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

1. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

   A Crown court judge in Shropshire recently referenced the county’s “shoplifting epidemic”. Page 6 of the Minister’s statement says that “more credible punishments outside prison…include a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences for less serious offenders—because we know these do not work.” Does the Minister accept that shoplifting is a crime; that it is not victim-free; and that in many circumstances, a custodial sentence might still be relevant? Despite the Sentencing Act 2026, the retailers and shopkeepers of Shropshire should know that when they go to work in the morning—getting up early, working hard and going to bed late at night—the profits they make are not going to walk out of the door with somebody who is shoplifting, getting away scot-free and getting a free pass from this Government.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   It is great to hear the Minister talking about making the City of London a pre-eminent place in which to grow and list companies, and this is a very welcome measure. However, if he accepts that stamp duty is what has been holding back the listing of shares, why do the Government not go the whole hog and get rid of stamp duty altogether, thereby making the City of London comparable with pretty much every other major developed stock market in the world?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   The Minister talks about value for money and the cost, but the alternative is that there will be no listings, so it does not cost anything because this is revenue that the Government would not otherwise have. If they levy this stamp duty, people will not list—they will go to other markets. If they remove it, people will list. There is not actually any change in the revenue to the Government. I do not understand why they cannot extend it. It is not lost revenue because it never would have been generated in the first place.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   My hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point about the inflationary effect of these taxes. He has mentioned houses, and we know that the Bank of England is charged with using monetary policy to keep inflation under control. The direct effect of this measure could be an increase in interest rates, and therefore an increase in the cost of mortgages. Does he think that the Government would be happy with that?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Before I go into the details of the clause, and before the Committee discusses the subsequent two clauses, it is worth getting on record how much the Opposition object to trade wars and increasing tariffs. Such tariffs harm the country that introduces them. Take what has been going on in America as an example. On its “liberation day”—as I think its Government called it—it introduced very heavy tariffs, including on something as simple as the iPhone, which the American people would consider to be one of the greatest inventions and greatest products they have ever had. It seemed that the person who introduced those tariffs had completely failed to observe that 95% of an iPhone is made in Vietnam and China, as a result of which the tariffs increased the price of iPhones for the American people, which was completely against the intentions of that Government. Tariffs are really bad, and we have been trying to get them down for an awfully long time. However, I completely understand the point that the Government are trying to make with the Trade Remedies Authority and the toolkit that the Government need in order to respond to certain issues. It is vital that we have the ability to move on things such as tariffs, and I suspect that the Minister is 100% aligned with me on this, but I stress that we have lessons from history, from when such actions have gone hideously wrong. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, introduced by President Hoover, was designed by Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley to try to help American businesses and American farmers by increasing tariffs. The net result was a global trade war that resulted in a 65% drop in global trade. That is what happens when people muck around with tariffs; that is where the damage can come. I completely appreciate that these measures are, I suspect, a very necessary response to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a very unpredictable trade policy, so it is the right thing to do. However, I urge the Minister to talk to all his colleagues about this matter, and to reassure the Committee that these measures are not about having our own version of that policy, and about increasing tariffs in order to have a trade war, but about having a set of relevant measures that mean that the Government can act in defence to what could be a hostile attack on trade.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation. We support measures that tackle any unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidisation. We are also supportive of measures that bring power back into the hands of Secretaries of State and Ministers. That is especially important when it comes to practices that could harm our industries and our constituents. One example of that is the steel industry. Back in 2016, it was reported that Tata Steel had suffered more than 1,000 job losses, including 750 from Port Talbot alone. Tata stated that the reason for this was the flooding of cheap imports, particularly from China. This will continue to be a problem. According to the OECD, Chinese steel imports surged to a record level of 118 million tonnes in 2024. Interestingly, there are different points of view on this. For those in the building industry, the idea of having an awful lot of cheap steel coming into the country is not that unattractive, but it would affect our domestic industries. How the Government curb dumping and subsidisation must be accompanied by, at least in part, a deterrent effect. That