debates/debates2025-12-09c conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-12-09)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-12-09c conversation_21

Olly Glover:The Government created the National Wealth Fund to encourage investment in innovation in critical sectors, such as clean energy and sustainable aviation fuel. How will the Chancellor make sure that the wealth fund uses different, and maybe even better, risk criteria than commercial banks and financial entities? \p James Murray: The National Wealth Fund is at the forefront of public investment, investing in early-stage companies and projects to support innovation, boost jobs and create growth. It will work closely and collaboratively with other public financial institutions such as the British Business Bank, Innovate UK and UK Research and Innovation to support innovative companies across the UK. \p Sarah Owen: Removing the two-child benefit cap means that 5,000 children in Luton North will be lifted out of poverty. Many live in households where parents work but ends still do not meet. Does the Chancellor agree that action like this and the youth guarantee scheme will end the vicious cycle of poverty for good? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for this question and for all the campaigning work she has done on it. Removing the two-child limit, combined with the changes we are making around free school meals, the warm home discount, capping the cost of school uniform and rolling out more childcare to more families, will lift more families—more children—out of poverty. It is worth noting that around 70% of kids growing up in poverty are in a family where someone works. \p Steve Barclay: The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that welfare spending will be £32 billion a year more at the end of  this Parliament, just as a result of decisions in the last Budget. Why was the Chancellor not more honest in the Labour party manifesto about the choices she wanted to make? \p Torsten Bell: The welfare state that the Conservative party created is failing, and we are changing it. Welfare spending rose three times as fast under the Conservative Government than it has under this one, because they created a broken welfare system, and I repeat: we will change it. \p Antonia Bance: Last week I went to Alucast in Wednesbury, one of our brilliant foundries. I have also been to Newby Foundries. Both told me of their relief that the landfill tax will not impose significant additional costs on them. I wonder whether the Chancellor would like to set out the action she is taking to support our brilliant manufacturing and automotive industries at this Budget. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are backing building and getting Britain building with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which passed yesterday—I think without the support of Conservative Members, but frankly, we do not need them. We are backing our automotive sector with changes to employee car ownership schemes, the electric car grant and so much more. We are backing the British manufacturing industry—automotives, buses, trains and everything else. \p Stephen Flynn: Prior to the election, the Daily Record reported the Chancellor as having said that Labour will be as economically radical as Thatcher. With the closures at Grangemouth and Mossmorran, uncertainty over the Acorn project and 1,000 jobs being lost every month in the North sea, have I finally found a promise that this Chancellor has kept? \p Rachel Reeves: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are backing Grangemouth and have put money into the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. We are taking £150 off people’s energy bills in Scotland. In England and Wales, NHS waiting lists are falling. I wonder why they are still increasing in Scotland. \p Rachel Blake: Short-term lets—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Dave Doogan, what is it about you always wanting to shout at the wrong time? Please be quiet. \p Rachel Blake: Short-term lets account for up to 20% of homes in parts of my constituency. Not only are they eroding communities, but I am concerned that their owners are not fully paying their tax. What steps will the Chancellor take to address the fact that data from Airbnb suggests that as many as 6,000 homes are being let on short-term lets, but vanishingly few are registered to pay business rates? Will she meet me to discuss this issue, and how we can recover the tax, which could be up to hundreds of millions of pounds— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, “Yes” will do. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued campaigning on this issue, which I know is important to her constituents. On those who seek to bend the rules, companies like Airbnb now send data to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on all their hosts, and where hosts fail to provide the detail that HMRC requires, Airbnb stops payments until they do. However, we need to go further, and I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. \p Simon Hoare: In the hope that the Government had listened to the National Farmers’ Union and others, a North Dorset farming family sat to watch the Chancellor’s Budget statement, in expectation. They were disappointed with the announcement on the family farm tax. The farmer withdrew from his medical treatment, and three days later he died. That is how determined he was to keep the farm in his family. He knew the struggle that they would have had in meeting the tax bill after 1 April. I share that not to be inflammatory, but to ensure that Members on the Treasury Bench know that their decision on the family farm tax has direct consequences for people up and down the country. \p Dan Tomlinson: Members on the Treasury Bench are fully aware of the fact that changes to inheritance tax have an effect on those who are older. In the changes to both agricultural and business property relief that we have put forward, we have ensured that there is a higher allowance, with an extra £1 million, and a tax rate that is half as low as everyone else pays. We think that these reforms, which raise money in a fair and sustainable way, will contribute to raising the revenue that we need, in a way that protects family farms. Of course, we understand that there will be impacts on people. That is why we have designed the policy in the way that we have, and why we came forward with the changes that we announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago. \p Rachael Maskell: Independent businesses in York are really struggling with the revaluation of business rates. In 2024 they were £6,200; in 2025 they are £15,000; and in 2026 they will be £19,100, after discounts. Will the Minister meet representatives from York High Street Forum to understand the challenge of those rates for my city? \p Dan Tomlinson: I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issues that she raises in her constituency. \p Rupert Lowe: The Chancellor has embarked on a Fabian programme of brutal tax-and-spend economics that might please the dwindling number of Labour voters, but is hollowing out the nation’s productive base. Those who take risks, invest long term  and create high-quality jobs are increasingly voting with their feet. Record numbers of top earners—the rain-makers who actually bankroll public services—are leaving the UK for good, taking their wealth and, more importantly, their brain power with them. Does the Chancellor even begin to understand the lasting and irreversible damage that she is causing to the British economy? \p Torsten Bell: We have all watched the hon. Member voting with his feet by leaving the bunch of crazies that he was with before. Let us get back to what this Government are doing to drive growth: we are increasing public investment by £120 billion over this Parliament and making sure that things get built. We are building housing and giving a default “yes” to developments around train stations. We are building transport infrastructure, including the lower Thames crossing and expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. We are expanding energy infrastructure at Wylfa and Sizewell. This Government are backing the builders, month after month. \p Nick Smith: The Minister for pensions was brilliant at the Budget in helping our mining communities across the UK. Will he provide an update on plans for changing the surplus sharing arrangements for both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner for those surpluses to be shared with the members of those pension schemes. He knows that we made an announcement at the Budget to ensure that the British Coal staff superannuation scheme surplus is shared with its members, and I know that the trustees are bringing forward their proposals on the sharing of future surpluses. \p Alan Mak: The Budget cut the venture capital trusts tax relief that allowed investors to back Britain’s fastest-growing companies. How can the Chancellor claim to support our entrepreneurs when she is cutting off the funding that they rely on? \p Rachel Reeves: I hosted an event last night for entrepreneurs. Speaking at it were the chief executives of Quantexa and Motorway, both of whom welcomed the changes that we made to support entrepreneurs at the Budget, particularly the changes we made around enterprise management incentives, the enterprise investment scheme, VCT, and the three-year stamp duty holiday for companies choosing to list here in Britain. We are backing entrepreneurs in Britain, and they are backing our changes. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the urgent question on Operation Kenova, I remind the House that there is an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to any active legal proceedings relating to the historical troubles-related deaths. Any references to such cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of the cases themselves or the names of those involved in them. Members should always take special care to avoid saying anything that might interfere with the course of justice.

May I say that I thought this would be done not as a written ministerial statement but as a statement to the House? When all the news channels are carrying such a major subject, I really think this House should have had that benefit. That is why I granted the UQ. \p Gavin Robinson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government’s response to its findings. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I inform the House that I will lay a written ministerial statement on this matter later today.

Operation Kenova has published its final report, which covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let me begin by commending the Kenova team, led by Sir Iain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for the exemplary way in which they carried out their work, built trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones.

Operation Turma, which was part of Operation Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982. Operation Kenova has set a standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.

Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife or their alleged handlers. The behaviour described of the alleged agent and their role in the Provisional IRA is deeply disturbing, and it should not have happened. In recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation. The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I told Sir Iain Livingstone in August:

“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny [NCND] policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”

The Government’s first duty is to protect national security, and identifying agents risks jeopardising that.

Today’s report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force Glenanne gang. The behaviour reported on, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, is shocking. The Government will respond to the full Denton report when it is published, bearing in mind that related legal proceedings are ongoing in this case and in the case of Stakeknife.

The Government responded to a number of the other recommendations in the interim Kenova report in August. That is available in the Library and is also addressed in the written ministerial statement. \p Gavin Robinson: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and for being in the Chamber this afternoon to discuss Operation Kenova. I know that since he was appointed, he has spent an inordinate amount of time on legacy, and I know he is committed to the principles of not rewriting the past and of ensuring that issues can be explored to the fullest degree. He knows that in Northern Ireland, peace was only secured because of the actions of our intelligence services, our armed forces and brave members of the RUC. He knows that the IRA were brought to their knees by the activities of our intelligence services, and he also knows that the IRA were riven by agents of the state—both Denis Donaldson, director of operations for Sinn Féin, and Freddie Scappaticci, head of the internal investigations unit, also known as Stakeknife.

Does the Secretary of State welcome the finding of Operation Kenova that there was no high-level state collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the Army or the security forces? Does he recognise the important role that our intelligence services played in securing peace in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that the IRA were riven by informers? Does he realise the absurdity of maintaining the position that Operation Kenova could not name Freddie Scappaticci as Stakeknife? Does he recognise that the findings relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were that the UK state authorities had no information or intelligence that could have prevented those bombings?

Finally, in the context of the debate we are having about legacy, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is letting too many inquiries pass by without highlighting the lack of accountability of the Dublin Government— of the Republic of Ireland—for their role in supporting the IRA? We cannot wait until his legislative process concludes, or for inquiry after inquiry, for the Dublin Government to open their books, share their stories and, on the basis of truth and justice, indicate the role they played in our troubled past. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I join him in recognising the huge contribution that was made by the intelligence services, the Army, the RUC and other security forces during the troubles to try to keep people safe and defeat those who were trying to destroy society through their terrorism. We all recognise that. The responsibility for the murder of around 1,700 people, often in the most brutal circumstances—in some cases killing people, burying  them, and then for a long time providing no information as to where the remains of people’s loved ones could be found—rests with the Provisional IRA. I echo the comments that were made in the interim report and the final report about what they did.

I also note what the report has to say about not finding any evidence of high-level collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the UVF in respect of the work of the Glenanne gang, as they have been called. However, I do notice what it says about individual collusion. I used the word “shocking” deliberately, because it is shocking to learn now that—as Operation Kenova reports—serving police officers and serving members of the armed forces were colluding with those who were murdering a very large number of people. Over 120 people were murdered by that gang.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point about us all wishing to learn from the past—and I think that in order to learn from the past, one has to try to tell the truth about it—I simply draw his attention to the framework agreement reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government in September. I draw his attention to the steps that have been taken by the Irish Government to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, which he and I have debated many times before, as well as the commitment that the Irish Government have given to the fullest possible co-operation with a reformed legacy commission. The Government’s troubles Bill is seeking to put that reformed commission in place, with the consent and will of the House. I hope all Members will welcome that, because the more information we can get about what happened, the more families will be able to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: As my Committee’s report on legacy last week outlined, information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the biggest challenges with legacy investigations. The Kenova report outlines the failure of MI5 to disclose all relevant material pertaining to Stakeknife in a timely manner. The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said today that he remains concerned that

“there continues to be an unhelpful, unnecessary and protectionist approach to the disclosure of official records.”

Given those comments and the significant concerns outlined in our report on the Government’s new approach to disclosure, how can families have confidence in the new process? \p Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for what she has just said. She refers to the unfortunate episode in which MI5 discovered further files relating to the work of Operation Kenova that it had not previously been able to identify. The authors of the Kenova report say that they have no reason to believe that those files were withheld; MI5 was not able to find them, and the head of MI5 set up a process to review exactly what had occurred.

Under the current legacy Act, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which will become the legacy commission under our legislation, has the ability to request and see all information.  That will remain the case for the reformed legacy commission, because the commission has the ability to deal with closed material; the coronial system does not, as the House is aware. Precisely as my hon. Friend has said, it is vital for the confidence of families that they know the bodies that are charged with investigating what happened in the past—the people who are trying to find out what happened to their loved ones—are able to see all the relevant material. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Alex Burghart: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on asking it, and on his excellent contribution.

This is a very significant and highly detailed report, which I know hon. Members will want to take some time to digest, but on behalf of the Conservative party, I thank all those who have contributed to it. I also want to remember all those who suffered during that very difficult time. The last Conservative Government apologised for collusion following the de Silva review of the murder of Patrick Finucane, and while it is sobering to read further accounts of collusion between a small number of agents of the British state and paramilitaries, it is important to set this alongside a number of findings in the Kenova report.

First, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is an understanding that legislation has changed dramatically since the time in question, under both the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government. Secondly, it is important to highlight that although the review found that there were a small number of rogue actors, it did not find “any evidence” that collusion occurred

“at a political or strategic level”,

and there was

“no evidence which indicates that the RUC at an organisational level was involved or complicit with the activities of extremists or terrorists.”

It is very important that those findings are not lost.

Thirdly, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East said, the review found that there was no specific intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and it did not manage to find any evidence indicating that British security forces colluded with the UVF in those attacks—again, these are historic findings.

I would be very interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to come back at a later date and tell us more about the Government’s future position on “neither confirm nor deny”. I understand that there is a case going on at the moment, but I believe that once that is done, it will be important for the Government to be clear with the House about how they see that policy going forward.

As has already been mentioned, there have been a number of detailed and necessary reviews of collusion between agents of the British state and paramilitaries, but as yet there have been no such reviews on the Irish side. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government have told him by when they intend to present their own legislation? \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the spirit and the tone in which he delivers them in relation to this extremely serious matter. I do indeed acknowledge—as I think I have already indicated—what he said about the nature of the collusion that has been discovered, and what it was and what it was not, for instance in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those are very, very important findings.

It is for the Irish Government to determine what information they reveal, but they have given commitments to me, to the UK Government and, indeed, to all of us about the co-operation that they will provide. The Tánaiste has said to me that the legislation to allow witness testimony to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry will be in place by March, and we look forward to seeing, in due course, the outline of the Irish Government’s legislation that will implement the rest of the commitments when it comes to co-operation with the new legacy commission that we are seeking to establish by means of the legislation currently before the House.

I am always happy to return to the House to provide further information and to answer further questions, but we are waiting for the Thompson judgment, which is absolutely about the “neither confirm nor deny” policy. That is why, when I wrote to Sir Iain Livingstone on, I think, 13 August, I said to him what I quoted in my original answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). \p Colum Eastwood: Let me say first that the people responsible for the murder of innocent people in Northern Ireland over many decades were the people who carried out those murders, and the organisations of which they were members. However, it is also clear, from these reports and from previous investigations, that elements within the British state worked hand in glove with loyalist paramilitaries as they murdered scores, indeed hundreds, of innocent people in the north of Ireland, and also that the IRA were riddled with informers, including, clearly, at the very highest levels. Now that we know all that, has the Secretary of State made an assessment of how many lives could have been saved, and how much earlier we could have had peace in Ireland, if the British Government had acted properly? \p Hilary Benn: I should say to my hon. Friend that I have not made such an assessment, but Operation Kenova itself had something to say in relation to the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife. Its view was that the balance—I hate to use the term “balance sheet”—of lives lost and lives saved was not quite as it had been described by others. What I think is particularly important about the report published today is its confirmation of a point made by Jon Boutcher when he published the interim report: he said that in the absence of information about what happened, people form a view about what they think happened, and as a result what is finally produced—there is an example of this in relation to the final Operation Kenova report—may turn out to be not quite what everybody thought it was, and that is the argument for trying to be as open as possible about what happened. However, I wanted to make clear in coming to the House today that what has been revealed is, as I have said, disturbing and deeply shocking and should not have happened, and it is really important that we learn the lessons. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his question, and I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I have three questions. First, do the Government accept the Operation Kenova report’s findings of “serious organisational failure” on the part of MI5, and if so, what concrete steps will they take to address those failures? Secondly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposed legacy legislation contains adequate safeguards to ensure that honourable former service personnel who served lawfully and with integrity and followed orders in good faith do not fear persecution on the basis of the unlawful actions of either rogue individuals or the state? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State agree that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy must be exercised in a proportionate and necessary manner, and should not be used to protect agents who commit gross serious crime or to hide any serious misdeeds of the state? \p Hilary Benn: Our legislation contains a number of very specific safeguards, which are in the Bill because of our commitment to the veterans who served with such bravery in the most difficult circumstances. However, I have indicated to the House that, as the Bill progresses, I am open to a continuing conversation with Members in all parts of the House, and with the Royal British Legion and the other organisations representing veterans, so that we get this right.

The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is important for our national security. The ultimate responsibility of Governments is to protect national security, and the moment that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy starts to be eroded—although in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons—that undermines the confidence of those who are serving the state today to keep us safe. They may start to ask themselves, “Will the Government still uphold that lifelong commitment not to reveal anything about what I have done?” The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is a really important protection for those who do very dangerous things in order to try to protect all of us.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about MI5, I responded to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in respect of the information that was subsequently discovered, but, of course, the use of agents— covert human intelligence sources—is nowadays subject to regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. Both those pieces of legislation show the determination of the House to learn from what has gone wrong in the past. \p Mike Kane: We know that this was a brutal, murderous conflict, but, as we are reminded today, it was internecine as well at times. “There’ll be days like this”, in the words of one of Northern Ireland’s famous sons, but does the Secretary of State agree that, even on days like this, we should continue to keep victims and families at the forefront of our thoughts? \p Hilary Benn: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. In one sense, the great contribution that Operation Kenova has made to doing precisely that has been the way in which it has dealt with the families, keeping in touch  with them, telling them what it was and was not able to discover. We have adopted the idea of a victims and survivors advisory group, because all the people I spoke to said that it had worked very well during Operation Kenova. We have included it in the Bill that the House is currently considering, because learning the lessons means not just reflecting on the horror that this report reveals, but learning from the way in which Operation Kenova went about dealing with families. It is important that the commission—and I know it is working hard to do this at the moment—is able to win the confidence of families, so that when people say to them, “I can tell you this, and I cannot tell you that, and I have not been able to find out the following”, the families will feel confident that they have done their darnedest to discover what really went on. \p Julian Lewis: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that running any double agent inside a murderous organisation is bound to be a moral nightmare. The justification for such action is always—as it should be—that many more lives will be saved as a result, even if the agent is implicated in illegal and, indeed, murderous activities. What is unusual about this case is that it appears that more lives were not saved by this particular operation. Can the Secretary of State say whether the agencies accept that this particular operation was counterproductive, even in its own terms, and if he cannot share that with us openly, could it at least be shared confidentially with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament? \p Hilary Benn: The Intelligence and Security Committee may well wish to look at the Operation Kenova report and ask questions. The right hon. Gentleman put an important hypothetical point about the difficulty of balancing the considerations, but there is no doubt that the contributions that agents make are very important to protecting our national security and, as several Members have indicated to the House, were very, very important in the fight against those who were trying to destroy society in Northern Ireland and who were responsible for killing so many people during the course of the troubles. \p Katrina Murray: I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing the urgent question. We have talked about the experiences of the Kenova families in terms of having confidence in the process, and we recognise the complexity of the 28 years of the troubles. The Secretary of State has highlighted how the lack of transparency and answers leaves a void for relatives that is filled by their worst fears. That makes the provisions on the grounds of disclosure in the troubles Bill, which is currently going through the legislative process, even more important. How will we make sure that the best experiences of Operation Kenova are built into the next stages of the legislation? \p Hilary Benn: We are doing that in a number of respects, including through the advisory committee to represent victims and survivors, the fact that there will be a new oversight board, and the changes the Bill is making to the provisions relating to disclosure. My hon. Friend made such a powerful point when she said that  the lack of answers creates a void. It is a void that the families have had to live with for many, many years, which is why the whole House has an obligation to do everything we can to create a system that all families can have confidence in, so that it can look into all cases. \p Jim Allister: On a day like today, it is important to remind ourselves that our security and intelligence forces saved hundreds of lives in the face of murderous terrorism. Terrorists, of course, kept no records to be pored over years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scappaticci was, first and foremost, a ruthless IRA murderer? Does he agree that the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whatever the renegade actions of a very tiny number of members, some of whom have rightly faced justice—were organisations of immense integrity, whose members’ service and bravery preserved many lives? Does he agree that the Denton report finally lays to rest the republican myth that the security forces were implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? \p Hilary Benn: On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s latter point, that is indeed what the Kenova report says. That is one of many reasons why it is so important. I am not going to comment on the alleged agent with the name Stakeknife, for the reasons that I gave in answering the urgent question at the beginning. The Thompson judgment that we are currently awaiting is really important in respect of “neither confirm nor deny”. I have already indicated to the House that I join all right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the intelligence services and the security forces in trying to keep people safe in the face of murder and mayhem caused by many people—not only the republican movement, but the loyalist gangs who also killed a lot of people—during the troubles. \p Adam Jogee: I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing his urgent question. Like him and others across the House, I think today about the victims of terrorism who lost their lives, and their families. I want to acknowledge and commend Sir Iain Livingstone and Chief Constable Boutcher for their work, which is a demonstration of how important independence is.

