Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  It is much easier when I start with the amendment, because then I know where I am. This clause is about the power to obtain information. I will leave it to the Minister to give a précis, but it seeks to create a sensible power for the passengers’ council to be able to require the provision of information. However, the council has no power to compel compliance—it may only refer the matter further, to the Office of Rail and Road—so we begin to get into one of the problems with the passengers’ council, which is that it has no enforcement powers at all. Any teeth that are associated with the works of the passengers’ council come only from the economic regulator, soon to be just the safety regulator: the ORR. That will lead to some serious problems. There is no proposal to require the ORR, as a regulating body with no enforcement powers, to take the preparatory work of the passengers’ council as automatically worthy of acceptance without reinvestigation. That is quite a serious point, because when an investigation undertaken by the passengers’ council comes to a roadblock that it feels requires some kind of enforcement action, it has to go to a separate body, the Office of Rail and Road, because the Government do not intend to give the council any real powers of its own. The ORR, as an independent regulator and enforcement body, then has to start the investigation de novo. It has no ability to take as read the investigation work of the passengers’ council. That will create the bizarre situation of the ORR having to reinvestigate as an enforcing body, which is a quasi-judicial function, and then come to a decision every single time the passengers’ council refers any matter to it. Surely the Minister can do better than that, with all the resources of his many civil servants and drafting professionals in the Department. That messy process will lead to delay and uncertain enforcement—hardly the stuff of empowering passengers. I fear that those on the Treasury Bench have asserted that the watchdog will be a nightwatchman, but the Department has granted it no enforcement powers or powers to compel. That will be bitterly disappointing to many rail passenger groups and advocates. When an issue arises and the council begins an investigation, it will inevitably require information. If it is unable to get that information, it must ask the ORR to step in and take over. We heard a lot about that in evidence to the Transport Committee. For example, Emma Vogelmann of Transport for All said: “In terms of the watchdog itself, I have briefly touched on this already, but we feel very much that the passengers’ council really needs to be given enforcement powers to be able to take proper action on cases that are involving accessibility breaches. In cases where things do get referred up to the ORR, we would like there to be a statutory duty on them to act on those referrals made by the passengers’ council, and to have those outcomes within a clear timeframe.” Another point she makes is that the ORR does not have to do anything. The passengers’ council can refer a matter to the ORR, but the ORR can say, “We’re busy, thank you, and we don’t think it is important.” It has no obligation to act.

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

  More

  I am not persuaded by the Minister. There are two amendments. In order to save time, I will press the first one to a Division, and the outcome of that will determine whether or not I press the second one to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been on that railway. I would continue on that, but I have gone on long enough by saying, “and another thing—I remember”. Rail charter services are a different matter that must also be considered. Those with children may have travelled on one of the many Christmas polar expresses that are chartered services. They are very important to tourism and to the financing of the railway, as they make an economic contribution to the running of it. They sit in a unique space of quasi-open access and are a useful component of the railway. Mainline heritage rail routes, such as the Cambrian express—although the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Hendy, still needs to do some work to restore steam, rather than diesel, locomotives to that heritage route—as well as services with the Flying Scotsman, or Sir Nigel Gresley, which is the last working version of the Mallard class, the A4s, are very important, and crowds of people gather to watch them steam past. I applaud the Government for that sensible exemption. All I ask is that they continue to do what they can to facilitate and support heritage and chartered railways, and I would be grateful to hear the Government’s plans to do so, if there are any. I would propose no amendments to clause 51. Clause 52 is the interpretation chapter, and I am happy for that to continue without amendment. That leaves me solely with the pleasure of discussing new clauses 68 and 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. Network Rail is often cited as a poor neighbour, with no interest in co-operating with other transport modes, or frankly with adjacent landowners— I have had more than one letter of complaint from constituents on that—to minimise disruption not on the railway. The Opposition support the intentions behind the new clause. Culture change is needed in the successor to Network Rail, and a duty to co-operate would at least help. The Minister needs to recognise the existing problem of Network Rail’s culture being—I think it is fair to say—deeply suboptimal in relation to this, and set out his proposals for improvement. New clause 70, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, sets out the requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and are fully communicated with stakeholders. I read the new clause into the record, but I do not propose to press it to a Division when the time comes.

