Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I intimated, I am happy to withdraw amendment 61, which is more of a probing amendment, and I will not move amendment 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services. Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion. If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions “are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”, or in other words, “they are a last resort”. The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that. Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it. New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert— “(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must— (a) take account of— (i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and (ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and (b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.” This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister; you are the spokesperson.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s response demonstrates an extraordinary lack of confidence by the Government in the efficacy of nationalisation—the very thing that they are seeking to promote in the majority of the Bill. All that amendments 41 to 43 would do is give the Secretary of State flexibility by making them able by law, in certain circumstances, to give a contract for passenger services to the private sector. They would not require it; they are not saying that this is a battle between privatisation and nationalisation. The only ideological battle here is by the Government, who are saying that it is impossible to conceive of any circumstance in which a private business might be able to offer better value for money for the taxpayer and a better service for passengers than a nationalised part of GBR. They are so concerned that a private business might be offered that opportunity, because they are overwhelmingly better, that they are seeking to legislate to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am wholly unpersuaded. The Minister did his best, but he cannot hide from the huge disparity between setting up a stand-alone arm’s length business, which is meant to run itself efficiently and with dynamism, and taking away its revenue-driving function. It is ridiculous. We will end up with an organisation that is second-guessed by the Department for Transport. We all say it is the Secretary of State, but of course it is not; it is many hundreds of DFT officials. They will each no doubt do their best as they see it, but they will be second-guessing the role of the industry organisation. That is not a recipe for an effective management structure, and I will push amendment 45 to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert “by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.” This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has come up with an ingenious argument, but if he takes the trouble of actually reading the opening sentence of clause 36, he will find that it says, under “General duties”: “When exercising its functions relating to railways and railway services”— So, arguments about buses and other modes of transport are clearly outside the scope of this clause, are they not?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman notes that clause 36 is about the general duties of the council. It sets out what the passengers’ council is for and those general duties. Does he not think that it is odd that the clause does not refer to passengers, other than one subclass of passengers? Would it not be better for the general duties of the passengers’ council to refer to all passengers?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has described the function of clause 48, the lead measure in this group, but there is one notable exception from the list of bodies that can refer to the council for advice under clause 48(1)(a) as drafted. It includes mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London and Ministers—whether the Secretary of State, Welsh or Scottish Ministers—but there is no room for local transport authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is not in her place, because she made the point powerfully in previous sittings of the Committee that some areas of the country do not have mayoral combined authorities and never will, because of their geographic or demographic set-up—that is particularly the case in the south-west. Those areas still have local transport needs, and a local transport authority, yet under the Bill as drafted, those authorities are excluded from asking the advice of the passenger body. We have heard that there are many areas that will never have an MCA but that still have rail-related concerns and issues. I seek advice from the Minister: what is the thinking of the Government, that they have deliberately excluded local transport authorities from the clause? Clause 49 deals with “Consultation about railway passenger services and station services”. Again, I have left it to the Minister to explain what the clause does, but it sets out the policies and procedures that GBR should consider consulting the passengers’ council on. It gives GBR discretion to decide whether to do so based on its assessment of the impact on passengers. That is, again, quite important. The clause creates a duty on GBR to consult the passengers’ council, but only where GBR itself decides that a policy change will significantly affect passengers. The explanatory notes confirm that that judgment is entirely for GBR. GBR, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will all owe consultation duties to the council, but the Bill imposes a duty only on GBR, and even then only on GBR’s own assessment of significance. There is no parallel duty on Ministers, meaning that major ministerial decisions affecting passengers could fall entirely outside statutory consultation. The list in clause 49(2) once again seeks to sideline the passengers’ council by limiting its remit. The list does not cover the issues that “significantly affect the interests of the public in relation to…passenger services or station services”, as described in clause 49(1)(b); far from it. Amendment 75 would require GBR to consult the passengers’ council when GBR is developing or changing its procedures, with reference to the passenger-focused KPIs outlined in proposed new clause 2: “reliability, including punctuality…short-forming…key connections… safety and security…comfort and on-board experience” and “affordability and value for money”. Those are issues at the heart of the passenger experience. Let the passengers’ council do a proper job. Clause 50 gives the passengers’ council the power to publish information and advice for “users or potential users of railway passenger services”. The clause only allows the passengers’ council to publish information; it does not require it to publish information. That means the council can choose not to publish anything at all. The clause also gives no sense of what should be published, or how often. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the reasons he has not decided to require publication when it is about information and advice; that seems a bit odd. Clause 51, which is on the power to make exclusions, will be watched by many, as it is really important to rail enthusiasts. Committee members should be careful when commenting on it, because people are keenly interested in this power. Actually, on this occasion I think the Government have got it about right. The clause replicates similar provisions in the 1993 Act—specifically, sub-sections (7B) and (7C) in section 76. Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to exclude services from one or more of the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48 through regulations, or modify those duties for particular services. However, before making changes, the Secretary of State must consult the passengers’ council and the London Transport Users Committee. There are currently two exemptions from the similar requirements in the 1993 Act in place, one of which excludes services without through-ticketing facilities and which are exempt from holding a licence. Charter and heritage railway operators fall under this exemption. The Government assert in the explanatory notes to the clause that, “it would be burdensome and unnecessary for the Passengers’ Council to be required to investigate heritage railway operators,” which only operate for tourism and recreational purposes, not for the mainline network. I agree that those potential exclusions are reasonable. The Government rightly point out that burdening heritage rail with unnecessary regulation when the hospitality and tourism sector is facing serious challenges—admittedly, because of this Government—would be disproportionate. Very few constituencies do not boast a heritage railway, so I declare an interest, Mrs Hobhouse: the Bure Valley Railway and the start—or the finish, depending on which way a person is going—of the Wells and Walsingham Light Railway run in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am unpersuaded. As I previously indicated, I will press amendment 74 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s argument is clearly—is it parliamentary to say nonsense? I hope it is. His argument, that the industry will be confused if the passengers’ council is able to enforce its own deliberations, is ridiculous; he just has to think about it. The ORR has its areas of competence on which it enforces, and the passengers’ council has its areas of competence; they are discrete. Where confusion might really arise is if the passengers’ council thinks it is trying to get information and is stymied by the ORR taking a different view, which is the position the Minister has put forward. I have no hesitation in pushing the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, after “of” insert “all users, and potential users of the railways, including”. This amendment ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the wording of clause 39(1), at the moment paragraphs (a) to (e) are additional. If the “or” in “or…it appears to the Council” at the end of paragraph (d) were replaced with “and”, there would be a two-part test. The council would receive complaints from all the kinds of people in paragraphs (a) to (d), and the second part of the test would be that “it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate.” That would give agency to the council to monitor and choose the most important things for it to investigate.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 General duties of the Council

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 47 deals with improvement plans. It allows the passengers’ council to request improvement plans from licensed rail operators “where it judges them to be, or likely to be, non-compliant with the standards it sets and therefore, the consumer licence conditions”— not that we have seen them, and the “improvement plans would be requested from operators to allow them to explain their planned improvements before issues were referred to the ORR or potential enforcement action”— although we do not know whether they would choose to enforce either. The clause highlights—again—just how toothless the passengers’ council will be. It still has no direct enforcement powers, and the explanatory notes confirm that these plans are only a precursor to possible ORR action. If an operator ignores a plan, the council can do nothing about it at all, except refer the matter to the ORR, which may “take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate”. This is another two-stage approach from the Government, with no guaranteed remedy, and it leaves the council structurally dependent on the ORR for all meaningful enforcement. There is no requirement for the ORR to do anything at all, when provided with a file from the passengers’ council. There is no ability for the ORR to adopt a passengers’ council investigation as its own, and any enforcement action will be required to consider the matter afresh. I accept the Minister’s earlier point that the ORR will be able to read documentation presented by the passengers’ council, but that is it. That will take time and add cost, and it will fail the consumer all the way through the process. It is not the ORR’s fault; it is how the Government are designing the system, which falls well short of the Government’s stated aim of creating a genuinely empowered passenger watchdog. Subsection (2) says: “If the person fails to take the steps set out” in the improvement plan, or does not prepare one “within a reasonable time, the Passengers’ Council must refer the matter to the ORR”. That part is mandatory, but the ORR’s response is not mandatory. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister can help us out. The new system needs to be able to stand up for passengers, with a watchdog worthy of the name. Amendment 74 would give the passengers’ council the power to enforce improvement plans, and new clause 45 sets out how that will be achieved. It would require the Secretary of State to provide the passengers’ council with enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the Office of Rail and Road under the 1993 Act. The Government want to put passengers at the heart of the railway, but they have created a passenger watchdog with no teeth—or power—to enforce any of its decisions. To give an advance indication, I will seek to divide on both amendment 74 and new clause 45.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Under clause 43, the passengers’ council can prepare, send and publish a report of its findings in an investigation, but it must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral. Similar provisions exist for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The wording of subsection (3) makes publication discretionary even after a full investigation and subsection (4) requires ministerial consent before publishing any report arising from a referral. As the explanatory notes confirm, that structure gives Ministers an effective veto over publication. Why should the Minister have a veto over publication when the organisation being investigated is their own creation? If the state has created a toothless investigation watchdog body that, despite its lack of enforcement powers, has managed to do an investigation, write a report that is no doubt critical of the state, GBR or perhaps even the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State, or the Scottish or Welsh Minister can, for whatever reason they like, veto its publication. They can muzzle the watchdog at whim. That risks undermining the whole process—where is the transparency?—and weakens the credibility of the new watchdog. If the aim is to strengthen passenger oversight, investigation reports should be published as a matter of course, with only narrowly defined exemptions for confidentiality or commercial reasons. Transport for All explains in its written evidence to the Transport Committee how that will affect passengers: “Clauses 42-47 empower the Passengers’ Council to receive complaints, investigate issues, and identify potential breaches of licence conditions. However, the Council has no power to compel corrective action, issue penalties, or enforce compliance. If it identifies significant accessibility failings, it must refer the matter to the ORR, which retains full discretion over whether to investigate or take enforcement action. Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and this indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability. We worry that it will create further delays, weaken enforcement, confuse passengers, and result in inconsistent redress. A watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passengers’ rights or drive accessibility improvements.” Amendment 69 requires the passengers’ council to publish any report on a matter investigated under clause 39. That will create greater transparency and accountability in the new watchdog. Frankly, if the Government are serious about supporting the rights of passengers, rather than designing in an ability to hide embarrassing conclusions, they must support this amendment. Amendment 70 would require the passengers’ council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation. Having in statute a specific timeframe in which a report must be published would create a sense of urgency, or at least of purpose, and a culture would develop within the organisation that placed high importance on those reports—exactly as it should. Amendments 138, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats—presumably the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—would require the passenger’s council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensure that any report is laid before Parliament. It is another attempt to strengthen the reporting requirements from a different angle and should be supported because it is seeking to achieve a similar outcome to my own amendments. Amendment 140, also in the name of the hon. Member, “removes the requirement that the Passengers’ Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State”. Amendment 69 is a mandatory requirement that they must publish every report. If that is not acceptable to the Government for whatever reason, then amendment 140 is a slight variation on the theme in that it takes the discretion away from the Secretary of State and leaves it where it properly lies, if there is to be discretion: with the passenger watchdog. That body, surely, having undertaken the investigation, written the report and come to a conclusion, are best placed to decide whether it is in the public interest to publish, not the owner of the nationalised industry that is being investigated.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a sequence of complaint. Before going to an external body, one would typically be expected to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the organisation against which one is complaining. It would be perfectly reasonable for the passenger watchdog’s first questions to be, “Have you complained to GBR? If so, what did it say?” In fact, that might be its working definition of frivolousness: going straight to the watchdog without having made a complaint. I warn the Minister that the current wording is an open chequebook. It could lead to a huge amount of work for an organisation that is not currently set up to deal with it, and which would require significant funds from somewhere to do so. What assessment of demand has been undertaken for council investigation powers? What budget has been earmarked for the huge increase in workload? Transport Focus, the host organisation, currently has fewer than 30 staff—I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but when I visited there were something like 22 staff. To what size does the Minister anticipate expanding Transport Focus or the new passenger watchdog? Amendment 142 would make GBR the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the passenger standards council as the appellant body should the complaint not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways. I doubt whether it needs an amendment to primary legislation, but it would be the right sequence for any complainant to exhaust the in-house complaints procedure first. Does the Minister not mean the passengers’ council to have the authority to pick and choose its investigations? If he does not, he should stick with the current wording; if he does, he should think again.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand where you are coming from, Mrs Hobhouse. The problem is that the amendments relate to clause 37, not clause 36, so it is inevitable that I have to describe the clause. I am not speaking to the clause, but explaining how my amendment fits within it.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are at the final furlong—for today at least. I will keep the pace up for the last straight. I am not going to make any comments on clause 53, the general duties of the LTUC, because there is nothing to be improved. Clause 54, which amends section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, mirrors the passengers’ council in many ways. We could take the opportunity to seek to apply the same improvements to the LTUC that we have to the passengers’ council, but I have resisted that temptation given the Government’s reaction to all other proposals to date. Clause 55 designates the committee as the body to which complaints about potential infringements of retained EU law on rail passengers rights should be addressed. I see no issue with that other than in relation to the criticism we have already outlined regarding the passengers’ council. It is clear that the clause is designed to ensure consistency in London in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so we have no amendments there. I take on board the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 173 and make no further comment. Clause 56, which is about complaints to the LTUC, again, allows the LTUC to be the official body in which complaints about retained EU law are handled. As the Minister has pointed out, that clause, like others in this group, mirrors the ability of the passengers’ council, so we have nothing else to add on that one. I make no comments on clause 57 about the publication of information and advice by the LTUC. That brings us to clause 58—restrictions on disclosure of information by the LTUC. As we come to the last clause of the London Transport Users Committee, we also come to the last amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. For those keeping track of these things at home, we are now amending section 252DC. The clause outlines restrictions in a very similar fashion to that of the passengers’ council, so we consequently have no further amendments to suggest for that clause either.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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 I do not swallow the explanations given in relation to amendment 72. We need to focus the passenger watchdog on important issues for passengers, so we will press that amendment to a Division. However, on amendment 71, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 72, in clause 46, page 24, line 33, at end insert— “(e) passenger service reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections, (f) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance, (g) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities, (h) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”— (Jerome Mayhew.) This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort and on-board experience and affordability of railway passenger services. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is all very well, but it is not the wording of the Bill. The text does not say “have regard to”; it is a mandatory requirement to investigate every single allegation. I totally understand where the Minister says he is coming from, but unfortunately his Bill does not agree with him.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 42, page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that the Minister has his line to take and that there will be lots of angry people sitting behind him at tea time if he makes any concessions. However, a simple amendment to the wording of the mandatory requirement in clause 39(1), paragraphs (a) to (e), would give the passenger watchdog the ability to pick and choose. Changing “or” to “and” at the end of paragraph (d), before “it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate”, would surely provide the flexibility that everyone probably thinks is necessary.