Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2026.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

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

Clause 80 - Duty to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 80, page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Scottish Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 104, in clause 80, page 47, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Great British Railways must inform Welsh Ministers before making a decision within subsection (4), and if, in the view of Welsh Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Wales’ economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Wales, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Wales’ economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Wales.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 105, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform a mayoral combined authority prior to making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of the mayoral combined authority, the decision would significantly affect the economy of the authority’s area or of persons living in, working in, or visiting the area, Great British Railways must consult the mayoral combined authority before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting the authority.

Clause 81 stand part.

Amendment 106, in clause 82, page 48, line 25, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Great British Railways must inform Transport for London prior to making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Transport for London, the decision would significantly affect Greater London’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Greater London, GBR must consult Transport for London before making that potential decision.”

This amendment would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Greater London.

Government amendments 158 to 160.

Clause 82 stand part.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That will teach me to go away for a day; the Committee finished off half the Bill without me. Anyway, we will go back to the usual slow progress today!

Clause 80 is pretty straightforward. Great British Railways will have a duty to consult Scottish Ministers before making decisions that relate to cross-border services designated under clause 25, where—this is the important bit—

“the decision will significantly affect…Scotland’s economy or…persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland.”

Similarly, the clause requires GBR to consult Welsh Ministers where its decisions relate to services designated by the Secretary of State that are provided in Wales under a similar process.

Most of the clause is pretty unremarkable, but there is one glaring issue with it: it asserts that GBR will decide for itself when a decision will “significantly affect” the Scottish or Welsh economies. The Minister will recognise that GBR is not an economic forecasting or policymaking body and cannot credibly assess national economic impact internally. The clause therefore makes the duty discretionary and risks major decisions proceeding without any meaningful consultation of either Welsh or Scottish Ministers. How is it sensible for GBR to have the duty to assess whether a proposed action is likely to affect the economies of either Scotland or Wales?

That brings me neatly on to amendments 103 and 104. Amendment 103 would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland. Surely that is the correct approach. Similarly, amendment 104 would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, took the decision. Effectively, instead of GBR having the responsibility to say, “This affects Scotland and/or Wales, and therefore we should consult,” the amendments would give the power to the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to call in a decision on their assessment of their own economy. Surely that is the better approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rebuttal.

Clause 81, which introduces a duty to consult mayoral combined authorities, is pretty similar to clause 80. In the interest of speed, I will skip straight on to amendment 105, which would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, and not GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy. I am repeating a similar argument, but it is an important one—one of process rather than any political issue. Again, we are talking about a rail body making an assessment of the impact of its activities on an economy that it is not a specialist in.

Clause 82 creates a duty to consult Transport for London. Again, we have the same concerns as we had regarding clauses 80 and 81. Under the franchise system, the Mayor of London, and other mayors for that matter, were able to drag in rail operators to question them about their performance and standards; however, that right of consultation seems to have been removed. Is this a deliberate decision by the Minister to reduce the rights of mayors and mayoral combined authorities in relation to consultation? If it is, I would be grateful if he could explain why he has reduced powers, as opposed to increasing them.

Amendment 106 would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Greater London. I am sure the Minister will speak to Government amendments 158 to 160 in a moment, but to anticipate his comments, they provide a duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. The Opposition have no objection to these clarifying amendments.

Finally, I understand that new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is intended to facilitate collaborative strategic planning between central Government and local authorities, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report every five years assessing the long-term changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure. We support the principle of the new clause, but I recognise that a five-year reporting requirement is an onerous task to impose if no concrete improvements follow. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say in support of his new clause.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir Alec. Before I speak to new clause 25, let me make a few comments about the Government and Conservative amendments. I see nothing to object to in the Government amendments, which seem to tidy up some aspects of the Bill surrounding interfaces relating to TfL; I await the Minister’s comments. We support the Conservative amendments, which would strengthen the role of devolved Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral authorities and TfL in relation to GBR’s decisions. That is the right principle because, as I shall argue, for too long decisions about our rail network have been focused on London and the south-east, sometimes to the detriment of regional development.

Our new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report at least once every five years on the long-term rail infrastructure changes needed at a local level. It would force the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and would ensure that those views are properly considered, reported and laid before Parliament. Local authorities understand where infrastructure is holding back growth, connectivity and reliability. Whether it is the need for additional passing loops—were my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset present I am sure that he would talk about the west of England line—station upgrades or better integration with local bus services, such issues are often well known locally but struggle to be given a proper voice under our current arrangements. The new clause would create a formal mechanism to surface those priorities and ensure that they are not overlooked.

The powers in the Bill are not just for this Government and this Parliament, so it is important that appropriate checks and balances are put in place. The new clause would restore balance by embedding local government and parliamentary scrutiny into long-term rail planning, while making sure that local people’s voices are heard by the Government on the changes that they want to see. By requiring reports to be shared with relevant Select Committees, new clause 25 would strengthen accountability and transparency. It would support joined-up, evidence-based planning and help to ensure that Great British Railways delivers the improvements that reflect local need.

To address the shadow Minister’s point, I understand where he is coming from, but were somebody to be punished by being required to tot up the reports that would have to be laid before Parliament under amendments that he and I have tabled, I think it is possible that he might win. In that context, we do not think that this is overly onerous, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the local authority voice can be strengthened.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Good morning, Sir Alec; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendments 103 to 106, which would require GBR to inform the relevant devolved Ministers and bodies before taking a decision that affected them, and the relevant Minister or body to decide whether consultation is necessary, if they deemed the decision to be significant. Each of the amendments does the same thing, for Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL respectively. They would reverse provisions in the Bill as drafted that require GBR to consult the relevant devolved Minister or body if it considers a decision significant.

The Committee has heard that GBR will be the directing mind of the railways. I fully recognise the need for Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL to be suitably informed and consulted on decisions of GBR that relate to them. GBR is already required by the Bill to have regard to the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, statement of objectives, and directions and guidance; to the Welsh Ministers’ transport strategy; to the local transport plans of MCAs; and to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Furthermore, in the case of Scotland and Wales, the memorandums of understanding required by the Bill will ensure that any significant decision affecting Scotland or Wales is not made without the proper engagement of the relevant Government and transport body. In the case of mayoral combined authorities and TfL, there is a clear intention for GBR to work closely in partnership with mayoral authorities including TfL. An industry-developed practitioner guide on how GBR could work in partnership locally was published on 13 January, and GBR will be a proactive partner with all those bodies.

Clauses 80 to 82 already require consultation on significant decisions. Rather than improving the Bill, amendments 103 to 106 would fundamentally hamstring GBR’s decision-making powers by creating unnecessary additional requirements. Decision making would become inefficient and less responsive to passengers and freight. Consultation will ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers can share their views, perspectives and expertise on the economic impact of GBR’s decision making.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister asserts that the amendments would make the process inefficient. Will he please explain why giving mayoral combined authorities or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers the power to call in consultation would make the process less efficient?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Enabling mayoral combined authorities to be consulted on GBR’s proposals creates a basis on which MCAs and GBR can engage with each other to explore challenges as could relate to economic impact. The issue with calling in consultation in every instance is that it might not always be appropriate to do so. Where a more iterative process is possible, and Scottish Government and Welsh Government colleagues, for example, are best able to feed in and solve problems through consultation, it is not necessary to layer more formal processes on top.

It is worth restating for the benefit of the Committee that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are pleased with the basis on which the devolved arrangements have proceeded in the creation of the Bill. Clauses 80 to 82 as drafted will ensure that GBR engages on issues of importance, and that it consults Scottish and Welsh Ministers, rather than drowning in irrelevant detail. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw amendment 103 and not to move amendments 104 to 106.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report

“at least once every five years…assessing long term-changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure.”

Across this Parliament, the Government are making a record £120 billion capital investment in long-awaited infrastructure projects—including road, rail and green energy projects—that will generate the jobs of the future and drive growth. The Government also hugely support collaboration to encourage a more locally focused railway. Insights from local communities, who know their areas best, will play a significant part in achieving that.