The reports for families that Operation Kenova has produced demonstrate the value of independent and effective legacy investigations. With that in mind, I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s reference to his openness and urge him to think about appointments to the judicial panel of the new Legacy Commission. I believe that they should be made by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, rather than by any Secretary of State, because Operation Kenova demonstrates that independence is key if we are to effectively address the legacy of the past. \p Hilary Benn: Independence is indeed extremely important to building a sense of confidence on the part of families that their cases will be properly looked into. I note my hon. Friend’s point about the appointment of judicial panel members for the commission, particularly in respect of the inquisitorial proceedings. I suspect that we may return to that when the Bill is in Committee. \p Carla Lockhart: The Secretary of State needs to go further. Several Members have pressed him on this point, but he still has not explicitly told the House. Given the extensive scrutiny directed at alleged agents within the UK establishment, what demands has the Secretary of State made of the Irish Government to disclose the extent and details of agents operating within the republican movement, particularly in the light of the irrefutable evidence of collusion that enabled the murder of RUC officers, UDR members and Protestant civilians, particularly in the border areas? Unlike the Secretary of State, I am not prepared to accept their say-so when for decades they have covered up, housed and protected terrorists, and denied innocent victims truth and justice. \p Hilary Benn: In the light of what the hon. Member has just said, I hope that she would welcome the commitments that the Irish Government have given— \p Carla Lockhart: indicated dissent. \p Hilary Benn: She shakes her head, but she is saying—[Interruption.] Well, the past and what happened or did not happen in Ireland is a matter for the Irish state to deal with, but I hope the hon. Member would welcome the commitments that have been given to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the new Legacy Commission, which is not the case in relation to the current commission established by the legacy Act, for reasons of which she and the whole House will be well aware. Whatever happened in the past, the most important thing is that we enable families who are still waiting for answers to get access to all the information that is available now. That is what the Irish Government are committed to. \p Chris Coghlan: On Kenova, I can express only the horror experienced by some of the victims, but the wider context of our security services is very important. I worked in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office, on the anti-ISIS campaign. The Secretary of State speaks about strict regulation, and that resonates. He speaks about “neither confirm nor deny”, and I entirely agree with his points. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ethics around the handling, protection and recruitment of agents are incredibly complex? It is all too easy to criticise our security services, which in my experience do an outstanding—and at times simply unbelievable—job in saving lives. \p Hilary Benn: I do agree with the hon. Member. From the contact that I have had with the security services since I took up this post, I know that the commitment, dedication, passion, ingenuity and determination to protect people today is quite something to behold. Some judgments are complex—there is no doubt about that—but it is also important that we learn from the past and what did not go right. Anyone who looks at the final Kenova report and sees what it reveals about what went on in some cases will recognise the importance of learning from the past. That is why the legislation that Governments have passed since has been so important: that legislation recognised the complexity, but reached the conclusion that we have to have a legal framework that governs it, with independent oversight. We now have that, but that was not the case in the 1970s and the 1980s. \p Robin Swann: In the press conference this morning, the Chief Constable said that the

“investigation has demonstrated that murders that could and should have been prevented were allowed to take place”.

There was always an alternative to murder in Northern Ireland, so does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is now time for an inquiry to identify and hold to account those who directed terrorism and murder in Northern Ireland? \p Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have the commission, established by the last Government in the legacy Act, which has the capacity to investigate all cases that are referred to it. When I came into office, I took the decision that we would retain but reform the commission, as opposed to abolishing it and starting again, as I was urged to do by some people in Northern Ireland. I think it was the right decision to take, not least because 100 investigations are currently taking place. However, we have to ensure that it is established and reformed in a way that gives all families confidence, and I would say that we are trying to achieve one mechanism to deal with finding answers to those questions. I have said to the House a number of times before that we are not going to be able to deal with legacy by a series of public inquiry after public inquiry. We need to establish the commission on the basis that it can do the job for everyone. \p Sammy Wilson: The report makes quite clear the extent of IRA brutality and murder in Northern Ireland, including murders within their own republican community. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the First Minister of Northern Ireland can no longer remain ambiguous in relation to, first, her acknowledgment of and, secondly, her apology for what her fellow travellers did to people within their own community and within the wider community in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the real state collusion occurred when successive Governments in the Irish Republic hid terrorists; allowed them to store arms, train and cross the border; and then refused to extradite them? Instead of giving the Irish Government a role in the arrangements for the legacy of the past, will he commit to holding them to account for their sins of the past? \p Hilary Benn: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly intend to hold the Irish Government to account for the commitments they gave in the framework that I announced jointly with the Tánaiste in September. Of course, there was always an alternative to what went on—always—and Northern Ireland eventually got there through the Good Friday agreement and the peace that has been revealed and sustained since 1998. It is for each individual to decide how they deal with that.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we need to focus on now, because clearly there are things in the past that cannot be undone, is to learn from what we have learned—today’s report about what went on in all sorts of respects is an extremely important contribution to that—but also to make sure, as I have said a number of times, that families get the answers they are still waiting for. Kenova did a lot to do that for the families with whom it worked, but lots of other families still do not know. That is why we must have a commission that works for everyone. \p Sarah Pochin: This report covers the activities of one informer within the higher echelons of the Provisional IRA, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk that the findings of this report, when taken in isolation, fail to fully recognise the contribution made by informants and agents inside the IRA in stopping countless killings? \p Hilary Benn: I think it is very important that we take a balanced view, and that we acknowledge successes, bravery and determination—we saw that in abundance during the troubles—but where things happened that should not have happened, we need to acknowledge them, because how can we make progress now and in the future if we do not learn the lessons of the past? \p Gregory Campbell: In analysing the report and the Secretary of State’s statement, people will be looking to the future as we try to ensure that no one rewrites the past. However, in trying to do that, does he agree that the murky world people such as Scappaticci inhabited brought about the consequences of 1994, when both the IRA and loyalists declared ceasefires, and that now is the time for the leaders of the political republican movement to say that what happened in the past was wrong and should not have happened, and to issue an unequivocal apology for the actions of the Provisional IRA? \p Hilary Benn: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very important point, that we as a House are clear that there was always—always—an alternative to violence: it was not justified; it was never justified. When we look at the number of people on all sides who were killed in the troubles, we know the grief, the pain and the suffering that was caused. However, we also need to recognise that there was a process that led to the ceasefires and political power sharing, which has resulted in peace and stability in Northern Ireland ever since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. That is the most important thing we should hold on to while, as I have said, learning the lessons from the past and providing answers to the families who remain to find them.

I think this is the final question, so I will just share with the House that, about three and a half or four weeks ago, I went to Bragan bog with the two brothers and the sister of Columba McVeigh. He was 19 years of age when he was murdered by the Provisional IRA, and information suggests that his remains lie in that bog. It is a desolate place, and the search for his body has been going on for a very long time. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains has done such an important job in helping to bring back the remains of people who were murdered in such circumstances, so they could be laid to rest with their families present. I, like I am sure all Members of the House, long for the day when the bodies of Columba McVeigh, Robert Nairac, Seamus Maguire and Joe Lynskey are finally  recovered, so all of the disappeared can rest where they should rest, with the knowledge of their families, so they can have some peace. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Final question—Jim Shannon. \p Jim Shannon: Mine is always the final, final question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. I also thank all of the security forces, the Army and the RUC for all they did to save lives. I think this House, the nation and Northern Ireland owe them a great debt for all they have done, and we should put that on the record.

When thinking of Kenova, my mind goes back to 1984 and the case of Jimmy Young, who lived in Portaferry in my constituency of Strangford. His case was part of the file sent to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that included a report on Stakeknife’s involvement, but no prosecution was ever initiated. What steps will be taken to ensure that the family members who are still alive and mourning Jimmy’s killing have access to as much information as legally possible and get some form of justice for his murder? I always ask for justice, and I am asking for justice for Jimmy Young and this family. \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) should please not walk in front of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when the Secretary of State is answering his question. \p Cameron Thomas: I apologise, Mr Speaker. \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes his contribution on matters such as finding answers for the families with real force and compassion. As he will be aware, Operation Kenova submitted a number of files to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. In only one case has a prosecution been taken forward, and I referred to that in my reply to the right hon. Member for Belfast East. In other cases, the PPS decided there was not a basis for a prosecution.

That is of course frustrating, but the independence of our prosecutorial system is an absolutely essential safeguard for all of us. It has to make a judgment that the two tests, of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, are met. However, that does not mean that the family mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford cannot still seek to get answers. That is what the commission is for: that is work it is undertaking currently and that it will do in the future, under the new arrangements that I hope the House will agree to put in place. We should leave no stone unturned in trying to give families what they have been looking for for such a long time, and I wish that for the family he mentioned. \p Judith Cummins: Before I call the Home Secretary to make the statement, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts, and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings. \p Shabana Mahmood: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, the appointment of its chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.

I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.

In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who is here with us today, to conduct a national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we, too, call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.

Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them. But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us. There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.

Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, or even covered it up. Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas where data was available

“disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds”

were “amongst the suspects”. Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts. We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.

What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness. In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry. In June, the Government accepted that recommendation. Today, I can announce the chair and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the inquiry’s terms of reference.

The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield. As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties. In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year. At that point, she took the Labour Whip, which she will now resign on taking up this appointment.

Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists. The first is Zoë Billingham CBE. Zoë is a former inspector at His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and currently serves as chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust. She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account. The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE. Eleanor is the former chief executive of Southwark council. In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year. Together, the chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account. Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey, and her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims. The first thing the chair and panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet victims later this week.

Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference, which I will place in the House of Commons Library. Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long. For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget. The inquiry will be a series of local investigations, overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers. Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation. The chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course. No area will be able to resist a local investigation.

These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues. The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs. It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders, including their ethnicity and religion, and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.

The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership. It will also work hand in hand with the police where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes. The inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions and put more of these evil men behind bars.

The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work. As I have said already, the terms are in draft form. The chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders. They will be confirmed no later than March, when the inquiry can begin its work in earnest.

Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey's audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the Government accepted in full. As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs. I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion. My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does  not currently have the power to mandate that it is collected, I will rectify that by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis. The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of that data conducted by her Department. Across Government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk. As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners. We are creating a unique identifier for every child, linking all data across Government, and we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.

The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system, which saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes. As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have, in fact, committed.

While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day. We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure that it is resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.

The national audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licensing. Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax to circumvent protections put in place by local councils to tackle abuse. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close that dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.

The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested a new national police investigation to bring offenders to justice. Last month, the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport to review previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation. It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape. The evil men who committed those crimes, and thought that they got away with them, will find they have nowhere to hide.

Finally, the audit called on the Government to fund the delivery of its recommendations. Alongside investment in the inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.

That work is essential, but there can be no justice without truth. Today, I have announced the chair and panel of an inquiry that will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history. They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done. This inquiry is theirs, not ours,  so I call on all those present to put politics aside for a moment and to support the chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this. Young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of mainly Pakistani origin—girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant; when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, they arrested Jane. Anna, only 15 years old, repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony that was attended by the very social worker who should have protected her.

Last week, sentencing remarks from several of these terrible cases were published. I warn the House that some of them are extremely graphic. One perpetrator, Mohammed Karrar, raped a 12-year-old girl, and when she tried to fight back, he hit her with a baseball bat and then inserted the handle into her vagina. He also injected her with heroin and forced her to take crack cocaine.

Another man, Arshid Hussain, viciously beat a young girl, stubbed out a cigarette on her chest and tied her up; she was then repeatedly raped by numerous Asian men. The same man, Arshid Hussain, also called a victim, who had been raped and abused since the age of just seven, “white trash”. He said that Asian girls would not do what he was forcing her to do. There was an explicit racial element to his crime; he was raping his victim because she was white.

The identity of the majority of the perpetrators is something that should not be hidden. A 2020 study by academics at the University of Southampton and the University of Reading reviewed 498 grooming gang convictions. They found that 83% of the perpetrators were of Muslim background, and specifically mainly of Pakistani heritage. The Casey and Telford reports made similar observations.

The fact is that these crimes were deliberately covered up by those in authority who were more interested in so-called community relations and in avoiding being called racist than they were in protecting young girls. I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a serving chief superintendent to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the local police did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. I have sent the name of that officer to the police for investigation. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party to stop asking questions, in order to avoid antagonising the Muslim community in his town.

Yet when the need for a national inquiry was raised in January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared those calling for an inquiry as “far right”. What the Prime Minister claimed in January was a far-right bandwagon had become Government policy by June, so will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for what he said last January?

The truth is that it should not have taken several months and the threat of a vote in Parliament to agree to the inquiry in the first place, and it should not have taken another six months to appoint a chair. That is what the survivors and their families told me yesterday.

One of the most disturbing elements of this scandal is the deliberate cover-up of the crimes, as I have said, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that those in authority who covered up the crimes will be prosecuted for the offence of misconduct in public office? Will she also ensure that the inquiry refers such cases to the police for investigation? Can she confirm that the inquiry will formally start in March 2026, and that the final report will be published publicly three years later, in March 2029?

We have not yet seen the terms of reference. Survivors and their families, whom I met yesterday, are concerned that the scope of the inquiry may be too broad. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will focus specifically on localised, group-based grooming gangs, and that it will analyse and report on the ethnicity and religious background of the perpetrators? She mentioned local inquiries sitting underneath the national inquiry. Can she specifically confirm that those local inquiries will be completely independent of the bodies they are investigating, particularly local councils and local police forces? They cannot be allowed to investigate themselves. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the parents of survivors and victims will be able to serve on the panel? I spoke yesterday to two parents of survivors who felt that they had been excluded from the previous panels.

For many survivors and victims, the truth has been hidden for far too long. These crimes were covered up because those in authority were more concerned about so-called community relations and avoiding being called racist than they were about protecting young children. That was an abject moral failure. The truth, at last, must come out. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his remarks. He read out excerpts from some of the court transcripts that have been made public, and like other hon. Members, I have read some of them as well. They make for truly horrifying reading. They are the starkest reminder, for everyone in this House and beyond, that it is absolutely essential that we collectively do right by the victims, who have had such unimaginable horrors inflicted upon them. I hope that that is the spirit in which we can engage across this House as the inquiry gets up and running and continues its work.

Now that we have a chair and a panel in place, this is a moment to elevate the discussion beyond our usual trading of party political points across the Dispatch Boxes. The shadow Secretary of State has a critique of the Government, and I will robustly defend the Government of which I am a part. We have always been focused on the outcome of justice and truth for victims, and less so on the process itself, but it was this Government that asked Baroness Casey to do her national audit. She followed the evidence and recommended this national inquiry. That is what we are doing and what we have supported. Now that we have a chair and a panel, this is a moment to do right by the victims. They are a diverse cohort of people who will have different views and will all feel, regardless of where they stand on the inquiry itself, some degree of anxiety about what will happen  next. They will need some reassurance that we can rise above our usual political discourse and unite in support for the chair and the panel as they do this important work.

For most of the shadow Secretary of State’s detailed questions, the answer is a straightforward yes. Let me just reassure him that there will be no dilution of the scope; the inquiry is very clearly focused on the exact problem that was named by Baroness Casey in her national audit.

To the extent that the inquiry finds evidence of potential misconduct in public office or other breaches of the law, it will of course work closely with our partners in law enforcement. The whole point of this inquiry is to ensure that actions result from the investigations and that people are properly held to account, including by facing the full force of the law. I am sure that the inquiry, once it reports, it will have other things to say—potentially even about strengthening the law. It is important that we let the inquiry do its work, but it will not be held back from making findings that lead to further investigations and accountability through the legal system.

On timings, I can confirm to the shadow Secretary of State that the draft terms of reference will be confirmed no later than March, although it could come a little earlier. We anticipate up to three months for the draft terms of reference and then up to three years for the inquiry to conclude, so no later than March 2029. The report will come then, too. That is the timetable that the chair and panel members have signed up to.

On the local investigations, it is of course right that they will not be investigating themselves. The work of the local investigations will be under the auspices of the chair and her panel, who will ensure that those investigations are held to the standard that they will set and follow themselves. They will also decide which other areas they wish to be included in the local investigations, and I am sure that Members will want to make representations to them. No area anywhere in England or Wales will be able to resist having a local investigation under the auspices of the inquiry, which of course has all the statutory powers that one would expect such an inquiry to have.

I think I have dealt with all the issues raised by the shadow Secretary of State. I look forward to a more constructive dialogue between us, hopefully, as the inquiry gets under way. \p Sarah Champion: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spent 13 years researching this most evil of crimes. I do not know how or where to start, but let me boil it down to a couple of things. First, I still have no idea why those who were paid to protect children did not do that, so I hope the inquiry finds that out and ensures there is no way that can happen again. Secondly, I believe that the scale of this spans to literally every town, city and village in the United Kingdom, so I hope the inquiry and the NCA work is able to cover all of that.

That brings me to my substantive point, which is that this is going to cost a lot of money. Every case that is found will need an investigation, and local authorities will also have to put child protection measures in place. In Rotherham, all that money has come from the local  authority. Can the Home Secretary assure us that our local authorities will have child protection money and that our police forces will have the resources they need to get the prosecutions we have to see? \p Shabana Mahmood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her long work exposing many of the issues herself in her area, which will now be the subject of the national inquiry. She is right: it is utterly shocking and defies comprehension that people whose only job was to look after vulnerable children failed in their duty to those children. The inquiry will ensure that those people face ultimate accountability for their failures.

I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the inquiry covering every single area, and there is no doubt that child abuse occurs in every part of the country. One of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that the inquiry be time-limited, because so many of the victims and survivors have waited so long for a proper measure of justice in their cases. She recognised that there is a necessary trade-off between the inquiry being time-limited and it being able to go to every single area. I am sure, though, that the inquiry, the chair and the panel will engage constructively with Members across this House to ensure that they get to the right areas and can draw the lessons that will then lead to national recommendations. Even if the lessons come from a smaller cohort of areas, all the recommendations will apply absolutely everywhere.

The Government have invested billions in child protection measures already in this Parliament, but I recognise the call that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that when the recommendations are made, the Government will respond on money in due course. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: The despicable, sickening crimes that we have heard about today were first reported in the press more than 20 years ago, and the victims have already waited far too long for justice, so we welcome today’s announcement. We also welcome other details in the statement, including reforms to ensure that children cannot be considered to have consented to sexual activity with adults—the fact that that was the case is a shame on our nation—and moves to close loopholes in taxi licensing, as well as the points about data collection.

Some questions remain about the process. How will the Government ensure that the inquiry remains fully independent and free from political influence and pressures regardless of the strong pressures it will face, including from in this House, and that it runs to timetable? Are Ministers still in touch with the women who recently resigned from the previous panel to offer them the chance to rejoin the process now that it is gaining some pace? What steps will the inquiry take to maintain the trust of the victims and their families? Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing all the previous recommendations from the previous Casey and Jay reviews?

The national audit highlighted the incompleteness of data, but it was suggestive of concerning trends related to the modes of organisation and how they relate to ethnicity, particularly in the areas where police were  recording appropriate data. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned cohesion in her statement. How will this inquiry avoid stigmatising entire communities and undermining efforts to improve cohesion in this subject and in others adjacent while thoroughly investigating the matter and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his remarks. Let me reassure him that the track records of the chair and the two panel members speak for themselves. These are three women who have a long track record of holding public authorities to account; and in the case of Baroness Longfield, the chair, they have done so under different political parties. They have shown in their work that they are unafraid of whoever the political masters might be when holding to account police forces, local authorities or other organisations, so I think we should take some encouragement from that. I know that Baroness Casey recommended these individuals because of their track record and their deep experience in holding authorities to account, and I am sure they will bring all that experience to bear as they conduct the work of the national inquiry.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the panel of victims and survivors. They have been written to by the chair and the panel today. The particular panel that was set up to help get the inquiry going will now necessarily disband, as the inquiry will now get up and running, but the inquiry itself will have a victims charter that will set out how the inquiry will ensure that victims and survivors are at the heart of this process and ensure that they feel a sense of confidence and trust in the inquiry’s work.

On earlier recommendations from previous reports, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are commencing our work on all the recommendations made by Baroness Casey in her national audit and that we continue our work implementing the IICSA inquiry’s recommendations. There will be more announcements to come later this week and next on that, which I will not pre-empt today.

The hon. Gentleman asked about avoiding stigmatising entire communities, and I totally hear and understand the point he is making. It is obviously of concern to many Members in this House, including myself. In my experience, every community wants these people locked up and these individuals—these vile rapists—to face the full force of the law. Those who feel stigmatised by the behaviour of these criminals might even feel that more strongly than others. It is in everyone’s interests that we get to the truth. There is never anything to be afraid of with the truth; once we have established truth, justice can take place, and we as a society can learn lessons for the future. \p Jim McMahon: The announcement of the chair, panel, terms of reference and timelines are welcome. Survivors have waited to engage in the formal process, and it is important for them and for others yet to come forward that the inquiry leaves no stone unturned, is not restricted by time and follows the evidence wherever it may lead. We have heard quite a lot about race being an important characteristic of the form of abuse that we are talking about here, but can we not lose sight of class? Of course, the perpetrators were by and large Pakistani men, but the social workers and police officers were not,  and they had a view of these girls that absolutely determined how they were treated. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the national inquiry format, together with deep dives, will ensure that cross-border offending, which transcended local authority and police boundaries, will be covered and not allowed to fall through the net? \p Shabana Mahmood: On my hon. Friend’s point about cross-border offending, I can absolutely reassure him that it will not be allowed to slip through the net. The chair and her panel members have already confirmed that.

