5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Fish and Chip Sector

   The hon. Member makes a very good point. Many industries are not actually treated as an industry. For example, agriculture is treated as a series of small individual businesses, and its totality is not taken into account. That is a very fair point. The truth is that Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is about the clipboard class—the trade union apparatchiks —and not really about actual hard-working people. What is the point of workers’ rights if that all-important first job eludes people? Will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box—much loved, but a relic of the past? Will the Labour party’s indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one-and-one, or just regular fish and chips, this Government risk frittering away a classic.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I associate myself with all the wide-ranging arguments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about this piece of legislation, but I wish to focus on something more specific: the impact on ferries and the cost of travelling to UK islands. The Government know that this legislation will increase the cost of travel to islands. They know it will have an adverse impact on UK islands, which is why they exempted travel to Scottish islands from this punitive levy. What they have not done is extend that exemption to all UK islands, which means my constituents on the Isle of Wight now face additional cost in getting to and from home. There is no way to travel to the Isle of Wight other than by ferry. There is no other way of getting goods to the Isle of Wight, and when I say goods, I do not just mean things like building materials. I mean bread, butter, eggs—our supermarkets are stocked with produce that comes across only by ferry because there is noother way to get anything to or from the Isle of Wight. Just last year, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that he knows that Isle of Wight ferries have not been good enough—that is in the context of price and frequency. Indeed, the maritime Minister has set up a series of meetings, led by an independent chair, to explore ways to improve travel to the Isle of Wight, including its cost. Yet at the same time the Government are increasing the cost of travel to the island. We start from a position of disadvantage compared with Scottish islands. Our ferries are already more expensive than those that serve the Scottish islands. Our ferries do not have public subsidy, unlike those to the Scottish islands, and they are not ultimately publicly owned. In fact, they are owned by private equity interests, which fill the coffers of pension funds overseas. They are entirely unregulated, and Isle of Wight residents are entirely at their mercy, but while we seek support from the Government to ensure that the companies give us a fairer deal, the Government make our travel more expensive. I am not asking for anything special, or a special Isle of Wight exemption; I am asking for the exemption that the Government already give dozens of islands to include the island of which I represent a part. No impact assessment had been done on the effects on the economy of my constituency, or of other islands that are not covered by the exemption, but the Government do accept that this measure will increase costs. They have access to a report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which is general and not in direct relation to this order, and which ranked my constituency the second in England for having the most people in left-behind neighbourhoods—that is, second bottom on the pile. That ICON report is not some unusual or niche interest piece that has been put together; the Government themselves said they would base the delivery of their five missions on it. How has the ETS legislation fallen out of their five missions? Surely, the entire delivery of the Government’s programme is based on their five missions, yet they have set aside and ignored the report that they said they would rely on. Again, I am not making a parochial argument, representing some small, faraway place in the United Kingdom. I am basing my argument on the Independent Commission on Neighbour-hoods report that the Government say they are using and relying on to deliver a fair programme of government. The UK Chamber of Shipping has said that, given what has happened in Europe, the cost of tickets could go up by around 15%. Ultimately, global warming will not be solved by making it more expensive to travel to the Isle of Wight, or to any other island in the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again, and extend their exemption to all UK islands.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   I welcome the offer to meet, and I wish to take the Minister up on it. As he will know, the hybrid vessel he refers to that travels across the Solent has electric capability, but it cannot be used because there is no grid capacity at Portsmouth. The Solent is one of the busiest shipping areas in Europe and the vast majority of pollution will be from large container ships going in and out of Southampton—and, of course, the Royal Navy operates out of Portsmouth. Putting any cost on a boat travelling to the Isle of Wight to allow to people to go to and from home fails to meet any sort of reasonableness test, but I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Transport in the South-East