The Bill requires GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and to have regard to their local transport plans. GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable effective collaboration and local influence. That will mark a change in approach in how the railway engages locally, providing single-point accountability and enabling GBR to better meet the needs of areas and wider communities. Furthermore, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward-facing and engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. Such engagement and partnerships will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities to be collaborative with GBR on their priorities and to consider proposals.

Government amendments 158 to 160, which are a continuation of the technical amendments that we debated when considering the group led by amendment 165 to clause 6, will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. They clarify the definition of a London passenger railway service to provide consistency in geographical scope with other duties and powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They expand the scope of the duty on GBR to consult with TfL so that it applies to passenger services to, from and within Greater London, and not just those within it.

In summary, clauses 80 to 82 introduce statutory duties on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, MCAs and TfL before it makes a decision about services or infrastructure that would significantly affect the interests of their areas. The rationale for the clauses is compelling. They provide assurance to the relevant people and organisations that they will be properly engaged when GBR makes decisions that significantly impact their areas. By embedding such a broad duty in legislation for the first time, we ensure that engagement is not optional but a requirement. That will lead to better decision making, stronger relationships and outcomes that take account of the needs of communities across Great Britain.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister has heard my submissions. In the interest of time, I will not press my amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 82 - Duty to consult Transport for London

Clause 83 - Advice from relevant local government bodies

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 83, page 49, leave out line 11 and insert—

“(a) railways in the body’s area, or

(b) railway services—

(i) between places in the body’s area, or

(ii) between places in the body’s area and places outside that area.”

This amendment provides for advice to be given by local government bodies to GBR about railway services that operate to, from or within their areas.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 184, 162 and 163.

Clause 84 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The Government are committed to a more locally focused railway under GBR, and provisions in the Bill, and ongoing engagement with local government partners, demonstrate the strength of that commitment. The amendments are primarily technical in nature, but will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. I will briefly summarise their purpose and effect.

Amendment 161 widens the scope of services about which relevant local government bodies may be required to provide advice to GBR under clause 83. This is achieved by including reference to services between places in the body’s area and those outside it, rather than only services operating exclusively within the body’s area. Amendment 162 has the same effect in relation to Greater London. All the amendments are consistent with the original policy intent of the Bill and simply clarify the drafting. Amendments 163 and 184 include important and relevant definitions from other primary legislation, namely the Railways Act 1993 and this Bill.

Clause 83 introduces statutory requirements on mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This duty ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State can have access to advice from local authorities, which have detailed knowledge of their areas, including in relation to local transport. Ultimately, that will support GBR and the Secretary of State in obtaining relevant local insights.

Clause 84 replicates that approach for Transport for London by amending the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert a new section 176A after section 176. The new section introduces a statutory requirement on Transport for London to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This change ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State will have access to Transport for London’s expertise and its detailed knowledge of transport in the Greater London area.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

These are two unremarkable clauses. We have no objections to either of them. As for the Government amendments, they are technical in nature and we also support them.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

While I reject the charge that the amendments are unremarkable, I thank the shadow Minister for his support.

Clause 84 - Advice from Transport for London

Clause 85 - Licensing etc of train drivers

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 85, page 50, leave out line 3.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences certificates so that it remains the ORR.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

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

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Clause 85 relates to the licensing of train drivers, and other matters relating to them. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 and related assimilated law through regulations. The Secretary of State, by interest, has also been empowered to appoint a person or a body to publish and maintain technical standards in a document separate from the regulations.

The regulations set out the requirements that ensure train drivers are competent, medically and psychologically fit, trained on the infrastructure, rolling stock and routes that they are to be deployed on, and generally able to drive trains safely. The power to amend that legislation is required to ensure that the train driver licensing regime can be updated to reflect technological, clinical and medical advancements. The ability to update the legislation on an enduring basis will help to modernise the framework and support health and safety outcomes for train drivers, as well as avoiding operational impacts such as train drivers being unable to be deployed on account of not passing outdated medical tests. The ability to designate a person or body, for example the Office of Rail and Road or GBR, to publish and maintain technical standards will allow the train driving regime to remain adaptable and effective. We are therefore support that.

Subsection (2)(b) does not confirm the ongoing role of the ORR to issue licences or certificates. That is much bigger. Through its omission, it opens the door to the removal of the ORR’s role on this important issue. Unions would clearly fall under the definition in subsection (6)(a), but the drafting effectively ringfences them as the primary consultees while shutting out operators, GBR, passenger groups and safety bodies from the mandatory list. There is a non-mandatory ability to consult, but it seems very odd to identify unions but not any of these other very important organisations as part of a mandatory consultation list. That creates an odd imbalance for regulations that directly affect service delivery and safety, giving one group a guaranteed seat at the table while everyone else is included only at the Secretary of State’s discretion.

Amendment 107 would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences and certificates, so that it remains the Office of Rail and Road, once again restoring power to the independent regulator with experience and expertise in this space. That is a small but important point. It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters that the ORR is not mentioned. If the intention is to remove that responsibility from the ORR, and that is the Government’s ambition as a result of the clause, perhaps the Minister could make that clear? If not, amendment 107 makes it clear that the ORR is the anticipated body.

Amendment 108 is not part of this group but would affect the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to consult passenger and freight service operators, groups representing passengers and railway rail safety organisations before making regulations about the licensing or certification of train drivers. That would mean that not just Labour’s union colleagues would be consulted. I mention the amendment in passing because it is relevant to the discussion of this clause, and I see the Minister nodding sagely.

I intend to seek a Division on amendment 107 if the Government are not minded to accept it.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I will begin by attempting to assuage some of the shadow Minister’s concerns in this space as it relates to the ORR and licensing. There are no plans to transfer the train driving licensing and certification functions from the ORR, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to other bodies. However, while there are no plans to transfer functions at this stage, it is possible that changes may be needed or sought by future Governments to reflect wider changes to the structure, responsibilities and roles in the rail industry—as has happened before. For that reason, these powers are vital to ensure the regime for train driving can function as intended and with the appropriate bodies responsible for issuing licences and certificates.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and understand the importance of what he is driving at when it comes to the all-important issue of safety. His amendment would ensure that only the ORR may issue train driving licences. It would remove the ability to update the arrangements for issuing train driving licences and certificates in the future, for example, to reflect a change in the name of the issuing authority or a transfer of functions from one body to another. It is important that the licensing and certification regime can be adapted and changed if needed, including who issues that documentation, because it may be needed to reflect future changes to industry structures, roles and responsibilities.

The Government’s position is supported by the ORR, which is the current licensing authority. Removing the power to change the arrangements for issuing licences and certificates could undermine our ability to ensure driver licensing and certification arrangements stay fit for purpose as the industry, technology and ways of working evolve. If such proposals were brought forward, the clause as drafted would ensure that any changes are subject to a full public consultation followed by parliamentary scrutiny under the draft affirmative procedure before becoming law. That process affords multiple opportunities for stakeholders’ views to be considered. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 85 allows the Secretary of State to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 by means of secondary legislation. Those regulations establish the requirements for train drivers in Great Britain, which presently cannot be updated regularly without primary legislation, which is a lengthy and inefficient process. The powers in the clause are critical if the Government are to ensure that the framework for train driving remains robust, responsive and fit for purpose in the years ahead.

The Committee may be aware that legislation is due to be laid today to lower the minimum age for train drivers. However, that is being done using time-limited powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which will expire in June 2026. Without this clause, such changes to the law, which will help us to address the shortage in train drivers, will not be possible. The power will allow the regime to evolve in line with best practice, incorporating advances in technology, innovation, operations and safety knowledge, for instance by regularly revising eyesight and hearing requirements to reflect advances in corrective technologies, improved testing methods and emerging medical conditions. Without those powers, the industry will be less effective at integrating new technologies, scientific methods or innovations into the train driving regime as they emerge. I therefore commend clause 85 to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

As I mentioned, we support the intention behind these clauses, but I stand firm in defending the need for the ORR to be the issuing body, so I will press my amendment to a Division.