My hon. Friend made an important point, which nobody in the House should lose sight of, about the view that many in society took of the girls who were raped and abused. They were seen in many parts of society, in some local authorities and in some policing essentially as white trash. There was the view that somehow they were not really children or victims of coercion and serious abuse, but were making decisions, as if they were in control of their lives. That is why this process is so essential. It must ensure that the moment of reckoning that is required because of this shocking scandal is fair and true to the victims in every way. That applies both to the vile perpetrators of the crimes, who the criminal justice response will go after, and those in our state institutions who thoroughly let these girls down. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I welcome the appointment of the noble Baroness Longfield as chair of the panel. She has a great track record. I have worked with her over many years and am sure that she will do a very thorough job. I am very grateful that victims are being put at the centre of the inquiry. This is about the victims, and we cannot forget their terrible suffering. They must be front and centre of everything that the inquiry does. What would happen if, during one of the local inquiries, new evidence or a new issue arises? Will it be possible to go back and look at previous inquiries, including those that have already completed, if certain issues were not identified, but are raised through this new work? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Chair of the Committee for her comments and question. I assure her that victims and survivors will be at the heart of the inquiry; that is clear in the draft terms of reference. There will also be a charter created by the chair and panel, and I think that will give victims and survivors some comfort about how they can inform the work of the inquiry, and about the trust and confidence that they can place in the process, both of which are very much necessary.

On the question on evidence, in the end, the inquiry has to go where the evidence takes it. I am sure that it has the freedom to pursue that evidence wherever it may lead, and to then make recommendations. That could mean that new criminal cases are pursued. It could mean other action is taken against public authority figures. It could mean finding gaps in the law that need to be filled. The draft terms of reference will be consulted on, and if people feel that they need to be strengthened, I am sure that they can engage with the chair and panel to strengthen them. There will be a period of consultation,  but the intention is to make sure that the inquiry does the job that should always have been done, that the criminal justice system is fit for purpose, and that there is accountability for everyone who let these girls down. \p Paul Waugh: I strongly welcome the appointment of Anne Longfield as the chair of the new independent inquiry into national grooming gangs. As the Home Secretary said, the key is to find the facts and follow the evidence, wherever it leads. During the trial of some of the Rochdale child rapists earlier this year, the prosecution said that the abuse of the girls took place

“under the noses of social workers and others who should have done far more to protect them”.

Does the Home Secretary agree that we must hold to account anyone who ignored these crimes, and that no council, police officer, social worker or racial group should ever be exempt from the scrutiny of this new inquiry? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I strongly endorse every point he just made. There will be no place to hide for those who hurt these girls, those who let them down, and those who allowed them to be hurt. It is important that this inquiry finally provides us—all of us as a country—with the answers we need, so that we can learn lessons, bring a measure of justice to the victims in this case, and make sure that this never happens again. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary knows that I admire her personally. She is a devout Muslim lady, and I share many of her values. I think she is uniquely well placed to comment on this, explain and give us confidence. What is it about these Muslim men that meant that they felt that they could behave in this way, and can she explain that this is—if it is—a very small minority? Can she see what I am trying to get at? She can approach this, and explain this, in a way that some of us cannot, because nobody can ever accuse her of being racist, and nobody can ever accuse her of not wanting to get to the truth. \p Shabana Mahmood: It is difficult to find oneself the spokesperson for billions of people around the world, but let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman from my personal perspective, based on my constituency experience, and the experience of my family and friends, and of the community I belong to back home in Birmingham. There is nothing Muslim or Islamic about the acts that these evil men have perpetrated. It is not behaviour that any of us would accept or tolerate. All these things are crimes, and I do not know anybody who does not believe that these people should be locked up for a very, very long time.

I also know about the anxiety and fear that members of the particular faith minority community that I belong to feel when these are the stories in the news. They feel that a collective view is taken of the whole community. That is why I made the point about making sure that we go after the perpetrators of these evil crimes, and not allowing the behaviour of this minority to affect the way that we relate to the rest of the law-abiding citizens of this community in our country. We are very lucky to  live in a very diverse country, and we largely do a good job of holding all the different peoples of our country together.

We should always pursue justice without fear or favour, because in the end, that is the only way to maintain confidence in our system of justice and ensure that we do not inadvertently harm community relations, which is what I think has happened because of the actions of those who looked the other way when the crimes were being committed. \p Anna Dixon: I commend the Home Secretary for the tone in which she has approached this very sensitive subject. I met victims and survivors in West Yorkshire, including representatives of the Bradford survivor leadership group, brought together by West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin and the deputy mayor and police and crime commissioner Alison Lowe. The victims and survivors told the gathered group of MPs that they wanted action. They were very clear that they wanted to ensure the implementation of the findings of past inquiries, and I am glad that this Government have wasted no time in implementing the findings of the Jay review and, as the Home Secretary has confirmed today, the other recommendations in Baroness Casey’s national audit. Secondly, victims and survivors want us to learn from good practice. I recommend that the incoming chair, Baroness Longfield, looks at some of what the West Yorkshire police are doing. Since 2016, Operation Dalesway has convicted many defendants, resulting in over 2,000 years of imprisonment. The third thing they asked for was ongoing engagement, so I would like to invite Baroness Longfield to come and listen to the victims and survivors in Bradford and West Yorkshire. \p Shabana Mahmood: I am sure that the chair and panel have heard my hon. Friend’s request that they visit the area. She will understand that I will not speak for the chair and the panel members, but I know that Members across the House will want to make representations about their areas, and I am sure that all of that will be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend will know that Baroness Longfield knows Bradford well, having gone there to help turn around children’s services in the local authority in relation to a different matter.

I recognise that, already, improvements have been made and lessons have been learned by my hon. Friend’s local police. The inquiry will make recommendations about what we need to do at national level to learn the lessons and make sure that such criminality cannot take place again, but it is important that the good practice already taking place be shared with authorities all over the country. I will talk to Baroness Longfield about how we can ensure that we do not lose current good practice while we wait for the final recommendations of the inquiry. \p Munira Wilson: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the appointment of Baroness Longfield, who will be an excellent chair. When I met Professor Jay at the start of the year to talk about her inquiry, she impressed two points on me: the importance of a child protection authority, and the  importance of data sharing. Earlier this year, the safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), announced the establishment of a child protection authority. Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress in establishing that authority?

On data sharing, the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government’s legislation to create a single unique identifier. Unfortunately, people outside this place are suggesting that it is the precursor to digital identification for children, and that the Government use children’s data inappropriately. Will the Home Secretary reassure parents and carers that the Government will guard children’s data with the utmost security, and will use it only to keep children safe, and to improve services for them? \p Shabana Mahmood: On the hon. Lady’s second point, let me provide reassurance that the data is to keep children safe. We have a duty to children in our country, and the recommendation on data sharing was well made and absolutely the right thing to do. The unique identifier is there as a child safety measure, and not for anything else. Some people may have legitimate concerns in this area and may need that reassurance; I think others are seeking to make mischief, but in any case, I confirm that the unique identifier is there solely as a child protection measure.

On the child protection authority, the hon. Lady is tempting me to gazump imminent announcements. I will not do so, but let me assure her that there will be a progress update very soon. \p Chris Murray: I welcome this significant set of announcements from the Home Secretary and the strong panel members appointed. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Scottish Government have finally announced a review of grooming gangs in Scotland. The chair, Alexis Jay, has said that Scotland does not grasp the scale of child sexual exploitation. I know from my previous experience of working to prevent trafficking that children are trafficked between Scotland and the rest of the UK for abuse. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will liaise and collaborate with colleagues in Scotland, and that Home Office officials will do what is needed to support that? Abusers work across the border, so we must as well. \p Shabana Mahmood: Matters pertaining to local authorities and police forces are, of course, devolved, so a large part of the inquiry is necessarily only on devolved territory, but it will make national recommendations. I note the work happening in Scotland in relation to grooming gangs. I am sure that the chair and the panel, while respecting the boundaries of devolution, will ensure discussion where there is best practice to be shared. Of course, this criminality does not respect borders, and I am sure that will be very much taken into account. \p Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and associate myself with her reply to the Father of the House. No community, whether ethnic or religious, should be stigmatised as a whole. She mentioned “British Asian” in her statement. May I say that some members of my British Asian Hindu and British Asian Sikh communities are rather fed up with remarks and statements made about generic  “British Asians”, both in the media and in this place? I hope that the inquiry will be more definitive and descriptive; she mentioned religion in her statement.

As the Home Secretary will know, Telford and Wrekin had its own local inquiry, led by Tom Crowther. Her predecessor, to paraphrase, said that there were still gaps to be filled, after that inquiry. Will she support me in calling for the national inquiry to come back to Telford and Wrekin, to ensure that everything that needs to be done is done? Finally, the Home Secretary mentioned a three-year timetable, taking us to March 2029. Will she give victims, the House and all our constituents a commitment that if there is an election in May 2029 and Prorogation in March 2029—she may be the Labour leader by then—the inquiry will still report? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the right hon. Member for his questions. I have heard much the same complaint from Asian men in my constituency who are not Muslim or of Pakistani heritage but are of Asian heritage—that the descriptions confuse and stigmatise a wider group of people. I think we should all agree that we should not stigmatise innocent, law-abiding citizens in our country, no matter who they are, because that is wrong in every way. We should go after the criminals who have committed these atrocious crimes.

In the end, the best way to resolve these matters is to collect accurate ethnicity data. That was the gap that Baroness Casey found in her national audit. It is a gap that has existed for many years, and I intend to put that right. As I said in my statement, the Home Secretary does not have the power to mandate the collection of good-quality ethnicity data. I will legislate to change that, and will ensure that every Home Secretary in future has that power. It is my view that we should collect ethnicity data for all offences, because the best way to deal with suggestions of a conspiracy—people thinking that some communities are allowed to get away with certain types of behaviour, or that the state does not wish to know the full facts of any case—is to have transparency, and accurate data that put all those claims and counterclaims to bed. That is how the Government will seek to proceed.

On Telford, I heard the right hon. Member’s case. I will resist the temptation to tell the chair and the panel where they should go; where they go for their local investigations is a matter for them. They will set out the criteria for making those decisions, in accordance with the draft terms of reference. However, he made his case powerfully, and I am sure that will have been heard by the chair and the panel members.

On the three-year timetable, we have closely followed Baroness Casey’s recommendation. She said that three years was the right amount of time to do a good job, get the work done and make recommendations, and nothing—not even a general election—should get in the way of that. \p Harpreet Uppal: I welcome the appointment of Baroness Longfield and the two panellists to the inquiry. The Home Secretary mentioned that victims and survivors will be at the heart of the inquiry. Can she set out a little more about what that participation will look like?

On the potential reinvestigation of 1,200 cases—that is really important; we must ensure that happens—we know that too many victims and survivors are already  facing unacceptable court delays. What discussions is the Home Secretary having with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to ensure that progress happens at pace? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is right about the need for victims and survivors to be at the heart of the process; that is clear from the draft terms of reference. To begin with, the chair and the panel alongside Baroness Casey will meet the current victims and survivors panel, who have been involved in getting the inquiry set up and running. They will then create the charter, which will set the framework by which the inquiry will ensure that victims and survivors are at the heart of the inquiry, to give those victims and survivors the confidence and trust in the process that they rightly ask for and need. I am sure that the chair will be strong in putting that across.

I used to be the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, so I know the issues of delays in the criminal justice system across the board well. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied” does not come true for these victims. \p Robbie Moore: I have an urgent plea for the Home Secretary and the new chair, Baroness Longfield, who I know will be watching. They will both know that, shockingly, Keighley and the wider Bradford district have never had a full independent inquiry despite Ann Cryer raising the alarm more than 20 years ago. I, leading child abuse solicitor David Greenwood and local survivor Fiona Goddard supported by more than 5,000 local residents have written to the incoming chair urging her to immediately launch a targeted inquiry across Keighley and the wider  Bradford district. Will the Home Secretary ensure that Baroness Longfield sees our letter, understands the overwhelming public will across Keighley on this issue and meets Fiona, David and me at the earliest opportunity so that we can ensure that Bradford district is at the heart of the national inquiry? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Member has made a strong and powerful case for the inclusion of Bradford and Keighley in the inquiry as one of the areas for a local investigation. I hope he will understand why I will not make commitments on behalf of Baroness Longfield, but I know that she will see the debate and hear all these representations. She and the panel members will very soon set out the criteria by which they will make decisions about where they will go for local investigations. I know that she and the panel members will want to engage with Members of the House. I hope that the hon. Member will take reassurance from that. I know that he is a doughty campaigner for his local area, and I am sure that those representations will be heard. \p Sam Carling: I hugely welcome the appointment today of the chair and panel members, all of whom are brilliant appointments and who will do a thorough job. I am also pleased to see religion referred to in the terms of reference. IICSA unveiled serious problems in religious groups of many different faiths, many of which also operate as charities. Will the Secretary of State outline what progress the Government have already made on implementing recommendations from that inquiry? Will she also ask  the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss strengthening charity regulations so that any religious organisations operating as charities that are found to have played a part in this can face action? \p Shabana Mahmood: I believe my hon. Friend has already met the Minister for Safeguarding, but she has just told me that she is happy to meet him again. I am sure that that meeting will take place as quickly as possible. He will know that we are pressing ahead with implementation of the IICSA recommendations, as well as with the Casey audit recommendations. If there are any gaps, we will seek to fill them. The first thing is to meet the test of the recommendations that have already been made, but I look forward to discussing those further with him in due course. \p Sarah Pochin: We at Reform UK welcome the progress announced today by the Home Secretary into this long-overdue inquiry and welcome the reassurance she has given that the victims of predominantly British Pakistani rape gangs will be properly consulted and involved in the inquiry. Will she confirm that her Safeguarding Minister will be called as a witness in the inquiry, as someone who voted against an inquiry earlier this year and in whom victims lost all confidence? \p Jess Phillips: I would be happy to give evidence. \p Shabana Mahmood: First, the Minister for Safeguarding will happily talk to anyone, anywhere and under any auspices about the need for justice for victims and survivors of these heinous crimes. Let me just say to the hon. Lady that I hope the House can elevate beyond party political point scoring. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The most important thing here is to deliver the measure of justice that is needed for the victims and survivors of these horrific crimes. They will be at the heart of this inquiry and the inquiry will go wherever the evidence takes it. \p Catherine Atkinson: I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on victims and survivors, and her commitment that they will remain at the forefront of the inquiry’s approach. Will she also ensure that the findings and recommendations of previous inquiries and investigations are implemented so that the voices of victims who have already shared their horrific stories are never forgotten? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me give her that reassurance, and I hope that the progress the Government are making on implementing previous recommendations gives her and others some more of that reassurance. In the end, we prove ourselves to victims and survivors by doing and by taking the action that is so desperately needed, both from older recommendations and from the new ones that will come. \p Julian Lewis: Few of us here today were present in 2003 when the then MP for Keighley, Mrs Ann Cryer—a courageous Labour Member  on the left of her party—spoke out about the grooming gangs. For her troubles, she was smeared as a racist, she was shunned and she was threatened to the point at which she had to have safety devices and emergency alarms installed in her home. Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to her courage belatedly—it has never received any recognition, of which I am aware? Does she not think that Ann Cryer might even now have some insights to share with an inquiry as to what it is like when those who are supposed to be protecting people close ranks to protect the offenders instead? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me immediately right the wrong of Ann not having the recognition that she deserves and pay fulsome tribute to the work that she did in exposing not just the crimes themselves but the state failure that meant that so many people who are supposed to keep young girls safe were looking the other way. The right hon. Gentleman is right; it took immense courage for Ann to speak out all those years ago. She has deep experience and expertise, which I am sure Baroness Longfield and others will want to avail themselves of.

It can be a lonely road when someone exposes this kind of criminality, as it can be when holding to account other parts of the state that might not want to face up to what they have done. Ann walked that lonely road and we are only here today, with the knowledge that we have, because of the work that she started. \p Luke Myer: There is a concerning tendency to view these issues as historical, when in all likelihood there are working-class children being failed by institutions right now all across our country. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will be able to respond to new information as it comes forward? Will she confirm that the inquiry will be able to account for the behaviour of institutions as well and that actionable, clear recommendations will be included to stop the failings happening again? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me say yes to my hon. Friend on both those counts and give him the reassurance that he has sought. It is the case that as new information or evidence comes to light, the inquiry will be able to pursue that and work closely with law enforcement and others to make sure that happens. He is right; sadly and devastatingly, it is undoubtedly the case that working-class children are today, once again, being let down and being hurt because those who should have kept them safe are not doing so. That is why we will never stop in our work across Government to keep the children of our country safe. \p Will Forster: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the progress on this inquiry. My local authority, Surrey county council, has at best been slow to acknowledge its failures in child abuse and child safeguarding in the case of Sara Sharif from Woking. How will the Government ensure that both police forces and local authorities fully co-operate with this inquiry, particularly in areas with a history of under-reporting, cover-up and a lack of openness and transparency? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me say to him first that no local authority, whichever one it is, will be able to resist a local investigation if that is what the chair and the panellists wish to occur. Once they are under way with their local investigations, they will in the end make national-level findings and recommendations, which the Government will then respond to. I envisage that, in the end, whether an area is part of a local investigation or not, every area across England and Wales will have lessons to learn and legal duties that they will have to fulfil. I am sure that once the inquiry reports, potentially further legislation or other action will be taken. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for her statements. I particularly welcome the part about closing the loophole on taxi regulations. In my first outing in this place, I spoke about the challenges and problems caused by the loophole for cross-border hiring. Will the Secretary of State work at pace with her colleagues in the Department for Transport—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), is sitting on the Front Bench—to ensure that this legislation gets through and that most people who use taxis across the country feel safe? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that he has done on taxi regulation. I will happily ensure that we keep discussing with him the measures that we are bringing forward. Let me also provide him with the reassurance that we are working closely with our colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is fit for purpose and does exactly what he and I would want it to do. \p John Lamont: The Scottish Government have announced a review of the grooming gangs evidence in Scotland, but that falls short of a full inquiry and disappoints many of the victims. I have asked for this before. Please will this UK Government extend their inquiry to the whole of the UK so that the victims of these appalling crimes get the justice they deserve? Grooming gangs operate in all parts of the UK; so should this inquiry. \p Shabana Mahmood: I hear the force with which the point is made. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member and my colleagues from Scotland have said on how grooming gangs do not respect boundaries. That is a point that I know the inquiry chair and panel will take on board. Many of the public authorities that have failed children sit within devolved Departments. This is necessarily and primarily an England and Wales inquiry, but I expect there to be discussions with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that all the lessons are learned across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the end, these are all our children and we all have a responsibility to keep them safe. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the Minister for Safeguarding for the work that she has done in this area over many, many years. It should shame us that so many people have waited for many years for today’s announcement. Indeed, the right hon. Member for New  Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hinted at the fact that some MPs were actually born after some of these offences took place. It is an absolute disgrace that it has taken so long to get to this point and, as we have heard, it comes a week after the Scottish Government have been shamed into considering their own inquiry. I use the word “shamed” deliberately. We know that £65 million is a lot of money, but is it enough? Will more be made available if needed? How will the Secretary of State keep herself and Members in the Chamber updated on the progress of the inquiry, particularly from the perspective of the survivors? \p Shabana Mahmood: It is an independent inquiry, so there should be, and will be, some necessary limits on my engagement with the chair and the panel. As it is an independent inquiry, they will go wherever the evidence takes them. I am sure I will receive updates on timescale and on making sure that we are within the three years that has been agreed for the inquiry. I reassure my hon. Friend that I am sure that the correct level of resources has been made available for the inquiry to undertake its incredibly important work. I hear his point on devolution. I will not repeat my earlier answers but I hope, given that the subject matter should be of interest to all Members in this House regardless of which part of the United Kingdom we come from, that we are all doing everything we can to keep children in our country safe and that these lessons are learned across the board by everyone. \p Joshua Reynolds: What steps will be taken across Government while this inquiry is ongoing to ensure that the victims of these horrible crimes are given proper support during the process? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me provide the hon. Member with reassurance. First, Operation Beaconport is up and running, and that involves the National Crime Agency’s work to take a fresh look at what have been closed cases and bring more perpetrators to justice. Separately, once the inquiry is up and running, a victims charter will set out the way in which the inquiry will engage with victims and survivors to give them the trust and confidence that they need and deserve. \p Rupert Lowe: As the Minister may know, we have been running our own independent inquiry into the rape gang scandal, funded by over 20,000 concerned people. Our hearings are taking place in early February next year. We have made immense progress to date, with more to come. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss how our work might assist the national inquiry, which we all want and need to succeed without further delay, as the rapes are continuing today? \p Shabana Mahmood: There is only one statutory inquiry, and that is the one that this Government have initiated, the chair and panel of which I have announced today. If the hon. Member has collected evidence under his own auspices that is relevant to either current or past criminal proceedings or other evidence of state failure, he should make it available to the statutory inquiry. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Munira Wilson, supported by Ed Davey and Caroline Voaden, presented a Bill to provide for a cap of 8% on any profit made by providers of special educational needs and disabilities education from providing that education; to make provision about the role and powers of the Competition and Markets Authority in the operation of that cap; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 346). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Al Pinkerton: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with the European Union to agree a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and for connected purposes.

