74 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when it issues requests for improvement plans, and new clause 45 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the ORR.

We are creating a strong passenger watchdog, which will have real powers to monitor passenger experience and hold GBR and others to account. It will be able to demand information from GBR to a deadline, investigate problems and demand improvement plans to encourage improvements. Finally, it can refer cases for enforcement to the ORR.

It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers would be too high. The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new, streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will also enforce all other railway licences, to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. That is fair and rational.

If operators did not comply with their consumer licence conditions—for example, relating to accessible travel standards—the passenger watchdog would directly engage with them and request an improvement plan. We would naturally expect operators to comply with that request, because if they do not, they will be aware that the ORR can simply take action against them for the original licence breach. That mirrors what happens in practice today, where most compliance issues are resolved through direct engagement and improvement plans rather than resorting to enforcement.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am interested in the Minister’s repeated insistence that there would be confusion if there were more than one enforcement body for rail activities. What is his proposed solution to the Competition and Markets Authority and its enforcement competency for the railways, which currently is shared with the Office of Rail and Road? Is it his plan to amend the competencies of the Competition and Markets Authority? If not, why is the argument so overwhelming to prevent the passenger watchdog from having teeth, when he allows the CMA to have teeth?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The shadow Minister previously made a point that related to whether the ORR and the passenger watchdog had an equivalent power when they sought to enforce against railway licences. My point there was that we could have contradictory steers arising out of these licences being in conflict with each other. That is where the route of not having dual licence- enforcing capabilities lies, and it is the argument against amendment 74.

Turning back to operators’ co-operation, we expect our GBR licence proposals to include a licence condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog, which will strengthen these provisions further. I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister that the system will work effectively to hold operators to account. I cannot support any amendments that confuse the enforcement landscape, as two enforcement bodies would be duplicative, burdensome on operators and potentially very confusing. That is not a system that would drive good performance. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to press his proposals.

Let me turn now to clause 47, which will give the passenger watchdog the power to require improvement plans from train and station operators where it judges that an operator might be breaching its standards and, therefore, the consumer licence conditions. Demanding improvement plans from operators will allow them to set out the steps they plan to take to address the issues and meet their licence conditions before non-compliance is referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action.

The clause will allow the watchdog to work with operators to seek improvements collaboratively. Improvement plans are a crucial element of this engagement, as they allow operators to set out a plan to achieve compliance and to have a dialogue with the passenger watchdog. The watchdog can represent the passenger by making suggestions for improvements and advocating sensible solutions. Enforcement is the last resort to ensure compliance, and it is important that the watchdog has sufficient means to encourage operators to do the right thing before it refers any persistent or serious issues to the ORR.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am unpersuaded. As I previously indicated, I will press amendment 74 to a vote.

Clause 48 - Advice about railway passenger services and station services

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 75, in clause 49, page 26, line 28, at end insert—

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

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

(j) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, 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,

(k) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”

This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council when it is developing or changing its policies or procedures with reference to the passenger-focussed KPIs proposed in NC2.

Clauses 49 to 52 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will speak first to the clause and then to the amendments, once I have heard hon. Members’ comments on them.

Clause 48 will establish the passenger watchdog as a statutory adviser, able to advise Ministers and industry bodies on matters of importance to passengers. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to provide advice to certain bodies, including the Secretary of State, rail operators and devolved Governments; they may also refer matters to it. The watchdog will also have a duty to provide advice without a referral if it considers it appropriate. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand passenger experience because of its research and investigations functions, as well as its access to complaints and core industry performance data.

We wish to establish the watchdog as the central body that Ministers, mayoral strategic authorities, the ORR, GBR and other train and station operators can go to for advice on passengers’ interests, needs and priorities. We also want to ensure that the watchdog is an authority on all passenger matters, so that Ministers and others take its advice seriously. This will be the first time that the rail industry has had a statutory adviser covering all passenger matters.