Clause 86 - Cape Town Convention and Luxembourg Protocol

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 201 and 202.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Amendments 201 and 202 in my name will allow the Government to extend clause 86, on the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol to the convention as they relate to railway rolling stock, and part 4 of the Bill to the Isle of Man. We have consulted the Isle of Man and the other Crown dependencies on whether they would like us to extend this section of the Bill to them. The Isle of Man alone asked that we extend the protocol and these provisions to it. Given that the Government traditionally agree to such requests, we have tabled these amendments.

Extending this section of the Bill will grant the Isle of Man power to make regulations under clause 86. Alternatively, regulations made by the UK Government can be extended to apply to it with appropriate modifications. That would eliminate the need for the Isle of Man to legislate for itself, but it would still have the benefit of having the convention and protocol applying to it. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Clause 86 will allow the United Kingdom to implement and ratify the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg rail protocol, as they relate to railway rolling stock, via secondary legislation. The convention and the protocol aim to provide more security for creditors financing rolling stock by reducing the risk to those involved in such transactions and providing greater security over their interests.

The agreements establish an international legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock and make provision for legal remedies in the event of default or insolvency. Implementing the agreements will therefore make the UK a more attractive place for investors to hold financial interests in rolling stock with UK-based lenders, who will also be able to benefit from the protection of the protocol when they invest in overseas markets.

The UK signed the Luxembourg protocol in 2016. That power allows the UK to meet its international obligations, especially now that the protocol has come into force as a number of states have ratified it. These agreements are supported by the industry and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

As we have just heard, the Luxembourg protocol is designed to provide access to cheaper rolling stock in the UK and overseas, as finance can be secured and/or rolling stock leased from non-UK sources, and UK rolling stock companies can lease abroad at lower risk.

I learned an interesting fact over the weekend. I thought that this proposal would affect only ROSCOs operating in this country, but it actually affects the Government too. I learned that the Government own the freehold of one train in the UK, which is on the Canvey Island miniature railway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was very keen to point out to me that the Government have skin in the game on this clause. I have read that into the record, so I hope she is pleased with that.

We have no objections to the clause. As for Government amendments 201 and 202, which deal with the Isle of Man, I was slightly surprised by them. I am sorry to say that I have never visited the Isle of Man, so I had to do some research on its rail infrastructure, and it turns out that it is entirely heritage in nature, with Victorian rolling stock including a horse-drawn tramway. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why Victorian rolling stock and horse-drawn tramways need the benefit of the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol. I am sure that he has that at his fingertips.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Later in the Bill, we will turn to different forms of traction, but I doubt whether we will cover the horse-drawn variety, so I am glad that the shadow Minister found the opportunity to weave that into our debate. We support the aspiration for every single part of the United Kingdom and Crown dependencies to realise the full benefits of a reformed railway, with regulation that is fit for the future and that allows them to realise their aspirations, however they see fit, to make rail more accessible and more efficient for passengers. That extends to the Isle of Man, so we were pleased to table amendment 201, which will extend those powers to it. I hope that the Isle of Man can benefit in its own way.

New Clause 23 - Charging for removal etc of road vehicles

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause will ensure that network or station operators can recover the costs of removing a road vehicle that is causing disruption or presenting a safety risk on the railway. It applies in situations where a car or bicycle must be removed from an access road, level crossing or any other location that is critical to the safe operation of the railway or the movement of passengers around the network. Any recovery of costs must reflect the actual expenses incurred by the railway operator in resolving the obstruction.

Passengers should be able to use the railway without disruption caused by obstruction on railway land. Network or station operators must be able to ensure that such obstructions are removed promptly, and the cost of doing so should rightly fall on the person in charge of the road vehicle involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

We have no objection in principle to the new clause, but, as we have learned to our cost as consumers in the similar approach taken to car parking charges and the removal of vehicles badly parked elsewhere, this will all come down to the operators contracted by GBR to undertake that function. It is merely asserted that the costs are related to those incurred in the removal, but we all know that such costs can be inflated by unscrupulous operators. Although we do not object to the new clause in principle, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that reputable companies will be used and that this measure will not be used as a secondary source of income for GBR or its contractors.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The shadow Minister is right to champion the interests of users of the railway and to ensure that the people who enforce such charges are scrupulous. Network and station operators, including GBR, will be required to use their judgment to determine whether the person responsible for a vehicle should bear the cost of removing the obstruction from railway land in the first place. I am happy to commit that we will engage closely to ensure that is done in a proportionate way that protects the interests of passengers and users of railway services.

By including this provision in the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the proposals. As part of that process, the shadow Minister is welcome to hold my feet to the fire to make sure that the interests of consumers are protected.

New Clause 61 - Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

All the provisions in this group relate to transfer schemes. New clause 61 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to make one or more transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities, including contracted employment between public entities. The new clause is important, as it will enable transfers to and from GBR. Transfer schemes are regularly used for highly complex transfers and can avoid undue delay and costs in getting the right assets into the right place at the right time.

Transfer schemes will provide a framework for the consistent treatment of workers, in line with Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) principles. GBR will bring together activities from more than 17 existing organisations, including Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, DfT Operator and 14 separate train operating companies, into a single organisation. It is therefore important that transfers be managed in the simplest, clearest and most efficient way possible to protect the staff involved and the taxpayers’ investment.

New schedule 1 provides further detail on transfer schemes. The schedule is important, as it sets out the scope of what may be included in a transfer scheme. This follows standard drafting practice and will prevent individual or piecemeal issues from slowing down the delivery of an integrated railway that better serves the public as a whole.

New clauses 62 and 63 will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make one or more schemes for the transfers involved to enable GBR to run devolved services on their behalf. The provisions require the consent of the Secretary of State to protect their interests and the transfer of liabilities or assets in or out of GBR that they wholly own. The provisions also provide for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make transfers between companies that they themselves wholly own. That will enable a smooth transition between delivery models for devolved services by devolved Governments. Such transfers would not require the consent of the Secretary of State, as they only involve companies owned by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.

We have worked in partnership with the devolved Governments to ensure that they can share in the benefits of an integrated railway and, if they so choose, use GBR for the delivery of devolved railway services. These transfer scheme provisions reflect the approach that we have agreed with Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

New clause 65 will allow for the transfer of employment contracts from the ORR to the new passenger watchdog. The watchdog will take over most current ORR consumer roles, including the setting and oversight of standards. The new clause is important as it allows for the transfer of contracts of employment, provides protection for impacted ORR staff in line with TUPE principles, and will allow the watchdog to have the expertise that it needs to get up and running as soon as possible.

Finally, new clause 64 and amendment 263 make further provision for transfer schemes. New clause 64 introduces new schedule 1 and will allow transfers into GBR to begin before GBR is fully designated to allow for sensible operational preparation ahead of establishment. Amendment 263 is required to ensure consistency of terminology with other railways legislation and to ensure that the definitions of “wholly owned” and other similar wording are accurate and make sense in the context of previous Acts.

Taken together, the provisions are essential to ensure that GBR can be established quickly so that we can bring the benefits that we have promised to the public. They will allow the Government to minimise the cost of the transfer to the taxpayer and ensure that staff are protected. I commend them to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I have nothing to add.

New Clause 62 - Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers

New Clause 63 - Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers

New Clause 64 - Further provision about transfer schemes

New Clause 65 - Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council

New Clause 1 - Purpose of Great British Railways

New Clause 2 - Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators

New Clause 3 - Great British Railways retail requirements

New Clause 7 - Purpose of the Passengers’ Council

New Clause 8 - Passengers’ Charter

New Clause 9 - Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function

New Clause 10 - Review of passenger safety

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Before I go into the detail of new clause 10, let me say why we think it is important. Passenger safety on our railway is important not only in absolute terms—it is absolutely right that people who are paying to take the train be safe, have their safety taken seriously and feel safe—but because, as always, public transport is competing with the private motor car, which is often associated, rightly or wrongly, with safety. Many people feel that it is a safer option, particularly late at night.