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

  More

  Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for agreeing to chair this afternoon’s deliberations. Here we are at clause 36, on the general duties of the passengers’ council. The clause requires the passengers’ council to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons when it exercises its rail functions. It also places a duty on the council to consider costs and the efficient use of public funds when it exercises its functions. That updates the council’s duty on value for money, which we can see in section 76(7) of the Railways Act 1993, and is consistent with the duty the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways will have if clause 18(2)(f) makes it into the final Act. Clause 36(a), however, is silent on the general travelling public; it only mentions having particular regard to disabled persons. It seems like an odd omission for a provision on a passengers’ council to not mention passengers in the round. For the rest of the public, the council only has to “keep under review matters affecting the interests of the public”, under clause 37(1)(a). The current drafting risks the creation, inadvertent I am sure, of a skewed body, directed to focus on disabled passengers and silent on the rest. I know that would not be the intention of the Ministry or anybody else in this Committee, but that is what the draft text would require of the council under its statutory obligations. It sits uneasily alongside clause 18(2)(a) on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR, which we all remember, and which frames disabled people within a wider body of all users, stating that it is to “promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”. Why is different language being used? There is a difference, within the same draft text, between clause 18 and clause 36. The effect is to leave the passengers’ council operating statutorily on a narrower basis than GBR. The Minister will need to explain the intention behind that, because I do not believe it is intentional. If it is, he needs to explain why he wishes to constrain artificially the application of the passengers’ council to an area which is less wide than that covered by GBR, which it is meant to be monitoring.

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

  More

  I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, although unfortunately he did interrupt my flow—though it was very kind of him to say that he did not want to in the process. He is quite right. Although I obviously love chucking half-bricks at the Government, I do not believe for a moment that there is a serious intention on the part of the Department for Transport to skew the passengers’ council in the way that the drafting currently requires. I am highlighting the provision in the best interests of improving the drafting of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will find a reason not to agree with me in a few minutes’ time, but I hope that he, or his officials, will go away and have a quiet look at it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords. Subsection (b) provides only a duty to “take into account” the costs of recommendations. Surely, as legislators, we want the organisation to balance the public benefits against the likely costs—a cost-benefit analysis, essentially—and not just to consider costs to be met from public funds, because this also involves farebox income. Amendment 63 therefore “ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway”, preventing a skewed council with competing interests, borrowing the language used by the Government in clause 18. Amendment 64 would require the passengers’ council to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis, rather than merely the “efficient use” of public funds, which is only half of the issue. There is a key difference here: value for money focuses on achieving the best balance of cost, quality and outcomes, whereas the good use of public funds also requires spending to be transparent, fair and aligned with the public interest and wider policy objectives. That makes this amendment important in achieving the lowest possible cost for the taxpayer. New clause 7 would give the passengers’ council a statutory purpose to champion the interests of all railway users and potential users of the railway. The passengers’ council would advocate for the reliability of passenger services, for safety and security, and for passengers’ comfort and on-board experience, which we have discussed a number of times. It would also advocate for affordability and value for money, passenger growth and network expansion. It is important to have a clear set of directions for this new passengers’ council at its inception, and the new clause would help to provide that.

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

  More

  I think the Minister may have misunderstood my point. I was not for a moment suggesting that the passenger watchdog should take over responsibility for safety-critical functions. I was anticipating that he might argue that the ORR needs to retain a veto right because there might be clashes with its safety-critical functions, in which case the clause could be redrafted to make it clear that that is the area of focus.

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

  More

  I have nothing to add on clause 44. Clause 45 provides a duty for the passengers’ council to secure independent dispute resolution arrangements. As the Minister just said, it is anticipated—according to the explanatory notes, at least—that it will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR in order to fulfil that duty. I want to ask the Minister what powers the dispute resolution function will have, because the Bill and the explanatory notes are entirely silent. That is the modus operandi that we have become used to during the course of these Bill proceedings: there is endless putting off, and the detail has not been thought out—or, certainly, not shared. This seems to be a similar case. New clause 46, in my name, would ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continued to publish data on complaints in the same manner as it currently does. During a significant transition such as the creation of GBR, it is crucial that data collection and publication are maintained in a manner that allows for accurate comparison—another small but important point. The new clause would achieve that objective. The alternative is to risk an inability to make like-for-like comparison, which of course would let the new organisation off the hook. Without continuity of data collection and publishing, GBR would be able to avoid comparative scrutiny.