Clause 49 will place a duty on GBR to consult the passenger watchdog when developing or changing policies or procedures that significantly affect the interests of passengers. The clause sets out an indicative list of matters on which GBR should consult the watchdog. Those include passenger rights, handling disruption to rail services, determining fares, and arrangements for the sale of tickets. By feeding the watchdog’s insight to GBR when central policies and procedures are being developed, it will support GBR in creating better policies that prioritise passenger needs.

I return briefly to the official Opposition’s wise words about culture last week, because the Government absolutely agree that getting culture right is essential to the success of the railway. The watchdog’s role here will be critical in influencing the culture of the reformed rail industry, being involved in all relevant policymaking to ensure that the focus on passengers is at the heart of everything the railway does. I therefore commend clause 49 to the Committee.

Clause 50 will give the passenger watchdog the power to publish any information or advice it considers that passengers, or potential passengers, may find useful. For example, this could include publishing information on train operator performance to encourage improvements, such as league tables or the naming and shaming of poorly performing operators or routes. It could involve setting out complaint handling processes or advising passengers on their rights.

Before publishing information or advice, the watchdog must consider whether it is necessary to exclude any matter relating to an individual or body that would have a serious and negative impact on their interests. This could include sensitive, personal or market information. This power will be central to the watchdog’s ability to hold operators to account publicly.

I now turn to clauses 51 and 52. Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to exclude certain rail services from the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48. This power mirrors an existing power in the Railways Act 1993 and has been included because it is not appropriate, nor a proportionate use of resources, to require the watchdog to investigate services that are not part of the wider national network, are not licensed and mainly operate for tourism or leisure purposes—such as heritage trains. As service providers change over time, the clause can also be used to include new services in the watchdog’s remit, or to modify its duties in relation to specific services. In the future, there may be new services that the watchdog ought to monitor, or which it ought to monitor in a slightly different way. The power therefore exists to ensure that all relevant operators can be appropriately held to account by the passenger champion. The clause does not mean that the watchdog is prevented from monitoring any excluded services, just that the watchdog is not obliged to do so.

Clause 52 provides additional clarity by defining some of the terms used in this chapter. For example, the clause defines a “disabled person” as

“a person who is a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010”.

I commend clauses 48 to 52 to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister has described the function of clause 48, the lead measure in this group, but there is one notable exception from the list of bodies that can refer to the council for advice under clause 48(1)(a) as drafted. It includes mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London and Ministers—whether the Secretary of State, Welsh or Scottish Ministers—but there is no room for local transport authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is not in her place, because she made the point powerfully in previous sittings of the Committee that some areas of the country do not have mayoral combined authorities and never will, because of their geographic or demographic set-up—that is particularly the case in the south-west. Those areas still have local transport needs, and a local transport authority, yet under the Bill as drafted, those authorities are excluded from asking the advice of the passenger body. We have heard that there are many areas that will never have an MCA but that still have rail-related concerns and issues. I seek advice from the Minister: what is the thinking of the Government, that they have deliberately excluded local transport authorities from the clause?

Clause 49 deals with “Consultation about railway passenger services and station services”. Again, I have left it to the Minister to explain what the clause does, but it sets out the policies and procedures that GBR should consider consulting the passengers’ council on. It gives GBR discretion to decide whether to do so based on its assessment of the impact on passengers. That is, again, quite important. The clause creates a duty on GBR to consult the passengers’ council, but only where GBR itself decides that a policy change will significantly affect passengers. The explanatory notes confirm that that judgment is entirely for GBR. GBR, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will all owe consultation duties to the council, but the Bill imposes a duty only on GBR, and even then only on GBR’s own assessment of significance. There is no parallel duty on Ministers, meaning that major ministerial decisions affecting passengers could fall entirely outside statutory consultation. The list in clause 49(2) once again seeks to sideline the passengers’ council by limiting its remit. The list does not cover the issues that

“significantly affect the interests of the public in relation to…passenger services or station services”,

as described in clause 49(1)(b); far from it.

Amendment 75 would require GBR to consult the passengers’ council when GBR is developing or changing its procedures, with reference to the passenger-focused KPIs outlined in proposed new clause 2:

“reliability, including punctuality…short-forming…key connections… safety and security…comfort and on-board experience”

and

“affordability and value for money”.

