More valentine than vinegar? The Transport Committee’s reports on the Railways Bill and rail investment

On 10 February the House of Commons Transport Committee published two reports.

The first was a review of the Railways Bill (the Bill), focusing on provisions relating to reform of passenger experience, network access and devolution. The second related to the Committee’s inquiry into investment in the railway network and how best to manage it to avoid budget blow-outs while offering a secure pipeline of work to contractors. This included in the context of the Bill’s Long Term Rail Strategy (the Strategy).

We set out our thoughts on the Bill in our briefing paper in November last year. You can find our thoughts in our November 2025 briefing. In this briefing, we build on our previous thoughts in the context of some of the key takeaways from each of the Committee’s reports.

The Committee’s Report on the Bill

The Committee focused its review of the Bill to those areas that would inform parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill before it was due to leave the House of Commons. At a high level, there was general support for the creation of a “directing mind” for the railway in Great British Railways (GBR) responsible for both track and train. Governance and accountability of the new organisation were key themes emerging from the Committee’s review. Consistent with the view we reached in our original briefing, the Committee recognised that a lot of detail sits below the framework for the railway to be established by the Bill. The Committee encouraged the government to publish a list of that further detail and documentation, as well as target dates for publication and consultation.

Secretary of State’s Powers

The Committee was concerned that the broad powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill would permit the Secretary of State to micro manage GBR through the issue of directions. A tension was recognised between the role of the Secretary of State in the reformed industry and the aspiration for GBR to be an arm’s length body. Notwithstanding assurances from the Department for Transport that these powers would be used “extremely sparingly” and where needed for “course correction” the Committee was clearly mindful of industry concerns. These included if the Secretary of State had the ability to frequently change course then it would lead to uncertainty for investors in the railway and risked excessive ministerial involvement in day-to-day operations, particularly where the political environment will change from time to time.

The Committee therefore recommended amending the Bill so that exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers of direction be where necessary and proportionate to preserve the ability to enforce and course correct on strategic issues without devolving into micromanagement.

Duties

As we identified in our November briefing, the Bill gives GBR discretion to consider which of its duties are the most relevant and what weight to give to each in exercising its functions. The Committee clearly shared this concern, recommending that the Secretary of State publish statutory guidance on how GBR should weigh up competing duties, including a requirement for cost to be considered proportionately rather than outweighing all other duties.

Noting it as an “odd omission”, the Committee wanted the Bill amended to place a duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger journey growth target in a similar manner to the freight equivalent but not at the expense of freight growth. The Government’s evidence to the Committee was that such a duty is not needed as passenger growth is already covered by the combined outputs of the Strategy and GBR’s business plan. It seems likely, therefore, that there will be pushback against this.

The Committee paid careful attention to evidence offered by disabled and accessibility groups. Although it welcomed the inclusion of promoting the interests of disabled persons within the general duty to have regard to railway passengers, it paid heed to the concerns of campaigners that this does not equate to requiring GBR, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), the Secretary of State or the Passengers’ Council (the Council) to exercise their functions to actually improve accessibility. The Committee therefore recommended making this explicit within the Bill. Further, the Committee also recommended that at least 2 members of the Council should have lived experience of travelling as a disabled person. Given that the Rail Minister gave written evidence that the Government intended for GBR’s board to have disabled passenger representation, it will be interesting to see if they accept this recommendation.

The Passenger’s Council

The Committee clearly wanted to ensure that the new Passengers’ Council is not a toothless watchdog. Rather than just giving the Council the power to set standards, its preference is for the Bill to require the Council to do so. Moreover, the Committee considered the Bill should expressly give the Council the discretion to set standards on any matters it deems necessary for fulfilment of its statutory duties.

The Committee was also mindful that the fact that the Council lacks enforcement powers of its own, means that it is reliant on the ORR to do so. The Report placed emphasis on evidence from Transport Focus and the Campaign for Better Transport on the potential pitfalls of this approach, notably that the ORR may feel that it could not rely on the Council’s investigations and would need to conduct its own, thus injecting cost, complexity and confusion for passengers.