Up and down the country, businesses know it, the public feel it and it is time that this House found the courage to lift our whispered voices and admit it: Brexit has been an abject economic failure. It has choked business investment, shattered economic resilience, strangled trade, shrunk the economy and left every single one of us poorer. The economic benefits of Brexit were only ever illusory and a mirage—the kind of shimmering promise you see in the desert in the midday heat that lures you towards it, only to find it always agonisingly out of reach; a promise that dissipates altogether as the cool of the evening returns. Well, that chill has descended, and now we can see clearly that the promises of 2016 and the oven-ready deals of 2021 were nothing more than the lukewarm figments of political opportunists who sought, and in some cases still seek, advantage in populism, in fragmentation and in fear.

Far from “taking back control”, today our country feels more precarious than ever. We lurch from crisis to crisis, uncertain of who we are, what we stand for or whether our children will be better off tomorrow than those who came before. Far from becoming a buccaneering “global Britain”, the United Kingdom is today weaker and more isolated than at any point in our recent history. Far from lowering food and living costs or slashing regulation, British businesses are now buried under 2 billion bits of red tape that stretch 15 times around the circumference of the Earth, all while the cost of living spirals even higher. Far from securing the transformative trading arrangements they promised, the Government have delivered only Australia and New Zealand deals worth a combined 0.1% to UK GDP and exposed British farmers to tougher competition and diluted protections. The India deal would add just 0.13%, and the much-heralded US agreement has shrunk from a growth opportunity into damage limitation following Trump’s tariffs.

Meanwhile, we have erected new barriers to our largest market, the European Union, which continues to represent around half of our global trade. The result? Tiny wins at the margins and a massive permanent hit at the core. That is not “global Britain”, and nor was it ever going to be. It is economics by consolation prize, and the country is paying the price.

Just last month, the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading US think-tank, published a decade-long analysis concluding that Brexit has reduced UK GDP by between 6% and 8%. The House of Commons Library shows that Brexit is now costing the Treasury up to £90 billion every single year in lost tax receipts—money that could be supporting our NHS, our defence spending and our public services. In practical terms, the average Briton today is between £2,700 and £3,700 worse  off than if we had remained in the European Union. That is the reality of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal.

Let me put this plainly. The most dishonest campaign in modern British political history promised that Brexit would save £350 million a week. Instead, Brexit is now costing this country £250 million every single day—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] That is why we have the highest tax burden in 70 years. That is why families face sky-high bills. That is why we remain trapped in a cost of living crisis. This is the lived reality of the very working people the Government claim to champion, but for whom they show neither the resolve nor the political will to protect. Conservative Members and Reform Members behind me may chunter, but it is the former leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who has noted:

“Brexit is a flop. It will not leap up from its death bed.”

The Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective route to sustainable economic growth in our country is to rebuild our relationship with the European Union, our single most important trading partner. Just last week, the Prime Minister himself said:

“The Brexit deal significantly hurt our economy…so for economic renewal we must keep reducing frictions and move towards a closer relationship with the EU.”

That view was echoed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who described a customs union as an inevitable “journey of travel”. My Bill would propel us along that journey. It proposes a UK-EU customs union covering most goods, with a formal mechanism for UK consultation on new EU trade deals that affect us. It would lift the man-made constraints that are strangling our small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which have stopped trading with Europe altogether. This Bill is on the side of British business.

The Federation of Small Businesses is clear that the greatest burdens fall on firms with the fewest resources to adapt. Crocus, one of the largest horticultural businesses in the UK based in my Surrey Heath constituency, tells me that trade barriers add friction, inflate supply chain costs and cause damaging delays at our borders. Others warn that British-developed innovations risk being lifted and relocated to the continent—British ideas nurtured by British universities lost because electoral expediency was placed above economic reality.

Even if the Government stayed within their own self-defeating red lines, which merely replicate, of course, Theresa May’s failed framework, a better deal with Europe could generate £25 billion extra per year for the Treasury. But the British public and British businesses want this Government to go further and faster. At a time when Office for National Statistics data shows rising numbers of young Britons leaving to work overseas, we have a national duty to support growth, ease household pressure and give young people a compelling reason to build their futures here in the UK.

As my party’s former Northern Ireland spokesperson, I worked across the political divide to consider the practical implications of the Windsor framework. Red lanes, green lanes, parcel movements across the Irish sea—these barriers still hamper our internal market. A bespoke customs union would cut costs, smooth trade and reduce daily frictions for businesses in Northern Ireland. Those who value the Union should see more clearly than anyone that co-operation strengthens it far more than isolation ever could.

We do not strengthen the British economy by raising barriers to the market that takes 41% of our exports. We strengthen it by removing the barriers that were created so that a weak Prime Minister could pretend to be tough. A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that nearly half of exporters cite customs procedures as their biggest barrier and 39% cite documentation complexity. The message from businesses is unambiguous: reduce friction and unleash growth.

A closer economic partnership with Europe is also a matter of our national security. Russia is defined by military expansionism and destabilisation. China grows more coercive and authoritarian by the year. Under a second Trump Administration, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to threaten and coerce even its closest allies in pursuit of hemispheric pre-eminence. In its recent national security strategy, the US welcomes

“the growing influence of patriotic European parties”

and says its goal

“should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory”—

a clear signal of intent to interfere in allies’ domestic politics. In an increasingly fractious multipolar world, we must stand closest with those who share our values, our trade and our common security.

If we are serious about lifting this country out of stagnation, we must get Britain growing again, get Britain exporting again and make Britain competitive again. A bespoke UK-EU customs union would cut red tape, unlock investment and restore certainty to British business. To sit on our hands is to choose stagnation. To oppose this Bill is to prolong the cost of living crisis. To reject it is to hold back the small and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of our economy.

Today the House has a clear choice: we can remain on a path of managed decline, or we can choose a future built on growth, confidence and opportunity. We can unleash once again the resilience, creativity and innovation of British business. I commend this Bill to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Simon Hoare to speak for no more than 10 minutes. \p Simon Hoare: I rise to oppose the Bill—for those who know me, yes, I did say “oppose”, and smelling salts are available through the usual channels, I am sure.

I listened intently to what my friend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) had to say, and he said it with great passion and his typical eloquence. He and I have worked together on Northern Irish issues and other issues since he entered this place. It is a pleasure to do so, and I am sorry that we are on separate sides this afternoon.

It might be cheeky of me to remind the hon. Gentleman that, of course, his party was the first party in this place that actually suggested a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. That is something often missed off Liberal Democrat leaflets—maybe they are too busy “winning here” to remind themselves of that.

The hon. Gentleman also declared, as a matter of fact, that the United Kingdom, post its membership of the European Union, is weaker and isolated. I honestly cannot fathom how he can arrive at that conclusion. The convening powers of the scenes outside Downing  Street yesterday when we stood with allies in support of Ukraine, the recent state visits of the US President and the German President, and the fact that this country is head of a Commonwealth, a leading member of NATO and a permanent member of the Security Council do not suggest to me a country that is weaker or more isolated—far from it. The two are entirely separate things.

The proposal in the Bill deserves to be opposed for four reasons. I say that as somebody who voted to remain part of the European Union in the referendum and campaigned strongly to do so, but I accepted the result of the referendum, as most people on the Conservative Benches did. I say to the hon. Member, whom I woke up to in my ear—[Interruption.] Before anybody worries about that, I was in my bedroom and he was on Radio 4—at least that is the story I am telling everybody. He said that we could be like Turkey—that was the relationship he was suggesting to the listeners of the “Today” programme—but Turkey aligns trade policy and tariffs with the common external tariff for industrial goods. It has no say on EU trade decisions, agriculture or services. I say respectfully to him and his colleagues that that in no way can meet the fundamental essay question that the electors of this country gave to us through that referendum decision. They wanted us to forge our own destiny. Whether that was going to be a path that was without a ripple or stumble-stone, nobody knew, but that was the instruction which the British people gave, and democrats of good faith said, “We will abide by that decision.” The hon. Gentleman’s argument may be liberal with a small l, but democratic it certainly is not.

The first reason is that the proposal in the Bill would fundamentally undermine the welcome and energetic efforts of His Majesty’s Government, principally led by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), to continue to grow that iterative process of a relationship with the European Union without being part of it. That endeavour deserves the united support of all right hon. and hon. Members in this House because it will deliver, as always intended through that organic process, identification of creases and an attempt to iron them out. We all want to see small, micro and medium-sized businesses flourish and prosper. We all want to see an increase in trade with the European Union and the uplifting benefit that that will have to all our citizens. But the proposal before us in the Bill is not the way to achieve it because, as I say, it would fundamentally undermine the good offices of the Government in trying to achieve what it seeks to achieve.

My second point is that business needs certainty. With the exception of about six who survived the 2015 cull, I am afraid that not many on the Liberal Democrat Benches served in this place when we were trying to deliver Brexit. But the one thing they would have taken away had they been here—and thankfully, they were not—was that business wanted certainty. Slowly but surely, but with a certain degree of typical UK energy, flare and élan, businesses are now meeting the new trading regimes, and businesses up and down the country—small, medium, large and micro—are making a decent fist of it. We wish them well.

The process that the Government have under way is designed to—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Liberal Democrats wish to shout like this is some  sort of Harrogate Lib Dem spring fair, they can feel free so to do. Quite what Harrogate has ever done to deserve them, I do not know, but I will leave that to the good folk of Harrogate—we wish them well. To embark upon a customs union approach analogous to that of Turkey would be a mistake, because it would engender more uncertainty in the minds of British businesses just as they are settling their trading patterns and getting their heads around things, with the hope and promise that those creases will be further ironed out in the work that the Government are doing, through the right hon. Member for Torfaen.

The third reason is that, unless they met the requirements of the European Union, the trade deals that we have already entered into would have to be rewritten or scrapped. We are in the foothills of trying to maximise the benefits of those trade deals. They were never easy to deliver, but to start to unpick them now would show a degree of bad faith and certainly uncertainty in the collected and settled mind of the political class of this country.

The fourth reason, which I would suggest is probably the most compelling to even the most ardent rejoiners in Parliament, is that the European Union does not want it. The European Union now sees us for what we are. Whether we like it or not, we are a third country. This motion is an enormous arrogance. I cannot speak for all of them, but I have had the lucky and favourable opportunity of talking to senior EU officials about this very proposal. There is neither interest in nor appetite for it. They want to engage with the UK Government, as they are doing, in the organic evolution of what we have.

However—this is where we must look at it from the other end of the telescope—as far as the political leadership of the European Union are concerned, they have spent quite enough time dealing with the needs of the United Kingdom. They are very happy to engage in the tidying-up exercise and the Government’s spreading-out proposals, but to start from scratch, in some sort of perverse groundhog day approach to our withdrawal from the European Union is an utter nonsense. They are not interested in that, they do not want to go back to day one, they are perfectly happy with how things are, and they want to see it evolve.

For those four clear and compelling reasons, I say to colleagues across the House—whether they were ardent Brexiteers, ardent remainers or maybe even the one or two who were not entirely sure—this Bill should command no support, it has no merit, and it should be voted against should a Division be called.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23). \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 100. \p Caroline Nokes: In accordance with precedent, I will cast the casting vote Aye, to allow further debate. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dr Al Pinkerton, Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Wendy Chamberlain and Calum Miller present the Bill.

Dr Al Pinkerton accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 345). \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 26 November, on the Railways Bill, HC 1472; Written evidence to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December, HC 1472; Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December.] \p Caroline Nokes: The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected. \p Heidi Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Two centuries ago, the first passenger railway services to run in the UK symbolised the hope and ambition of a confident nation, yet today that same railway symbolises something rather different. Every cancelled service, every cramped carriage and every dodgy wi-fi connection reflects not only a railway that has been beset by years of dysfunction, but a transport network, an economy and, indeed, a whole country in desperate need of renewal. It is therefore little wonder that at the last election millions of people voted for change, voting for a party that committed to bring train services back into public ownership—a service that would put passengers before profit.

No one should underestimate how seriously this Government take the instruction of the British people. The King’s Speech set out no fewer than five transport Bills. Two have already received Royal Assent, and this Railways Bill is the third. After years of spiralling rail costs yet plummeting performance, years of promises of rail reform that never saw the light of day, and years of an industry run at the altar of private profit over the public good, today we kick-start the biggest shake-up of our railways in a generation. This landmark Bill means that Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public for the public—one that puts passengers first, that seizes the opportunities of freight, that offers a better deal for taxpayers and, above all, that is greater than the sum of its parts. \p Munira Wilson: The Secretary of State is extolling the virtues of nationalisation. South Western Railway, which serves my constituents across Teddington, Twickenham, Hampton and Whitton, was nationalised earlier this year. We have only seen the service get worse and worse, with delays, cancellations and short-form trains leading to overcrowding. When can my constituents expect a better service as a result of her policies? \p Heidi Alexander: The hon. Lady is right to say that South Western Railway had a difficult few months after it came into public ownership, but the problems that it is experiencing were inherited from the private sector operator. The number of new Arterio trains on the South Western Railway network has quadrupled since the train operating company came into public ownership,  and there have been, on average, fewer cancellations in the directly operated service than there were in the privately run service. \p Jessica Toale: I thank the Secretary of State for joining me at Branksome depot in my constituency to launch Great British Railways. It was welcomed by engineers, passengers, railway operators and local schools. I have a very different experience from that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), so will my right hon. Friend tell us how the Bill will benefit constituents and passengers across the rail network? \p Heidi Alexander: We had a wonderful day in Bournemouth marking the first train operating company coming into public ownership under our new legislation. We will have a laser-like focus on building a railway that the public can be proud of and rely on. \p Andrew Murrison: On that point, will the Secretary of State give way? \p Heidi Alexander: I will make some progress and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.

The Government’s determination is to build a railway that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is not just about getting us from A to B; the railway is a route to aspiration, jobs and higher living standards right across this country. My message to passengers is simple: better times and better trains lie ahead. \p Catherine Atkinson: The Railways Bill represents a promise made and a promise delivered to set up Great British Railways, with its headquarters in Derby. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about how GBR will work together with our UK rail supply chain to ensure that we have the jobs, skills and growth needed to deliver a railway fit for Britain’s future? \p Heidi Alexander: I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Derby, pulling together the plans for the new headquarters in a city that I know is already brimming with railway talent. We will be publishing a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy next year to give confidence and certainty to the supply chain, and we will be able to perform longer-term planning precisely because we are bringing the management of track and train together. \p Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. Her Wiltshire constituents and mine are not really interested in organisational change, but they are interested in railways that run on time, are reasonably comfortable and have interconnectivity. When will those passengers who use South Western Railway expect to see tangible improvements, rather than the 50% increase in cancellations that they have seen since May and the 29% increase in delays that they have seen during the time that the service has been renationalised? \p Heidi Alexander: Next year the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have their fares frozen for the first time in 30 years. Under the last Government, fares went up by 60% between 2010 and 2024. I can only assume that he was not listening to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Heidi Alexander: I will make some progress.

The Government have already begun the work of change. We passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act last November, which began the process of simplifying an industry fractured into over a dozen different bodies. Seven operators are already in public hands, with seven more to follow. We are a step closer to saving up to £150 million a year in management fees, which previously went to private companies but can now be reinvested in our services.

I have said it before and I will say it again: like most of the public, I do not care who runs the railways; I just want them to work. Despite what some might claim, Labour Members are not possessed by some sort of ideological fever dream when it comes to rail. Instead, we are led by the facts and by what our constituents are telling us, and it is beyond doubt that the current model has failed passengers time and again. While public ownership alone cannot deliver the reform we need, let us be clear that reform would be hamstrung without public ownership.

We could wait for the wheels of legislation to turn before driving improvements, but I do not believe that passengers should wait any longer. That is why, last month, this Government froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years. That is an historic shot in the arm for millions of passengers, many of whom are struggling with the cost of living and could now save hundreds of pounds a year.

That is not all. We have expanded pay-as-you-go contactless ticketing in the south-east, with plans to launch further schemes in the west midlands and Greater Manchester. We are currently trialling digital pay-as-you-go in the east midlands and Yorkshire. Combined, this means that millions of journeys will benefit from a best price promise.

Finally, integrated leadership teams are in place on Southeastern and coming to South Western and Greater Anglia. One person will ultimately be in charge of both the tracks and the trains in those areas. That is a step closer to better decision making on our railways, and a move away from everyone blaming everyone else when things go wrong. \p Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—she knows I am a huge fan. In that spirit of solidarity, will she join me in supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway company’s bid to the Office of Rail and Road for a new service into Shropshire, stopping at important market towns such as Wellington in my constituency? Does she accept that it is not just the big cities and urban centres but rural market towns that need to be included on timetables? \p Heidi Alexander: Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. Network Rail supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision.[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 8WC.] (Correction) If a new proposal comes forward, I am sure that Network Rail will look at it closely. We are keen to improve connectivity wherever we can. We are bringing forward this legislation   because Great British Railways needs to take the track access decisions, so that we can ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of passengers overall. \p Imran Hussain: I thank the Secretary of State for the huge ambition in this truly transformative Bill. For cities like Bradford, that ambition must translate into real delivery, because Bradford has been left behind for far too long. When will she announce the development of a new, modern train station for Bradford, which will finally give our city the fast, direct connections that we have been denied for far too long? Will she also set out a timetable for progressing full connectivity in the TransPennine route upgrade? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case, which has also been put to me by Mayor Tracy Brabin and the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe. I hope to say more about improving connectivity in the north of England in the weeks and months ahead. \p Matt Rodda: The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech on a very important matter of policy. May I thank her for the outstanding work to reduce the cost of rail travel for my residents in Reading, and residents in many other parts of the country? Will she say a little more about the benefits of contactless, and the significant benefits for residents of smoothing out the very complicated ticketing regime? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight that. The travelling public want their journeys to be convenient and easy, and the roll-out of pay-as-you-go and contactless ticketing removes some of the friction in the system. Through Great British Railways, we also want to simplify the ticketing structure, because we have a baffling array of millions of fares and ticket types. We need to sort that out, and we will, through this legislation, and through our ambition for the railways. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Heidi Alexander: I will make progress; I will give way some more in a minute.

We have to be honest about the state of our railways; they are still a bit of a mess. Underlying structural problems, fragmentation and complexity remain, and passengers still pay the price. That is why this Bill matters. It will sweep away the fragmentation and dysfunction that have plagued the railway for too long, and will bring the 17 organisations involved in running the railway together into one public body—Great British Railways, which is the directing mind that this industry has long called for.

GBR will co-ordinate much of the network, including track, train, and revenue and cost. Tickets will be simpler, costs will be reduced, growth will be prioritised, journeys will be made more reliable, and every decision will be taken in the interests of passengers, taxpayers and freight operators.

The railway will look and feel different, too. Passengers will no longer have to navigate the mind-bendingly complex system of organisations, which has been designed to benefit private companies, at the cost of decent services. We will wave goodbye to the blame factory that  has come to define the industry, whether it is the armies of lawyers arguing over whose fault a delay is, or questions about whose responsibility it is to fix a broken lightbulb. Instead, we will see one railway and one team, with one mission: to deliver better public journeys. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Heidi Alexander: I give way to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has tried to get in a number of times. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The Secretary of State has touched on the role of the Office of Rail and Road. In 2018, after the Croydon tram accident, the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board was set up; at the same time, the chief inspector of railways recommended that a similar body be set up for heritage rail, which is run mostly by volunteers. Can we take the opportunity presented by this Bill to look at whether we could set up that body for heritage rail? \p Heidi Alexander: I am very keen to maintain the excellent standards of safety on the railways. If we do not, I will be failing in my responsibility as Secretary of State. I am aware of the recommendations that the right hon. Lady refers to. The ORR, as one regulator, provides coherence, but if she writes to me, setting out her case in more detail, I will look at the issue. \p Preet Kaur Gill: Decades of rail privatisation have failed my constituents. Between August 2024 and August 2025, 4.5% of trains from University railway station in my constituency were cancelled, and 60% of Avanti West Coast trains failed to arrive on time. Given that record of failure, how will the Secretary of State empower passengers and local communities to make decisions on how their local railways are run? \p Heidi Alexander: There are two key points in this Bill that my hon. Friend will be interested in. First, there are the provisions relating to our partnership work with mayors and mayoral strategic authorities, which will ensure that we work with our devolved partners. Secondly, there is the really beefed-up passenger watchdog, which I will come to. It might help if I say something more on that.

We have a laser-like focus on improving the railways for passengers. \p Kieran Mullan: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Heidi Alexander: I will make some progress.

For too long, the priorities of passengers and the industry have not been one and the same, and that has to change now. Alongside GBR, we will create the passenger watchdog—a strong, independent voice for the customer. It will set tough standards, independently monitor the experience of passengers, investigate persistent issues, and relentlessly push for a more accessible railway. \p Lee Pitcher: Almost 1,000 residents of Althorpe, Crowle, Thorne and Hatfield have signed a petition; all they want is one train per hour. At the moment, it is every two hours, and on Sundays there is hardly any service at all. GBR is streamlining matters; decisions will be made in one place. Does the Secretary of State foresee practical issues with the timetable being resolved quite quickly? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is often said that he or she who controls the timetable controls the railway. That is why this Bill will put power into the hands of the integrated rail body, Great British Railways, which will take decisions about the best use of the rail network. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Heidi Alexander: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), then I will make some progress. \p Calum Miller: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her strong support for rail across the country. She talks about the passenger watchdog. I stood for 54 minutes on the train from Bicester to London yesterday, along with many other passengers. They want to know that the passenger voice will be heard. Will she clarify for the House whether the watchdog will look back at performance? If not, how will the passenger voice be heard, under the new governance arrangements that she describes? \p Heidi Alexander: The passenger watchdog will be able to look at patterns, and will have the power to compel GBR and operators to provide information to it, and it can make recommendations to the ORR for enforcement. If our constituents have been failed by passenger assistants, if their trains are always delayed, or if they experience shoddy customer service, the passenger watchdog will be their champion.

