Jerome Mayhew
MP for Broadland and Fakenham · Conservative · United Kingdom
“More than 100 organisations have warned the Government that their early release scheme will put women and girls at increased risk. Can the Minister explain to the House and to those organisations how the scheme will help her to halve violence against women and girls?”
“It is apparent to absolutely everyone that this local government reform is now a shambolic, incompetent mess. I just want to put on record how much time, as well as money, has been spent by councillors and council officials right across Norfolk, where this has been a massive, monumental distraction, not for months, but for years.”
“Rural and coastal communities are particularly reliant on seasonal tourism. If Members look at my registered interests, they will see that I used to run one of those businesses. Do the Government not understand that it is already tough enough out there, without them thinking up a new tax on holidays?”
“I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday.”
“Q7. Books are going to be written about how a Mayor of Manchester has managed to out-manoeuvre a sitting Prime Minister with a 170-seat majority and take the keys to No. 10.”
“Scotland’s beef breeding herd is in trouble; it is down 373,000 in the last decade. There are also declines in dairy cattle, pigs and chickens, which show that the industry is in distress.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Jerome Mayhew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“(2) The Welsh Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause allows the Welsh Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 64 Further provision about transfer schemes “(1) Schedule ( Transfer schemes ) contains further provision about transfer schemes under sections ( Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State ), ( Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers ) and ( Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers ).”
“New Clause 63 Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers “(1) The Welsh Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities— (a) from the Welsh Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, to— (i) Great British Railways, (ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways to— (i) the Welsh Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and a proposed GBR; (c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to— (i) the Welsh Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, (iii) Great British Railways, (iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways; (d) from a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers to another company wholly owned by them; (e) from the Welsh Ministers to a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, or vice versa.”
“(2) The Scottish Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause allows the Scottish Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“I have nothing to add. Question put and agreed to. New clause 61 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 62 Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers “(1) The Scottish Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities— (a) from the Scottish Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, to— (i) Great British Railways, (ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways to— (i) the Scottish Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a proposed GBR; (c) from a former GBR, a company wholly owned by a former GBR or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a former GBR, to— (i) the Scottish Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, (iii) Great British Railways, (iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways; (d) from a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers to another company wholly owned by them; (e) from the Scottish Ministers to a company wholly owned by them, or vice versa.”
“Thank you, Sir Alec. On new clause 11, I hear what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says about fiscal responsibility, but it seems a bit strange to set up a fund with no funds in it. Although, as Committee members have seen in the new clauses I have tabled, I support the principle of having a long-term approach to infrastructure development and investment in rolling stock and skills in this country, I cannot support the creation of a new fund without fully understanding where that money would come from.”
“In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.”
“That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements.”
“The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success. New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development.”
“I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.”
“The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division.”
“As I have said, it is currently quicker to qualify to fly a commercial jet than to qualify to drive a train, and once a pilot has their licence they can fly almost anywhere in the world, while qualified train drivers are restricted to a specific route. We want to make it quicker and easier to become a train driver so that more people have access to the job. That is why the new clause legislates for GBR to establish a train driving school with updated methods. It would decrease dependency on overtime for sick days and for leave. GBR would be directly accountable to Parliament on the success of the framework, which we believe to be important.”
“Most people agree that having a seven-day timetable with a six-day roster is ridiculous, because it means that the Sunday service is voluntary. As a result, drivers are always paid overtime even though the service is part of the standard schedule. That does not happen anywhere else in the public or private sector. The new clause would mean that GBR could be run more cost-effectively. Many train companies have historical disputes with drivers over this issue, and have been unable to remove it from their trip terms and conditions as the drivers would simply go on strike. Now is a perfect time to change approach, with the full backing of the Government, in primary legislation. This wholesale reform of the railways is an opportunity for the Government to reset the terms and conditions for train operation.”
“Let us look at some examples of improvements—this is a non-exhaustive list. We could get drivers to operate train doors without additional payments, and provide a train driving school with updated training methods to speed up route knowledge and training times. At the moment, it takes a lot less time to train a pilot to fly a jumbo jet from scratch than it takes to train a train driver. We could deal with the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails, and introduce multidisciplinary flexible maintenance teams that support other local teams when needed. We could permit driver managers to drive trains when required, and link general pay rises to productivity gains. All those examples, which are listed in the new clause, are eminently sensible improvements to the ability of GBR to run an effective, modern railway.”
“This is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of passenger rail strike action on users’ access to their place of work and to essential services, and the impact on the wider economy, while balancing that with the ability of workers to take strike action. New clause 32, also in my name, would provide for a working practices and productivity modernisation framework. It would implement a number of provisions to make running GBR easier and more cost-effective for the Government and the taxpayer. Currently, there are a number of historical terms and conditions in train driver contracts that are outdated and allow drivers to hold their employers to ransom over pay. They make the railway inefficient to run and drivers slow to train, and end up costing taxpayers and fare payers more.”