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on introducing this important debate. I have a direct solution to her problem of traffic queueing up to access the wonderful beaches at the Witterings. There is an alternative: those road users could stay on the road to Southsea, jump on the hovercraft and visit the wonderful beaches in Ryde, Bembridge and Sandown on the Isle of Wight. She is welcome to put my offer to her constituents in her next newsletter. The south-east is a great economic engine of the UK. It is home to 7.6 million people and 368,000 businesses, and contributes £228 billion in gross added value to the UK economy. If the south-east slows down, Britain slows down. Its connectivity is therefore essential to supporting the economic growth that the country needs, which has been so lacking in recent months. As we have heard, the region hosts some of the most strategically vital transport infrastructure in the country: Heathrow, Gatwick, Southend, the M25, the M4, the Eurostar, the channel tunnel and the ports of Dover and Southampton. The Dover strait alone is the busiest shipping lane in the world, with more than 500 vessels passing through every single day. Responsible for more than 60% of the UK’s trade with Europe, the south-east’s geography makes it fundamental to the success of British trade, too. To ensure that we can maintain connectivity, the Government must reverse their approach of imposing ever increasing costs on our transport infrastructure. Those costs are inevitably passed on to passengers, like national insurance increases and business rates. Earlier today, a Delegated Legislation Committee approved the emissions trading scheme for the maritime sector, which will add costs to domestic ferry services to the Isle of Wight. Scottish islands will be exempted, but not our own island in the south-east of England. As we have heard, there has been a long-standing assumption that, because the south-east is perceived to be prosperous, it can somehow cope with less spending or, at least, tolerate greater disruption. That approach is misguided. As many Members from the south-east would acknowledge, that is often London-focused, ignoring the areas around Greater London. We know that east-west connectivity across the south-east remains weak. Productivity suffers when journeys are slower, freight is delayed and supply chains are less reliable. Spending decisions should not be judged on crude, per-capita formulas but on whether they reduce congestion, cut journey times, increase productivity, support net zero and strengthen economic resilience. Nowhere is that clearer than on our roads, yet our road network is being allowed to deteriorate. The one-off cost to clear the national road maintenance backlog is estimated to be £16.8 billion, and would take 12 years to complete. In 2024, the Department for Transport reported that 4% of local A roads, 7% of B and C roads, and 17% of unclassified roads that should have been maintained were not. New Road in Brading in my constituency is closed for one month, and buses will not visit the town, notwithstanding the fact that there is another road and viable route into it. That raises another issue many of our constituents experience: the frustration that when roads do get upgraded, closures are often badly planned and key transport, such as buses, which constituents, particularly those who need to access healthcare or have mobility issues, rely on, is not adequately catered for. Instead of fixing the roads we already have, the Government’s instinct appears to be to make driving more difficult. Only recently, plans were quietly published on the Government website that encourage narrower roads, under guidance from Active Travel England. Narrower roads risk slowing traffic, increasing congestion, making overtaking more dangerous, delaying emergency services and inflaming tensions between motorists and cyclists. That is not pragmatic transport policy, and it risks costing the economy billions of pounds. As Edmund King of the AA rightly said, UK roads “have evolved since Roman times” and they “require…give and take which can’t just be ironed out by regulations.” Those plans come on top of decisions such as the introduction of charges at the Blackwall tunnel after nearly 130 years of free use, which is yet another example of the Mayor of London making it more expensive and difficult to drive, particularly affecting those with no realistic alternative. Motorists already feel heavily taxed, heavily restricted and increasingly ignored. Turning to rail, East West Rail is a project that both Labour and the Conservative party have supported and funded in principle, but delivery has been painfully slow and deeply disappointing. Despite being completed in late 2024, services remain unused; East West Rail has admitted to the most basic of design failures. The Government have set out their support for East West Rail, but prospective passengers understandably want the service now. In October 2025, the answer the Department for Transport gave to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) offered no clear timetable. Passenger services to Bedford are now not expected until 2030, with Oxford to Cambridge services delayed until the mid-2030s. That is not the progress that our constituents want and deserve. I will again touch briefly on maritime transport. The Government have proposed that they support my constituents to access cheaper, more reliable ferry travel by setting up a local group with an independent chair appointed by the Department for Transport, which is progress, and which I welcome. However, at the same time, the Government are putting cost on to the Isle of Wight through their emissions trading scheme. That is not an example of the mission-led Government they claim to be, nor an example of joined-up Government. They have exempted ferries to Scottish islands from the scheme, and that is an example of the pervasive view that the south-east will somehow cope, where other parts of the United Kingdom should have a special exemption. Ports and ferry routes in the south-east are critical national assets, yet ferry services remain uniquely under-regulated and expensive. Rail and bus operators face obligations on pricing, performance and transparency, but ferry operators do not. Cross-Solent ferry operators are unregulated and controlled by private equity interests that fund overseas pension funds. That would not be acceptable in any other form of public transport, and it should not acceptable in ferry transport. That imbalance harms communities and undermines connectivity. Integration across road, rail and maritime transport is essential if we are serious about resilience and fairness, and I urge the Government to give the maximum possible powers to new mayoral combined authorities to ensure joined-up, integrated transport, regardless of whether that transport is currently regulated or not. The south-east does not need grand gestures or experiments in public transport. It needs practical spending and proper maintenance directed towards how people actually travel—fix the roads, stop penalising motorists, and deliver infrastructure properly, effectively and efficiently. That is how we will keep the south-east and the UK moving.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