Our new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to undertake, within six months of the Act’s passing, a comprehensive review of passenger safety, with a particular focus on the safety of female passengers and passengers with disabilities. It would need to look at staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly for services that run late at night or that could give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety, such as services around special events. Lighting is a key consideration, as are opening hours and accessibility of health points. CCTV coverage is already significant across our railway, but the processes in place to access it and obtain evidence promptly are not always there.

We want to look at the merits of ideas such as real-time reporting applications for incidents in which a passenger is harassed. There are such initiatives at the moment—I really ought to know the number by now, given the endless announcements: 61016, perhaps—but there is more that can be done. I have just made the point covered in our proposed subsection (3)(f): that public awareness of the methods to report concerns should be promoted. Perhaps they are working better than I thought.

There is a lot to be done on making sure that travel connections from the train for onward journeys are strong, particularly bus waiting points and points to pick up taxis. Staffing is also a key consideration that requires some thought. If the review were to recommend any action to improve safety, it would be down to GBR to make efforts to implement those actions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

New clause 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), would mandate some provisions on train guards. It has been tabled because, alas, the current general customer experience of the visibility of guards, conductors, train managers or whatever we want to call them, where they are present, is patchy at best—that is the most polite way I can put it. New clause 48 is a modest, practical proposal that puts passenger safety and accessibility at the heart of our railways.

Guards, train managers, conductors, senior conductors and all the other job titles—including on-board supervisors on Southern; I must not forget those—are uniquely placed to provide reassurance to passengers and to identify problems at an early stage, whether that is vulnerable passengers needing assistance, antisocial behaviour escalating or obstructions that compromise the safe operation of the train.

By placing a clear duty to patrol where practicable, at reasonable intervals, this new clause would support staff in doing what many already strive to do, while giving passengers reassurance that someone is present, visible and responsive. That visible presence offers peace of mind, particularly for those who may feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and helps to build confidence in the rail network as a public space. The benefit is a safer, more inclusive travelling environment, with early intervention preventing minor issues from becoming serious incidents and providing a safer, more welcoming environment.

New clause 57 would deal with antisocial noise. This is a very grave matter. Passengers are frequently plagued by the imposition of people’s often dubious taste in music or TikTok videos, which may sometimes include the soothing sound of cats miaowing but quite often takes the form of a great deal of other raucous things. It may seem disproportionate to suggest legislation to counter the problem, but sometimes our own human weaknesses let us down. That is why new clause 57 would require regulations to be made to

“prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.”

I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

New clause 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to undertake a review of passenger safety within six months of the Act passing and to make all reasonable efforts to implement any actions identified. I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause—passenger safety is of the utmost importance as we transition the railway into public ownership—but I do not think the new clause necessary, as the Government are taking action even before the Bill is passed.

As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will be aware, we already have a range of security measures and guidance in place across the railway and the wider transport network, addressing the issues raised. Those will be maintained under public ownership and are kept under continuous review to ensure that they meet the challenges of the day.

I highlight the recently reviewed and updated long-running public security campaign, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, which increases public awareness and makes clear how to report suspicious activity to the British Transport police via the 61016 text reporting service; I am not sure I need to remind Members of that, as it will probably be seared into every one of our minds from travelling on the railway. I am confident that in giving GBR strategic responsibility for rail workforce planning, we will create more resilient staffing and provide greater visibility and assurance to passengers, both on trains and at stations.

As part of the Government’s safer streets mission, we have already committed to reduce violence against women and girls by half over the next decade. That will be tracked by Government through the violence against women and girls strategy, recently published by the Home Office, which includes ambitious measures to enhance the safety of women and girls on the rail network. That includes improving live access to CCTV images by the British Transport Police, and establishing consistent personal safety criteria across the rail network.

We are also already working to improve Passenger Assist and to support staff with better tools and more consistent training across the network. The ORR also monitors and reports on Passenger Assist and releases statistics quarterly. Finally, the ORR already has general safety duties that include carrying out inspections to ensure that the train and freight operating companies and Network Rail manage passenger and occupational health and safety risks appropriately. Those remain unchanged by the Bill. Given that, a further review of safety requirements would only serve to drive attention and resource away from the action that is already being taken.

Similarly, I fully agree with the principle of new clause 48, which aims further to ensure that passengers experience journeys free from disruption, harassment and criminality. I pay tribute to the train managers and guards across the network who work tirelessly in the interests of passengers to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I know the friendly and reassuring faces of the train manager on my regular trips between Parliament and my constituency. However, as I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, changing the role of train managers and guards through a legal duty could be a change to the nature of individuals’ contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. It would be up to GBR to consider what is appropriate at the time. Consequently, I do not agree with the new clause.

Finally, new clause 57 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the use of electronic audio devices on rail services. I cannot begin to express the depths to which I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. The Government recognise the nuisance that irresponsibly used personal electronic devices can cause to other passengers, and I appreciate the importance of ensuring that passengers are not disturbed by excessive noise while travelling on the railways.

I am pleased, however, to confirm that the matter is already addressed under existing national railway byelaws. Railway byelaw 7 states that people “on the railway” shall not “to the annoyance of” others

“sing; or…use any instrument, article or equipment”

to produce sound without

“written permission from an Operator”.

Any person who breaches that byelaw commits an offence and may be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to reassure us that the methods that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage wants to implement already exist, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tabled new clause 57 if those byelaws were being routinely implemented on trains, which is what he seeks. We have all been on trains where no one around is empowered, equipped or minded—because they are not confident enough, or are intimidated by the person—to act in that way. Can the Minister spell out a little more what the statistics are for that byelaw being used, and whether it is utilised to its fullness? Will he commit to see whether it is adequate? Ultimately, if train staff do not feel empowered, we can have all the byelaws in the world that we like—we have them on buses and in the streets, too—but they need people to feel empowered, able and confident to take action under them. I am not convinced that we have that at the moment.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The hon. Lady is right to raise that challenge. It is important that the byelaws are in place, but we have all experienced them being flagrantly disregarded on the railway network. I believe that the answer is to ensure that the byelaws that exist are regularly and robustly enforced. I do not believe that we need to add more to the statute book to solve the problem, because the principle of making enforcement work is the more important and operationally demanding one. That needs to be done in the shortest order. I am happy to take that away and to engage with officials about how we can more robustly enforce the byelaws.

GBR having a holistic responsibility for the network will grant it the opportunity to think in a more holistic way about how byelaws can be enforced across the piece, I am sure in close collaboration with the British Transport Police. The Government consider that the issue is more appropriately a matter for train operators to manage and enforce at an operational level, rather than through additional Government regulation. As such, it is better dealt with through the existing railway byelaws rather than through regulations.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

The point is that responsibility currently sits with train operators to enforce the byelaws. Just yesterday, I was sitting in a quiet carriage, and it did not say anywhere that making noise would break byelaws. If the Minister is suggesting that the operators will maintain that responsibility, I do not see how the status quo will change with the existence of Great British Railways.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to give the responsibility to Great British Railways rather than the transport operators, and to improve signage to ensure that people know that violence against women and girls or adverse noise will not be tolerated. We cannot just have posters; it has to be in places where people can see it and understand it. A simple “Please be quiet” does not seem to be doing the job at the moment.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The hon. Lady raises another valid point. It is right that train operators manage and enforce the byelaws and that GBR will have the added benefit that I have identified of holistic responsibility across the network, but she is right to point out that there is much further to go. Sometimes, there are complexities around subjectivity, where somebody on the train will have to determine what they believe constitutes an unreasonable level of noise, but that does not stop the fact that there are clear incidents in which the noise is totally unacceptable. We have further to go in this space, and the signage issue that the hon. Lady raises is interesting and something that I will reflect on. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clauses.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I will press new clause 10 to a vote.