is crucial for investigations that implicate large and powerful countries. Clause 107 removes the opportunity to implement any deterrent effect because it caps duties imposed on the dumping margin or subsidy amount, not at the injury margin. I acknowledge that this is in line with World Trade Organisation rules. However, injury margins can often exceed dumping and subsidy margins due to their accurate reflection of the true economic harm inflicted on UK industries. Each time, they have been overridden due to the lesser duty rules, and the removal of this rule could have given the Government the opportunity to apply a regime that reflects injury margins better in dumping and subsidy investigations. That would not only protect UK industries but send a clear message to those who engage in these abhorrent trade practices that this will not be tolerated and will be met with serious repercussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s rationale not to cut duties at the injury margin. It is quite a technical question, and if he feels the urge to write back, that might save him the trouble of getting into a lot of technical detail. We are supportive of the thrust of amendments 44 and 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. It is important for decision makers to be accountable to Parliament for their decisions, whether that is the Secretary of State or the Trade Remedies Authority. I suspect that these amendments will be voted down, so could the Minister help the Committee understand what safeguards are in place to address the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Maidenhead? Clause 108 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a safeguarding investigation. It is important that the UK has the necessary defensive measures where there is injury to UK industries. However, clause 108 requires clarity on the conditions that enable the Secretary of State to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate an investigation. I have two points on this. First, on the requirement of evidence of increased quantities in a good, clause 108 does not introduce any parameters or a threshold that would distinguish a legitimate increase in quantity of goods from an increase that warrants investigation. Secondly, there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “serious injury”; the clause does not make clear what serious injury means. Without the clarification, the clause grants the Secretary of State substantial discretion in determining whether those conditions have been met. Fundamentally, though, on both these clauses, we must ensure that these important decisions are made with technical rigour and on the evidence. It is incredibly important that they are not driven solely by political whim. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Clause 109 shifts the responsibility for the remaining two inland border facilities from the Government to the port authorities. The switching of inland border facilities services and operations to a commercial basis was something that the last Government were exploring. However, we query whether clause 109 goes a little too far. It would require the ports to prepare to take on the additional responsibility of providing equivalent infrastructure. We appreciate why the ports received the additional Government assistance in the first place, especially considering the far-reaching effects that any disruption in Dover could have. However, while I agree that the ports must be able to stand on their own feet, clause 109 risks the ports’ introducing additional import and export charges being applied to every lorry and trailer that passes through. The magnitude of the price increases could be substantial for businesses, which may end up passing on the additional costs to consumers—not to mention that they would be in addition to the port inventory charges that the port of Dover implemented from 1 January this year. I recommend that the Government assess the impact that the legislative changes in clause 109 would have on these ports, the businesses and hauliers that rely on them and consumers, who will have to pay a higher price. We get the principle of the clause, but we are concerned about whether there are any adverse knock-on effects on trade through the ports.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   The previous Conservative Government introduced the levy back in 2022 as a proactive measure to combat money laundering and strengthen our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), now the shadow Business Secretary, said when he brought it in, “the levy will provide an important private sector contribution from those industries at highest risk of being abused for money laundering.” We support robust action against money laundering, but we have one or two concerns about the scale. The introduction of a new band C, with a £500,000 levy for businesses with a revenue of between £500 million and £1 billion, is a substantial new burden on businesses that are already heavily regulated and are already investing significant sums in anti-money laundering compliance. To be clear, a business with £500 million to £1 billion revenue used to pay £36,000 and will now have to pay half a million—a 1,289% increase. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that between 100 and 110 businesses will be affected by the levy rise in this band C. It is a really big rise, so it would be helpful if the Minister could justify the nearly 1,300% rise for firms moving into the new band C. Perhaps he could also say whether he has had any representations from any businesses about the effect it could have on investment, staffing level, productivity and all the rest of it. The simultaneous reduction in the threshold for the “very large” band, band D, means that more businesses fall into the higher levy. Will the Minister talk about the rationale for that? Has he considered the potential impact on the UK’s competitiveness, particularly mid-sized firms that may now face substantially higher costs?

