-
Mr. Argar supported the intent of amendment 63, emphasising its importance in ensuring that all passengers' needs are recognised by the Passengers’ Council. He suggested that it would not undermine the policy intent but rather make it clearer.
-
Mr. Francis supported the proposal, highlighting its significance in ensuring comprehensive representation of all passengers' needs, especially those with disabilities.
-
The hon. Member supports the need to look at issues for disabled passengers but believes the amendment is not necessary as the watchdog will consider such needs by virtue of its role.
-
The hon. Member argues that the amendment would dilute the specific accessibility duty for disabled passengers, and that clause 36 already ensures the watchdog will consider these needs.
-
The hon. Member is not persuaded by the minister's arguments regarding the scope of the amendment and wishes to press both amendments to a vote, arguing that it is important for the watchdog to have regard to all users.
-
The hon. Member proposes amendments to ensure rail passenger groups are represented on the Passengers’ Council and requires Great British Railways to respond to representations made by the council within a month, as well as ensuring regular assessment of railway service satisfaction.
-
Supports amendments to ensure representation for rail passenger groups within the watchdog, arguing it would enhance the watchdog's ability to advocate effectively.
-
Opposes amendments 208 and 209, stating that specific representation is not mandated but engagement with passenger groups is maintained. Also opposes amendment 65 due to concerns over efficiency and amendment 235 as continuous monitoring is already established.
-
Critiques the current clause 37 for its passive nature, suggesting it lacks clear purpose and enforcement powers. Supports amendments that would require responses to watchdog representations and promote transparency.
-
Proposes an amendment to clause 37 that would mandate a one-month response time from both the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to any representations made by the Passengers' Council. The amendment is voted down.
-
Supports clauses 37 and 38 as they replicate the 1993 Act but raises concerns about clause 39's wording, which imposes a legal duty on the passengers' council to investigate all complaints unless deemed frivolous or vexatious. He questions the practicality of this requirement given the watchdog's limited resources.
-
Moves an amendment 142, proposing that Great British Railways be the first stage in handling complaints, with the Passenger Standards Council as the appeal body if GBR's response is unsatisfactory. The aim is to reduce red tape and ensure efficient complaint resolution.
-
The amendment would unnecessarily restrict the watchdog's ability to act freely on behalf of passengers. He does not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate, and suggests that the council will work closely with GBR without duplicating investigations unless necessary.
-
The speaker acknowledges the Minister's points but still thinks that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated. He withdraws his amendment and leaves it to the Government to address in future discussions.
-
Amendment 66 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers if requests for information are not met. The amendment aims to ensure that there is a clear and effective body responsible for holding railway operators accountable, preventing delays in resolving issues faced by passengers.
-
The minister argues against the amendment, stating that it would create confusion and potential duplication of efforts. He emphasises the importance of a single enforcement body for clarity and efficiency across the rail sector.
-
Continuing to push amendments 67, 68, and others related to clause 42, arguing that these would require the ORR to act on contraventions referred by the watchdog, ensuring a faster resolution for passengers' issues.
-
The minister states that enforcement actions are not the only way to solve problems and points out the need for broad regulatory oversight. He suggests that direct engagement with operators can be more efficient in resolving passenger concerns without immediate enforcement action.
-
Amendment 138 aims to mandate the publication of a report by the Passengers' Council on its findings, ensuring transparency and accountability. It also proposes strict timelines for publishing these reports.
-
Disagrees with the amendments as they would create an overly bureaucratic system where reports are tabled in Parliament unnecessarily. He believes that some reports do not need to be scrutinised by Parliament and that Passenger Focus deals with a wide range of issues, including transport modes other than trains.
-
Supports the amendments as they would create greater transparency and accountability. He argues against ministerial consent over publication, suggesting it undermines credibility and weakens oversight. He cites Transport for All's evidence on delays and weakening enforcement.
-
Opposes the amendments as they would compromise sensitive information such as commercially sensitive issues. Supports routine publication of reports, but believes discretion is necessary in certain cases to ensure thorough investigation and confidentiality.
-
Opposes clause 43 as it stands, arguing that ministerial consent before publication may hinder swift resolution of issues for passengers.
-
Proposes amendment to clause 46 and new clauses related to dispute resolution and data publication, highlighting the need for transparency and continuity in complaint statistics during transitions like GBR creation.
-
Mr. Mayhew criticises the current clause for not addressing core passenger priorities such as punctuality and reliability, and proposes amendments to address these issues, advocating for a watchdog with real powers rather than just superficial ones.
-
Mr. Glover supports the intentions of the new clauses, acknowledging that they aim to strengthen accessibility provisions and address slowing progress on programmes such as Access for All, which benefits not only wheelchair users but also those carrying heavy luggage or bicycles.
-
Emphasises the need for consistent accessibility across railway stations and trains. Advocates for a full review of the Access for All programme, accessible passenger information systems, and standardised ticket machines to improve user experience.
-
Acknowledges the importance of accessibility but argues that current clauses already cover all areas where assistance is needed. Highlights existing standards for safety and security which are best left to expert bodies like the ORR, and explains the need for Secretary of State’s consent to ensure affordability and enforceability.
-
Supports improvements in accessibility but questions the necessity of amendments that could weaken watchdog's powers. Proposes redrafting clauses to avoid conflicts with ORR’s safety functions.
-
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed assessment of the new clauses and amendments. In the interests of time, I do not propose to press amendment 71 but will press amendment 72 to a Division. We need to focus the passenger watchdog on important issues for passengers.
-
The Government wants to put passengers at the heart of railway reform by creating a passenger watchdog, but this watchdog currently lacks enforcement powers. Amendment 74 would give the passenger watchdog the power to enforce improvement plans and new clause 45 sets out how that will be achieved. Keir Mather highlights that the current system ensures one clear enforcement body for the entire sector with no duplication or confusion, emphasising the role of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) in enforcing railway licenses.
-
Jerome Mayhew questions why there is opposition to giving the passenger watchdog enforcement powers, especially when other bodies like the Competition and Markets Authority have such capabilities. He argues that having a watchdog without teeth undermines its ability to hold railway operators accountable.
-
Minister Keir Mather reiterates his argument against dual enforcement bodies, suggesting it could lead to conflicting steers and confusion. He also outlines how clause 47 will allow the watchdog to require improvement plans from operators without needing immediate enforcement action.
-
Questioned the exclusion of local transport authorities from clause 48(1)(a), suggested that GBR should be required to consult the passengers’ council on KPIs when developing or changing its procedures, and supported a duty for GBR to cooperate with transport authorities.
-
Agreed with Jerome Mayhew's support for heritage railways being excluded from the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48. Mentioned his personal experience with a local railway.
-
Explained why publication of confidential information might be necessary in certain cases and clarified that clause 48 does not exclude local transport authorities from being consulted, but rather lists mayoral combined authorities as the primary consultees. He also stated that GBR will set out its KPIs in its business plan, which will be independently scrutinised by the ORR.
-
Opposes the duplicative nature of amendments in the Bill, arguing for proper consultation mechanisms already present in clause 49. Also questions the practicality of providing compensation to passengers affected by service changes.
-
Defends the provisions of clauses 53-58, emphasising that they align London TravelWatch’s duties and powers with those of the passenger watchdog. Explains that amendment 173 corrects a naming error in the Bill.