New Clause 11 - Fund for future railway improvements

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Our new clause 11 would create a fund for future railway improvement, which would have multiple intentions. First, it would create a stable pipeline of enhancements in infrastructure for the years and perhaps even decades ahead, which the supply chain is so loudly clamouring for, given that the rail networks enhancements pipeline has not been updated for many years. During Transport Committee visits around the country, we talked to supply chain businesses. Many of them reported never feeling quite so despairing about the outlook for their trades given the uncertainty with railway investment and enhancements. The fund would also create hope for communities. It would create a mechanism for them to submit their ideas for consideration, so they form part of the pipeline.

In anticipation of the Government or the Conservatives accusing me of being fiscally reckless, careful observation of the wording highlights that the new clause does not stipulate an amount for what should go into the fund. That is for the Government of the day to decide, but the principle is clear: there should be a longer-term process and mechanism for local authorities and communities to get their ideas on the table.

What would the fund involve? The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the fund, which could be for new or reopened railways or just stations. We would call it the tomorrow’s railway fund. Local and regional transport authorities would have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund. That could be simply to develop an idea to the next level or to implement construction of something that has already gained support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

I would also be inclined to support the Conservatives’ new clause 35, which would explicitly intend to create a long-term pipeline project. As I have alluded, we think that is a good idea for our railway and our supply chain, and it is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should welcome, given their oft-stated but rarely implemented commitment to economic growth and getting our country moving.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I seek a bit of advice here, Sir Alec: I presume this is the right time to talk about new clause 35 as well.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

Yes.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Thank you, Sir Alec. On new clause 11, I hear what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says about fiscal responsibility, but it seems a bit strange to set up a fund with no funds in it. Although, as Committee members have seen in the new clauses I have tabled, I support the principle of having a long-term approach to infrastructure development and investment in rolling stock and skills in this country, I cannot support the creation of a new fund without fully understanding where that money would come from.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Given the shadow Minister’s criticism of the new clause, is he willing to condemn the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund for the same reasons?

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success.

New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development.

That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements.

In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling the new clauses, which relate to enhancements on the rail network or the impacts of other projects on rail.

New clause 11 would establish a fund for future railway improvements. Local and regional transport authorities could then bid for funding from the pot for their local areas. I certainly share the support the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has for improving the railway across the whole country, and I believe that the railway can bring benefits to the places it serves. However, it should be for GBR, as the organisation run by experts and charged with running railways, to maintain close relationships with local and regional authorities, including the local commissioning of infrastructure projects where agreements can be reached.

The fund the hon. Member proposes risks removing GBR’s opportunity to organise, design and implement enhancements, which is a job that it is best placed to do, as the directing mind. Of course, GBR will engage closely with local and regional authorities when planning, and should invest where real benefits would be gained. Enhancements funding should continue to be set at the spending review; that is appropriate where projects are discretionary. GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery.

I also expect the publication of GBR’s integrated business plan to provide further transparency on the enhancements GBR plans to undertake, and the associated funding. That should help set the roadmap for the five-year funding period. I hope the hon. Member can agree that such decisions should be made by GBR, working with local authorities and with mind to the long-term rail strategy.

New clause 35 would establish a report on a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work, on a line-by-line or service-by-service basis, and with considerable detail on the specific timing, scope and sequencing of works over a 15-year period. I share the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to create transparency around GBR’s spending, and certainty for the railway supply chain. We are already working to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and supporting infrastructure, such as electrification, that will provide clear direction for the supply chain. As I am sure he already knows, the Bill contains a duty for GBR to consider certainty for railway service providers. However, I disagree that this needs to be in statute and that a pipeline containing the level of detail proposed in this amendment, over 15 years, would be a good way of achieving the goals of transparency and certainty for GBR.

GBR will have a five-year integrated business plan, backed by five years of funding for infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewals. That has been established as the appropriate balance between long-term planning and the realities of a changing operational environment. Forecasting specific infrastructure works beyond five years becomes increasingly unreliable, potentially leading to instability for the supply chain and for GBR—the exact thing this amendment is trying to avoid. Enhancements funding will continue to be set at the spending review, while GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. That ensures that larger projects have longer term certainty. The current process has resulted in £2 billion being invested in the railway network every year, from 2019 to 2024. I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can understand that creating a stable long-term rail strategy and business planning environment will do more to achieve these aims.

Finally, I turn to new clause 71, which raises the importance of understanding rail impact when considering major infrastructure projects. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for raising this issue, but I do not agree with it primarily because the matters that the amendment seeks to mandate are already comprehensively addressed in the existing statutory framework. Under the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statements applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the transport, energy, waste and water sectors, the Secretary of State will consider requirements to mitigate adverse impacts on transport networks arising from any developments. For transport projects, promoters must provide detailed assessments of the impact of their proposals on transport networks, including rail capacity, demand and operational implications. These assessments are a routine and established part of the development consent order process, which the Secretary of State must consider. This amendment would introduce an entirely new statutory reporting step before an application could be examined, which would go against the Government's reforms to streamline the consenting regime following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aims to make the system quicker and more efficient. Instead of adding value, this new requirement would instead risk adding delay in introducing uncertainty, which could hinder timely progress on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Having laid out the Government’s arguments to these amendments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

We would like to press new clause 11.

New Clause 12

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I shall be concise because we have perhaps started discussing this new clause unwittingly in the previous segment. New clause 12 would require a review of the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund. Given the comments made by the shadow Minister, I am not sure that the wider populace would be quite so effusive about the success of the program—for £500 million, it delivered just 11 miles of reopened line and two new stations. Having said that, the heart of the idea was positive and that is exactly why we tabled our new clause 11, which we have debated previously. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the now cancelled restoring your railway fund, to understand the pearls of wisdom that could be salvaged from its wider failure, to improve things for the future.

New clause 58 is about our rails to trails programme, which would create the potential for communities to more easily acquire disused railway lines and turn them into walking and cycling routes. Of course, lots of disused railways in the country are no longer owned by railway organisations, but some are. The new clause would facilitate acquisitions so that we can create more spaces on routes that are segregated from traffic for people to enjoy.

New clause 60, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), concerns safe bicycle storage at railway stations. It would introduce a new requirement that every railway station should have at least one safe bike storage facility, and one additional facility for every 30 motor vehicle parking spaces at the station. The new clause was prompted by my hon. Friend’s receiving lots of constituency casework on bike thefts at stations in her constituency. The wider context is the extensive coverage in recent months of issues with how British Transport police investigate bike theft—something they have recently clarified and put on a firmer footing.

The new clause is important because the first couple of miles from the railway station to local communities is often a major barrier to the uptake of public transport. Walking and cycling are particularly important for that, and people can of course travel much further on a bicycle than they can by walking. The new clause is particularly important given that in 2024 more than 4,000 bikes were stolen from stations, with only 22 thefts leading to a criminal charge.

The Bill seeks to reinvigorate our railways and make them the preferred travel option for many across the country—those seeking fast, direct routes, those seeking to reduce their environmental impact, and those who cannot drive or do not have access to a car. To ensure that the railways can properly fulfil this function—to truly let the train take the strain—we must ensure the connectivity of railway lines with other local travel options, including cycling routes. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to support the new clause, although I am happy to tell you, Sir Alec, that we do not intend to press any of the new clauses to a Division.

Rebecca Smith (Conservative, South West Devon)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I had not planned to speak to the new clauses, but as they are pertinent to things going on in my constituency, I will make the most of the opportunity to have the floor.

In principle, new clause 12, on the restoring your railway fund, is a good idea. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was cynical about the scheme, but it has had some significant successes. It reallocated money that was being spent exclusively in the north of the country to other parts of the country, such as the south-west.

I believe the Minister will admit that the Dartmoor line has been hugely successful. The latest statistics show that 775,000 journeys were made between its opening and March 2025, so I assume we will have probably hit the magic million mark by now. The line goes from Exeter to Okehampton, which is slap bang in the middle of Dartmoor and not very easy to access by road, and has allowed people who live there to get to work, leisure and whatever else in Exeter.