   Hansard source
9. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

   The ATED was originally brought in back in 2013 under the coalition Government to discourage the use of corporate structures to hold high-value residential properties. Reliefs were built into the system to ensure that genuine commercial property businesses were not caught by the charge. However, those reliefs were subject to a clear 12-month time limit for making a claim. That was for two reasons: first, it helps ensure that relief claims are made while the facts are still reasonably clear. Secondly, it simply aligns with normal tax time limits. Now the Government want to remove that time limit entirely. Without a deadline, if claims are made over the original 12-month period, HMRC could be required to revisit historical ATED returns long after they were filed. Given service levels in HMRC are already stretched, it is unclear why the Government have chosen to do that. It could increase, rather than reduce, administrative burdens on HMRC. Have the Government assessed the resource implications for HMRC of processing claims made more than a year after the relevant adjustment period?

   Hansard source
10. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government. In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that “the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.] She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said: “Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.] Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was “fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption: “MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.” It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them. If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing. That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women. I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes? This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap? Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Encouraging Exports

    Defence and aerospace make up a huge element of our export business. As the Minister knows, plans without resources are hallucinations. The defence investment plan was promised to us in the autumn, and then by the end of the year, but it is still not there. When will the Government get their act together and stop dithering over the defence investment plan so that we can fuel our export economy?

