← Back to House of Commons Debates
Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) 2026-02-03
03 February 2026
Lead MP
Jerome Mayhew
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
DefenceEmploymentTransport
Other Contributors: 38
At a Glance
Jerome Mayhew raised concerns about railways bill (tenth sitting) 2026-02-03 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Mr. Mayhew moved amendment 63 to clause 36, proposing that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, including potential users of the railway. He argued that the current drafting was silent on general passengers and focused disproportionately on disabled persons, which may inadvertently create a skewed body with narrower scope than Great British Railways (GBR). Mr Mayhew also proposed amendment 64 to require value for money through cost-benefit analysis rather than efficient use of public funds. He introduced new clause 7 to give the Passengers’ Council statutory purposes such as advocating for reliability, safety and security, passengers' comfort and on-board experience, affordability, and network expansion.
Edward Argar
Con
Melton and Syston
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.
Daniel Francis
Lab
Bexleyheath and Crayford
Mr. Francis supported the proposal, highlighting its significance in ensuring comprehensive representation of all passengers' needs, especially those with disabilities.
Daniel Francis
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
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.
Keir Mather
Con
Bexleyheath and Crayford
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
Carshalton and Wallington
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.
West Dorset
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.
Olly Glover
LD
Didcot and Wantage
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.
Edward Morello
Lib Dem
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
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.
Olly Glover
Con
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
Brent North
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.
Minister
Con
Keir Mather
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
Brent North
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.
Keir Mather
Con
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.
Edward Morello
Con
West Dorset
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.
Daniel Francis
Con
Welsh Affairs
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Barnet and Camden
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.
Keir Mather
Con
Broadland
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.
Edward Morello
Con
West Dorset
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Hendon
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.
Olly Glover
Lab
Telford
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.
Edward Morello
Con
Didcot and Wantage
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.
Keir Mather
Lab
Broadland
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
Fakenham
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
Didcot and Wantage
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Kingston upon Thames
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.
Edward Morello
Con
Kingston upon Thames
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.
Keir Mather
Lab
Fife North East
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.
Jerome Mayhew
Lab
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.
Keir Mather
Con
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.
Government Response
The Minister argues that clause 36 already ensures the passenger watchdog will consider the needs of all users, particularly disabled passengers. He also states that new clause 7 would unnecessarily limit future adaptability for other modes of transport. Defends current governance structure of the passenger watchdog, arguing against specific representation and immediate deadlines. Highlights existing practices like rail user surveys as sufficient oversight. The minister argues against the amendments proposed by opposition MPs, emphasising the need to maintain a single enforcement body for clarity and efficiency. He supports direct engagement with operators as an effective way to resolve issues without immediate enforcement action. Explains the current scope and effectiveness of accessibility standards, highlighting existing measures for passenger experience improvements. Defends Secretary of State’s consent requirement as necessary to ensure affordability and enforceability. Announces that a review of the Access for All programme has already been conducted in late 2024, resulting in measurable progress. The Government recognise that our railway too often does not meet the accessibility needs of our customers and that customers—especially our most vulnerable passengers—do not get the support they need or deserve. We have published the Department for Transport’s road map to an accessible railway, which sets out what we are doing now to improve the day-to-day travelling experience of disabled passengers in the lead-up to GBR being established. The Government seeks to establish a single, clear enforcement body for railway regulations and operations. Keir Mather argues that having dual bodies would lead to confusion and inefficiencies in enforcing railway standards. He outlines the powers of clause 47 and its aim to facilitate collaborative improvement plans with operators without needing immediate ORR intervention.
Shadow Response
Jerome Mayhew
Shadow Response
Mr. Mayhew proposed amendments to improve clarity in the responsibilities of the Passengers’ Council, emphasising a need for broader representation and value for money considerations. Criticises clause 37 for lacking a proactive role and clear purpose, highlighting concerns over its effectiveness in holding GBR accountable. Supports amendments that would enhance the watchdog's ability to act meaningfully. Raises concerns about the potential for clause 39's wording to create an enormous legal duty and a vast workstream for the passenger watchdog, which currently has fewer than 30 staff members. Questions the assessment of demand and budgetary planning for such investigations. Supports the idea of an independent dispute resolution service but questions the detail and powers of such a function. Argues for continuity in data publication to ensure comparability. The shadow minister supports the intentions of the new clauses, stating that they aim to strengthen accessibility provisions and address slowing progress on programmes such as Access for All. He highlights the benefits of making stations more accessible not only for wheelchair users but also for those carrying heavy luggage or bicycles. Suggests redrafting clauses to avoid conflicts with ORR’s safety functions while supporting the goal of enhancing accessibility for all railway users. Questions the necessity of amendments that could weaken watchdog's powers. Shadow Minister Jerome Mayhew is critical of the lack of enforcement power for the passenger watchdog, highlighting inconsistencies between the Government's stance on the Competition and Markets Authority and their reluctance to empower the watchdog. He indicates that he will seek a vote on amendment 74.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.