Rather than require that the Bill be amended to provide the Council with its own powers of enforcement, the Committee’s solution was to require the ORR to take enforcement action on any matter referred to it by the Council within a limited timeframe following such referral “unless there is a legal impediment to doing so or the issue has been satisfactorily remedied”. Consumer groups may well feel underwhelmed by this as “legal impediments” are open to interpretation and what the ORR deems to be a satisfactory remedy may very well differ from that identified by the Council.

Network Access

The Committee took evidence from freight and open access operators who all shared concerns about the Bill’s provisions relating to network capacity and GBR’s duty to retain sufficient capacity for its own current and future passenger services. Concerns were also raised by stakeholders on the ability of the Secretary of State under the Bill to amend existing access agreements and the adverse effect that this could have on investment in the railway.

Those stakeholders who gave evidence will likely find the Committee’s recommendations underwhelming. In addition to recommending an amendment to the Bill to ensure that GBR’s capacity duty should not apply until after the infrastructure capacity plan has been developed, it also recommended that the Secretary of State be required to consult with affected parties before drafting regulations to govern amendments to existing access agreements. Freight operators have more to cheer in the Committee’s finding that the Bill’s appeal mechanism for open access decisions (which currently applies judicial review principles, which is a very high bar to meet) be amended to give freight operators the ability to appeal on additional grounds relating to the Government’s preferred outcomes on increasing rail freight. There is no suggestion that this should also apply to passenger open access operators.

The Committee urged the Government to publish the draft GBR licence before the Bill leaves the House of Commons so that it could be subject to scrutiny. This seems to be a missed opportunity in the context of network access generally as, quite apart from competition concerns, it also means that it is unclear what expectations the Government will place on GBR and therefore what standard GBR will be held to.

Devolution

Unsurprisingly stakeholders from England’s devolved mayoral authorities were keen to give evidence to the Committee on the Bill’s provisions relating to their role and relationship with GBR and the potential conflict between local needs and GBR’s “directing mind”. Witnesses were particularly concerned that:

while the Bill allows GBR to enter into partnerships with “relevant local government bodies” (i.e. mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities there is no obligation for GBR to do so;
mayoral authorities should be statutory consultees on the Strategy together with the Passengers’ Council and Welsh Ministers; and
GBR should have regard to the Local Transport Plans that mayoral authorities have put in place.

The Committee duly made recommendations for amendments to the Bill reflecting these concerns. However, the Committee was weaker in addressing stakeholder requests that the Council be regionalised in order to offer greater regional accountability. Instead, the Committee recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure that Local Transport Authorities receive information from GBR on request. Less helpfully, the Committee suggested only “consideration” be given to investigating a role for mayoral authorities within GBR’s planned regional business units. In addition – and recognising the need to balance regional needs where services cross authority boundaries – the Committee also recommended that GBR be able to enter into arrangements with multiple local government bodies where there are cross boundary concerns.

Since the Bill was published, there have been increased concerns that the Government’s interest in devolution has cooled given the tensions it can produce between local and central government policy drivers. What (if any) of the Committee’s recommendations are accepted here may well hold insight into the Government’s devolution strategy going forward.

Long Term Rail Strategy

Our November briefing summarised the Bill’s provisions relating to the establishment of the Strategy. The Committee broadly welcomed the objectives but was mindful of the tension between having the continuity of a 30-year plan against the need for future governments to have flexibility and discretion.

Accordingly, the Committee recommended including more detail in the Bill on what the Strategy must include and inserting a requirement for any changes to the Strategy to be laid before Parliament. These measures seem sensible given Governments cannot fetter future Governments. However, this does risk a future Government reducing the Strategy into the short-term strategies.

The Committee’s Report on Rail Investment Pipelines

This report was the culmination of an inquiry that the Committee started in December 2024 in response to rail industry concerns about the lack of visibility over the pipeline of large scale projects for both infrastructure and rolling stock investment and maintenance. The Committee considered the creation of GBR to be a “golden opportunity” to do things differently and the chance to avoid “chopping and changing” decisions on railway investment. It links the success of rail reform with a flourishing supply chain to support the industry’s future aspirations and ensure skills remain within the workforce.