    Hansard source
12. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

    I welcome the Government’s apology for the maladministration and the Minister’s clarity today, but many Salisbury WASPI women will be very disappointed by the decision. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what options he looked at to compensate the poorest, most vulnerable of the WASPI women? I recognise that the enormous cost would be too much overall, but what options did he pursue? When I was in government, the option to withdraw the winter fuel payment was one that I resisted, because of the impracticalities of doing it fairly. What options were put to him, and could he not have compensated the poorest? I think many would have been sympathetic to that.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
14. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for his apology, if that is what that was; it is accepted. My argument for integration between rail and all modes of transport, although I will use ferries as a particular example, is important. The Minister is also the Maritime Minister, and is well aware of the specific issues that my constituency faces. The two amendments seek to deliver integration through strategy. If we think back to the evidence given to this Committee last week by the future Prime Minister who is currently apprenticing as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he said that integration is essential—and he would know, being in charge of a combined mayoral authority. We are due to get a combined authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the amendments can be viewed as mirroring the strategic responsibilities put on combined mayors, who have responsibility for travel and the interoperability of transport connections in their areas. What the amendments—and particularly amendment 137 —seek to do is ensure that the Minister and the Government also have the responsibility to ensure co-operation. That is explicit in amendment 137, which calls for “co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”. The amendments would end situations such as, for example, the one where, if I was to travel home on the 3.30 train from Waterloo down to Portsmouth Harbour station, the train would arrive five minutes after the ferry had departed. I imagine those are frustrations across pretty much every constituency in the land between trains and other forms of transport. If that situation is not addressed in the explicit way set out by the two amendments, it will continue to be a significant problem that will never get dealt with. Giving more attention and powers through the Bill will help to deliver improvements even for modes of transport, such as Isle of Wight ferries, that are not regulated by the Government and where they do not have explicit and express powers.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I do. It is not difficult for me to agree and accept that the way Wightlink, which was part of British Rail, was dealt with was more than a missed opportunity; it was a bad decision. Locally, I work cross-party with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on that. This Government have an opportunity. I thank the Minister for the work he is doing and I hope he will be prepared to intervene in a way no Government have done. There are clearly opportunities to make small improvements to the Bill, and accepting the amendments would do that not just in my constituency, but in others. I will leave the Minister with a question: if he does not support the amendments, how else might he use powers in the Bill, or would he be prepared to introduce amendments of his own, to improve connectivity for other modes of transport that do not have any formal regulation?

    Hansard source
16. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
17. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Hospitality Sector

    8. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality sector.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Hospitality Sector

    What the Minister does not say is that the Government have also taxed those businesses and made it harder to employ people, which is why there are 100,000 fewer people working in hospitality since her Government came to power. Hospitality businesses in my constituency are hanging on to one thread of hope: the vague assertion that the Government will look again at valuations. Will the Minister look again right now, scrap business rates for hospitality and back our high streets?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House very much for the business. As the House will know, this is the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am delighted that we will be debating it in this Chamber later today. I am sure colleagues will have visited the extraordinary exhibition of shoes in Portcullis House. I visited Auschwitz in 1988, when Poland was under communist control, and saw the originals of that exhibition—it was a profoundly moving experience. I know that everyone present will share my sense of sorrow and remembrance for all those who died. This is also the week in which we note with great sadness the death of Captain Philip Muldowney in a live-fire exercise. We send our very best to his fellow soldiers, his friends and his family. I also put on record my personal sadness on the death of Howard Flight, Lord Flight, a dedicated servant of this House and the other place over many years. This week, the Prime Minister demonstrated his genius and political touch once again by getting Andy Burnham barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which he would almost certainly have been hammered if he had stood—problem solved. Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that the extra uncertainty created by the Chancellor’s repeated U-turns has already cost, or will cost, this country £8.2 billion, which will only increase over time. The figure is based on official Office for Budget Responsibility numbers and includes the Government’s U-turns on personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel allowance, but not the additional uncertainty created by their recent U-turns on business rates for pubs and inheritance tax rules for farmers. Those will take the cost closer to £9 billion-worth of unnecessary extra burden on the people of this country created by the Government since July 2024. And lest we forget, even without any U-turns, the extra cost of servicing UK Government debt since July 2024 has been, and remains—again, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —higher than in either the US or the eurozone. That is according to Labour’s own friendly think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research. Finally, extraordinarily—irony of ironies—we hear that Sir Tony Blair will sit on President Trump’s so-called board of peace for the reconstruction of Gaza, to which one can only say, in the words of the late, great Tom Lehrer, “Satire is dead.” This is the man who took this country to war in the middle east on a false prospectus. One must ask: have the people of Gaza not suffered enough? I note that AstraZeneca is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to China. As the House will know, AstraZeneca is the single biggest investor in research and development in the United Kingdom. Its best-selling, global best-in-class breast cancer drug, Enhertu, is available for reimbursement in America, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Japan. Within these islands, it is available for reimbursement in Scotland, but not in England, outside a few special cases. That is an insult to AstraZeneca, but still more to the 46,000 women a year who are diagnosed with breast cancer in England, and the millions more who have had breast cancer, who are at risk and who are unable to be treated affordably as a result. There is deep concern among all Members of the House about this issue. Does the Leader of the House share my view of it, and will he take up the matter urgently with his Cabinet colleagues? Finally, data from this week shows that over the last year police numbers have fallen sharply. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the number of full-time equivalent police officers fell by 1,318. Police staff were down 529, and police community support officers were down 204. The number of special constables was down 514, and police volunteers were down 429. In total, around 3,000 fewer people are now involved in policing our communities. Those figures compare the same point in both years, precisely because recruitment happens in cycles, so there can be no statistical disguising. I actually rather agree with Commissioner Rowley, who has said that police should be judged by outputs rather than inputs—a very welcome corrective to the endless tendency started, I am afraid, under Messrs Blair and Brown to trumpet increased spending as though it is the same thing as results—but that hardly applies to the number of volunteers and specials, both of which are down. In general, fewer officers and staff mean fewer crimes investigated, fewer patrols on our streets and slower responses to 999 calls. The Home Secretary’s announcement earlier this week was silent on protecting overall police numbers, so could the Leader of the House spell out whether the Government’s policy is to allow police numbers to decline over time? Could the House have an up-to-date statement on that specific issue?

