Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) 2026-01-29

Proposes amendment to ensure rail strategy covers a period of 30 years, arguing that a long-term vision is necessary for sustainable railway development. Emphasises the need for strategic planning in infrastructure investment.

Supports the amendment proposed by Olly Glover to ensure rail strategy covers 30 years, arguing that a long-term vision is essential for improving railway services. Highlights the importance of considering economic impact and community benefits.

Defends government's position on rail strategy duration, highlighting that a 30-year timeframe is overly ambitious given current financial constraints. Emphasises the need to focus on achievable goals within shorter funding periods.

Critiques government's approach, advocating for a longer-term strategy that includes detailed provisions for rural communities. Proposes amendments to ensure integrated transport solutions and support for local authorities.

Supports amendments requiring rail strategy to consider integration with other modes of public transport and level crossings. Argues that these measures are essential for improving overall travel efficiency and reducing disruptions.

Agrees with the intent of amendments 134 and 137 to cover a long-term period and focus on rural transport links. Acknowledges the importance of interchanges and integrated transport but cautions against overambitious national strategies.

Supports amendments for rail freight inclusion, local needs consideration in the Bill, and modal interoperability. Emphasises the necessity of integrated transport strategy and fair regard to rural communities.

Asked about regard given to pilots of new technologies such as Starlink, emphasised the importance of internet connectivity on Great British Railways. Supported Sunday working arrangements for far-flung parts of the country that rely on hourly services into London.

Spoke in support of amendment 137 and amendment 261 to ensure better integration between rail and other modes of transport, specifically mentioning ferries. Emphasised the importance of integrated transport terminals for access to and from islands such as the Isle of Wight.

Asked if it was an oversight that the Transport Act 1981 did not contain passenger interest provisions when privatising British Rail’s ferry operations, including the Sea Link service to the Isle of Wight.

The long-term rail strategy will set the strategic direction for Great British Railways through strategic objectives that include environmental, passenger, connectivity and financial considerations. It is not necessary to capture specific operational requirements like timetabling in the long-term strategy.

Emphasised that Amendment 207 does not intend micromanagement of timetables but focuses on a longer-term vision for what timetables aim to achieve, aligning with the strategic objectives of Great British Railways.

Questioned whether GBR should consider societal impacts when assessing level crossings and suggested that if these considerations are not included in how GBR operates, it would be doing an incomplete job. He also inquired about the six-day roster issue for Sunday services.

Mr Glover disagrees with some points made by the Minister and proposes several amendments to clause 15, arguing for a balance between being too prescriptive and having insufficient detail. He also suggests an international rail strategy and consultation requirements. His contributions include pressing multiple amendments to division.

Mr Mayhew proposes various amendments to clause 15, including a requirement for Great British Railways to focus on key performance indicators and consultation with freight operators. He also seeks to amend the duty of Great British Railways and ORR to include seeking to achieve strategies rather than merely having regard to them.

Ms. Smith agreed with new clause 33's attempt to rectify the current situation by not discouraging private investment in rolling stock. She highlighted that millions of pounds have been accepted from the private sector for such investments and warned against dissuading them from being involved.

Asked why the previous Government did not create a rolling stock strategy, highlighting Alstom in his constituency and the thousands of redundancies made under uncertainty about work and delays on various projects.

Acknowledged that privatisation brought benefits but was imperfect. He emphasised that new clause 36 would take advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign the approach, improve predictability for the supply sector and address industry uncertainty due to lack of supporting documentation.

New clause 37 increases accountability by setting out reporting and accountability frameworks for Great British Railways. It includes annual business plans and yearly performance reports, ensuring GBR is held accountable through independent assessments by ORR.

Suggested that rolling stock leasing can be expensive on a whole-life cost basis but noted it may make sense in certain circumstances. He questioned whether private or public sector is always better, depending on context and evidence of value for money.

Asked the Minister to reassure Members representing non-mayoral areas that GBR will consider local integrated transport plans. She also commented on her previous experience running a business.

Francis questions whether the amendment would make GBR have regard to the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority's transport strategy, especially considering the lines that leave London. He raises a valid point but does not suggest opposition to the amendment.

Smith addresses concerns about the rolling stock leasing framework and accessibility improvements for people with mobility needs, arguing that the amendments would ensure strategic consideration of these issues over time. She also emphasises the importance of private sector investment in the manufacturing sector.

Turner argues against the idea that private investments are at risk due to the Bill and questions the Opposition about specific examples of such risks, highlighting the involvement of Government guarantees in these investments.

Smith calls for reassurances regarding GBR's regard for Lancashire’s transport authority during the transition phase towards full devolution. She emphasises that local plans and needs should not be undermined by a national body.

Ms. Smith inquired about the structure of local business units under Great British Railways, seeking clarity on their geographical extent. She asked for more reassurance regarding how many counties might be included within each business unit.

Mr. Mayhew expressed scepticism towards the Minister's promises, arguing that it is not enough to rely on future documents and unspecified details for addressing railway reforms. He pressed amendments to a Division, which were ultimately negatived.