   Hansard source
6. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

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

   Hansard source
7. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert— “(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must— (a) take account of— (i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and (ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and (b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.” This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room. Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34. The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers. The explanatory notes state: “The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail. This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.” The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State? The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding. This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation. The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight. Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it. I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest. Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations. In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales. It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee. On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227. Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228. It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland. Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales. The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on. Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales. It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

   Hansard source
10. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states: “All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.” That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted. It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement. Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert “by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.” This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers. Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty. There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has. Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision. Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well. Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner. If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry. Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity. Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me. New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services. We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future. I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote. Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards. The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself. Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
15. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
16. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2). This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares.

    Hansard source
17. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services. Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion. If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions “are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”, or in other words, “they are a last resort”. The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”

    Hansard source
18. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I think we have to decide what GBR is going to be. Is it going to be a stand-alone organisation that is trying to run itself efficiently, providing value for money for the taxpayer and hopefully, one day, a check on the Secretary of State? Or is it going to be a creature of the Department for Transport that is told what to do and having its decisions second-guessed? This is a big decision that the Government have to take. The clause creates a huge risk of stasis, as GBR gets bossed around and becomes a passive recipient of instructions from the Department for Transport. I worry that it is a recipe for future disaster, so I have questions for the Minister. What factors will the Secretary of State take into account when deciding the general level and structure of fares? Why is the Secretary of State in a better position to take those decisions than GBR is, given the objects that she has set the organisation? What additional information will she use that is not available to GBR? I will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. At least it is clear that any future failure of the railways will be down to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, not to GBR, since the power to guide and then direct and then set fares lies expressly with the Secretary of State. My amendment 45 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, thereby preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set and making that decision separate from political influence. When considering amendment 45, Rail Forum said: “We support this as it should be for GBR, as an arm’s length body and the directing mind, to determine fares not the Secretary of State.” Amendment 148 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would remove the power to give binding directions over fares—another version of our approach. The clause as drafted is overreach by the Department for Transport and exactly the kind of micromanagement that the Minister claims will not happen. Why do we need these powers?

    Hansard source
19. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
20. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”. This amendment, alongside Amendments 47 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled. The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards. Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice. Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue. Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick. I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
23. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
24. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”. This amendment, along with Amendments 57 to 60, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people aged 26-30.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
26. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
27. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (3). This amendment would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that. Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it. New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
30. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
31. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

    In the normal course of events I would not seek to have repeated amendments on variations of a theme. However, this matter is politically salient because it deals with a live political issue between the parties on discounted fares, and whether the Government support veterans and veterans’ families. Each amendment deals with a separate part of the veteran community and also with veterans’ families. It is important that we hear the Government’s view through Divisions on every single one, so I ask you to reconsider your determination, Ms Barker, because of the political salience of the individual Divisions. I am sure you will have noticed that in other areas I have been co-operative, and that I do not cause Divisions just for the sake of it, but I ask you to allow Divisions on this occasion. Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.—(Jerome Mayhew.) See explanatory statement for Amendment 46. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I agree. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 General duties of the Council

    Hansard source
33. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, after “of” insert “all users, and potential users of the railways, including”. This amendment ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway.