“Several sectors, including hospitality, have reported loss of revenue directly from the impact of rail strike action. Government intervention is intended to mitigate disproportionate impacts of strike disruption on the railway, rail users and the wider economy. While the rail industry has put in place contingency plans to run a limited number of services during previous strike action, the level of service that it can deliver varies. Setting MSLs for passenger rail services will provide an important tool for employers to be able to deliver an overall improvement on the service levels that are typically seen during strike periods, and provide passengers with more certainty and consistency, which is just as important.”
“A survey conducted by the Department for Transport in 2022 found that most rail users’ journeys were impacted by strike action, with some passengers reporting an adverse financial impact as a result. Strike action usually takes place when there is a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the dispute cannot be resolved by other means. It is intended to cause disruption to the employer and, in some cases, the wider economy. Strike action in the rail sector, however, affects ordinary rail users, who are not party to the dispute. In December 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that rail strikes between June ’22 and January ’23 would result in a loss of UK economic output of around £500 million due to people outside the rail sector not being able to work.”
“The intention is that the new clause will lead to an improved and more consistent level of service for passengers during rail strikes, when work notices are issued by employers to secure MSLs. Public transport is critical for the everyday lives of citizens in Great Britain. The transport system supports all sectors of the economy and is a crucial enabler of economic growth. Rail is an important public transport mode as it enables passengers to make vital journeys, such as commuting to work or accessing essential services. Strike action on the passenger rail network can lead to disproportionate disruption to millions of people who rely on these services.”
“New clause 31 seeks to reimpose minimum service levels. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose minimum service levels on passenger rail services, and for GBR to enforce them. The previous Government passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023, and the new clause essentially makes the railways subject to those regulations once more. The purpose of the new clause is to reduce the impact of rail strike action on the ability of passengers to access their place of work and essential services, and to reduce the negative impacts on the wider economy, by setting minimum service levels—MSLs—for passenger rail during strikes.”
“That is an interesting point. If the productivity of a private business falls, it becomes less profitable and cannot afford pay rises. Should the same attitude not be directed to public sector bodies? Where productivity falls, the people who suffer are the taxpayers. As the Secretary of State and GBR stand in the shoes of the taxpayer, should they not apply the same approach that the private sector has to live with?”
“The Minister raises interesting arguments, but I wish new clauses 31 and 32 to be put to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“(A4) The power under subsection (A3), so far as relating to regulations, includes power to provide for the regulations as amended from time to time to extend as mentioned in that subsection.” This amendment allows clause 86 and regulations under it to be extended to the Isle of Man by Order in Council. Amendment 202, in clause 91, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).— (Keir Mather.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 201. Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.”
“— (Keir Mather.) This amendment provides for the meaning in the Bill of “wholly owned by the Crown” to be that given by section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993. Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 91 Extent Amendments made: 201, in clause 91, page 53, line 32, at end insert— “(A1) This Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only, subject to subsections (A2) to (1). (A2) Section 86 and this Part extend also to Northern Ireland. (A3) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of section 86 and this Part, or any regulations under that section (whether made before or after the making of the Order in Council), to extend with or without modifications to the Isle of Man.”
“In that case, these are all straightforward ancillary parts to the Bill, and I have no comments to make. Question put and agreed to. Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 90 General interpretation Amendments made: 200, in clause 90, page 53, line 12, at end insert— “‘Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area’ means a body which is the Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;” This amendment defines Passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment 263, in clause 90, page 53, line 31, at end insert “, except in relation to the expression ‘wholly owned by the Crown’ (as to which see section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993)”.”
“That must make me a very slow learner. Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole. With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.”
“I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him. I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. This is an important debate. If she has been following the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee for the Railways Bill, she will have heard that at the current rate it will take more than 100 years to get step-free access across the full estate. Does she agree with the Opposition in this instance that that is too long?”
“The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.”
“I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?”
“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.”
“It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.”
“Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales. The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on. Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales.”
“It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland.”
“On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227. Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228.”
“It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee.”
“Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations. In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales.”
“Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it. I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest.”
“This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation. The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight.”
“This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.” The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State? The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding.”
“The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers. The explanatory notes state: “The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail.”
“Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room. Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34.”
“As I intimated previously, I will put the first amendment to a Division and then we will take a view after that. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement. Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.”
“You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states: “All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.” That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted.”
“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.”
“Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?”
“After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner. If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale.”
“The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well. Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses.”
“Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR?”
“Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.”
“Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty. There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.”