Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) 2026-02-03

Proposes amendments to clauses 25-27 to ensure railway passenger service designations consider rail freight capacity. Argues that GBR's role as the 'directing mind' is compromised by Secretary of State’s management powers, potentially leading to inefficiencies and delays.

Acknowledges the amendments but does not provide a detailed response. Supports the aim of ensuring designation of passenger services does not negatively impact rail freight or undermine GBR's network capacity planning.

Expresses concerns over the Bill's restrictions on allowing private companies to operate rail services. Cites specific examples of private operators offering efficient services at lower costs, emphasising the need for flexibility in awarding contracts.

Defends the current provisions that limit the involvement of private companies in railway passenger services. Explains that existing exemptions from designation will be retained, offering assurance to opposition concerns. Highlights the importance of devolved flexibility for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

Considers it a concern that lack of flexibility may mean no private sector companies can operate train services in future. Feels the measures set out in the Bill place decisions entirely in hands of Secretary of State, potentially ruling out private involvement.

Raises concerns about structural conflict of interest with GBR as both operator and quasi-regulator. Supports amendments allowing flexibility for private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of relevant ministers.

Supports the principle that it should not be about ideology but what works based on data. Argues against nationalisation driven by ideology and highlights positive outcomes under privatisation, including increased passenger numbers and popular open-access routes.

Agrees with the principle that it should not be about ideology between public and private sectors. Suggests focusing on aspects of the Bill to improve services rather than relitigating privatisation versus nationalisation.

The Government lacks confidence in nationalisation; amendments give the Secretary of State flexibility to contract with private sector under certain circumstances. The current proposal is an ideological stance against any possibility that a private business could offer better value for money or service.

Asked if the logic of the argument would lead to saying the 1993 Conservative Government was ideologically motivated in passing the Railways Act, which barred public sector from taking on franchises.

Responded that while he was not following every clause of the 1993 Act at age 23, they should learn from past mistakes and avoid repeating them in opposite directions. If the argument against nationalisation is valid now, it would also apply then.

Moves to amend clause 31 to remove unnecessary provisions. Proposes amendments that allow Welsh Ministers to award public service contracts to public sector companies when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1).

Proposes amendment to clause 32, which would require pre-award publication of public service contracts. This amendment aims at transparency and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens.

Moves amendment 45 to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set.

Argues against clause 33, stating it gives excessive power to the Secretary of State over fares and may lead to misuse. Cites NHS England as an example where similar powers led to issues which now need to be addressed.

Defends the clause, arguing that fare parameters can only be set transparently through guidance and public service contracts published for scrutiny. The power allows a swift response in exceptional circumstances such as crises or unexpected changes without becoming routine interference.

Asks the Minister to provide examples of exceptional circumstances where directions might be issued, highlighting concern about potential misuse.

Questions whether specifying extreme cases like pandemics or large-scale wars could prevent routine interference and suggests limiting power in such a manner.

Points out inconsistency between setting up GBR and the previous setup for NHS England, arguing it is not clear what difference there lies conceptually.

Supports the intent of Conservative amendments on veterans but questions why certain discount schemes are included in the Bill and not others. New clause 51 formalises travel fee exemption for Remembrance Sunday events, ensuring long-term certainty and consistency. It recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families. New clause 59 aims to reduce red tape for police officers and PCSOs travelling on duty.

Notices that previous legislation did not include veterans railcard but allowed other discounts without statutory backing. Raises concern with amendment 62, highlighting its implications for wheelchair users and blind passengers.

Surprised that the Government do not seek to enshrine veterans railcard on Bill’s face. Emphasises Johnny Mercer's efforts in driving this change, stressing it underlines the debt of gratitude to veterans. Supports amendments for serving personnel to travel with their families.

Minister confirmed that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including veterans railcard and armed forces railcard. He explained that while these discounts are valuable, they do not need to be enshrined in primary legislation as it would limit flexibility for GBR.

Smith questioned the logic of keeping certain discount schemes but excluding veterans. She suggested that if no changes are planned, why include some but not others on the face of the Bill.

Minister responded by highlighting the importance of consistency for groups who have historically faced barriers to travel. He also emphasised GBR's need to remain agile and evolve needs over time, despite current commitments.

Mayhew challenged the Minister’s position on flexibility by asking if removing veterans railcard would be considered agile.

Minister reiterated that there are no plans to remove any existing discount schemes and confirmed this again.

Kirkham highlighted the importance of the veterans railcard in her constituency and asked for confirmation that there are no plans to remove it.

Minister agreed with Kirkham, emphasising the significance of the issue to every member of the Committee.

Turner pointed out that flexibility has been beneficial for other schemes like the disabled persons railcard and questioned why similar flexibility could not be applied here.

Minister acknowledged the point about the disabled person’s railcard, noting the evolving needs of concessionary travel must remain flexible.

Argues against specific age ranges in legislation, citing flexibility as a necessity for the Government's management of discount schemes. Emphasises commitment to maintaining discounts but suggests rationalisation may be beneficial.

Stresses concern over potential future removal of discounts and argues that amendments are necessary to protect these benefits long-term. Proposes further amendments related to conditions for discounted fares, fare reduction rates, and customer loyalty programmes.

Declares interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Opposes amendment 62 due to its potential to reduce discounts for carers and companions of disabled passengers.

Supports examination of a rail miles programme through new clause 13, arguing it could promote railway usage, reward loyal customers, and boost tourism. Mentions existing schemes such as Eurostar’s loyalty scheme.

Recalls a previous Nectar points scheme with GWR that rewarded regular travel, suggesting it could encourage more people to use rail services.

Supports the idea of customer loyalty programmes and argues they would reward passengers for regular use while remaining affordable and cost-effective.

Proposed amendments to include UK veterans and members of the armed forces and their families in discounted fare schemes. The amendments were defeated in a series of votes.