    Hansard source
34. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for agreeing to chair this afternoon’s deliberations. Here we are at clause 36, on the general duties of the passengers’ council. The clause requires the passengers’ council to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons when it exercises its rail functions. It also places a duty on the council to consider costs and the efficient use of public funds when it exercises its functions. That updates the council’s duty on value for money, which we can see in section 76(7) of the Railways Act 1993, and is consistent with the duty the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways will have if clause 18(2)(f) makes it into the final Act. Clause 36(a), however, is silent on the general travelling public; it only mentions having particular regard to disabled persons. It seems like an odd omission for a provision on a passengers’ council to not mention passengers in the round. For the rest of the public, the council only has to “keep under review matters affecting the interests of the public”, under clause 37(1)(a). The current drafting risks the creation, inadvertent I am sure, of a skewed body, directed to focus on disabled passengers and silent on the rest. I know that would not be the intention of the Ministry or anybody else in this Committee, but that is what the draft text would require of the council under its statutory obligations. It sits uneasily alongside clause 18(2)(a) on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR, which we all remember, and which frames disabled people within a wider body of all users, stating that it is to “promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”. Why is different language being used? There is a difference, within the same draft text, between clause 18 and clause 36. The effect is to leave the passengers’ council operating statutorily on a narrower basis than GBR. The Minister will need to explain the intention behind that, because I do not believe it is intentional. If it is, he needs to explain why he wishes to constrain artificially the application of the passengers’ council to an area which is less wide than that covered by GBR, which it is meant to be monitoring.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, although unfortunately he did interrupt my flow—though it was very kind of him to say that he did not want to in the process. He is quite right. Although I obviously love chucking half-bricks at the Government, I do not believe for a moment that there is a serious intention on the part of the Department for Transport to skew the passengers’ council in the way that the drafting currently requires. I am highlighting the provision in the best interests of improving the drafting of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will find a reason not to agree with me in a few minutes’ time, but I hope that he, or his officials, will go away and have a quiet look at it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords. Subsection (b) provides only a duty to “take into account” the costs of recommendations. Surely, as legislators, we want the organisation to balance the public benefits against the likely costs—a cost-benefit analysis, essentially—and not just to consider costs to be met from public funds, because this also involves farebox income. Amendment 63 therefore “ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway”, preventing a skewed council with competing interests, borrowing the language used by the Government in clause 18. Amendment 64 would require the passengers’ council to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis, rather than merely the “efficient use” of public funds, which is only half of the issue. There is a key difference here: value for money focuses on achieving the best balance of cost, quality and outcomes, whereas the good use of public funds also requires spending to be transparent, fair and aligned with the public interest and wider policy objectives. That makes this amendment important in achieving the lowest possible cost for the taxpayer. New clause 7 would give the passengers’ council a statutory purpose to champion the interests of all railway users and potential users of the railway. The passengers’ council would advocate for the reliability of passenger services, for safety and security, and for passengers’ comfort and on-board experience, which we have discussed a number of times. It would also advocate for affordability and value for money, passenger growth and network expansion. It is important to have a clear set of directions for this new passengers’ council at its inception, and the new clause would help to provide that.

    Hansard source
36. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
37. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The Minister has come up with an ingenious argument, but if he takes the trouble of actually reading the opening sentence of clause 36, he will find that it says, under “General duties”: “When exercising its functions relating to railways and railway services”— So, arguments about buses and other modes of transport are clearly outside the scope of this clause, are they not?

    Hansard source
38. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
39. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I would not want to prevent the Minister from agreeing with me at some length. We have a slightly odd grouping here, because amendments 208 and 209 would amend clause 36, but the other amendments in the group would amend clause 37—perhaps that is where we have gone wrong. I will not really speak on amendments 208 and 209, because the Liberal Democrats spokesman has indicated that he will not push them to a vote. In so far as they guarantee representation for passenger groups on the passengers’ council, we support the direction of travel, but as they are not progressing further, I will not say more. Clause 37 deals with keeping matters under review and collecting information. The Minister has already set out a précis of what the clause—

    Hansard source
40. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

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

    Hansard source