    Hansard source
20. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
21. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I just want to give the Minister some further clarity about what amendment 25 actually does. He is right that it says, “The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods”, but that should be read in the light of subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State express power to “keep the rail strategy under review”, and paragraph (b), which says that they “may revise or replace it.” Does he accept that it is quite clear that the amendment, read in conjunction with subsection (4), does not prevent reacting to new events?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
23. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
24. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment 25, particularly his comments on the Secretary of State, so I will not press it to a Division. Amendment proposed: 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert— “(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to— (a) support the development of new international routes, (b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and (c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed. (3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must— (a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills; (b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel; (c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”—(Olly Glover.) This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
26. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The usual procedure applies again. Clause 16 requires both GBR and the Office of Rail and Road to “have regard to” a number of different requirements, such as the long-term rail strategy, the statutory transport or rail strategies published by the Welsh and Scottish Governments respectively, the mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. There is a key political question within this clause: why has the Minister chosen to apply a duty on GBR and the ORR to only “have regard” to those strategies? In practice, that means only that GBR and the ORR will consider transport plans, not that they must, or even should, follow or prioritise them. That seems a slightly unusual position for the Government to take, given their keen approach to oversight of GBR in other clauses, such as 7 and 9, where it looks like they wish to maintain their role as key stakeholder over that of the devolved Governments and the mayoral combined authorities. The weak obligations are shared, whereas the strong obligations are kept primarily to themselves. It is a surprising approach, particularly given that clauses 7 and 9 effectively strip GBR of operational independence. I recognise that the Scottish Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government in Wales have their own clauses to guide and direct, but the mayoral combined authorities certainly do not. I wonder whether this clause is directed at overweening powers demanded by certain mayors, but I could not possibly look into the depths of the psychology of the Labour party as it struggles with its issues at the moment. It is very noticeable, as Mayor Andy Burnham said to us last Tuesday in oral evidence, that there is a substantial difference between the Government’s proposed treatment under the Bill of mayoral combined authorities and that of Transport for London. There does not appear to be any rationale for that deliberate divergence—or at least not one that the Government have identified. As other mayoral combined authorities come online, the Bill provides no formal mechanism for their wishes to be respected. Members of the Committee who were in the oral evidence session will remember that Andy Burnham said he would “insist” on greater authority in that area. The Bill as currently drafted does not provide that avenue for him or for others, so those looking for advancement in the future might like to consider their voting strategy on this clause. After all, page 33 of the Labour manifesto states: “Mayors will have a role in designing the services in their areas.” Can the Minister outline the mechanism for existing and future mayoralties to be put on a statutory footing, and for their local transport plans to be given greater consideration from GBR and the ORR? There is one other question regarding this clause. It relates to subsection (3). What does GBR do if the strategy of a mayoral combined authority or Transport for London conflicts with that of the Secretary of State? How are potential conflicts between strategies resolved, and who will be the arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will there be an independent structure? With that in mind, the clause should be strengthened to ensure that GBR and the ORR respond more clearly and act under greater requirements. That is where amendment 26 comes in. It would replace the very weak “must have regard to” with “must seek to achieve”. That change seems small on the face of it, but it would strengthen the requirement on GBR and the ORR to engage and work with mayoral combined authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Mayor of London. Will the Minister support this modest proposal to strengthen that relationship? The clause currently restricts the duty of mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. It is silent on other strategic authorities, yet the same arguments apply to areas that are not yet or will never be mayoral combined authorities when identifying regional needs for current and future transport. We heard that concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. I hope that she will be able to expand some of her thinking on this in a moment. We have heard examples from the west country where local government reform is floundering, as it is around the country, including in Norfolk where I am a Member of Parliament. It is already delayed until 2028. That is perhaps just the first of further delays as well, as this Government lose steam. There is no idea where, when or even if it will go ahead. There are also many areas that will never have a mayoral combined authority because of the structure of their local government settlement. We do have local transport authorities, though, which are the base level of local government that has responsibility for local transport co-ordination. It seems like a very significant omission that the Bill currently only relates to mayoral combined authorities. That is the lowest level of regional government to which it deigns to provide any form of requirement for co-operation with the ORR and GBR. Why is that? Where there is, for sound local reasons, no mayoral combined authority, why are the Government designing out the ability of local government representatives, the local democrats, to co-operate and co-ordinate with the ORR and—more importantly in this instance—GBR? What happens to their interest? There is simply no explanation as to why these large authorities, which will be the local transport authorities in their own right, have been excluded from consideration. That leads me neatly on to amendment 218, which adds them to the list. New clause 33 requires the Government, or rather GBR, to set out a long-term rolling stock leasing framework. The clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework, and require GBR to comply with that framework. It mandates a minimum 15-year lease, save in exceptional circumstances. That is because the longer the lease, the better the value for money for the taxpayer. Longer leases lead to lower costs, which will lead to more UK investment, more trading and better value for taxpayers, as the industry and supply chain are able to plan ahead and produce effective business plans. There is a consequence to the leasing’s being done by the public sector, rather than the private sector: the Government will have to consider the impact of the cost of leasing on the national debt. That is, after all, the logical consequence of their political decision to nationalise the railways—the operating companies. There is a cost that comes with it, and that is moving from the private sector balance book on to that of the public sector. The Government need to own the financial consequences of their political and ideologically driven decision, and that is one of them.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clause 33(3)(a) to (d) is aimed at reducing short-term decisions and focusing more on long-term efficiency and savings. I am sure there are many former business people on the Labour Benches—or maybe not, actually—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are. There are many former business people on these Benches, and all those who have run businesses will know that predictability of the future is one of the key drivers of economic success and of driving down costs. New clause 33 will help to achieve that for the taxpayer. GBR will also be mandated to produce an annual public report that enables Parliament and the public to properly hold GBR to account. We have heard time and again how light the Bill is on the ability of the public and of Parliament to hold GBR to account; we are the representatives of the people and we are being denied, by design, the opportunity to do that adequately. Yet it will be spending £20 billion-plus each year, about 50% of which, at the current rate, is public money. Why are the Government running scared of public oversight of these operations?

