Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Wednesday, 4 November 2026
Contributions
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)Labour (Co-op)
I beg to move, That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Railways Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 4 November 2026. The Railways Bill places passengers back at the heart of our railway. By establishing Great British Railways it provides a framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, to instil confidence in our railways and to attract more people to use them. Great British Railways will also ensure that we harness the economic and environmental opportunities of rail freight, underpinned by two statutory duties related to freight. Great British Railways will be tasked with maximising freight growth in a sustainable way, providing confidence to freight customers and the wider sector that the industry is being prioritised. Great British Railways will also ensure that the needs of communities up and down the country are considered at every turn. A bespoke partnerships framework will require Great British Railways to work hand in hand with local authorities to ensure that local communities receive the services they need. As hon. Members will be aware, this legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny in the other place. It is important that that work continues and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The motion simply ensures that Parliament has sufficient time available to scrutinise the Bill. With that in mind, if hon. Members wish to raise any specific concerns, I invite them to do so in writing to my Department, where I am sure my colleague the Rail Minister will be more than happy to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)Conservative
Goodness, I thought we had a Rail Minister in front of us. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)Conservative
The Labour Government brought a Bill to this House incomplete, late, like a student late with an essay, handing in half-baked work well after the deadline, hoping nobody would notice, with half the answers missing—that is why we are back here. Presumably the Department is taking inspiration from the Education Secretary. They have run out of time, missed the deadline, and now they are back for more. They have had a year, but what on earth have they been doing? We are here because the Labour Government have once again shown whose side they are on: not on the side of working people—who they cannot even define—but on the side of their union paymasters, on whose coffers they depend. Who are the unions to Labour? An army of sugar daddies they cannot do without, picking up the tab for Labour MPs, and when the unions call, Labour cannot say no. This lot will ride roughshod over our railways just to fulfil their weird ideological obsessions and, more importantly, those of their union backers. How do we know that? We look at their Bill. Whose interests does it support? Is it the passengers, whose fares are set to rise next year, thanks to the Chancellor sneaking it through on the last page of the Budget? Is it rail freight, which faces being squeezed off the tracks, slice by slice, under the weight of more costs and less access to tracks? Is it the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for this barefaced indulgence in ideology? No, it is Labour’s union bosses pursuing an ideology that has been abandoned by Japan and by every railway in Europe but is still there in the Labour party in the UK. There used to be an order to how this worked, which was uniquely British. The unions rocked up at No. 10, and after a genteel chat over some Chablis—they might have pretended it was beer, sandwiches and pork pies, but there was always white wine and smoked salmon—they left with giant pay rises. Labour could not negotiate to save their lives—forget an actual meeting or even the pretence of a negotiation. That is all that has to happen these days; it is like ordering a takeaway the old-school way. It’s “Dial a rise”—the unions pick up the phone and demand what they want, as if they were ordering a curry for tea. The Bill has been delayed because the Government’s union pals were worried. I know worrying about saving taxpayers’ money is an alien suggestion to Labour: whenever it gets a new Prime Minister, it seems contractually obliged to go back to the unions and chuck in a whopper of a pay rise so that they do not ruffle feathers in the latest leadership election. That is what the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) provided—back in those heady days when she was the Transport Secretary, before she had to resign due to forgetting she had admitted to being convicted of fraud—and that is what this Prime Minister has done as well. Let us be clear: these delays have caused huge issues for taxpayers already on the hook for God knows how much, and huge issues for investors in our railways. This is no way to govern, it is no way to legislate and it is no way to respect this House. But maybe, just maybe, the Government will use the thinking time they will get if this motion passes to dwell on how to protect our open-access services, such as the Hull Trains direct service from Selby to London, rather than screwing them over with their “GBR or else” mobster-style manoeuvring. It is not good enough. It is not good enough for passengers, whom the Secretary of State seems to expect to be out on the streets clapping and banging pots and pans in support every time the Government change a seat from one ironing board to another at the taxpayers’ expense, every time they paint a train red, white and blue—or Burnham yellow in Manchester—and every time they put up a clock. On this side of the House, we see a Bill that is most certainly not good enough for the taxpayers who must fork out for all this grandstanding while the service gets more expensive. That is what this Bill promises. Yes, it delivers certainty, the certainty of a service that will be worse: more trains delayed, more cancellations, more delays and more short-form trains. We see that already with the services being taken under state control. On this side of the House, we will not be voting to carry that forward. Rather than backing the Government’s union paymasters, we will be backing taxpayers and passengers instead.
Marvellous! Have we got the Liberal Democrat spokesperson? Marvellous! Olly Glover, come on!
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Yes, I am very much here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Goodness me! How am I to follow that? I wonder how many other people have managed to get “sugar daddies” into Hansard . Congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State on that. Nothing has changed with this legislation, as of yet, so our grave concerns remain. Of course, we hope that the deliberations of our noble Lords will lead to some improvements, and we look forward to seeing those at a later date. My only question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long to deliver this Bill? He is quite right to say that the opportunity for scrutiny is important, and that is welcome, but by my analysis, there have been some unexplained gaps, including one and a half months between Second Reading and Committee, and a four-month gap between the Committee concluding and Report. There was also a two-month gap in the Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I very much hope that the Secretary of State did not procure HS2 or East West Rail to project-manage this Bill, but perhaps the Minister will tell us he is considering introducing some form of parliamentary delay-repay scheme.
What a truly bizarre performance by the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that it makes more sense with subtitles. He should not give up his day job, because he would make an absolutely lousy comedian. The Railways Bill puts passengers back at the heart of our railway by establishing Great British Railways, and provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, and to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them. Question put .
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5432177.