I spoke briefly about devolution. Great British Railways will not be a British Rail mark 2; instead, it will be an agile organisation that embraces innovation and devolution. It will be rooted in the communities in which it operates, with local leaders finally getting a say in how their railways are run. \p Dave Doogan: I salute the ambition of the Bill, and determination with which the Secretary of State is articulating that ambition. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) that the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow? What steps can she take to highlight to her colleagues in Government that there is the possibility of constructive dialogue between the two Governments, as she has ably demonstrated? \p Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for the tone in which he has made them. I put on record my thanks to Scottish Minister Fiona Hyslop and the Welsh Transport Minister, Ken Skates, for the way in which they have engaged with me  and my officials during this process. I know that my colleagues across Government share that determination to do what is right for the country as a whole.

I was setting out how GBR will work closely with mayors. We will reach bespoke partnership agreements to match the specific transport needs of different communities, and we will of course continue to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who I am pleased have lent their full support to the aims of the Bill. \p Perran Moon: The Bill makes clear that GBR and the Office of Rail and Road would be required to have regard to local transport plans produced by mayoral combined authorities. However, that requirement does not apply to local transport plans produced by single strategic authorities outside mayoral combined authorities. Within Cornwall, we cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority, so will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how Cornwall will not be left out and penalised because we cannot join a mayoral combined authority? \p Heidi Alexander: I would be very happy to ask the rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend to have that discussion.

One of the other biggest concerns of passengers is the baffling array of fares and ticketing, which is why GBR will drag the current complex system into the 21st century. A new GBR website and app will allow passengers to buy tickets, check train times and access support, all in one place. There will be no booking fees and no confusion—just simple fares that offer the best value for money. \p Alice Macdonald: I welcome the fact that Greater Anglia was one of the first companies to move into public ownership, and the freeze in rail fares. On devolution, many of us in the east would like to see East West Rail—which will have a huge impact—extended to Norwich, so that we can maximise our economic growth. Will the Secretary of State help arrange a meeting between the rail Minister, the relevant MPs and other stakeholders in the region to discuss that issue, as well as the Ely and Haughley junctions? \p Heidi Alexander: I would be happy to arrange that meeting. This issue was raised with me when I visited Norwich, on the day that Greater Anglia transferred into public ownership. As my hon. Friend is aware, the delivery of East West Rail will happen in three stages. We first need to get to Cambridge; after that, I would be happy to have that discussion, but it will take a huge amount of work to get us from where we are today to seeing trains running between Oxford and Cambridge, which has to be the priority. \p Kieran Mullan: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Heidi Alexander: I will give way, and then I will make some progress. \p Kieran Mullan: Understandably, the Secretary of State has been talking primarily about passengers so far, but of course, the railways also transport freight; for example, they are important suppliers to British Gypsum in my constituency, taking many lorries off the already congested  A21. Could she lay out what her ambitions are for increasing the use of freight on the railways, and how she will deliver those ambitions? \p Heidi Alexander: I do think we need to move some of the freight that we currently move by road to the railways. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to set a freight growth target, and Great British Railways will have a duty to have regard to that target when it exercises its statutory functions, so that is at the heart of this Bill.

Finally, I will talk about access to the rail network. Great British Railways will be responsible for getting the best use out of the finite network capacity that we have, which is essential if we are going to improve performance, reduce disruption and allow more communities to be served by the railway. We want customers to be given the best choice of services and routes; this will be a core principle of Great British Railways, so it will work with open access and freight operators to harness the best of the private sector, taking access decisions across the whole network in a way the current regulator never could. We saw the urgent need for change only last week, with the ridiculous prospect of an empty 7 am train running from Manchester to London—a decision by the regulator that has now thankfully been reversed. However, let me be clear: GBR will not be allowed to act unchecked. The Office of Rail and Road will have robust powers to hold GBR to account, and all decisions GBR makes regarding access and charging will be appealable to the ORR. This will ensure that GBR’s decision making is fair, considered and transparent across the board.

Before I finish, I draw the attention of the House to our accessibility road map, which was published alongside the Bill. My colleague Lord Hendy, the rail Minister, wrote in that publication that

“for too many people…the railway remains a system of barriers. That must change.”

I could not agree more.  As far as I am concerned, a railway that fails to serve everyone is not fit for purpose—which is why the Bill also gives GBR and the passenger watchdog clear duties, ensuring that the needs of disabled people are at the heart of decision making. \p Lloyd Hatton: Despite serving a town of nearly 50,000 people, Weymouth station, in my constituency, does not have a working toilet, which presents disabled passengers with a huge barrier to travel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this legislation, and action from the Government to bring our railways back into public hands, will help to make our railways and our stations far more accessible to those disabled passengers? \p Heidi Alexander: I do agree. That needs to be a priority, and it will be at the heart of what GBR does.

For too long, the railways have been a source of national parody rather than national pride—a symbol of public services not working as they should, and of life unnecessarily made harder—but 200 years after the first railways transformed the country, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to restore, renew and reimagine the potential of the industry, and to place it at the centre of the Government’s plans for national renewal.  The rising living standards, greater opportunity and greener economy that we promised at the last election all rely on  a growing, high-performing railway, a railway that connects us to the things that matter most, connecting people to jobs, businesses to growth, families to days out, and all of us to our loved ones; a railway with public service at its core and that is frankly obsessed with the needs and wishes of passengers, and one that we can finally be proud of again.  That is the railway that Britain deserves, and the one that we will deliver.   I commend the Bill to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Richard Holden: I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it prioritises putting the rail system under state control, rather than prioritising passengers and taxpayers, and the effective and efficient running of the railway; because it significantly reduces the role of the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, whose duties it transfers in large part to Great British Railways, with limited rights of appeal against Great British Railways’ decisions, so there will be no proper accountability for the state controlled operator, and this, along with the duty for Great British Railways to prioritise its own services for access to track, will squeeze out popular and well-regarded open access operators, who run services without taxpayer subsidy; because it allows ministers to interfere at will in the running of the railways, for example by setting fares, which will not create a stable environment for private sector investment, with the result that reliance on taxpayer subsidy will increase; and because it will do nothing to grow passenger numbers, or modernise or improve the rail network, and does not include provisions to grow rail freight, which means that the chance to create a thriving railway which delivers economic growth and relies less on taxpayer support will be lost.

Once again, just as with the “Unemployment Bill”, we are gathering to witness a throwback to the 1970s. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, ideology is clearly core to the legislation that she is presenting today, because otherwise she would not be ruling out concessionary schemes like those operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. This time it is our railways that are about to become the latest victim of the Government’s desire not for Government oversight, but for state control. So down the rabbit hole we go.

Despite the warm words of the Secretary of State, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees growth in our rail network or cheaper fares—in fact, only this morning the Secretary of State refused to say that rail prices would continue to come down—and nothing to guarantee safer, more comfortable journeys on our railways. There are no plans for greater electrification, which is hardly surprising given that the last Conservative Government delivered 20 times as much electrification in our 14 years as Labour achieved in its 13 years. This Government have chosen to betray North Wales again, and have abandoned the midlands main line upgrade as well. Both were important electrification projects.

There is nothing in the Bill that promises better and more consistent internet connections on our trains. Instead, like the card soldiers in “Alice in Wonderland”,  the Secretary of State is busy covering up her blunders by painting the roses red. She claims that the new branding is

“not just a paint job”.

Well, what on earth is it? We on these Benches know the answer to that. The Secretary of State is trying to paint over the cracks in a rusting hulk of a Bill that picks the pockets of every other DfT budget, whether it involves our roads or bus users, air passengers and air travel. All of them will be hit with cuts, and also with higher taxes so that the Secretary of State and her civil servants can play trains in the Department of Transport. \p Ashley Fox: One of the first acts of this Labour Government was to hose money at striking train drivers to buy them off. Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that we will see the cost of a publicly run railway increase dramatically at the cost of taxpayers, and that we will also see services get worse? \p Richard Holden: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was interesting to hear Government Members saying, “Yes, yes,” while he spoke, because that is exactly what they did: they threw money at the transport unions. It is particularly interesting that the Secretary of State said today that the railways will face a £2 billion-a-year subsidy for the foreseeable future, because that is not what the Government have said in answers to written questions submitted by me or Opposition colleagues.

Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to Britain’s railways, we are not against the idea of uniting track and train. We would back a model that brings coherence to the system, but not one that weakens scrutiny and clamps down on competition. That is why we have supported a concessionary model, which the Secretary of State will no doubt recall from her time at Transport for London, as will Members from Merseyside and Greater Manchester, where such a model is being proposed. I do not think anybody has ever considered them to be on the far right. \p Paul Waugh: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to ideology; surely it was Tory ideology that privatised the railways in the first place. That ideology has not been copied anywhere else in the world precisely because it costs the taxpayer more and the passenger more. \p Richard Holden: We can all see the ideology at play today. I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is in Greater Manchester, where the mayor is calling for a concessionary model—a partnership between the state and the private sector that is directly opposed in the Bill that he will support this evening. The hon. Gentleman is quite far off the mark.

The number of passengers on our railways doubled in the 25 years after services were returned to the private sector after half a century of decline. We support the vital role of open access operators, which always give passengers brand-new routes with cheap, affordable fares, and often run direct services to London. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) called for direct services recently, but I do not think that option will be available under the new system. Neither will a direct line from Cleethorpes to London, long campaigned for by  my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers)—I visited his constituency a week ago—be on offer.

We back a joined-up approach that places passengers and taxpayers at the heart of our railway. We recognise that fragmentation held our railway back, and have long championed partnership with private sector involvement to drive innovation and growth. That is why we conducted the Williams-Shapps review.

What the Secretary of State has brought forward is not a coherent model at all; it is something altogether different, and ought to trouble Members throughout the House. Her Bill ignores the evidence, the experts, and the fervent cries of freight that growth has to be at the forefront of any rail reform. Instead, in keeping with the worst traditions of the 1970s, a return to state control runs throughout her Bill. It is not about the growth in passenger numbers that would reduce taxpayer subsidy; otherwise, why is that not on the front of the Bill? It is not about the growth in competition that would bring down prices for passengers, the growth of freight that would take more lorries off our roads, or the growth of new routes to serve the length and breadth of the country. Nowhere on the face of her Bill is there a target for passenger growth. The Bill actively works against open access, which, if the Secretary of State gets her way, will be left wholly, and deliberately, vulnerable. \p Sarah Owen: One area where we can all agree we want to see passenger growth is among those with disabilities and those who find steps incredibly difficult. On 24 May 2024, the previous Government announced that 50 stations, including my local station at Leagrave, would benefit from step-free access, but the funding never existed. How can the shadow Secretary of State criticise our plans, when he made promises about funds that never existed? \p Richard Holden: The previous Government did a huge amount to improve access to stations throughout the country. I would like to see more of that. \p Mark Pritchard: Whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, and whether it was under the last Government or this Government—by the way, the current Government have been in power for 18 months, so all that is wearing a bit thin—passengers, and particularly disabled passengers, just want a railway that works. On that I agree with the Secretary of State.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done on step-free access? There is currently very little in the Bill that suggests that more will be done, particularly for rural stations such as Cosford, Shifnal or Albrighton in Shropshire. If it cannot be done at every station, and there is no money for that, there at least needs to be step-free access and improved disability access somewhere along inter-county railway lines. \p Richard Holden: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on that issue. Earlier, he made the important point that people want to see through-trains running, because there is nothing that benefits disabled passengers more than the through-train services such as from his constituency, which would be available with open access. I believe that the Department for Transport has opposed that for the service he mentioned. The Transport Secretary  can correct me if she wishes, but it comes to something when this Government are actively working against new routes across the country. This Bill actively works against open access, which, if she gets her way, will be left wholly and, I suspect, deliberately vulnerable. GBR is mimicking some statist salami-style tactic that will cut it slice by slice until open access is dead.

Above all, this Bill does not put passengers or taxpayers first. Having been watered down beyond recognition, the passengers’ council is a far cry from what the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) envisaged. What remains is no watchdog at all, but a dog with no teeth or, as it has no enforcement powers, a dog that can barely bite. Even in the Government’s own factsheet, this so-called watchdog is confined to advising and reporting. GBR must “listen”, but nowhere does it have to comply. This is not accountability; it is blatant window dressing behind triple glazing.

If the council is not to be toothless, there have to be standards that GBR is expected to adhere to, so I ask the Secretary of State: where are the rigorous performance standards and the key performance indicators for the network that, in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question, she and her Ministers have promised will be released? She has taken operators into state control, but refuses to set out by which standards they should be judged. Does she have no standards—or perhaps she would rather let performance slip and then claim credit for any tiny improvements she can spin down the line?

We must contend instead with insufficient protections for ticket retailers, so passengers who use apps such as Trainline, which is incredibly popular, TrainPal or Uber will no doubt have to pay more for a shoddier service, as the Government push these growing businesses to the brink, as they are doing. From these depths, one inescapable conclusion emerges: the people who will benefit from this Bill are not passengers or taxpayers. The only ones who will benefit are the Secretary of State’s union paymasters, who stand to cash in, with no commitments to modernisation, to increasing efficiency or to abolishing outdated working practices. Every possible incentive for increasing efficiency has been ignored or abandoned on the altar of ideology. \p Peter Swallow: The shadow Secretary of State talks about modernisation and his concerns about the Government’s approach. In 2017, South Western Railway spent £1 billion on new trains to serve my constituents on the Reading to Waterloo line. Those trains sat in sidings, and it was not until SWR was brought back into public ownership that we saw a quadrupling in the number of those Arterio trains being rolled out. That is the real, demonstrable benefit of this Government’s approach. Does he not agree that the model to which he proposes we return failed, and there is no clearer sign of that failing than those trains sitting in sidings? \p Richard Holden: The hon. Gentleman, along with some of his colleagues, has not been listening to what I have been saying, because we put forward the Williams-Shapps review to deliver a new concessionary model. Some of the funding he mentioned was delivered through modernisation, and it was delivered under the last Government. Let us be clear about what is happening  with SWR: under this Government, his constituents are seeing greater delays right across the network. They are seeing that month after month, despite the promises of the Secretary of State.

Despite the right hon. Lady’s flagrant disregard of taxpayers’ money and an “ain’t bovvered” approach to passenger welfare, I had hoped that she would have ensured that this Bill contained the necessary safeguards—guard rails, perhaps—and a strong regulator with the statutory authority to intervene and set things straight. Are we going to have such a regulator? Oh, but we dare to dream! [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) wishes to intervene, why does he not stand up?

Today, operators propose and the Office of Rail and Road decides, but under this Bill, GBR will propose and GBR will decide. We find ourselves in the most bizarre position of the Office of Rail and Road handing over its powers on deciding track access and access charges to GBR, which is the very entity that has the most to gain by acting in its own self-interest. In this Bill, that self-interest is unfettered and unperturbed by any genuine oversight.

Who, can I ask the Secretary of State, will be in charge of the railways in this new thrilling world of state control? According to the responses I have received to parliamentary questions, we are still not clear. Rail fares, apparently, will be decided by Ministers in the Department for Transport. Automation of train technology will be, according to the answers to written parliamentary questions I have received, the Government’s collective responsibility. Working arrangements with unions will be managed by individual local train operators, and the guiding mind of it all will be GBR. This is not, as the Secretary of State and her Ministers have claimed, how any organisation ought to be run. It is an organisational mishmash—rudderless, directionless. It will not serve passengers, it will not serve freight and it certainly will not serve taxpayers.

Certainty, supposedly guaranteed to freight, industry and manufacturing, is entirely absent. In its place, we have the misfortune of funding mechanisms that can be changed and amended at any time, without any oversight whatsoever. We have a duty to freight, which, although clearly an afterthought, is obviously welcome, but once the reality kicks in, GBR’s overlordship of the process of access, pricing and timetabling will leave freight operators permanently in the lurch. We have conflict of interest after conflict of interest permeating the Bill, with about as much credibility as the Secretary of State’s promise a couple of weeks ago that the Government had no plans to introduce pay-per-mile on our roads. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady has corrected Hansard yet.

We desperately need an indication of purpose. What is this for? Who is this all for? It is pretty clear that we want to passengers to be put first with reliable, safe and accessible journeys that provide value for money, and open access routes protected, including those serving Hull, championed by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and those serving Doncaster, which the right hon. Member for   Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) know their constituents really depend on. Oversight must be accompanied by actual enforcement, and passengers and taxpayers must be at the forefront of the Bill. Currently, they are not. \p Neil Hudson: The shadow Secretary of State talks about passengers being at the heart of the Bill. He earlier raised watchdogs and dogs not having teeth. As a veterinary surgeon, I am very conscious of a subset of dogs that we need to think about in relation to passenger access. Does he agree that people need to work together to ensure that people with assistance dogs and guide dogs have good access to the railway? In terms of modernisation and access, we need to keep those people in our mind. \p Richard Holden: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that when it comes to modernisation, access and new trains, that is exactly what we want to see delivered, and there is no mention of that in the Bill.

We have tabled our reasoned amendment today because a Bill with no independent regulator, no protection for competition or taxpayers’ money, no passenger growth duty and no credible enforcement, cannot command our support. Throughout this murky and blinkered process, the Secretary of State has shown that she does not have the will to make sensible changes. Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), she does not have the guts to face down her Back Benchers, who call for greater state control right across the system. She will not strengthen the Bill. She will not restore independence. She will not protect open access, embed growth or put passengers first. Instead, she presses on, convinced that centralising power will somehow solve the very problems that centralisation always creates. Let there be no shadow of a doubt: when, as is inevitable, things go wrong, leaving passengers without recourse or redress, she and she alone will face the consequences. She will own the cancellations, the overcrowding, the endless complaints about no internet signal, the strikes, the rising taxpayer subsidy and the fateful day when passengers learn she can no longer afford to use taxpayers’ money to prop up her much-vaunted fare freeze.

We on the Opposition Benches will fight to deliver a railway that works for passengers, taxpayers, freight and the future. We will not sit idly by and allow the Government to turn GBR into judge, jury and executioner on the network it alone controls. I hope that Members from other parties will support our calls here and in the other place over the coming weeks and months. \p Navendu Mishra: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular the donations from trade unions through my constituency Labour party, of which I am proud.

This landmark legislation will finally address the imbalance in the sector. Since Mrs Thatcher’s[Official Report, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 6WC.] (Correction) privatisation of the railways, the taxpayer has been funding the huge cost of infrastructure, while private operators and shareholders have benefited by taking all the profits.  For too long, companies have been cashing in while passengers pay the price with poor service. It is time to put passengers first and profits second.

I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State a number of times: Reddish South station in my constituency has one train a week, and that is simply unacceptable. Friends of Reddish South Station, who I have met a number of times, have been campaigning for proper passenger rail services at the station for many years. I hope that, with GBR, proper rail services will be restored to Reddish South station. In the latest reporting period, the station recorded 102 passengers in an entire year. The recent increase in housing around Reddish South and changes in Reddish over recent years mean that we need proper rail services and connectivity.

Sadly, three out of five train stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access. I want the Access for All scheme to be increased in size. Unfortunately, the scheme is very slow and the roll-out tends to involve a need to apply for funding. The north’s rail stations have poor accessibility; fewer than half the stations have step-free access. Some stations in the north have benefited from Access for All, but progress has been slow, with an average of only three stations per year in the north benefiting from step-free access.

In response, the north’s mayors and political leaders have been pressing for the devolution of Access for All funding to mayoral strategic authorities, to ensure that decisions on local stations are prioritised locally and taken locally. It is simply unacceptable that disabled people, people with mobility issues and people with health conditions are discouraged from using the railways by issues with step-free access. I pay tribute to Nathaniel Yates, a young local campaigner who has been campaigning for step-free access for a long time; Nathaniel was able to say hello to the Rail Minister during a recent visit to my constituency.

At Stockport station, which is one of the five stations in my constituency, and which recorded over 4 million entries and exits in the latest reporting period, the Passenger Assist scheme is not adequately staffed. Avanti is responsible for staffing at the station, and a number of staff members and passengers have told me that the coverage is simply not good enough. Davenport station is in a neighbouring constituency, but I also want to see step-free access there, because many people from my constituency use Davenport station. Local councillors Wendy Wild, Paul Wright and Dickie Davies have been campaigning for step-free access at the station for a long while.

Sunday services continue to be a significant issue with Northern Rail. I have met Friends of Heaton Chapel Station twice in recent weeks, and a number of passengers and members of the group tell me that Northern’s Sunday services are simply not good enough. Northern is also failing to staff ticket offices adequately, in particular at Brinnington, in my patch. I raised that with the company in October; it is now December, and the station still does not seem to be staffed adequately. The ticket office needs to be staffed properly.

I have also raised this issue previously in the House: funding for British Transport police is quite concerning. We had the sad attack in Huntingdon, and I pay tribute to the rail workers and passengers on the train, but  British Transport police’s coverage is not good enough. It needs more funding. Staff at Stockport station frequently tell me about the low presence of BTP officers. I met British Transport police recently, on 28 November. Unfortunately, crime is up by 5.4%, antisocial behaviour incidents are up by 9% and violent offences are up by 14%. BTP is facing an £8.5 million shortfall in the next financial year after receiving just a 4.6% uplift against the force’s 9.8% request.