Much of the report looked at historical issues with rail investment in renewals, enhancements and major programmes, including peaks and troughs in spend and a lack of continuity with regard to investment across Control Periods. However the Committee did also look at opportunities to improve investment and provide clarity through:

(a) retention of the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (the Pipeline). The Committee believes that this should be revamped to become the main mechanism for communication with the wider industry by setting out how much funding has been committed and for what purposes. It also wants the Pipeline to become a tool for identifying those projects where private sector and devolved authority funding could be used and avoid merely being a “wish list”. The Pipeline should be revised and re-published as further information becomes available, and in any event at least annually;

(b) the Strategy. Building on what it says in its report on the Bill, the Committee wants this to set out firm objectives on infrastructure policy including electrification, rolling stock, accessibility and capacity. It should also include commitments for large rail infrastructure programmes and an articulation of how such large programmes can achieve wider strategic objectives. The Committee is also keen that the Strategy set out criteria for assessing projects and enhancements, seeing it as setting out the strategic objectives that the Pipeline will take into account.

A Role for Private Sector and Local Authority Investment?

Testimony to the Committee from the Government emphasised its desire to encourage private investment within infrastructure as a means of getting better value for money from the public purse, while acknowledging that challenges exist with regard to risk transfer given the aged nature of some sites. The Rail Minister specifically referred to “the potential for land value capture to bring in funding for development at stations”.

The Committee also examined investments made by local authorities, most typically in the context of new or improved stations but also capable of supporting wider infrastructure investment, such as the re-opening of the Northumberland Line, which drew on funding from Northumberland County Council. Noting that such projects are not straightforward to deliver, the Committee also heard testimony about the complicated bureaucracy involved in producing business cases to support the same.

The Committee felt that having a Pipeline will help to highlight opportunities and mechanisms for private sector and local authority stakeholders to make investments. However, it recognised that there needs to be a better framework for regional and mayoral strategic authorities to identify those opportunities where they can align funding, priorities and business case processes.

This need for outside investment was put in stark relief given testimony to the Committee of industry frustrations with the role of HM Treasury. The Committee reported the need for Treasury sign off on “relatively minor” projects, although it was recognised that Treasury had delegated some responsibility here to the Department for Transport, which sped up the approvals process for smaller schemes.

Control Periods

The Committee honed in on the difficulties in transitioning between Control Periods and, in particular, the fact that contracts would typically be prepared to end in line with each Control Period due to uncertainties over whether there would be funding for such works going forward. Concerned about this so-called ‘cliff edge’, the Committee recommends that the Government undertake an independent review of the beginning of Control Period 7 as compared with previous Control Periods “to survey the volatility of spend, identify whether this is systemic, and consider whether they could be better managed to smooth the flow of work”. The Committee is keen that such a review be concluded before the establishment of GBR so that it can act on its findings.

Rolling Stock

The Committee noted the stop-start nature of rolling stock procurement and constant changes in scope, in part due to the divide between infrastructure and rolling stock planning (the electrification of Midland Main Line being a particular example given). The Committee clearly gave weight to testimony about rail franchising resulting in bespoke train fleets “without notable benefits to the passenger or the public purse” and was receptive to the suggestion that having standardised fleets for particular types of use could result in better value. This is worth considering in the context of renationalisation of the train operating companies and the ability of DfT Operator to take a pan-industry view going forward.

Although the Committee welcomed the Government’s commitment to publish its rolling stock strategy in 2026, it noted that the work was urgent and had to tie in with the pipeline of major projects and enhancements to ensure coordination. The Committee recommends that the Strategy has a clear policy statement to limit rolling stock types. Further, the Committee wants the Department for Transport and GBR to define a small number of standard train families within the next two years with a view to achieve better value for money and improved passenger experience, including through widespread level boarding.

Conclusion

As the Bill continues to make its way through Parliament, the Government has so far rejected any attempt by opposition MPs to amend its provisions, even when such amendments have been supported by rail industry stakeholders. The fact that the Transport Committee is predominantly Labour-led may make the Government more receptive to its recommendations but with the Rail Industry Association already voicing frustrations as to the level of engagement it has with the Department for Transport on the Bill, this is by no means a given.

Related Expertise