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

  More

  Clause 46 gives the passengers’ council a power to set consumer standards for operators of rail passenger services and station services, which will be imposed on them via licence conditions. Of course, we have not seen any of those licence conditions, so we will just have to take it on faith. The clause sets out matters that the standards may cover, including passenger assistance, provision of travel information, a process for compensation if services are disrupted, and complaints about passenger services. The council must seek the Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s consent before setting new standards or varying existing ones, and it must publish them, and any variations or revocations of them, and monitor how operators are complying with them. In summary, the clause gives the passengers’ council a standard-setting role in areas such as assistance, information, compensation and complaints. What about standards on core passenger priorities, such as punctuality, reliability, crowding, staffing, cleanliness, safety and ticketing transparency? Would the Secretary of State be minded to grant consent for such standards, and if not, why not? Requiring both the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to any new standard creates two veto points, limiting the council’s independence. The result is a standards framework far weaker than the broader watchdog model described in the consultation. As we have discussed, subsection (2)(a) makes no direct reference to general users of the railway; the only reference is to disabled people. While I understand the additional focus that disability access requires, the current wording risks a wholly unbalanced approach for the new organisation. Amendment 71 would solve that drafting imbalance and encourage the passengers’ council to set standards for all users and potential users of the railway. In drafting it, all I did was take the Government’s own words in clause 18, which, in describing the general functions, refers to all users, both able bodied and disabled. It does not seem to be an enormous stretch to require the passenger watchdog to have a similar functions scope as the organisation that it is watchdogging. Amendment 72 would require the passengers’ council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort, onboard experience, and affordability of railway passenger services. These are the key issues of importance to passengers. Why do the Government not allow their key champion to tackle the real problems and not just the peripheral ones? Instead of focusing on information provision and complaints processes, let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us have a watchdog that can actually draft and implement standards, and enforce improvement on a large nationalised organisation in the interests of passengers—that is what they actually want—rather than tipping a cap towards it and saying, “Oh yes, we’ve got a watchdog but it has no enforcement powers. It can write standards, but only about what information you receive, not about the really important stuff.” If the Government really want to put “passengers at the heart of the railway”, why do they not vote for these amendments and enhance the powers of the passenger watchdog? They cannot have it both ways. At the moment, it looks like they are just pretending; they have a superficial watchdog that ticks a box but has very limited practical use for passengers. Amendment 73 would remove the passengers’ council’s need to obtain the ORR’s consent to set, vary or revoke standards. A truly effective passenger watchdog needs to have its own real powers, and the ability to set its own standards without the consent of another organisation. Why does the Minister not have faith in his own passenger watchdog to do that? If his answer is that such an objection from the ORR would relate to safety-critical functions, why does the Bill not just say that? The Government are planning on stripping most of the competences away from the ORR, save for the remaining aspect of safety, but they do not say, “If the watchdog has a standard that has an impact on the safety-critical application of the railway, it needs to get the permission of the ORR.” That would make sense. Instead, the ORR has a blanket veto. Amendment 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would remove the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State and the ORR before the passengers’ council sets, varies or revokes a standard—a similar approach to that which I have put forward. I would be minded to support it, were it to be pressed to a Division. Amendment 144 comes from a similar quarter. I am sure it is unintentional, but it contains a drafting mistake. The notes to the amendment make it clear that it seeks to delete subsection (5), but the wording as it stands relates to subsection (6). I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what has happened. New clause 16, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, would require a review of the Access for All programme. It seeks to ensure that step-free access at stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain historical spending decisions and set out recommendations for future spending. I will leave new clauses 17 and 53 to the Liberal Democrat spokesman. New clause 69, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would mandate GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years, to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and to report annually on its progress against that strategy. I welcome that approach to transparency and the focus on accessibility. It deals with the Minister’s arguments about imposing onerous reporting targets on GBR. Given the number of stations involved, the requirement is limited to once a decade, which would be a reasonable compromise. Without such data, how can GBR expect to allocate resources efficiently? The Minister needs to set out how GBR will address accessibility investment without such data. I anticipate an argument that it would be imposing onerous conditions on GBR for it to have an idea as to accessibility around the country. Every now and again, it should know what its own business is up to.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 40, page 22, line 11, leave out subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) and insert “the Passengers’ Council may take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate.” This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council enforcement powers when its requests for information are not met.