I have very limited time, so I will finish on the point of rolling stock companies, which are one aspect of the large-scale profiteering on the railways. The firms typically pay in excess of £200 million per annum in dividends, and Office of Rail and Road data tells us that they paid out £275 million last year. I would like to see more work on that. Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Olly Glover: I thank those who have put so much work into the Bill, which has had a long gestation, with its roots in the multiple timetable change meltdowns across the network in May 2018. They and the Government are right to recognise that our railways need change. That should be our starting point.

I will start with the reasons why we need that change. Unfortunately, the British Railways Act 1994 framework introduced by the Conservative Government of that era has certainly been full of problems, and previous Conservative Governments have presided over above-inflation fare increases, overcrowded trains and frankly incomprehensible and totally baffling contract extensions awarded to failing train operators such as CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast. I think we can all agree in this House that the current structure and system is not putting passengers or freight users first, but we should also recognise that meddling and interference from central Government has increased since the pandemic and is at the heart of some of our problems—more of which anon.

Let us start with what is good about the Bill. It is certainly an honest and serious attempt to simplify the current convoluted industry structure and processes. It is quite right to focus on the need for accessibility improvements, and it is welcome that it introduces the idea of a long-term rail strategy, although the usefulness of that will depend on how “long-term” is defined. The creation of a passenger standards authority to build on the work of Transport Focus is welcome to ensure that the passenger really is put first. \p Helen Morgan: In constituencies such as North Shropshire, where access to the railway is very poor indeed, we have initiatives for step-free access at Whitchurch station and to connect Oswestry, which is the second largest town in Shropshire but has no rail connection, to the line at Gobowen. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill really needs to take up those types of opportunities? Otherwise, many people will fail to recognise the benefits of hopefully improving the rail system. \p Olly Glover: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that some of the more sparsely populated parts of our country have been neglected in their rail offer. It is important that the spending recognises that and does not just follow large towns or cities or inter-city routes. \p Wera Hobhouse: Surely improving our railways should include the ambition of making our public transport cleaner and greener. In Bath, dirty diesel trains are still running through the city. Surely one of our first steps should be an ambitious electrification plan, reversing or addressing the years of failure of the previous Conservative Government. \p Olly Glover: I shall have to ask my office to initiate an investigation into the leak of my speech—I will go on to say why we do indeed need a rolling electrification programme, which is something that has hitherto been missing under Governments of all colours.

Nevertheless, we Liberal Democrats have some concerns about the Bill in its current form. First of all, though, we certainly welcome the Government’s recent embrace of a seven-year Lib Dem call for a freeze on rail fares. It is very welcome, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest—to be fair, the Secretary of State has not yet done so—that GBR is needed for such things. This is all about influence and persuasion with the Treasury and making sure we make coherent choices about fares and the cost of motoring, so that we encourage the transport choices we wish to see.

The legislation as drafted will not in and of itself bring better value for money for customers in the form of affordability, reliability and improved access to the network. It is not just me who thinks that; the Secretary of State herself stated in May that she could not promise lower fares under renationalisation. One of my biggest concerns is that GBR currently sounds like a railways version of NHS England—something that the Government themselves have decided to abolish—rather than an organisation given real autonomy, following a clear vision and long-term plan for the industry, that is likely to create customer focus and commercial flair, which is what our railways really need. What they do not need is even more state control and micromanagement, which, to date, has not produced good outcomes. The capacity duty for GBR laid out in the Bill is another big concern here; in just three short paragraphs, it sets out a very broad and draconian basis for rejecting applications to access the network that are not GBR.

Let me give some examples of how state control and micromanagement has hurt us to date. It was the Department for Transport, not any failing train operator, that specified the inter-city trains currently in service with LNER and GWR, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will know from her own travels, have been replete with problems and concerns about suboptimal internal comfort and design. Indeed, the current significant rolling stock shortages—a result of problems that GWR is facing with those trains—were confounded by a DFT decision to withdraw high-speed train rolling stock from the west country after the pandemic without a replacement, which has led to frequent overcrowding on trains serving my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, partly because five-car inter-city trains designed for journeys such as London to Bristol and London to Penzance are currently operating stopping services in Devon and Cornwall.

It was a Department for Transport decision to appoint Chiltern Railways to operate East West Rail phase 1 between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The new railway has been ready for more than a year and we still have no passenger services running on that line. We have had 20 years of Department for Transport-specified timetables, with relatively little improvement to connections between trains and non-London journey times. When I used to work at Southern, the timetable specification document given to us by the Department for Transport had 200 pages of detail as to exactly what should be followed.

There is a real lack of clarity on how open access passenger and freight will be effectively regulated and protected in the new structure. That is especially important for freight, which the Government have decided not to nationalise. There is no requirement in the Bill to set a target for passenger growth, which may suggest a lack of ambition. The Bill is very vague on the criteria for calculating things such as network access charges. The Bill gives GBR the power to apply discounted or elevated track charges, but it is totally unclear as to what criteria will be applied in deciding the charges. It is also unclear how the ORR will be able to police and enforce that effectively, given its reduced powers. The Bill seems to imply that appeals against GBR access decisions will require judicial review-level criteria, making them very inaccessible to most parties that may wish to make those challenges.

We hope that some of those concerns will be addressed through further scrutiny on the Bill Committee—in the miraculous event that the Bill passes later today. We hope that, with an open-minded approach from the Government, we will be able to set a specific time definition for “long-term rail strategy”. The Liberal Democrats believe that it should be 30 years rather than a short period of 10 years or 15 years. We hope to see a clearer definition and some bounds put in for the many references to the Secretary of State’s powers to override, and we want to see greater ambition for both freight and passenger growth.

We need more recognition of the importance of competition and open access for both freight and long-distance passengers. Rail freight remains in the private sector and therefore needs protections, given the Government’s clear preference for state ownership and operation. Open access has driven up ridership and customer satisfaction on the east coast main line but is now at risk. The real question for the Government is whether something as innovative as Hull Trains, which has transformed the inter-city passenger offer between Hull and London, would even be possible under GBR?

We desperately need competition on the west coast main line, given Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and performance. There is no guarantee that when Avanti returns to the public sector those fares will come down. There are many positive examples of private sector tendering and operation—particularly the Spanish high-speed network, the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which is the busiest high-speed line in Europe, and French and German operating contracts procured by regional governments. Although the Passenger Standards Authority is welcome, we need an even stronger and louder passenger voice on it.

What would the Lib Dems do instead or additionally? [Laughter.] Well, I am going to address that in case anybody wanted to accuse us of being negative without articulating our positive vision. We need to make sure  that as well as making the structural changes it intends to, the Bill, and whatever follows, addresses the real problems on our network.

Successive Governments have failed to set out a clear, long-term vision and set of objectives for the railway that cover passenger and freight growth, customer satisfaction and punctuality. They have failed to accompany that with a long-term funding settlement and infrastructure plan, which should include incentives and rewards for contractors and suppliers for hitting quality, time and cost objectives when it comes to enhancements to the network. They should be based on a vision for a regional or national timetable designed around convenient and reliable connections between trains at well-designed major interchange stations, as is the case in Switzerland.

The Bill should limit future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation, which would deal with the arbitrary approach that has been taken up until now. We need value for money and quality guarantees for passengers given the high fares we have. In particular, the Bill does not guarantee that my Oxfordshire constituency will get the improvements that we really want to see, such as electrification between Didcot and Oxford. The equivalent part of railway to Cambridge was electrified in 1986 under that hardly well-known pro-rail Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We need a clear, long-term rolling programme for rolling stock. We need accessibility improvements at stations, including Cholsey, and new stations such as one to serve Grove and Wantage. I am desperate to see that for my constituents. \p Peter Swallow: I am listening carefully to all the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations. Many of them sound wonderful, but I suspect that they come with something of a price tag. I hope he will get on to the part of his speech where he sets out how the Liberal Democrats would fund those investments. \p Olly Glover: The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs.

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). I am still trying to work out what a Lib Dem Bill would include that this one does not.

I welcome the Bill, which is universally agreed to be long needed. It is the essential next step in ensuring that rail in Britain is more unified and that we deliver a rail system that is reliable and safe and provides value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.

The Railways Act 1993 led to 30 years of a poor deal for passengers, other customers and taxpayers, with 17 different organisations providing track and trains, multiple fare options and prices, hundreds of staff employed to attribute the cost of delays, staff shortages and no single voice to address individual systemic failures of service. Yet the railways have a workforce who are universally committed to delivering a high-quality service to passengers and customers.

I particularly welcome the proposal that the Secretary of State will issue a long-term rail strategy setting out objectives and the direction of travel for railways for the next 30 years. That will please so many stakeholders, including, in particular, investors in rail as well as mayoral authorities—in fact, all those who work in and use rail. I welcome that clause 18 includes duties on GBR to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, which specifically includes disabled passengers, and to run the railway in the public interest—in other words, to meet social, economic and environmental objectives.

Clause 18 sets out a series of significant duties for GBR, including the promotion the use of rail freight. But while clause 17 requires the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a target for growth in rail freight, there is no such target in the Bill for growth in passenger demand.

My Committee launched an inquiry on the Bill on 5 November—the day that the Bill was published—focusing in particular on three core aims of the reform: improving rail travel for passengers, network access, and devolution. We have published the evidence we have received so far, and the oral evidence taken on 26 November is tagged as a relevant document for this debate.

First, passenger experience is central to all our constituents who travel by rail—or who would do if it was more accessible, more reliable or cheaper. The passenger watchdog is a new voice providing advocacy and advice, sharing best practice and providing alternative dispute resolution. Clause 36 says that it will have a duty to have “particular regard” to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. It will set standards on how travel information is provided, including when there is a disruption. It will handle complaints and delay compensation, and it will require operators to make services accessible. Those powers in London and on Eurostar will be covered by an expanded London TravelWatch.

On the detail of enforcement powers, clauses 42 to 47 give the passenger watchdog powers to receive complaints. That is helpful, but I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. Will the Passengers’ Council be sufficiently independent, powerful and resourced to challenge GBR to deliver meaningful change if needed? What will the governance relationship be between the watchdog, the ORR and the rail ombudsman? What remedy will passengers have if the passenger watchdog’s recommendations are not adopted? Who will appoint the members of the council and the chair? Will passenger groups and disabled people be represented on the board?

Accessibility is a particular interest of the Transport Committee, following the publication of our report “Access denied” in February. I welcome the fact that clause 18 explicitly includes the needs of disabled passengers as a general duty, but that is only one of six duties that will have to be balanced. What guidance will be provided to GBR on balancing those needs, to ensure that disabled people do not lose out yet again? The wording in clause 18 on accessibility could also be said to be slightly objective. What safeguards are there against a future Secretary of State cutting costs and altering, diluting or even removing accessibility requirements?

On fairs and ticketing, we welcome a unified system. On network access, there is slightly less clarity on the future role of passenger open access. If the Government want to end open access for passengers, do they have a plan for retaining its benefits, such as filling gaps, opening up new routes and promoting price competition? On freight, how will the targets be aligned? \p Brian Mathew: Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a danger of a conflict of interest? At present, the ORR, an independent body, holds the power to grant track access rights. Under the Bill, those powers will transfer to GBR, while the ORR’s role is watered down. If GBR is able to block applications, it becomes judge and jury. Open access operators such as Go-op may struggle to get the access rights that they need to run new services, including through Melksham. \p Ruth Cadbury: There are questions about the relationship between the Secretary of State, GBR, the ORR and the passenger watchdog, which we will certainly pursue—and so, I am sure, will others.

Devolution is central to the Government’s vision, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and elected mayors will have greater control of their areas. Will there be an oversight role, so that local decisions do not conflict with national priorities, such as providing access to rail freight?

In conclusion, I really welcome the Bill, although the two Opposition amendments do not. The Bill will work if it relieves the Secretary of State of day-to-day operational decision making, and lets those who understand the rail system get on with delivering for the benefit of passengers, the economy and the environment. \p Joe Robertson: I support some of the aims and intentions behind the Bill, and having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, I certainly agree with her reasons for it, but I do not believe that what she is doing will deliver what she says.

Key parts of the Bill are taken from the previous Conservative Government’s 2023 plans to unite train and track, which were not realised due to the change of Government at the election. That does not inevitably have to be done by nationalisation; indeed, under the last Government’s detailed plans, it would have been done under a concessionary scheme. That is not ideology but pragmatism. It is using the state and the private sector to deliver better railways. That model is very  similar to the model used by Transport for London, which was designed by Labour and is run by Labour in London.

It is unfathomable why the Government will not look at that sort of pragmatic scheme for the rest of the UK through this Bill. I suspect that the only answer is the inevitable one offered by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden): this is a matter of ideology. It is about satisfying Labour’s union paymasters and Back Benchers—those Back Benchers who fundamentally run this Government, who vetoed the Government’s attempt to cut the welfare bill last summer, and who ensured that the Budget two weeks ago increased taxes to allow more welfare spending. For the Secretary of State and the Government, this is about a politically prudent pay-off, but it is bad for passengers.

I did some market research earlier. I travelled on a publicly owned service on a publicly owned track from Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo, and it was delayed because of signal failure. In fact, I do market research on that route quite often. The track has been in the public sector for over a decade, and signal failure continues to be the most common reason for delays to the train. The issue is not the train company, which was historically private, but the publicly owned track. It is not inevitable that nationalisation will lead to improved services, and there are no guarantees in the Bill that prices will be held down long term, or that services will improve and more passengers will travel by rail. That is simply a matter of faith, driven by a belief in nationalisation. \p Daniel Francis: Southeastern was nationalised under the previous Government, and it remains nationalised under this Government, but this year, it has been brought into one organisation with Network Rail, and there has been the best customer satisfaction for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and the best journey times you could see. Southeastern is at the forefront of this programme, so does the hon. Member agree that the proof is in Southeastern’s statistics? \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Member obviously was not listening to what I said at the beginning, which was that I absolutely believe in uniting the trains and the track; that was the 2023 plan of the previous Conservative Government. If he is right about the improvements in his part of the world, I suspect that the reason is not nationalisation, but bringing the two together, so that they are subject to similar decision-making processes.

The Secretary of State opened her speech by saying that she wanted a railway system that was greater than the sum of its parts. I agree. If she were to buy a National Rail ticket in Shanklin on the Isle of Wight, get on a train there, and travel to London Waterloo or Guildford, she would, like me, use the ferry service that connects parts of the railway. Fares are not being frozen for that part of the rail route, because the Secretary of State has no powers to do that, and is not creating those powers. In fact, the cost of rail travel from Sandown, Shanklin or Ryde on the Isle of Wight through to Guildford or Waterloo will go up if the unregulated ferry companies put their fares up. The Secretary of State is doing nothing to deal with that part of the railway for people who live in my constituency.

In fact, the situation is worse than that, because the Government are extending the emissions trading system levy to Solent travel. The ferry company Wightlink, which connects the railways, will pay £1 million a year in extra charges because of that levy being extended to it. The Government talk about freezing fares for mainland rail travellers, but they are in fact putting up the costs for Isle of Wight train travellers. The use of fossil fuels cannot be avoided in crossing the Solent, because there is not the electric grid capacity in the mainland ports or the Isle of Wight ports to allow the ferry companies to go fully electric, as the trains have done. That grid capacity will not be there until the mid-2030s. The Government are putting that cost on Isle of Wight rail and road users, but they have exempted Scottish ferry companies, because they say that those provide a lifeline service. Isle of Wight ferries are every bit as much a lifeline service for my constituents, who use them to access education, NHS, friends and family and all the things that everyone else enjoys. \p Steve Race: I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this vital legislation, which will bring the railways back together into one cohesive system, which should allow better planning and use of capacity, and should increase passenger satisfaction. I am pleased to see this Labour Government making good on their manifesto commitment to take back our railways into public ownership and to establish Great British Railways, something that people in the great railway city of Exeter have long called for, after years of decay under the Tory Government. Putting passengers at the heart of every part of the rail industry was a promise on which I and many colleagues here stood for election last year, and I am proud to see that coming to fruition.

Since I was elected, I have been proud to see Exeter continue to grow in size and economic importance. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Last year, our city was ranked sixth in the PwC’s “Good Growth for Cities” index. We in Exeter can see what good, equitable growth looks like—in climate tech, in scientific research and in education—and public transport is a key driver of it. Indeed, Exeter and Devon folk are avid railway users. Our passenger numbers exceeded the pre-covid peak long before many other cities. However, rail performance has often been poor under the current system; all three major operators across the two main lines and the several branch lines have been affected by long-term delays and cancellations, and critical infrastructure has needed investment.

At a time when residents in Exeter want more frequent and reliable services, the opposite is being delivered under the current system. We want to continue to grow our economy and attract inward investment, and a fast, reliable and regular train network is needed more than ever. I very much hope that Great British Railways will take a better approach to operating our railways, in the interests of passengers. I welcome the fact that Great British Railways will have a whole-system view of investment, and will be able to judge where delivery will have significant impact, so that Exeter and Devon can deliver the sustainable economic growth that they need. That should mean backing the Devon metro proposal, increasing services into and out of Exeter to one service  every 15 minutes by implementing passing loops on the South Western line, and improving the signalling on the Barnstaple line to increase capacity and reliability. That will enable further modal shift in Exeter and our growing hinterland, incentivise people out of their cars, and reduce some of our chronic traffic problems.

We need to improve the resilience of the line past Exeter to our great city neighbour of Plymouth and on into Cornwall. While our famous main line is scenic, it occasionally falls into the sea or is buried by a landslide, as happened at Dawlish in 2014. Reopening a completed line between Exeter and Plymouth north of Dartmoor would add resilience to the network, and it would prevent the peninsula being cut off, should Dawlish happen again.

I welcome the provisions that continue to allow open access operators on the network. The experience of the Lumo Edinburgh-to-London service and the Hull Trains service between Hull and London suggests that competition on the lines increases capacity and passenger numbers, rather than cannibalising numbers from elsewhere. Further, devolution and local decision making are imperative to ensuring that regions like the south-west can have a proper say on their transport infrastructure, and I hope that Exeter and Devon will achieve the local government reorganisation and devolution that I believe will work for us.

I welcome the commitment to embedding the relationship between GBR and strategic mayors into the functionality of the organisation, and I look forward to exploring how that will work effectively. GBR should be a real powerhouse and driver of innovation, seeking out new innovation through its procurement, but also allowing the continued free use of data, so that start-ups can build businesses and thrive in the wider ecosystem.

In this debate and beyond, I look forward to hearing Ministers’ vision for how GBR will look and feel. A nimble and strategic organisation with a defined mandate, working in partnership with the Department for Transport, will be more likely to deliver for passengers than a larger bureaucracy.

Finally, I welcome the provisions on accountability. As the Secretary of State and Ministers will know, I look forward to continuing to lobby them and GBR, as I have done on many occasions, on providing lifts at my St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge stations. I am proud to support the Bill, and I dedicate my words to the hard-working railwaymen of Exeter, who set up our local party in the 1950s, and who have played such significant roles, as elected politicians, in the development of my city and the county. They would be delighted by this return to a national railway system. \p Ian Roome: As the Government move to create a publicly owned Great British Railways, I want to speak on behalf of several thousand rail passengers in my constituency, and to say what they have suffered in recent weeks. We all want a rail network that delivers a fantastic service, supports the economy and protects the environment. In 2026, the last thing we want is ever more cars crammed on to our roads. Last year, the North Devon Tarka line, which runs for 39 miles through my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride),   recorded a record 1 million journeys for the first time. It is among the busiest branch lines anywhere in the south-west. Office of Road and Rail figures show that footfall at Barnstaple station, which is heavily used by young people and college students, has skyrocketed by 63% since 2019—by far the biggest surge at any station in Devon and Cornwall. The Tarka line has again set new records for passenger numbers nearly every month this year—until November, when that success came to a grinding halt.

On 17 November, heavy rain closed three bridges and ceased all rail traffic between Barnstaple and Exeter. Since then, our line has been shut three times. On Friday afternoon, it was closed again because of signal faults, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded in Exeter. The operator was issuing fresh warnings of likely cancellations just yesterday afternoon. If we were to ask those passengers what needs to be in the Bill, few would argue the merits of public versus private ownership. Instead, many in North Devon put up with immense overcrowding, or worry that their train may not even turn up. Back in 2017, Network Rail committed £2.9 million to improvements on the north Devon line, but that is only a tiny fraction of the capital investment in other parts of the country, and hundreds of thousands more passenger journeys now rely on that infrastructure.

Greater accountability to the public will be important for our railways. However, public ownership will be doomed to fail if the Government do not use this window of opportunity, and the extra powers in the Bill, to make lines in rural areas like mine more resilient for the future. \p Adam Dance: Too many rural railway stations are not accessible for disabled people. Without support staff, constituents in Yeovil have had serious accidents at railway stations. Although the Government’s accessibility priorities, which we are debating today, are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we need a strengthened access-for-all programme? \p Ian Roome: I agree. Disabled access is absolutely necessary at all stations, particularly in rural areas. My hon. Friend is a big advocate for accessibility for disabled people in Yeovil who need it.

As the network and operator are brought together, we need joined-up planning for increased capacity, and against bad weather. My party has supported freezing rail fares after years of price hikes, but, as many of my constituents can attest, it is no good buying a ticket for a train that is not running. I urge the Government to resist declaring victory once public ownership is achieved—it is only the first stop. The long-term planning will be the important part of this Bill.