The Dartmoor line is also why the reopening of Tavistock station was being looked into, as part of the restoring your railway fund, before the new Government scrapped it, with the money being put back into HS2 and the Manchester to Crewe line. The restoring your railway fund was a success, even if it was not as successful as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would have liked—but it only existed for a few years. Knowing what we do about the timescales for railway works, it was very good.

Whether we call it restoring your railway or not, I call on the Minister to ensure that we continue to look at branch lines, particularly for Tavistock, which would link Plymouth dockyard, and all the defence work going on there, to the wider population, and enable cars to come off the road. Yesterday, the A386 in my constituency was closed for the majority of the day because of a car that flipped, meaning that commuters, schoolchildren and people going about their daily business were trapped and could not get in or out of Plymouth, which is the 15th or 16th largest city in the country. I do not think that is acceptable. All we need is an additional railway station.

Let me turn to the rails to trails programme, which I did not think would be relevant but unfortunately has become so. Plymouth city council is eager to install a cycle path in my constituency, but because it will use an old railway track, the road will have to be closed for 14 months. I was unable to attend a public meeting in my constituency last night at which more than 50 constituents turned up to say how unimaginative the council is being about the diversion required.

In principle, rails to trails is a good idea, but let us not be naive about the impact on communities where we seek to turn old infrastructure into a path suitable for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse riders. There is always a cost to taxpayers and a physical impact on their daily life. Although I am not against rails to trails—indeed, there are similar successful schemes in my constituency—such projects can be deeply inconvenient to develop. I wanted to be able to tell my constituents that I raised that with the Minister.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to the new clauses. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the restoring your railway fund, which was set up by the previous Government and wound up in July 2024. Unfortunately, I do not believe it would be a good use of time for the Secretary of State to publish reports about the previous Government’s policies instead of getting on with the business of reforming the railway.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

Will the Minister gently give way on that point?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Gently? Yes.

Edward Argar (Conservative, Melton and Syston)

I gently take the Minister to task on that. Were not some of the first actions of Secretaries of State of this Government, when they came into office, to publish reports in which they—one can question how accurately—sought to look backwards over what the previous Government had done?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

If the Minister’s Wikipedia profile is correct, he studied history and politics. As an historian, does he not agree that to get the future right, we must learn from the past, and that we should therefore review the activities of past Governments?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come.

GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true. We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators.

New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield. The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments.

I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land.

The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration.

New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations. The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund.

With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I enjoyed the debate with the Minister, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 13 - Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes

New Clause 14 - Report by the Secretary of State on types of traction

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—

(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;

(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.

(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).

(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”

This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on types of traction within a year of the Bill having passed, because the UK seems very committed to pursuing the somewhat anomalous obsession of replacing existing diesel trains with something called discontinuous electrification.

I will try not to bore the Committee too much with the technical detail, but historically the solution to avoiding diesel trains on railways has been to fully electrify them, which brings a huge raft of advantages. Electric trains are significantly more reliable than diesel trains. They are lighter, and therefore easier on the track. They have an impressive power-to-weight ratio, which is of particular benefit to freight trains; the acceleration of electrically hauled freight trains is incomparable with diesel. They also have a lower whole-life cost. Yet, with a couple of noble exceptions, there seems to be a real aversion to full electrification. I can entirely understand that for lightly used branches, where some of the novel solutions, such as battery trains or discontinuous electrification with batteries, would be entirely suitable. However, it currently feels like there is no clear criteria or logic as to which type of traction solution is pursued.

I have attempted to find answers through written questions and other means; I simply seek reassurance that the only consideration is not saving capital costs. I hope the Minister agrees that it is important that we consider whole-life cost as well as capital cost. It therefore ought to be possible to logically define the criteria by which a line will be chosen to be subject to electrification, no electrification or partial electrification. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 19 would make sure that the Bill takes account of our requirements for decarbonisation and rail climate resilience. It would require the publication of a framework that showed how GBR would manage objectives to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to identify sections of the network that are most vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, flooding, heat, cold or soil moisture deficit, and how to manage that. That is more than enough from me; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer.

In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types. In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy.

New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network.

As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made. Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty.

When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I am content to not to press new clause 14—we will save that battle for another day—but I will move new clause 19 formally when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 16 - Access for All programme: review

New Clause 19 - Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework

New Clause 20 - Great British Railways: environmental targets

New Clause 21 - Review of public road level crossings

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require a review of public road level crossings. It addresses similar themes to those raised by the new clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have previously discussed.

We are seeking an annual review of high-delay level crossings, such as the one at Thatcham on what is known as the Berks and Hants line between Reading and Westbury and beyond. That is because we need to undertake proper analysis of the local economic cost and social impact caused by congestion, which admittedly is often necessary to facilitate railway services. It is sometimes perceived—whether the perception is accurate is another matter—that level crossing down times can be excessive. There may be opportunities to improve that, although ultimately to alleviate the local impact of the railway going through those communities, the high-delay level crossings would need to be replaced with an alternative means of crossing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and other signatories to the new clause are concerned about the wasted time and fuel resulting from long periods of idling traffic while the barriers are down, which can also lead to lost time for commuters, shoppers and business travellers. Road congestion across the UK is estimated to cost the economy tens of billions of pounds a year—some estimates exceed £30 billion—and high-impact level crossings are major contributors to local congestion hotspots, which can result in increased operating costs, particularly for commercial vehicles, such as delivery vans and lorries, and tradespeople. That, in turn, can reduce business productivity, leading to supply chain disruption, and can undermine labour productivity. Of course, there can also be a significant impact on emergency and public services.

The presence of a highly congested level crossing can act as a physical constraint on local planning. Local authorities are often unable to approve major housing or commercial developments that would increase local road traffic, as that would exacerbate the existing gridlock. That therefore stifles economic and housing growth. The Government have been very clear about their commitment to economic growth and highly ambitious housing targets that some consider to be undeliverable, so I hope that argument holds some weight with the Minister if none of the others do.

Let me say a bit more about Thatcham as a case study. Local reports and studies frequently say that the Thatcham level crossing is typically lowered for more than 30 minutes every hour at peak times, leading to significant congestion. The crossing is known as an MCB-CCTV. I have an ongoing commitment to waging war against acronyms, so let me say that that means a manually controlled barrier with CCTV monitoring. It is located on the busy Berks and Hants line, with approximately 133 trains per day passing over it. The line speed is high, at 100 mph—it is definitely an example of a railway that has benefited from full electrification—which requires the barriers to be lowered earlier than on slower lines, to allow sufficient warning time and ensure safe signal clearance.

Thatcham town council and West Berkshire council have formally acknowledged the serious traffic delays at the crossing. These delays have been specifically noted in the development of the local transport plan and the local plan review—the issue of the level crossing delays is identified as a critical factor that must be addressed and mitigated before any major new developments can proceed.

A study assessing the viability of replacing the level crossing with a new road bridge over the railway and canal estimated the cost to be in the region of £16.5 million, with that proposal ultimately declared not financially viable as a stand-alone public project. We do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause, but we will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue that it highlights.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which would require GBR to produce annual reports and technical studies relating to road crossings, with the aim of easing congestion. It is our view that the new clause would add highly disproportionate administrative and reporting burdens on to Great British Railways that we do not believe are necessary to manage level crossings and mitigate any of the impacts on communities that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage so powerfully described.

The new clause would require GBR to undertake an annual review of every public road level crossing in Britain, assessing the social and economic effects on each area, and would mandate feasibility and engineering studies for any site judged to have high levels of congestion. That would create a substantial and ongoing workload that would divert time, staff and funding away from the core functions of managing the railway, including by requiring GBR to develop proposals for engineering solutions even when there is no clear business case for intervention. That would increase costs, reduce flexibility and limit GBR’s ability to prioritise investment where it delivers the greatest benefits.