Those are issues at the heart of the passenger experience. Let the passengers’ council do a proper job.

Clause 50 gives the passengers’ council the power to publish information and advice for

“users or potential users of railway passenger services”.

The clause only allows the passengers’ council to publish information; it does not require it to publish information. That means the council can choose not to publish anything at all. The clause also gives no sense of what should be published, or how often. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the reasons he has not decided to require publication when it is about information and advice; that seems a bit odd.

Clause 51, which is on the power to make exclusions, will be watched by many, as it is really important to rail enthusiasts. Committee members should be careful when commenting on it, because people are keenly interested in this power. Actually, on this occasion I think the Government have got it about right. The clause replicates similar provisions in the 1993 Act—specifically, sub-sections (7B) and (7C) in section 76.

Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to exclude services from one or more of the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48 through regulations, or modify those duties for particular services. However, before making changes, the Secretary of State must consult the passengers’ council and the London Transport Users Committee.

There are currently two exemptions from the similar requirements in the 1993 Act in place, one of which excludes services without through-ticketing facilities and which are exempt from holding a licence. Charter and heritage railway operators fall under this exemption. The Government assert in the explanatory notes to the clause that,

“it would be burdensome and unnecessary for the Passengers’ Council to be required to investigate heritage railway operators,”

which only operate for tourism and recreational purposes, not for the mainline network. I agree that those potential exclusions are reasonable. The Government rightly point out that burdening heritage rail with unnecessary regulation when the hospitality and tourism sector is facing serious challenges—admittedly, because of this Government—would be disproportionate.

Very few constituencies do not boast a heritage railway, so I declare an interest, Mrs Hobhouse: the Bure Valley Railway and the start—or the finish, depending on which way a person is going—of the Wells and Walsingham Light Railway run in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham.

Edward Morello (Liberal Democrat, West Dorset)

I have been on that.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been on that railway. I would continue on that, but I have gone on long enough by saying, “and another thing—I remember”.

Rail charter services are a different matter that must also be considered. Those with children may have travelled on one of the many Christmas polar expresses that are chartered services. They are very important to tourism and to the financing of the railway, as they make an economic contribution to the running of it. They sit in a unique space of quasi-open access and are a useful component of the railway. Mainline heritage rail routes, such as the Cambrian express—although the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Hendy, still needs to do some work to restore steam, rather than diesel, locomotives to that heritage route—as well as services with the Flying Scotsman, or Sir Nigel Gresley, which is the last working version of the Mallard class, the A4s, are very important, and crowds of people gather to watch them steam past.

I applaud the Government for that sensible exemption. All I ask is that they continue to do what they can to facilitate and support heritage and chartered railways, and I would be grateful to hear the Government’s plans to do so, if there are any. I would propose no amendments to clause 51. Clause 52 is the interpretation chapter, and I am happy for that to continue without amendment.

That leaves me solely with the pleasure of discussing new clauses 68 and 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. Network Rail is often cited as a poor neighbour, with no interest in co-operating with other transport modes, or frankly with adjacent landowners— I have had more than one letter of complaint from constituents on that—to minimise disruption not on the railway. The Opposition support the intentions behind the new clause. Culture change is needed in the successor to Network Rail, and a duty to co-operate would at least help. The Minister needs to recognise the existing problem of Network Rail’s culture being—I think it is fair to say—deeply suboptimal in relation to this, and set out his proposals for improvement.

New clause 70, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, sets out the requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and are fully communicated with stakeholders. I read the new clause into the record, but I do not propose to press it to a Division when the time comes.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I start by addressing two points that the shadow Minister made. First, on the publication of information and advice, I set out in my original arguments surrounding the new clauses that there might be instances where, for professional or personal reasons, it might be best not to publish confidential information.

On a broader issue, the shadow Minister asked why local transport authorities were not listed directly under clause 48. On the question of the devolution of rail services, the Committee has rehearsed at length the Government’s view that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right unit of economic activity to be able to engage with productively. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive list of those that might be consulted, and there is provision written into the Bill for the council, where it considers it appropriate, to consider consultation without such a reference as is listed in the clause. Local transport authorities could fall within that frame of reference.