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

  More

  I am not going to repeat what the clause does, but it establishes only a passive role. The council must “keep under review” and “make representations”, but it has no proactive duty to investigate or intervene. That is quite a big omission, and it contrasts with what the Minister said in answer to written parliamentary question 76652. The Minister gave an assurance that the new watchdog will deliver clear and robust oversight, but the co-operation duty is narrowly drawn, excluding wider consumer and accessibility organisations. As drafted, the council lacks a clear purpose—in fact, it does not even have a purpose clause—and the practical tools needed to act as the strengthened passenger watchdog the Government have promised. Without a purpose clause, there is no direction as to what the council should be making representations about. Even the title of clause 37 is anodyne: “Keeping matters under review and collecting information” is hardly a strong description of a watchman for the interests of the passenger. Having kept matters “under review”, its only power is to “make representations”, which of course is meaningless. The Urban Transport Group expressed similar concerns in its written evidence to the Transport Committee: “The Bill must ensure that the Passengers Council exercise their powers in relation to GBR as they would any other operator and that these hold weight. It is not enough for GBR to only be held meaningfully to account by the Secretary of State, who has varying responsibilities outside of rail, and who may not have the time to investigate instances of poor performance to the relevant level of scrutiny. Further consideration should be given to the explicit powers and levers the Passengers’ Council will have”— they are going to split the infinitive— “to meaningfully hold GBR to account on behalf of users.” There is a risk that the passengers’ council will be just a busy talking shop, with no ability to effect change. As drafted, it rather feels like an afterthought. For example, there are no enforcement powers, save for referral to the Office of Rail and Road. Under clause 37(1), the council will have the authority to “make representations to…such persons as they think appropriate” on “matters affecting the interests of the public”. In reality, that will mainly be to the Secretary of State and GBR, but there is no corresponding duty for either the Secretary of State or GBR to respond in any way to those representations. Consider that for a moment: there is a duty to make representations, and no duty to respond at all. It could not be more toothless if it tried. Amendment 65, in my name, would go a modest way to rectifying the toothlessness of this representative body. It would simply require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the passengers’ council makes under this clause. Surely members of this Committee and the Government would agree that that is a reasonable expectation for the passengers’ council and the passengers it represents. Amendment 235, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the passengers’ council to assess levels of satisfaction with public passenger railway services and report these in a manner that enables GBR to fulfil its functions. Any amendment, and this is one of them, that ensures greater transparency and therefore a better service from this organisation—

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

  More

  The amendments relate to clause 42, so I will explain what that clause seeks to achieve. Its title is “Representations and referrals”, and its focus is on introducing a power so that “the Passengers’ Council may make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate for the purpose”, such as train or station operators, to resolve a matter under investigation. If the passengers’ council believes that an operator “is contravening, or likely to contravene” its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly, as we will discuss further when we consider clause 47, and/or refer the matter to the ORR and notify the Secretary of State. There are various other things that clause 42 does, but those are the main things. The clause makes it clear that even after a passengers’ council investigation has identified a licence breach, the ORR retains complete discretion on whether or not to act. Once again, that will create a two-stage process in which the council must refer breaches that it cannot resolve itself, but the body receiving the referral is not obliged to act on it, or to intervene. Therefore, the watchdog investigates, but only the ORR can enforce, which it can choose not to do. That structure falls way short of the supposed strengthened passenger accountability model described by Ministers, and it serves only to risk causing prolonged delays for passengers who face ongoing harm, to the extent that a licence provision is breached, without a guaranteed remedy. Thus far, we have not seen a clear rationale as to why the Government would create a watchdog only for it not to have any enforcement powers. It prompts the question: “What’s the point?” Evidence to the Transport Committee was very clear—the passengers’ council needs to have enforcement powers of its own to do the job envisaged for it. At the very least, if the ORR is to remain the enforcement body, there should not be a weeding process between the decisions of the passengers’ council and the ORR; the ORR should at least get on and enforce. That is what amendments 67 and 68 would achieve, by requiring the ORR to take action when a contravention had been referred to it.

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

  More

  No wonder I agree with it so strongly. I put “LD” by it, but that is being unduly generous to the Liberal Democrats. It is an excellent amendment. As I was concluding, it would ensure greater transparency and, therefore, a better service from this organisation, so I have no hesitation in supporting amendment 235 and I hope that the Liberal Democrats join me in doing so.