We must give passengers in North Devon, and many places like it, good reason to have faith in their railway. That will require more than a new flag painted on the side of a train. What does the Minister plan to do next to make rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line, ready for the 2030s? \p Ben Goldsborough: The Railways Bill gives us the chance to deliver the biggest reset in a generation of how we run our railways. By bringing operators and infrastructure together under a single  guiding mind, we will be able to make decisions faster, cut through duplication and finally deliver improvements at the pace that passengers expect. A unified system means clearer accountability, quicker upgrades and railways designed for the people who rely on them every day. Crucially, it means ticketing that people can actually understand: simple, consistent and truly passenger-focused. For communities like mine in South Norfolk, that matters enormously.

I greatly appreciate clause 18, on accessibility for all. I would not be doing my job properly as the MP for South Norfolk if I did not talk about Wymondham station and its accessibility. Colleagues may know that Wymondham’s station code is WMD. In South Norfolk, that stands not for “weapons of mass destruction”, but for “we must deliver”. In this case, we must deliver step-free access to platform 2. Wymondham has waited 180 years—since the station first opened—for step-free access to the southbound platform. That means that disabled people, those pushing buggies, or elderly passengers carrying heavy luggage simply cannot catch the southbound train. Instead, you must travel all the way north to Norwich, wait, turn around and come back again. That is half an hour wasted going in completely the wrong direction. A modern railway worthy of this country cannot leave passengers behind like that, so my first ask of the Minister today is to give the green light for step-free access improvements at Wymondham train station. With a single body overseeing both operators and track, there will finally be no excuse for this to be delayed any longer.

While I am speaking about rail in the East of England, I want to briefly highlight the long overdue upgrades to the Ely and Haughley junctions. Again, that is important in the context of the Bill, and I ask the Government to go further on freight. Those improvements have been talked about for decades and are essential. They would unlock nearly 3,000 additional freight paths from Felixstowe, take 98,000 HGVs off the roads, support 277,000 extra passenger journeys each year, reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes over 60 years and generate almost £5 for every £1 invested. Quite simply, this is infrastructure that pays for itself many times over, so my second ask to the Minister is to give the go-ahead for the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme and the Haughley junction upgrade. The economic, environmental and connectivity benefits are too significant to ignore.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, made an important point about heritage railways. Wymondham Abbey station is on the Mid-Norfolk Railway line, one of the longest heritage railway lines in the whole United Kingdom. I strongly ask the Minister to consider what we can do through the Bill to ensure that safety aspects are maintained on those lines.

This Bill is about creating a rail system that works—one that is accountable, accessible and built around the needs of passengers. It will deliver improvements more quickly, support regional growth and ensure that communities like mine are not left behind. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: With an immediate four-minute limit, I call Martin Vickers. \p Martin Vickers: I speak in my capacity as a constituency Member and also as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail, which submitted a response to the Secretary of State on the changes she is bringing forward.

Will the proposals deliver improved rail freight and passenger services in my constituency and, indeed, across the network? There are lots of “buts”. Restructuring any industry can cause confusion and increase costs, and the billions invested by private companies will now disappear and have to be made up by the taxpayer. If we look back to the years before privatisation, when for much of the time the industry was in decline and desperate for additional resources, we see a vision of the future.

If the Government are to achieve one of their key aims of economic growth, improved transport infrastructure and a rail network that provides for the needs of the freight sector must be a priority. Ministers will have noted that the Rail Freight Group has suggested that the rail freight growth target of 75% by 2050 be put into law and that discounts to encourage use of spare capacity be introduced. Clause 17 of the Bill states that the Secretary of State must set a target and keep it under review. Setting targets is easy; delivering is much more challenging. Businesses in my constituency stress the urgent need for a new east-west freight corridor, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that when he sums up.

Rail freight is important, of course, but equally important is passenger traffic. There is nothing more parochial than Transport question time, and now that the Minister is going to take on even more responsibility, that will become much more prevalent. In my constituency, I have been pressing for a direct rail service to be restored between Grimsby and Cleethorpes and King’s Cross since 2011. British Rail withdrew the service in 1992. Local industry and passenger groups are pushing for it. There have been endless possibilities. Grand Central put forward an application to the rail regulator in 2015, which would have been accepted had it stood alone, but it was linked to extending services into North Yorkshire, and that would have taken revenue away from what was then the main franchise holder.

We desperately need the service. It will link Habrough and Barnetby stations in my constituency, which serve both Humberside airport and the port of Immingham, and it will then pass through the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) at Market Rasen. \p Edward Leigh: A direct train to London on this line is vital. Grimsby and Cleethorpes form a huge conurbation—probably much the biggest conurbation in the country not to be served by a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for this for so long, and I call on the Minister to just get moving with it. We do not need the Bill: we need action on a direct train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, through Market Rasen and Lincoln, to London, in order to revive the whole area. \p Martin Vickers: I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. LNER operates five or six services to Lincoln, and it would be easy to extend those services  the extra 30-odd miles to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. There is also the possibility of an open-access operator. Indeed, Grand Central Rail has made another application to provide a service from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and Doncaster to King’s Cross. However, judging by recent decisions, the open-access operators have cause for concern, as do those of us who want to see other lines improve as a result of competition. There is no doubt that the east coast main line has greatly benefited from competition, as was mentioned earlier, from Hull Trains and Grand Central Rail. They provide services to provincial towns that have been without a direct service for many years.

Returning to the demand from my own constituency, the Immingham area has two oil refineries, numerous power stations, petrochemical plants and logistics operations, and it is a vital hub for the renewable energy sector. The Minister must recognise that if we are to further develop the area, direct services to King’s Cross are a vital link. The proposals are supported by the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce and large businesses, such as Phillips 66. I can only urge the Minister to get on with it and to give it the okay. Under the new structure, he will be able to do that with just a signature; he should do so. \p Andrew Ranger: I welcome the clear ambition for our railways, and therefore for our nation, that the Railways Bill brings. Rail runs in my family’s blood: my late grandad worked on the railways, first for London and North Western Railway and then for British Rail in Crewe, one of the homes of rail and where I spent the early part of my childhood.

My constituency sits on the border between north Wales and England. Our train services are vital for many people across Wrexham, but for too long they have simply had to accept that cancellations, delays and poor value for their money are just part of the deal. It is right that this Labour Government are following the Welsh Labour Government and taking our train services back into public ownership. We must be honest that privatisation has failed its users. They should not have to put up any longer with a service that is too often substandard and with ever-increasing prices.

Regardless of who oversees our railways, it is important that that the passenger experience remains the No. 1 priority. Therefore it is right that this Bill brings forward a simplified and unified ticket system, as we have already heard, alongside the freezing of rail fares for the first time in 30 years, as recently announced. Likewise, the creation of a new passenger watchdog will ensure that Great British Railways will be held accountable in a way that private services never truly have been. A truly independent body and organisation that will ensure that standards are met, the passenger watchdog will be able to demand data and investigate and resolve disputes.

The changes to the decision-making process around track usage and infrastructure will move us away from a system that prioritises profits over passenger experience, with track access based on demand and social value, not just revenue and profits. Timetables will be designed in one place, so different operators will stop working at cross purposes. Investment and engineering work will be co-ordinated to minimise disruption. There will be  clear accountability when services fail, putting a stop to cases where popular routes are routinely packed or where people are often unable to even board them.

My constituency of Wrexham is a clear case study in the complexity of the current system, sitting within the Mersey-Dee cross-border functional economy, where key rail assets for the rail network serving the local economy sit in both England and Wales. Chester station is the gateway to north Wales, sitting on the junction of the north Wales cost mainline and the Marches line. Chester is key for access from north Wales and Wrexham to places like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London and multiple airports, yet the Mersey-Dee economy is served by multiple Network Rail regions and train operators, all with competing interests.

The cross-party Growth Track 360 group campaigns for rail investment to improve economic growth and productivity, so we welcome the investment in the Padeswood sidings, which will enable direct services between Wrexham and Liverpool. Meanwhile, a new station at Deeside will improve access from Wrexham in north Wales to the many jobs on the Deeside industrial estate. That emphasis on integration and partnership working will help to simplify the system, improve accountability and improve the transparency of decision making. \p David Burton-Sampson: My hon. Friend is giving a very interesting speech. In my constituency, Chalkwell station has been waiting an age for further Access for All works to take place, and they are now taking place. Both of my train lines are now in public ownership and working closely with Network Rail. Does he agree that that integration will make this work so much easier moving forward? It will be quicker, slicker and easier for these projects to get going, to the benefit of the commuters. \p Andrew Ranger: I completely agree. That will be crucial to improving services for everybody.

We have a renewed deal for Welsh customers as well. The inclusion of a memorandum of understanding means that there will be a shared understanding and shared objectives across funding, access and track integration. Crucially for Wrexham, it also means that there will be an aligned cross-border framework for governance and funding, reflecting how crucial these services are to our local communities and economies and their ability to succeed.

Alongside that, I am delighted that there will be a dedicated business unit in Great British Railways both obligated and empowered to work with Transport for Wales to deliver the best possible offering. That shows that it does not need to be an either/or when it comes to working relationships with partners. With the right structures and the shared ambition we are already seeing in Wales, we have two thirds of journeys on brand-new trains, a 20% rise in passenger journeys and a plan for Network North Wales, delivering outcomes that genuinely put passengers first.

This legislation captures the full spirit of devolution. As we have heard, it recognises not only devolved Governments, but mayoral authorities. The duty to consult them on major decisions gives local leaders the  ability to shape what they know works best for their areas. That builds on the success we have already seen through things such as the Bee Network, bus franchising in the midlands, and Merseytravel, moving us a step closer to a fully integrated transport system across the country.

Finally, I will reflect on the wider implications of what good rail means, particularly for our young people. It means opportunity to access experiences and chances to broaden horizons and career prospects which go on to make a huge difference in their lives and outcomes. I look forward to following the Bill as it progresses through the House and delivers for our constituents. \p Sarah Dyke: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. In the 1800s, Britain’s railways unlocked growth and opportunity across the country. A huge network grew, until the Beeching cuts closed roughly a third of it in the 1960s. As a result, many rural communities lost their rail links, forcing reliance on buses and private cars and creating transport deserts.

My constituency is home to only two railway stations: Templecombe in the south and Castle Cary in the east. That means that many towns and villages are left unconnected to the two railway lines that run through the constituency. Langport had two railway stations, while Somerton had its own station until the Beeching cuts, but like many rural towns they have simply lost connectivity.

Glastonbury and Street, the two largest towns in the constituency, are both completely unconnected to the railway. There is not even a direct or integrated bus service available from Glastonbury to connect to the railway station. \p Layla Moran: My hon. Friend talks about accessibility, and we cannot forget about disabled people in that. If I may, I will share a perverse peculiarity at Radley station near Oxford, which is considered a rural station. Disabled people can go northbound, but not southbound, because there is no step-free access. How ridiculous is that? Is this Bill not an opportunity to address some of those discrepancies? \p Sarah Dyke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely essential that there are lifts at train stations to provide that step-free access for people with mobility issues, pushchairs or luggage. Indeed, Castle Cary station is the official station of the Glastonbury festival, so people might also be carrying camping gear, tents, or wet weather gear—plenty of it, usually.

The Railways Bill must not just manage decline; it must also restore connectivity and patronage. That means auditing underserved communities and delivering integrated rail and public transport links where they have been lost. The Langport Transport Group has run a campaign to bring a railway station back to the area, and put a strategic business outline case to the Government in February 2022. That was met with Tory inaction for nearly three years, and then sadly, the Restoring Your Railway fund was dropped by this Government. The fund needed improving, not removing.

The Government have claimed that GBR will be

“responsive to both national and local ambitions”,

while the long-term rail strategy lists

“reducing regional and national inequality”

as one of its priorities. However, more than half of small towns in the south-west are now transport deserts, and research by the Campaign for Better Transport shows that in Somerset, 14 out of 23 towns no longer have adequate public transport. More and more planning applications are being approved in south Somerset, so it is essential that GBR can expand the rail network to accommodate future growth and ensure that rural communities are not left behind.

I am pleased that Liberal Democrat-run Somerset council has committed to developing further plans to make the case for a new station in the Somerton and Langport area, as well as improving access and integration with the existing network. However, the long-term rail strategy could include a network expansion plan that covers an increased extent of the network, and new and upgraded stations should align with local transport and growth plans. I also believe that the long-term rail strategy should focus on how to boost access to railway stations when local people cannot access them in their own town. The Government pledged to release their integrated national transport strategy this year, but there is still no sight of it. There is therefore an opportunity to link the strategy with GBR to deliver truly integrated and accessible transport for people in rural areas, because rural areas should not be excluded from this opportunity any more—there is absolutely no reason why they should be.

I also wanted to touch on soil moisture deficit, which has been a huge problem on some of the tracks in the west this year, but I will leave that for another time. I will wait to see how this legislation will deliver for my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton, who have been left unconnected for far too long by an unreliable and infrequent service. I also look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it progresses through the House—I am determined to ensure it delivers for my constituents. \p Elsie Blundell: The Railways Bill will be vital to delivering on this Government’s promise to revive our country’s railways and redefine what passengers should expect from their rail services. It is beyond doubt that the privatisation of the rail network has completely failed, and it is now the task of this Labour Government to rebuild the confidence that has been lost. That is why I wholly welcome the coming establishment of Great British Railways, which will deliver coherence where there has been chaos and a sense of strategic direction where there has been lethargy. The best place for our country’s rail network is in the hands of the public. Alongside a strengthened passenger watchdog, a new access regime and an enhanced role for our devolved authorities, I believe GBR will show passengers that things no longer have to be the way they have been. It is on the final point—the role of mayoral strategic authorities—that I will focus my remarks.

The Bill is the obvious next step in advancing the devolution agenda led by this Government and elected mayors. I am proud of our accomplishments in this space in Greater Manchester, which has already brought buses back under local control and built the UK’s largest ever light rail network. The next step is for us to bring local rail services into the Bee network, where  they belong. It is therefore crucial that the Bill is fully utilised and that we explicitly formalise ties between strategic authorities, national Government and GBR.

I believe that there are three areas in which we can and must give our strategic authorities more certainty through this landmark piece of legislation. First, we should consider the benefits of requiring GBR to go further than “consulting” our authorities. If we are truly to give local people and their transport authorities a key role in shaping their own rail networks, we must recognise the merits of establishing a clear statutory role for mayors in commissioning rail services too, and ensuring that those leading GBR are plugged into the needs of our regions. That means utilising the talents and knowledge of those who make up our local transport authorities. I express my sincere thanks to Laura Shoaf for her work across shadow Great British Railways in that regard, and I hope that her role is a sign that GBR will continue to draw on these exceptional regional leaders.

Secondly, we must address questions about funding certainty for our mayoral authorities and local transport authorities. We should ensure that GBR co-develops key functions, such as financial planning, in tandem with our mayoral authorities. I believe that by forging partnerships between GBR and our mayors on funding, we will see greater value for money in the long term, a return on investments, and a sustained increase in passengers’ confidence in the rail network. That could be done by agreeing statutory limits on mid-period funding reductions, and working to align enhancement pipelines, planning horizons and industry funding cycles.

Thirdly, I believe that the Bill must ensure that GBR has a duty to align its decision making with the priorities of local transport plans. Those plans, such as the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, have a statutory basis, and provide a long-term view of what it will take for rail to play a transformative and integrated role in our communities. I look forward to watching the Bill progress, and to further consideration being given to how GBR will work with our elected mayors and local transport authorities.

The Bill encapsulates the ambition of this Labour Government to undo a legacy of neglect that has left our rail network fractured and public trust eroded. Only the Labour party is serious about tackling the deep-rooted challenges facing track and train, and now the onus is on us to ensure that Great British Railways succeeds where successive Governments and arm’s length bodies have failed. To get this right, GBR must be aligned with the priorities of local people and those whom they elect to ensure that, once again, rail is a driver of opportunity rather than a cap on ambition. \p Wendy Morton: Great British Railways is not an entirely new concept, but what the Government present as a “modernisation of our railways” is, when we strip away the glossy language, a centralising piece of legislation that advances Labour’s drive towards nationalisation. It risks creating a structure that is powerful, sprawling and unaccountable.

In Aldridge, in my constituency, we had secured funding to deliver a railway station under the former mayor, Andy Street, and residents were told, after decades of waiting, that the project would finally go ahead. However,  the new Labour mayor chose to withdraw the funding in favour of his own pet projects. When questions are put to Ministers, every answer points back to the combined authority, with the vague suggestion that there would be funding “if the region chooses”. Well, Aldridge and the West Midlands Combined Authority did choose, and the funding was in place, but Labour removed it. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a unilateral political decision from being made again. It provides no guarantee of transparency, and no duty to consult affected communities.

As a former Rail Minister, I am very aware that we on this side of the House have long recognised that the old model needed updating. That is why, in government, we began the work for Great British Railways, through the Williams-Shapps plan. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we set out the case for bringing track and train closer together, improving accountability, and delivering a more unified, passenger-focused system. We recognised the need for renewal of our railways, grounded in practicality and not in politics. What we have before us today, however, is something very different. This Bill offers too little detail, too little accountability, and far too many unanswered questions. It replaces a pragmatic, balanced approach with an ideological blueprint for nationalisation. Passengers across the country deserve better.

The Bill promises integration, but it delivers centralisation. It speaks of clarity, yet it blurs responsibilities. Great British Railways will control timetables, fares, access decisions, infrastructure planning and data, a concentration of authority that should concern anyone who believes in genuine public accountability. \p Charlie Dewhirst: The east coast main line is a fantastic example of where privatisation has worked. Open access operators such as Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central are competing with the franchisee and keeping prices down and service levels up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill does nothing to protect open access operators, and that there is a real danger that this centralised, Soviet-style monolith will squeeze them out in due course? \p Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is worse is that time after time I cannot get a straight answer out of Ministers as to whether they will support open access.

The Bill also weakens the independence of the ORR. When a body that runs services also shapes the rules against which those services are judged, the House should be deeply concerned. The Bill puts competition and innovation at risk, alongside the future of open access, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has highlighted, is incredibly uncertain. A railway that cannot accommodate competition is a railway that is destined to stagnate.

There is also the unresolved question of how GBR will interact with the Department for Transport. The Bill creates overlapping duties that risk friction and confusion. GBR will be required to consult, to produce strategies and to respond to ministerial direction, yet its operational independence is undefined. Will political  priorities override operational judgment? Will GBR operate as an arm’s length body, or as an extension of the Department?

How will we, as elected Members, hold Great British Rail, Ministers and mayors to account? Local decision making will not be stronger under the Bill. Ministers may talk the talk about devolution, but the Bill provides little evidence of it. Requiring GBR merely to “have regard to” local transport plans is a notably weak obligation. The Bill does not require GBR to follow them, and offers no protection to communities, such as Aldridge, where projects risk simply being cast aside when the political wind changes. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local leaders, they must allow us, the elected Members, to hold them to account.

The House should not mistake this railway reorganisation for renewal—far from it. The Bill simply rearranges structures while failing to address the issues that matter most to passengers: cancelled trains, inconsistent performance, reduced competition and decisions made far away from the communities they affect. This is a Bill that gives Labour more control, not passengers better railways. It is not a credible plan for the future of our railways and the Government should think again. \p Cat Eccles: As a long-time supporter of our railways and rail workers, I am proud to speak on a key Labour Government manifesto commitment. The Bill is about putting passengers, workers and the national interest back at the heart of our railways. For too long, a fragmented model has left the public with a patchwork quilt of competing interests, with tracks separated from trains, timetables misaligned and confusing incentives. Great British Railways offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch the network back together, with a single, publicly owned guiding mind with a 30-year horizon, stability in planning and clarity in purpose.

In 2023 I organised the country’s biggest campaign of its type to save the ticket office at Stourbridge Junction, alongside local rail users and Stourbridge’s favourite feline: George, the station cat. I heard at first hand how much our communities value an accessible, staffed railway. Passengers are not abstractions; they are neighbours, carers, shift workers and pensioners. They expect and deserve service, safety and support.

The Bill’s promise will be realised only by the people who deliver it: our railway workers. Our drivers, guards, signallers, engineers, station teams and cleaners are not a cost to be cut; they are an asset to be invested in. \p John Martin McDonnell: I declare an interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. There is currently no reference at all in the Bill to staffing. Who will be the staff’s employer? What will happen with their pensions? Will TUPE apply on transfer? Will their existing benefits apply? Will there be a mandate on the levels of staffing on stations and elsewhere? That is an agenda for constructive engagement with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister commits to that when he responds to the debate? \p Cat Eccles: I thank my right hon. Friend for his valuable intervention. He makes the really important point that there is currently no mention of staff in the Bill. As I have said, there will be no Great British Railways without those staff and all the protections and assurances they need.

I welcome the move to bring track and train together, but we must also bring the workforce together with clear pathways on employment, pensions and facilities, as well as a strong voice for staff and their unions in governance. When passengers say they want confidence and care on the network, they are asking for people—present, trained and empowered. Let us ensure that the transition to GBR provides clarity and security for staff, underwrites safe staffing levels on trains and at stations, and ends the false economy of fragmented outsourcing that undermines both service quality and value for money.