    Hansard source
28. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not. As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well. New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain. The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base. There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise. New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states: “Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”, which we have already considered, and it dictates: “The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year” and “how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”. At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include “freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”, which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted, “integration with housing and local transport” and “the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.” The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector. Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action. This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

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

    Hansard source
30. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, at end insert— “(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Rail about how they intend to meet the target under section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”

    Hansard source
31. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It is good to see you back in your place, Mrs Hobhouse. Something happened during our short recess: I was in the Tea Room, at the right end, but down at the wrong end I heard someone singing “Happy Birthday”. It occurred to me that today is the Minister’s birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear!”] We are not going to sing, but I think we should all take the opportunity to say happy birthday to the Minister. What better activity could one choose for their birthday than for all of us to be together, like one big happy family? I know that the icing on the cake will be clause 17, which requires the Secretary of State to set a target to increase freight on the railways. The Government tell us that this should be a measurable target that establishes the goal, as an amount or percentage, for how much growth is sought—although that is not specified in the Bill, like so much else. Great British Railways must have regard to the target when carrying out its statutory functions, and it should also have regard to any freight growth target or strategy set by Scottish Ministers. This appears to be good news for the rail freight sector, and it will be a relief for it that it has been mentioned in the Bill—I believe that this is a relatively late inclusion. However, the duty is merely for GBR to “have regard” to the freight target, and we have explored such wording in the debates on other clauses. It requires that GBR only considers the target, not delivers it, which undermines its effectiveness as a statutory growth driver. The Rail Freight Group, in its written evidence to the Transport Committee, set out: “To succeed and grow rail freight customers and operators will need to be assured that…a. they can secure access to the network in a fair, consistent and timely way for their services, including those on new routes and to new destinations as they arise…b. that the costs of rail remain competitive when compared to road freight…c. that the network remains reliable and fit for purpose for freight trains (for example, to handle heavy or high gauge container trains)…d. that there is independent oversight and a right of appeal if freight is unfairly treated or disadvantaged…e. That they can invest in rail freight assets (wagons, terminals, locomotives etc) with the confidence that they will have a long term use of those assets.” It went on to say: “The current provisions in the Bill provide some positive elements in support of these requirements, but also increase the risk in others. Overall, the Bill is not sufficient to assure rail freight of the key points ahead as currently presented.” The main takeaway from the Rail Freight Group is that it does not feel that the target can be met, however well-intentioned it might be, if the Bill’s current wording remains. Rail Forum, in its written evidence to the Transport Committee, said: “From Rail Forum’s perspective there is nothing specific in the Bill that will guarantee improved travel for passengers. Improvement is predicated on the goodwill of GBR and others driving things in the ‘right direction’. In our view the key to improvement is culture change within those organisations coming together to form GBR. Creating GBR from Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (NRIL) will not signal the need for change and creates a risk that the current Network Rail culture will be seen as the norm and hence the status quo will prevail.” We have discussed this a bit. The Minister has taken the view that this cultural change does not exist. If he continues with that belief, he will condemn this nationalisation experiment to almost certain failure. The vast majority of the wider sector agrees that organisational culture is the single most important ingredient for the Bill to get right, yet time and again the Government have resisted amendments suggested by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to drive an improvement in culture and focus on the right things. Having set the target for GBR, the clause uses very weak language for what comes next: just “have regard to”. It is too weak. Amendment 262, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is not a member of the Committee but drafted this amendment along with a couple of others that we have already debated, seeks to highlight his constituents’ concerns about the negative impact that level crossings can have on communities. He is right to stand up for his constituents and that freight is one more part of the jigsaw when we look at the juxtaposition between the needs of the railway—whether it is passenger services or, as in the case of this amendment, rail freight—and the knock-on consequences for the wider economy of a community whose economic and social heart is bisected by a level crossing. He is right that those three sometimes competing issues need to be balanced, which is the intention of amendment 262. Amendment 219 in my name would leave out “have regard to” and insert “take into account in all relevant decisions and demonstrate that it has taken into account”. That is a stronger line to take and makes it easier for freight organisations to hold decision makers to account. They need to have the power to challenge the historic approach of freight being secondary to passenger travel. Accommodation is needed for both in a sector where we all hope that both passenger and freight will grow, but we need to recognise that it is a capacity-limited structure and that there will therefore have to be some compromise. Historically, freight has always played second fiddle to passenger travel. We need accommodation for both, and the new wording would strengthen the hand of freight to ensure that its proper position is maintained by GBR. I will seek to divide the Committee on that amendment if the opportunity arises. Amendment 149, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require a national freight strategy, including electrification of freight routes and infrastructure improvements. It is unobjectionable, and in fact quite