Amendment 75 would ensure that GBR consulted the passenger watchdog when developing key performance indicators. GBR will set out its proposed activities over a five-year period in its business plan, setting KPIs for itself there based on how it intends to deliver the business plan and, through that delivery, meet the high-level goals in the Secretary of State’s funding objectives and her long-term rail strategy. The ORR will independently scrutinise GBR’s business plan and advise the Secretary of State on its quality, which will give the Secretary of State the right information to support her decision on whether to approve the plan. All advice on the business plan can and should be published, so the public can also be aware of how that is developing. This constructive challenge process will ensure that GBR’s KPIs are realistic, measurable and ambitious.

Additionally, as we have discussed, there is already a requirement in clause 49 for GBR to consult the watchdog on policies or procedures affecting users or potential users of the railway. This would also cover consultation on any KPIs about passenger services. Therefore, this amendment is duplicative of the drafting already in the Bill, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to reduce disruption. First, it is clearly critically important that we reduce disruption for all passengers and stakeholders on the railway. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that GBR should collaborate with local authorities to reduce transport disruption across modes. I am aware of his efforts to campaign for more joined-up planning in his area, and I hope that the Bill will improve the system for him.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, however, that there are mechanisms elsewhere in the Bill that will enable the sort of collaboration and co-operation that the amendment envisages. The Government are supportive of a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, which is why GBR will be able to agree partnerships with MSAs to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.

Together, the provisions in the Bill create a framework for significant levels of co-operation between GBR and transport authorities. GBR will be organised to work collaboratively with devolved leaders, and I would expect that potential disruptions would be discussed between them as a result of those closer working relationships, enabling them to explore possible measures to reduce disruption and contribute to the effective operation of transport networks.

I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to new clause 70, which seeks to impose several requirements on GBR before it can make service changes, such as publishing a statement, publishing a notice of changes on stations or routes, providing compensation for passengers and consulting various stakeholders.

Let me address each of those elements in turn. It is redundant for GBR to publish a statement about whether service changes are compatible with its functions. The Bill assigns GBR the function of providing railway passenger services, and planning service changes is inherent in that. There is no need to affirm that separately through a published statement.

GBR will not plan service changes in a vacuum. Clauses 80 to 82 require GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and Transport for London before making decisions that will significantly affect the interests of the economy and people in those areas. GBR will also be required through its duties to consider local transport plans when making service changes.

As for publishing notices, it is for GBR to determine the best approach to communicating service changes to the public, and GBR should be able to adapt its communications approaches in line with stakeholder needs and technological advances. The consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog will cover passenger information. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister that appropriate information will be provided to passengers. The watchdog will have powers to request improvement plans and refer issues to the ORR for enforcement when GBR falls short.

I now turn to planned service changes. For clarity, as the new clause indicates, that relates to when GBR chooses to replan services in advance, for example timetables and stopping patterns. It does not relate to service disruption. I cannot see a feasible or a necessary solution to providing compensation to passengers affected by service changes of this nature. Clearly, the development of an effective timetable requires the need for service changes, for example to make the most of infrastructure enhancements for the benefit of passengers and communities. That will especially be the case under GBR, as GBR can review the network and timetable holistically and make joined-up decisions in a way that has been impossible in previous years.

In relation to compensation, quite apart from the undeliverable practicalities of funding and administering such a scheme, at the heart of this is the fact that GBR is being established as the expert-led directing mind of the railway, in charge of planning the best use of the network and balancing its statutory duties. Those duties include promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services and acting in the public interest. Any planned service changes by GBR will therefore be the result of that new system and guided by those duties. Forcing GBR to compensate all those affected by service changes would therefore cut across GBR’s ability to balance its duties in the round, and could create perverse incentives not to make changes and to allow services to stagnate.