Network Rail has a statutory duty to minimise risks to the public and keep level crossings safe. I reassure the hon. Member that GBR will continue to be bound by those duties, while also taking full account of the wider economic and social impacts that level crossing down time can have on local communities. In support of that, as is the case now, GBR will be expected to keep level crossing operations under review, support continuous improvements in safety, and reduce unnecessary disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.

GBR will remain directly accountable to the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road, the independent rail safety regulator on this work. As is the case now, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that decisions are well informed and responsive to local needs. Through that approach, GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local priorities and is firmly grounded in evidence. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24 - Great British Railways Board

New Clause 27 - Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy

New Clause 31 - Minimum service levels

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Wetherby and Easingwold)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

New clause 31 seeks to reimpose minimum service levels. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose minimum service levels on passenger rail services, and for GBR to enforce them. The previous Government passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023, and the new clause essentially makes the railways subject to those regulations once more.

The purpose of the new clause is to reduce the impact of rail strike action on the ability of passengers to access their place of work and essential services, and to reduce the negative impacts on the wider economy, by setting minimum service levels—MSLs—for passenger rail during strikes. The intention is that the new clause will lead to an improved and more consistent level of service for passengers during rail strikes, when work notices are issued by employers to secure MSLs.

Public transport is critical for the everyday lives of citizens in Great Britain. The transport system supports all sectors of the economy and is a crucial enabler of economic growth. Rail is an important public transport mode as it enables passengers to make vital journeys, such as commuting to work or accessing essential services. Strike action on the passenger rail network can lead to disproportionate disruption to millions of people who rely on these services. A survey conducted by the Department for Transport in 2022 found that most rail users’ journeys were impacted by strike action, with some passengers reporting an adverse financial impact as a result.

Strike action usually takes place when there is a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the dispute cannot be resolved by other means. It is intended to cause disruption to the employer and, in some cases, the wider economy. Strike action in the rail sector, however, affects ordinary rail users, who are not party to the dispute. In December 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that rail strikes between June ’22 and January ’23 would result in a loss of UK economic output of around £500 million due to people outside the rail sector not being able to work. Several sectors, including hospitality, have reported loss of revenue directly from the impact of rail strike action.

Government intervention is intended to mitigate disproportionate impacts of strike disruption on the railway, rail users and the wider economy. While the rail industry has put in place contingency plans to run a limited number of services during previous strike action, the level of service that it can deliver varies. Setting MSLs for passenger rail services will provide an important tool for employers to be able to deliver an overall improvement on the service levels that are typically seen during strike periods, and provide passengers with more certainty and consistency, which is just as important. This is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of passenger rail strike action on users’ access to their place of work and to essential services, and the impact on the wider economy, while balancing that with the ability of workers to take strike action.

New clause 32, also in my name, would provide for a working practices and productivity modernisation framework. It would implement a number of provisions to make running GBR easier and more cost-effective for the Government and the taxpayer. Currently, there are a number of historical terms and conditions in train driver contracts that are outdated and allow drivers to hold their employers to ransom over pay. They make the railway inefficient to run and drivers slow to train, and end up costing taxpayers and fare payers more.

Let us look at some examples of improvements—this is a non-exhaustive list. We could get drivers to operate train doors without additional payments, and provide a train driving school with updated training methods to speed up route knowledge and training times. At the moment, it takes a lot less time to train a pilot to fly a jumbo jet from scratch than it takes to train a train driver. We could deal with the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails, and introduce multidisciplinary flexible maintenance teams that support other local teams when needed. We could permit driver managers to drive trains when required, and link general pay rises to productivity gains.

All those examples, which are listed in the new clause, are eminently sensible improvements to the ability of GBR to run an effective, modern railway. Most people agree that having a seven-day timetable with a six-day roster is ridiculous, because it means that the Sunday service is voluntary. As a result, drivers are always paid overtime even though the service is part of the standard schedule. That does not happen anywhere else in the public or private sector. The new clause would mean that GBR could be run more cost-effectively. Many train companies have historical disputes with drivers over this issue, and have been unable to remove it from their trip terms and conditions as the drivers would simply go on strike. Now is a perfect time to change approach, with the full backing of the Government, in primary legislation. This wholesale reform of the railways is an opportunity for the Government to reset the terms and conditions for train operation.

As I have said, it is currently quicker to qualify to fly a commercial jet than to qualify to drive a train, and once a pilot has their licence they can fly almost anywhere in the world, while qualified train drivers are restricted to a specific route. We want to make it quicker and easier to become a train driver so that more people have access to the job. That is why the new clause legislates for GBR to establish a train driving school with updated methods. It would decrease dependency on overtime for sick days and for leave. GBR would be directly accountable to Parliament on the success of the framework, which we believe to be important.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

Let me say a couple of words on the shadow Minister’s new clauses. I entirely understand what he is trying to achieve and he asks some valid questions about the nature of industrial relations in the rail industry and how they are managed. I gently suggest, though, that the complexity of those things is perhaps greater than it might appear. This is not the place for me to share my extensive war stories of negotiating on a whole range of things with ASLEF, RMT and TSSA—the three main railway trade unions—but on that basis, my view is that these are exactly the sorts of things that are best left to GBR, with appropriate support and leadership from the Secretary of State.

Our new clause 55 is a different way of tackling a similar problem. It would require GBR to examine the benefits of mutual and co-operative structures and what they might be able to achieve. It is true that industrial relations in the rail industry are often fraught and subject to frayed tempers. As well as continuing constructive dialogue with the unions, are there other ways of looking at things? Perhaps we could draw on experiences both here and abroad, particularly in Germany, where mutual and co-operative structures, making sure that the worker has a voice on boards, and so on, can create a stronger footing for positive dialogue and secure employee buy-in to the wider objectives of the organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, in what could well be our final session, unfortunately, on this big and beautiful Bill, as somebody across the pond might say.

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for new clause 31. The previous Government introduced minimum service levels legislation akin to that proposed in the new clause, which this Government repealed under the Employment Rights Act 2025 as it did not support a positive and productive relationship between employers, employees and their trade unions. Indeed, it served only to exacerbate the national rail disputes under the previous Government, who saw two years of widespread strikes and disruption to millions of passengers.

The previous Government’s inability to solve the industrial dispute is estimated to have cost £850 million in lost revenue—a debilitating amount for industry and the taxpayer. In agreeing pay deals last year, we have more than halved the proportion of rail services lost due to cancellations and national strikes since the height of industrial action under the previous Government, and we have begun the critical job of making the railway work for the passenger once again. Further, although many rail employers had the opportunity to use minimum service levels regulations, none chose to do so as they deemed them either unworkable or unnecessary. For those reasons, we do not agree with the principle behind the new clause, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

On new clause 32, the hon. Gentleman’s proposed working practices and productivity modernisation framework under Great British Railways covers various areas, with the aspiration, which the Government share, of delivering a modernised railway that fully meets the needs of passengers. I am grateful to him for his considered suggestions for a framework. It covers some matters that we are already taking steps to address, such as the extension of rest day working agreements to improve the reliability of train services seven days a week. As I confirmed to the hon. Gentleman last week, some train operators already have Sunday in their working week, and we are very serious about improving performance everywhere. We want a railway that works on all seven days of the week, which is why we have instructed train operators to set out detailed resourcing plans, including on recruiting sufficient drivers and crew. However, the suggested framework also proposes some changes that could breach an individual’s contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. They need to be negotiated and updated as part of staff contracts, and that is not appropriate for legislation.

Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. On the proposal to require GBR to establish a train driving school with streamlined training methods to increase driver availability, I assure him that steps have already been taken to address the driver shortage. In May 2025, we announced a reduction in the minimum age to become a train driver from 20 to 18 to allow train operating companies and, in future, Great British Railways to create career pathways for school leavers and broaden the pool of people they can recruit from to address shortages.