good. I would support it should the hon. Member press it to a vote. Amendment 220, which is in my name, would strengthen the accountability of the Secretary of State by adding a new subsection that states: “The Secretary of State must take into account the rail freight target in all relevant decisions and”— importantly— “demonstrate how the target has been taken into account.” The key word there, of course, is “demonstrate”. It would keep the duty high in the mind of officials and make it easier for independent rail freight operators to hold the Government to their duty. Without that strengthening, the clause would achieve very little. We go through the whole process of having this rail freight target—“Isn’t that wonderful? We’ve done a great job. We as policymakers think this is excellent”—and then the delivery organisation just has to “have regard” to it and can leave it on the shelf. As currently drafted, it looks as though the clause is a last-minute bung to the loud rail freight sector. We all heard the oral evidence from Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group. She is, without doubt, the doughtiest of campaigners on behalf of the members of her organisation. She is very effective, but it was clear to me that clause 17 was a late accommodation for her advocacy, but it is only half cocked. That explains why, while Maggie Simpson was trying not to sound too churlish in relation to what the Government have done so far, she nevertheless went on to say it is still deserving of criticism. This amendment seeks to improve further what the Government have started. In relation to the rail freight target, new clause 47 requires an annual report on rail freight. It would create “an annual reporting and oversight mechanism, requiring GBR to set out how freight access, performance and corridor capacity are being supported, and requiring the ORR to publish an independent assessment”. That would strengthen the clause, which the Rail Freight Group says does not go far enough—I have already set out its quote in relation to that. Once more, we are back to the accountability of a new nationalised industry. You get what you measure, and without requirements for GBR to report, there is a serious risk of getting lost in the weeds. The decision to nationalise is the Government’s; it is a political decision based on their ideology, but we have to accept that it does remove market forces. Some people say there are negative elements of market forces, but there are undoubtedly positive elements as well; we just need to be open-eyed about it. If we remove market forces as a driver of competition, efficiency and innovation, then they need to be replaced by duties in the legislation or accompanying documents. The duty to replace the incentives with cumbersome regulations and control is an inevitable consequence of the decision to nationalise. That is what new clause 47 is intended to achieve.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister will not be wholly surprised that I do not agree with his analysis. I intend to press amendments 219 and 220—and, in the fullness of time, new clause 47—to a Division, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 262. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 219, in clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take into account in all relevant decisions and demonstrate that it has taken into account”.—(Jerome Mayhew.) This amendment would require GBR to take into account the freight target when making all relevant decisions and to show how this has been taken into account. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 18, page 10, line 12, leave out “They” and insert “Each person or organisation designated under section 18(1)”. This amendment clarifies that the statutory duties apply to those listed in section 18(1), namely Ministers, Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    This is one of the more important clauses, so I look forward to discussing it with the Committee. It sets out the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the Office of Rail and Road. In other words, it sets out the things they must seek to achieve when carrying out their functions. GBR will have freedom to consider which duties are relevant and what weight to place on each duty, but should be able to demonstrate how it has had regard to its duties. Subsection (1) sets out to whom the general duties apply. In addition to GBR, they apply to the Office of Rail and Road, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers when they carry out their railway functions. There is an exception for the ORR’s safety-related functions and train driver licensing functions. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that is because when it is exercising its safety functions, the intention is for safety to be the priority and to not be second guessed. The ORR should not have to weigh it against other duties. The Bill does not change the current safety regime and the official Opposition wholeheartedly agree with that position. There is also an exception for the functions of the Office of Rail and Road under the Competition Act 1998. When the ORR acts as a concurrent competition regulator with the Competition and Markets Authority, as we previously discussed, both bodies should be applying the same duties, otherwise there really would be confusion. I am going to go through the clause in some detail. It will take some time, but it is an important part of our consideration. The duties listed in subsection (2) require GBR and the sector bodies to consider the following. Subsection (2)(a) provides that they must “promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway”— that is passengers and potential passengers—including the needs of disabled people. Subsection (2)(b) provides that they must promote the use of rail freight. This duty, combined with the rail freight target in clause 17, recognises the importance of freight to the economy and the environment. Subsection (2)(c) provides that they must promote “high standards” in railway performance. Subsection (3) then defines “performance” as meaning “(a) reliability (including punctuality), and (b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding.” That definition is wholly inadequate, as we have discussed at some length on previous days. Subsection (2)(d) provides that they must ensure that railway service providers, such as GBR, devolved operators, freight operators and open access operators can plan, invest and make decisions about their own business. We will come on to consider that point in more detail. Subsection (2)(e) provides that they must run the railway “in the public interest”—so far, so good—which is defined in subsection (3) as including social, economic and environmental interests. Subsection (2)(f) requires them to make efficient use of public funds—that is, to carefully manage the amount of public subsidy required to run the railway. Taken together, the functions in clause 3, which are what GBR must do, and these duties, which are what GBR must think about, demonstrate GBR’s purpose—those are my words. We have put that together into a purpose clause, which I look forward to voting for when we consider the new clauses. The functions under clause 18(2) contain nothing about growing passenger numbers, increasing private sector investment in the network or encouraging open access. Apart from scattered references elsewhere to discounting schemes or the passengers’ council, clause 