Member

I should start with a point of agreement on Amendments 63, 68, 69 and 112: GBR needs to run a more efficient railway than the one we have today, and I absolutely agree that the taxpayer has not always received value for money from the railways. This is precisely why we are creating GBR through the Bill. After all, the main obstacle to an efficient, financially sustainable railway—a lack of integrated decision-making delivery—is being handled by this Bill. Because I agree that we must get the most out of the railway for the taxpayer, the Secretary of State is already under a duty in Clause 18 to consider the efficient use of funds when taking all decisions on the railway, including her decision to issue the statement of objectives. This duty is imperative, as it is one of the main ways that the Bill incentivises GBR to maximise the value available to passengers while reducing, where possible, the overall taxpayer subsidy.