On training in general and the need for training to reduce unnecessary delays in deploying rolling stock and other areas, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that comprehensive and targeted training is essential to the proper running of the railway. GBR will implement best practice across the railway to ensure its staff have everything they need to succeed.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his desire to end short-notice holiday approval, the dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave and the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails. As I have said, we want a railway that works seven days a week. It is our view that the privatised railway caused this issue, with a fragmented set of employee terms and conditions that has resulted in differing approaches to the workforce. In bringing together train operators, GBR can start to tackle some of those issues, which are rooted in the privatised system. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that must not come at the expense of safety or workers’ rights.

On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the Secretary of State should be prevented from awarding general pay rises to workers when train performance has fallen, may I suggest that performance is something that GBR can improve in a lot of ways, including by bringing track and train together and by sensibly co-ordinating the timetable? Those are both lacking today and create many performance problems.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister has inadvertently misunderstood that paragraph of the new clause; it does not refer to performance but to productivity.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for that important clarification and I happily correct my remarks to reflect that. However, I do not believe that it changes the substance of my point: improvement of performance and productivity can be achieved through myriad factors that do not include preventing the Secretary of State from awarding pay rises to workers when the level of train performance has fallen. There is a point about fairness and equity there, as productivity is outwith the control of some people who work on the railways. The amendment would, in effect, punish people for factors that could be beyond their control.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

That is an interesting point. If the productivity of a private business falls, it becomes less profitable and cannot afford pay rises. Should the same attitude not be directed to public sector bodies? Where productivity falls, the people who suffer are the taxpayers. As the Secretary of State and GBR stand in the shoes of the taxpayer, should they not apply the same approach that the private sector has to live with?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

The shadow Minister makes a valid point about the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to ensure productivity as part of GBR’s processes. We differ on the mechanism by which those efficiencies are achieved. GBR will be incentivised to improve performance via its performance duty and, in extremis, GBR and the Government will work with unions as partners to achieve necessary changes. We have discussed at length, when considering the Bill, the myriad forms of accountability and enforcement of consumer standards and the need to drive competition where it drives performance in some areas of the railways. However, our approach to union relations has been different from that of the previous Government: it has been to get around the table to address matters and avoid the need for industrial action. That in itself is a driver of productivity on the railway, which is in stark contrast to more of a scorched earth approach from the last Government, which resulted in strike after strike, often costing the taxpayer in the process.

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

Is it not the case that in recent years public sector pay has fallen hugely behind private sector pay, so there is an awful lot of catching up to do?

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

My hon. Friend is right to have the aspiration that public sector workers, who keep the wheels of our economy turning by facilitating connectivity and allowing the private sector to thrive, deserve to be fairly remunerated for doing so. Having a public sector body run in the public interest provides efficiencies in itself, with publicly owned English rail operators receiving 33% of Government funding and yet generating £4.5 billion or 38% of the income. If we remove the £850 million of unnecessary strike costs that would have been incurred, that shows that efficiencies and productivity are being built into the system by having a fairer, more decent and practicable relationship with trade unions.

On a more specific point, drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure was also mentioned. Such inspection is already carried out by Network Rail and there are no plans to change that under GBR. Consequently, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to move new clause 32 and to withdraw new clause 31.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 55. It is imperative that GBR delivers for its passengers and employees alike. GBR workers will be key stakeholders in its success, so it is important that they, and the trade unions that represent them, are treated with respect, listened to and involved in the key decisions that affect them. The model for how that will work in GBR is still being considered and developed, together with GBR’s corporate governance and employee engagement structures, and it would be inappropriate to commit GBR to reporting on its structure or employee engagement arrangements when decisions on such matters are still to be taken. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to move his new clause.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

The Minister raises interesting arguments, but I wish new clauses 31 and 32 to be put to a vote.

New Clause 32 - Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework

New Clause 33 - Long-Term Rolling Stock Leasing Framework

New Clause 35 - Report on long-term pipeline for works

New Clause 37 - Great British Railways Accountability

New Clause 42 - Passenger growth target

New Clause 45 - Passengers’ Council: enforcement powers

New Clause 47 - Rail freight target: Annual report on rail freight

New Clause 54 - National signalling strategy

New Schedule 1 - Transfer schemes

Clause 87 - Minor and consequential amendments

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 187 to 199.

Schedule 3.

Clause 88 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Clause 87 points towards schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments arising from the Bill. The Bill has broadened its scope, and much of the related previous legislation will need altering slightly. These minor and consequential amendments allow for the necessary changes and updates to be made, and will help propel the Bill forward. I therefore commend the clause and schedule 3 to the Committee.

Amendments 188, 191 to 193 and 196 to 199 in my name are consequential amendments to the Railways Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that reflect the removal of franchising. The new provisions about railway passenger services and the creation of GBR. For example, it was necessary to make some amendments to the closures regime in the 2005 Act as it was aligned with the franchising system in the 1993 Act, whereas we now need it to align with the Bill. Importantly, there is no change to the outcome to the closures process, and the role of the ORR and Ministers is not changing.

Amendment 190 ensures that documents sent in accordance with the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill can be sent electronically. It is a common and standard amendment to reflect technological developments. Amendments 187, 189, 194 and 195 remove provisions that are no longer necessary.

The last thing I will address in this group is clause 88, which I commend to the Committee. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make amendments that are consequential to the Bill. That will ensure that the statute book is tidy and appropriately reflects the changes the Bill makes. I stress that this power cannot be used to make policy changes and is intended only to ensure that the outcomes of the Bill are not hindered or confused by existing legislation that should have been consequentially amended.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I have no comments.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

I thank the shadow Minister for that.

Schedule 3 - Minor and consequential amendments

Clause 89 - Regulations

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 200.

Clauses 90 to 93 stand part.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them.

Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on.

Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities. However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it.

I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026.

For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

Before I respond to that, Mr Western, is this my last opportunity to speak in the Committee?

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

No.

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

In that case, these are all straightforward ancillary parts to the Bill, and I have no comments to make.

Clause 90 - General interpretation

Clause 91 - Extent

Jerome Mayhew (Conservative, Broadland and Fakenham)

I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him.

I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning. That must make me a very slow learner.

Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole.

With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.

Olly Glover (Liberal Democrat, Didcot and Wantage)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.

Keir Mather (Labour, Selby)

May I begin by thanking everyone personally for the way that they have conducted themselves and approached the Bill? As a relatively new Minister taking on my first major piece of legislation, I have appreciated enormously the constructive approach of Members across the Committee. I want to read into the record my personal thanks, in particular, to those on the Government Benches: my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and Penge, for Bexleyheath and Crayford, for South Dorset, for Truro and Falmouth, for Wrexham, for Derby South, for Hyndburn and for Birmingham Northfield, as well as the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South.

I extend my thanks to the shadow Minister, who has worked assiduously to bring forward a number of constructive proposals, which, by virtue of us having had the opportunity debate them at length, I think have teased out interesting questions about how the Bill will progress, provided an important buttress against pre-conceived notions and allowed us to explore some of the issues in depth. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has engaged in the process.

Although he is not in his place, I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who approached the Committee in his good-natured way, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon, who made many valid and respected contributions. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage certainly kept me on my toes on all aspects of railway nerdery—buttressed by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset—and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East was characteristically forensic in his scrutiny of specific aspects of the Bill, and I thank him for his hard work.

May I also thank my Bill team, who have done an incredible amount of hard work over many months, predating my occupancy of this role, to make this piece of legislation possible? It is enormously appreciated. I thank all the Doorkeepers for facilitating our Divisions and keeping us safe; the Clerks for their assiduous work; and all the Chairs who have been in charge of our proceedings.

It falls to me finally to say that regardless of individual Members’ perspectives on the merits and demerits of certain aspects of the Bill, it is one of the most consequential pieces of railways legislation that have come before this House in the last century. I am very proud to have been a part of it, and I have enjoyed it very much because of the contributions of everyone in this room. Thank you, all.