18(2)(a) is effectively the only substantive accessibility duty in the Bill. It reads as a bit of a bolt-on, rather than a clear, integrated obligation. Subsection (2)(d) is meant to provide certainty for operators, but in practice it offers little reassurance to manufacturers or the wider supply chain. Without statutory planning cycles, which we have discussed, procurement obligations or long-term fleet strategies, which, again, we have discussed, the duty is too vague to give industry the confidence needed for investment. How can GBR be confident in achieving the purposes of clause 18(2)(d) given the ability of the Secretary of State to direct at whim, issue guidance, set the rail strategy and so on? For business, it would be impossible to know when a decision has been taken, since each one can be second-guessed by the Department for Transport. Businesses cannot even take for granted the funding allocations in the control period either, because, for the first time in 30 years—I stand to be corrected; we are in CP7, so 30 to 35 years—inter-year control period funding can be changed without notice on the whim of the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) gives only a narrow definition of “railway service performance”—punctuality, reliability and overcrowding—but omits other core standards such as cancellations, journey time, customer experience, wi-fi, mobile phone connectivity, accessibility, disruption handling and information provision. There are probably a few others as well. This limited list weakens the duty and leaves major aspects of service quality outside the statutory framework. There is no explanation for that. Why are some core elements of the customer experience included in the Bill, establishing the precedent that it is the appropriate place for them to be considered, and then—deliberately, one assumes—are many factors of profound importance to the travelling public and their experience of the railways omitted? Amendment 34 aims to achieve some housekeeping on the drafting of the Bill. Clause 18(2) does not make it clear which of the three bodies has which responsibilities —it simply refers to “they”. That is a recipe for confusion and potential buck-passing. We have three organisations or groups, each with combined duties under this clause. They are, of course, Great British Railways, the Ministers and the ORR. It is not clear which one, in a given situation, is responsible under the clause.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
36. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
37. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 18, page 10, line 23, at end insert— “(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway, (h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth, (i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services, (j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways, (k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and (l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.” This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    In oral evidence before the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said: “We have a question about the difference in the duties between the way that freight is treated and passenger travel is treated: the duty on GBR and Secretary of State in relation to passengers is ‘to promote’ their ‘interests’, whereas it is ‘to promote the use of the…network’ for freight. Our view is that in order to incentivise GBR strongly—once it is set up—to grow the network and to grow passenger demand, there should be equivalent duties about passengers in clauses 18 and 17, so that GBR is required to promote the use of the network for passengers and future passengers, with a corresponding duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target. Our concern is that otherwise, the risk is that GBR might manage demand as a steady state, achieving its other objectives without necessarily seeking to grow demand by expanding the network or making better use of existing capacity.” Hon. and right hon. Members will recall—although the only right hon. Member has done a runner—that Ben Plowden made a substantially similar point in oral evidence to this Committee. I think he prayed in aid the experience post covid, when all sorts of targets were met, but that was because there were not any trains running. He went on to say to the Transport Committee: “It seems to us that the logic would suggest that if it is important for GBR to have a statutory incentive to promote a growth in freight traffic, it also ought to have a statutory incentive to do that for passenger growth. We know that the expansion and increase in capacity and connectivity in the rail network has huge socioeconomic benefits. Look at the Northumberland line that recently reopened; look at Crossrail. There are huge benefits from expanding network capacity and increasing the number of people who are able to travel by rail. If you look at the Bill, it is interesting that service performance is defined in terms of ‘reliability (including punctuality)’ and ‘the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding’. There could be a scenario whereby GBR decided that, in order to meet its reliability duty”— and this is the point— “it reduced services to smooth them out and improve reliability, and in order to avoid overcrowding, it then introduced fares that” managed “demand, as has been suggested might happen on the west coast main line in the context of HS2. There might be scenarios where, for perfectly logical reasons, internally GBR might decide that it did not want to increase passenger demand either on a particular route or overall. It seems to us that it would be sensible to have an equivalent duty or pair of duties in the Bill on passenger demand as it has for freight. GBR would need, as we were just discussing, to work out how to optimise that objective versus the other objectives it has set out in the duties and functions.”

    Hansard source
39. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, but it needs to be much clearer than that, because we are talking about the general duties of GBR. GBR will be able to rely on the definition and say, “We’ve satisfied our general duty under clause 18(2) because we have improved railway service performance as defined by the Minister,” which is reliability and the avoidance of passenger overcrowding. That is clearly wholly unacceptable and does not support the significant improvement that we all wish to see in the provision of passenger services. We think that amendment 32 is important, since the Government are not showing a customer focus and are being overly led by an engineering mindset. It feels like they have chucked in a passengers’ council, which can be ignored because it has no enforcement powers, and then lip service is paid to the experiences of the passenger. We already know that Great British Railways as an organisation is dominated by Network Rail. It is an organisation with about 41,000 members of staff, to which is added every six weeks or couple of months another operating company of 2,000 to 4,000 staff. It is quite apparent where, without intervention, the dominating culture will come from. We have to focus on improving customer experience as a whole, and it is for that reason that I will press the amendment to a vote.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Eighth sitting)

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

    Hansard source