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

  More

  The clause sets out the circumstances in which the passengers’ council must—that is “must”, not “may”—investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. I could provide a long description of the clause, but I will leave that to the Minister, who I know will want to explain it to the Committee. Essentially, the Bill largely lifts the current framework into the GBR model, so I can see why no amendment would be needed, although Ministers should clarify how the national and London watchdogs will co-ordinate on cross-boundary issues. I will be grateful for an explanation of how the Minister will undertake the balancing act between GBR and the London Transport Users Committee. There is, however, a big issue with the current wording of the clause. It requires the council actively to “investigate any matter relating to the provision of railway passenger services” put to it by members of the public, as well as others. That sounds great, but from a practical perspective, there are 1.75 billion passenger journeys each year. The potential issues with the service that passengers receive will run into the tens of thousands every year, yet the drafting of the clause will impose a legal duty on the passengers’ council to investigate every single one of them, unless they are “frivolous or vexatious”. “Frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms. To demonstrate that something is vexatious is a very high bar for the passengers’ council: it would typically have to provide evidence of multiple previous complaints on a similar subject that came to nothing. That is what “vexatious” means, and “frivolous” is not far off it. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, is creating an enormous a legal duty and a vast workstream for the host organisation that is becoming the passengers’ council, which has fewer than 30 members of staff.

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

  More

  I am interested in the Minister’s repeated insistence that there would be confusion if there were more than one enforcement body for rail activities. What is his proposed solution to the Competition and Markets Authority and its enforcement competency for the railways, which currently is shared with the Office of Rail and Road? Is it his plan to amend the competencies of the Competition and Markets Authority? If not, why is the argument so overwhelming to prevent the passenger watchdog from having teeth, when he allows the CMA to have teeth?

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

  More

  I have thought long and hard about this, Mrs Hobhouse, and given the time of day, we will let it pass. Question put and agreed to. Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 49 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 53 General duties of the LTUC Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I was just trying to be helpful.

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

  More

  I am not going to reheat the discussions that we have already enjoyed on clause 37, and clause 38 simply replicates the 1993 Act. We are happy for the clauses to proceed without amendment. Question put and agreed to. Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 Investigations

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

  More

  You will not be totally amazed to learn, Mrs Hobhouse, that I am not persuaded by the position that the Minister has taken. The obfuscation, chucking in other modes of transport when that is clearly excluded by the wording of the clause, does not persuade me and I wish to press both amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I would not want to prevent the Minister from agreeing with me at some length. We have a slightly odd grouping here, because amendments 208 and 209 would amend clause 36, but the other amendments in the group would amend clause 37—perhaps that is where we have gone wrong. I will not really speak on amendments 208 and 209, because the Liberal Democrats spokesman has indicated that he will not push them to a vote. In so far as they guarantee representation for passenger groups on the passengers’ council, we support the direction of travel, but as they are not progressing further, I will not say more. Clause 37 deals with keeping matters under review and collecting information. The Minister has already set out a précis of what the clause—

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 46, page 24, line 26, after “for” insert “all users and potential users of the railways including, in particular,”. This amendment allows the Passenger Council to set access standards for all users and potential users of the railway.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 47, page 25, line 23, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert “take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.” This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.

• 2 Feb 2026 · High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee. This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again. Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail. The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on. The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works. Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today. It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate? We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.

• 2 Feb 2026 · High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am the first to accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the delivery of HS2. However, the Secretary of State has so far failed to mention how she proposes to deliver all that she has promised within a financial cap of £45 billion, given that the estimate for the works back in 2019 was, I think, £46 billion—from memory. What is she not going to do in order to stay within the Treasury’s £45 billion cap?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  You will not be wholly surprised, Mrs Hobhouse, to know that I am entirely unconvinced by the Minister’s arguments. This is one of the key differences of opinion between the Government and the sector, and I seek to give the sector a voice through my amendments and my submissions. I will look to you, Mrs Hobhouse, for guidance on the exact process; I intend to press some amendments to a Division, but not all of them, to save a bit of time for everyone.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is as capable of reading the amendments as I am of drafting them. I do not want to get hung up on that, but my working assumption and my assertion to him is that the ownership structure internationally may be a state-owned organisation, but the delivery body in the United Kingdom would be a for-profit, private organisation, so it would pass the test of being in the private sector. Jolly good news too—if the British taxpayer can benefit from the largesse of the foreign taxpayer providing a more competitive service for whatever the Secretary of State is seeking to contract for, that is a wonderful thing. That is a gift from abroad, and we should be encouraging it.