I add one point of assurance: service change and service closure are separate issues. The Railways Act 2005 contains the specific processes that must be followed for full service closures, with a decision-making role for Ministers who are the relevant railway funding authority for a given service. Closure proposals must also be ratified by the ORR. The Bill does not change the fundamentals of this process, which protects our important passenger services. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Do you wish to press amendment 75 to a vote?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I have thought long and hard about this, Mrs Hobhouse, and given the time of day, we will let it pass.

Clause 53 - General duties of the LTUC

Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause 54 stand part.

Government amendment 173.

Clauses 55 to 58 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Committee members will be very pleased that I have considerably less to say about this group than the previous one.

Government amendment 173 corrects a small naming error in the Bill: a clause for the London Transport Users Committee incorrectly refers to the passengers’ council. The correction ensures that the Bill is drafted correctly.

Clause 53 will place two general duties on the London Transport Users Committee, which has the operating name London TravelWatch, that it must consider when carrying out its rail functions: to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, and to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds. The aim of the clause is to align the duties of London TravelWatch with those of the passenger watchdog and ensure that both passenger champions will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled people. The duties also ensure that the passenger champions take the overall cost of the railway into account, such as when making recommendations for improvement. That will ensure that their recommendations are realistic and actionable and, therefore, carry more weight in the industry. Aligning London TravelWatch’s duties and powers with the passenger watchdog, as many of the clauses do, ensures consistent passenger advocacy across Great Britain.

I now turn to the remaining clauses 54 to 58. Clause 54 expands London TravelWatch’s powers under section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by giving it the explicit power to collect information that may be of interest to the public. Clause 55 expands London TravelWatch’s current investigation powers to align it with the powers the Bill grants to the passenger watchdog. That includes expanding the list of people who may refer matters to London TravelWatch for investigation, enabling them to obtain information from operators to a deadline, make representations on behalf of passengers and refer matters to the ORR for enforcement, as well as powers to publish investigation reports.

Clause 56 will designate London TravelWatch as the body to which complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights should be addressed within the London railway area. Clause 57 will give London TravelWatch the power to publish information and advice it considers appropriate for users or potential users of the railway in London. That could include information on operator performance—including GBR’s performance in London—such as league tables or naming and shaming, as well as passenger rights and complaint-handling processes. Clause 58 will ensure that London TravelWatch protects sensitive and confidential personal and commercial information obtained during its investigations or through its general power to collect information. I commend these clauses to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

We are at the final furlong—for today at least. I will keep the pace up for the last straight. I am not going to make any comments on clause 53, the general duties of the LTUC, because there is nothing to be improved. Clause 54, which amends section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, mirrors the passengers’ council in many ways. We could take the opportunity to seek to apply the same improvements to the LTUC that we have to the passengers’ council, but I have resisted that temptation given the Government’s reaction to all other proposals to date.

Clause 55 designates the committee as the body to which complaints about potential infringements of retained EU law on rail passengers rights should be addressed. I see no issue with that other than in relation to the criticism we have already outlined regarding the passengers’ council. It is clear that the clause is designed to ensure consistency in London in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so we have no amendments there. I take on board the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 173 and make no further comment.

Clause 56, which is about complaints to the LTUC, again, allows the LTUC to be the official body in which complaints about retained EU law are handled. As the Minister has pointed out, that clause, like others in this group, mirrors the ability of the passengers’ council, so we have nothing else to add on that one.

I make no comments on clause 57 about the publication of information and advice by the LTUC. That brings us to clause 58—restrictions on disclosure of information by the LTUC. As we come to the last clause of the London Transport Users Committee, we also come to the last amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. For those keeping track of these things at home, we are now amending section 252DC. The clause outlines restrictions in a very similar fashion to that of the passengers’ council, so we consequently have no further amendments to suggest for that clause either.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive approach to the remaining clauses and the Government amendment as part of this group. He and his colleagues have ably and comprehensively outlined any potential concerns that they have in relation to the passenger watchdog, many of which would map over to consideration of these clauses. Therefore, I have put our points in relation to this group on the record.

Clause 55 - Investigations by the LTUC

Written evidence reported to the House