Let us not forget that nothing moves without logistics. Rail freight is the green backbone of that system, moving goods predictably and efficiently with about three quarters fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than road. The Bill’s statutory freight growth target is the right signal, but that signal must be backed up with a firm plan. We need safeguards so that GBR’s capacity duty does not allow passenger services to squeeze freight off the network, and that means transparency, fair charging and protection of strategic freight corridors.

To unlock genuinely transformative growth, we must match governance with infrastructure. We need targeted electrification, including infill schemes on freight critical routes, which will cut costs, carbon and journey times. In some corridors, dozens of miles of electrification have already unlocked thousands of net tonne-kilometres of cleaner freight every single day, and each additional electrically-hauled train means congestion avoided, carbon reduced and reliability improved. Put simply, the freight target and electrification must work together.

For more than three decades, the leasing model has extracted hundreds of millions from the railways in dividends and charges, which is money that could and should be reinvested in the frontline. If we believe in long-term public stewardship, we should procure rolling stock directly where it delivers better value, using public finance to reduce lifetime costs, standardise fleets and support the UK supply chain. Let us be ambitious about green technologies. Electric traction is the gold standard, and battery and hydrogen can play targeted roles. GBR should set a whole-system rolling stock strategy that is modern, modular and interoperable, as well as cleaner, so that when we renew fleets, we do so with purpose rather than with piecemeal leasing at a premium. Open access has sometimes brought welcome competition, but it has also cherry-picked the most profitable flows, complicating timetables and undermining network planning. In an integrated system, capacity should be allocated to maximise public value, not private extraction.

To conclude, this Bill is about integration, not ideology; about service, not shareholder return. Backed by a long-term strategy, safeguards for freight, a workforce treated as an asset and a modern plan for electrification, we can build a railway that is cleaner, simpler, fairer and proudly public. If we do so, we will deliver a railway for Britain that we can rely on and be proud of for the next 30 years. \p Edward Morello: I am looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee, because this Bill is a long-awaited opportunity to reshape our rail network for the better. It is an opportunity to deliver real value, reliability and affordability for passengers across the whole of the country, but especially in underserved rural communities such as West Dorset. I welcome key provisions such as the commitment to a long-term strategy, a more integrated approach to track and train, the retention of the important regulatory role of the ORR, a strong focus on accessibility and the ambition to simplify a fragmented structure that, for too long and too often, has pushed infrastructure and operations in different directions.

My constituents repeatedly tell me that they want reliability and affordability above all, which is why we also welcome the freeze in rail fares—long campaigned for by the Liberal Democrats—that was announced in the Budget. West Dorset’s rural rail network, including the Salisbury to Exeter line, is crucial for our communities, yet its infrastructure remains outdated and fragile. The recommendations of the “Connecting South West England” report are clear: electrification, upgrading single track sections and additional passing points such as the much-needed Tisbury loop would dramatically improve reliability and capacity, and reduce the delays that plague the line today. Too often, rural lines are left with old, uncomfortable and unreliable trains. \p Victoria Collins: My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for? \p Edward Morello: I agree 100%. I very much hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to improve that level of service.

End-of-the-line stopping services should not be defined by graffiti, broken heating, limited seating and high fares. What we want are modern trains with reliable wi-fi, working toilets, clear visual and audio information systems for disabled passengers, and safe, well-lit stations.

If the Bill delivers anything, I hope it will deliver the return of the buffet trolley. On rail journeys lasting over an hour, a guaranteed minimum level of food and drink provision should be a basic expectation of modern public transport. Whether it is a parent travelling with children, an older passenger managing a long trip, commuters trying to work on the move, or maybe a Member of Parliament hoping for a gin and tonic on the way home, access to refreshments is important.

I would also like the Bill to support our climate commitments. That means accelerating electrification, expanding battery and hydrogen use where appropriate, and setting clear standards for freight and passenger emissions. A long-term rail strategy must be transparent, regularly reviewed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny  and designed with future climate pressures in mind, including the modelling of environmental impacts, such as the soil moisture deficit—already mentioned—that has severely disrupted services in Dorset.

There are elements of the Bill that cause concern. Many will rightly question whether Great British Railways, as currently proposed, risks becoming a rail version of NHS England: a large, centralised body with limited agility, limited parliamentary accountability, and simply an opportunity for ministerial micromanagement. If the Secretary of State wants more power, then accountability to Parliament must increase alongside it.

Passengers deserve clear, measurable outcomes on affordability, reliability and accessibility, not vague commitments that cannot be scrutinised. We need to be able to get answers and get change for our constituents if standards fall below acceptable levels, and not have to deal with arm’s length bodies.

Passengers must be protected from excessive charges and hidden fees. The GBR app and website should never add unnecessary booking fees or administrative costs. Instead, we should push for open-source fare systems that allow passengers easily to find the best deal. Expanding discount schemes, especially for young people through “rail miles” systems, would help people travel more and reduce costs for families.

Finally, the Bill must lead to a railway where back-office systems are rationalised, data is used to improve passenger experience, and long-term planning is not sacrificed for short-term crisis management. Passengers deserve honesty about upcoming delays, clarity on long-term upgrades, and confidence that today’s problems are not simply passed on to tomorrow’s Parliament.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a railway that works: for commuters, for rural communities, for disabled passengers, for young people seeking opportunity, and for the climate. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues from across the House to strengthen the Bill in Committee and deliver a railway worthy of the people we serve. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all their hard work in getting us to this point.

I recognise the thousands of rail staff who keep our network moving every single day. Their skill, dedication and professionalism were impossible to miss during the pandemic, and once again during the recent tragedy in Huntingdon, when workers ran towards danger to protect others. If we are serious about creating a world-class rail system, then those workers must be at the centre of it.

A unified, publicly owned railway will be simpler, safer and more efficient. It will reverse the legacy of privatisation, which carved up the industry and prioritised share dividends over people and service quality. The Bill  is great, but I have some fundamental issues that need to be ironed out as the Bill makes its way through the House.

If Great British Railways is genuinely being built from dozens of separate organisations, then we need a clear description of its structure. We need clarity on who will actually employ all the people who keep our railways running.

More than 100,000 workers are employed by Network Rail and the train operating companies; tens of thousands more jobs are outsourced to security firms, cleaning contractors, catering companies and agencies supplying infrastructure labour. Many of those workers are on insecure, zero-hour terms. Altogether, well over 150,000 people form Britain’s rail workforce, yet sadly those workers cannot say who their future employer will be, what will happen to their pension, or how they might transfer into the new organisation. Although today is a great day, that uncertainty is not fair on them, and it undermines the stability and confidence that the new system needs from day one.

We need to see some detail on how workers and their unions will be given a voice. Other public transport bodies, such as Transport for London, Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, have built-in mechanisms for staff representation on their boards, but Great British Railways does not have any such route. If we want an organisation that benefits from the insights and expertise of the people who operate it, that has to be put in the Bill.

We must be honest that the pressures that fell on the workforce over 30 years of privatisation have left deep scars. We saw repeated attempts to hollow out staffing, driver-only operation, de-staffed stations, ticket office closures, aggressive outsourcing and the downgrading of essential roles. The Government’s “Getting Britain Moving” promised to turn the page, and to recognise staff as an asset, not a cost. It pledged to make GBR a single employer that people would be proud to join. That vision was right, but it cannot be delivered if we keep the workforce scattered across a maze of private providers.

If GBR is to inherit the contracts of Network Rail and the train operating companies, we should not simply carry forward decades of outsourcing. Cleaning, security, station staff, catering and maintenance are vital parts of the railway. Bringing them back in house is not radical; it is already happening across parts of Scotland and Wales, where insourcing has improved accountability and service quality. Removing the web of contracts would cut the cost of the work that was created by privatisation.

I would welcome the Secretary of State’s adopting, in a spirit of constructive partnership, the sensible and pragmatic proposals on such issues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. They would strengthen the Bill, and help to deliver the railway that we all want to see. \p Josh Babarinde: The arrival of the railway in Eastbourne in 1849 helped the seventh Duke of Devonshire to translate his plans for the town into reality. He was the architect of Eastbourne and helped build the town that became the resort that people across the country know and love—the sunniest town in the UK, with the largest marina in northern Europe.

Some may know that Eastbourne hosts one of the busiest level crossings in Europe: Hampden Park level crossing, in my home patch. Although I love my home patch to bits, the level crossing, at which the gates come down every four minutes, on average, so that trains can pass, is the bane of Hampden Parkers’ lives in so many respects—a bane that we hope will be addressed in part by the Bill. The railways made Eastbourne, but the level crossing in Hampden Park literally breaks Eastbourne. People cannot cross from one part of town to another for much of the day because of the crossing. In fact, local resident James Rea, a software engineer, has created a website specifically dedicated to the Hampden Park level crossing, arethegatesup.com, to help residents. I can see lots of hon. Members googling “arethegatesup.com” —or not listening to my speech. [Laughter.] That’s the one. We very much hope that the Bill, and the investment that it could bring to Eastbourne to address the issue with the level crossing, could preclude the need for James’s website altogether.

A slightly more serious issue is access. Hampden Park station has no step-free access from one platform to another. That affects folks who have mobility needs. Folks with buggies or luggage—not the wet weather luggage that my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) referred to, because it does not rain in Eastbourne, but the enormous parasols that people seek to take from platform one to platform two—could transport them much more easily if we had dedicated Access for All funding to invest in accessibility in our train station. The Bill does not go far enough. The passenger watchdog will be able to set certain regulations on accessibility, but there is no statutory requirement for accessibility, so the Bill needs to be strengthened in that respect.

I very much hope that the Bill will give passengers—whether commuters, tourists or others—the opportunity to have input into shaping the future of rail services. I am delighted to have led a campaign to restore the direct train from Eastbourne to London Bridge. That service launches next Monday, thanks to great folks like Christina Ewbank and Dave Cooper, the local businesses that got on board, and the many people who signed our petition. However, getting such an obvious service reinstated should not be like pulling teeth, so I hope that the Minister will ensure that the likes of Eastbourne can get back on track by giving people the opportunity to have input into the future of rail across the country. \p Julia Buckley: I am surely the luckiest MP in this House, as I represent the charming, thriving border town of Shrewsbury. We are in a strategic location: we serve as a hub for Shropshire, we are on the edge of the industrial west midlands and we are the gateway to Wales. Our railway is a major transit point for Welsh services operated by Transport for Wales. With 2.2 million passengers, I am told that we are the second busiest station in Wales. There is also much latent demand for more services.

However, under privatisation, we have been on the edge of other people’s maps for too long. We are the last stop on the west midlands line, and the last major station from Wales. It has held back our investment and limited our inter-city services, such as the much missed  direct train to London. While our railway station is a beautiful grade II listed building, with a fabulous team of staff, led by the wonderful, long-serving manager Shelley Hall, we need our station to be more than a museum piece. In order to increase services, we must first have our master plan for bringing together infrastructure upgrades.

The Railways Bill provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Shrewsbury station to fulfil its true potential under Great British Railways. We have such latent demand for additional services that when TFW upgraded our service to Birmingham to four carriages—it used to have two carriages, and 81 people standing—ticket sales went up by 18% overnight. Imagine how many more tickets we could sell to passengers at Shrewsbury when a nationalised service joins up routes and opens up opportunities for my residents. We may have 2.2 million passengers at Shrewsbury, but I am keen to support a new breed: the wannabe passengers, who want to make the modal shift away from cars and on to our rail network, and who need to travel for work, study or leisure, but for whom there are no seats or services yet. They need earlier, later and more frequent trains.

In Shropshire, we still dream of that direct train to London, which would reconnect us to the capital. Research shows that it would add £9 million a year to our local economy. It is not just me who thinks that rail investment in Shrewsbury could unlock bountiful economic growth. I was delighted yesterday to see the report published by Midlands Connect for DFT entitled “Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury: a corridor for growth”, showing that connectivity between the two centres will boost regional economy, benefit productivity and support employment sectors. This corridor supports major employers, such as the i54 enterprise zone, the Battlefield enterprise park and Shrewsbury business park, as well as future developments in Shifnal and Telford. Those sites alone support more than 4,000 jobs and require improved access to rail, bus and active travel infrastructure.

Enhancing that transport corridor will also deliver benefits for Wales because of the cross-border gateway and the freight connections between our two nations, and growth in this area aligns with priorities over the border. In the Budget, the Chancellor committed £445 million in investment over the next 10 years specifically to support transport infrastructure in Wales, highlighting the importance of major investment in cross-border rail activity. As the major border rail hub between an already nationalised Transport for Wales and a soon to be nationalised West Midlands Railway, Shrewsbury offers to be the strategic link that ensures the success of GBR. Only when our regions and devolved nations can co-deliver two nationalised rail systems seamlessly for passengers at hubs like mine will we have succeeded.

The Great British Railways Bill was written to improve services in places like Shrewsbury, and Shrewsbury has been waiting for Great British Railways—not least my wannabe passengers, who are still hoping that it will unlock employment and economic opportunity for them. Shrewsbury will become the beating heart of our reinvigorated railway. \p Monica Harding: The experience of my constituents in Esher and Walton, served by South Western Railway—the first of the train  operators to be taken into public ownership—is not that nationalisation guarantees a better experience. This autumn feels as bad as the last. I feel it on my way—or not—into this place, and I have a sack load of constituent complaints about delays and cancellations.

At Esher station, 30% of trains were delayed last month. Only yesterday, a constituent told me that he was forced to spent £60 on taxis and two hours of extra childcare because of a train cancellation—something that is too frequently experienced by us in Esher and Walton. School children are missing hours of school because their trains are consistently delayed and they miss their connections. On 16, 17, 20 and 23 October, and on 7, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 24 November, the trains were delayed and 278 students were affected. I understand the under-investment, the lack of accountability and, frankly, the shameful mess that the Conservative Government left this Government to sort out, but I urge the Minister to go further and faster on reform to ensure that the Bill is not a continuation of this disappointment.

Today, on Second Reading, I wish to make the case for Hersham station, which is long overdue for improvement and another shameful example of the neglect of our railways and lack of accountability. Hersham sits on the south-west main line in my constituency, which contributes more to the Exchequer than any other outside London. People are using the station every day, commuting into London and creating the growth that our country needs. Despite being used over 600,000 times a year, Hersham station is an eyesore, ramshackle and rundown. There is nothing at the station that tells these communities to go and get growth as part of a national mission. There is nothing to suggest any ambition as a country, or that we are on the sharp end of innovation and technology, efficiency and delivery. The only message they get from the station is that the Government and train operator have neither the desire nor ambition to get them to work on time.

At Hersham, the stairs up to the platform are crumbling—visible holes expose the long drops below—and they shake underfoot. Needless to say, there is no step-free access. The roof is exposed corrugated iron. Both platforms were built in the 1960s, using materials meant for temporary use. When groups of schoolchildren step off the train and walk down the platform, shaking can be felt underfoot. Last year, someone put their foot straight through the platform, and it took the managing director of South Western Railway coming down to get the hole fixed. Should I give up hope on a complete refurbishment of the station for my constituents in Hersham, who have put up with this for too long?

Clauses 46 and 47 give us, for the first time in decades, a national centralised mechanism through which we can say, “This is not good enough, and it must be fixed.” However, the clauses do not go far enough. For decades, oversight was provided by the design panel of the British Railways Board; the Government used that to raise the standard of design across the British nationalised railway system from the 1950s. That system disappeared with privatisation. Since then, station design has been neglected, and passengers have paid the price in exactly the kind of decay that we see at Hersham station.

I would like to see clause 46 strengthened by amendments, so that minimum station standards must explicitly include design quality, accessibility, durability and engagement with the community. There must also be clear time limits for fixing safety and accessibility-related defects. I ask the Minister to look at the matter carefully, and to provide the funding, resource and ambition to give Hersham station what it so desperately needs. \p Grahame Morris: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I am delighted in particular to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). I will make some similar points, which I hope the Minister will address either in his closing speech or perhaps in Committee.

I am delighted that this Labour Government have placed the transformation of our railways, bringing track and train back together, at the forefront of their agenda for change. I will mention four points: workforce; rolling stock leasing companies; rail freight; and track capacity.

On the workforce, as colleagues have said, our railway workers are the backbone of the industry. They drive the trains, maintain the tracks and keep the stations and carriages clean. Some 150,000 rail workers keep the network running smoothly and safely every single day. Will my hon. Friend the Minister provide greater clarity on the intended structure of GBR and shed some light on why the Bill makes no reference to the employment of rail staff? That is causing great uncertainty among the workforce.

I refer to concerns raised by the Public and Commercial Services Union regarding 225 of its members at the Department for Transport, who are due to be transferred to the subsidiary company DFT Operator Ltd by 31 March 2026—coincidentally, the target date for departmental headcount reductions. In addition to the risk of job losses and the consequential loss of experience and expertise, which could hamper delivery of the rail reforms, those staff will lose their civil service status and may well face poorer terms and conditions. The funding arrangements for the new company are still unclear.

The transfer appears to run counter to Labour’s commitment to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. Insourcing, ensuring that workers are kept in-house and cutting out private sector profiteering is a great aim, and the Bill is a step towards that. I would like to see the Government look more closely in the Bill at how we can entirely cut out profiteering from the railways and at how we can procure our own rolling stock, making changes to end excessive profiteering by ROSCOs.

It would really be sensible for GBR to establish its own rolling stock company, ordering and owning its own rolling stock, taking advantage of low Government borrowing rates. That is what we should be striving for. In the short term, the RMT is calling for a profits levy on the ROSCOs. A 50% levy on pre-tax profits would raise £116 million a year in funds that could be used for much needed upgrades.

I want to highlight the enormous opportunity in rail freight, which often gets overlooked, particularly in my constituency at the port of Seaham, which is ideally placed to seek efficient, reliable routes to move goods in and out of the region. We have only one freight train a week coming in to Seaham. I therefore welcome that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a target for rail freight growth and place duties on GBR, Ministers and the ORR to promote it. A single dedicated rail freight business unit operating within GBR and working with rail freight businesses would, however, be an even more effective driver of long-term growth, integrated with, rather than competing with, the passenger railway. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine the benefits of such an approach. \p David Chadwick: Let me be clear from the outset that the Bill fails Wales. Last year, Wales voted decisively for change, and this is just another example of how that change will not be coming. The Bill fails my constituents, who rely on some of the most neglected rail lines anywhere in the United Kingdom.

For years, the people I represent have endured cancellations, painfully slow journeys, ageing trains and stations that would embarrass any modern transport system. The Marches line still runs on signalling technology that belongs in a museum. The Heart of Wales line—a lifeline for rural communities—has been crying out for meaningful investment for over a decade. What does the Bill do to fix any of that? Nothing. Instead, it centralises even more power here in Whitehall and offers Wales nothing more than a pat on the head and the promise of consultation. Consultation is what Wales has had plenty of for the last 30 years and look where it has got us.

Yet the real injustice is this: Scotland gets real power over its railways and Wales gets nothing. No power of direction, no power over infrastructure, no power over funding and not even a guarantee that Welsh needs will be taken seriously. This Government have gone out of their way to give Scotland the meaningful authority and yet Wales, a nation with its own Parliament and its own transport strategy, is told to make do with a memorandum of understanding—a document with no legal force, no accountability and no guarantee of action.

That inequality has real-world consequences. Independent experts told the Transport Committee that England will receive tens of billions in rail investment over the next decade, while Wales will receive only a few hundred million. That is a gap so vast that it can only be described as systemic neglect. Indeed, just this week, analysis by the Welsh Liberal Democrats showed that Wales is set to lose another £1 billion after Northern Powerhouse Rail was wrongly classified as an England and Wales project. That brings the total lost for Wales through that accounting trick to around £6 billion, while Scotland and Northern Ireland receive their fair share. Meanwhile, the Government expect Wales to be grateful for £445 million over 10 years. It does not take a maths genius to see that those of us in Wales are being short changed.

My constituents see the results every day: rural stations left behind, limited services, long commutes and opportunities missed. The rail network in Wales is not second-class by accident but is second-class by design, and the Bill entrenches that design. It hands the UK  Secretary of State even more control over decisions that directly affect Wales, with no matching powers for Welsh Ministers to shape the services that our communities rely on.

Let me say this plainly. A modern railway for Wales cannot be built on scraps of power handed down from Westminster. Wales needs the same powers that Scotland already has, Wales needs fairness, not favours, and Wales needs the tools to build a railway network worthy of our own people. Wales deserves better than this Bill and as Welsh Liberal Democrats, we will not accept anything less than equality for our nation. \p Baggy Shanker: I refer the House to my interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rail.

Rail is in Derby’s DNA. For decades, it has powered our community, moulded our economy and inspired generations of engineers and designers. I see the proof of that week in, week out, whether when meeting fantastic apprentices at Alstom, celebrating Railway 200 by bringing an incredible 40,000 people together in Derby for The Greatest Gathering or hearing how organisations such as Angel Trains, Loram, Porterbrook and many more drive forward innovation right across the sector from Derby.

As a proud Derby MP, I welcome the Bill. At its heart, it stands up Great British Rail and at the heart of Great British Rail is Derby. I was proud to campaign alongside so many others in our city who made the case for Derby to become GBR’s home. I am proud now to work alongside a Government that are committed to delivering GBR in Derby.

Despite our city’s proud rail heritage, manufacturing credentials and exciting future at the heart of UK rail, people travelling by train in Derby face the same challenges as any other commuters up and down the country. They know the frustration of paying through the nose for a train ticket only to find out that their train has been delayed or, even worse, cancelled. They navigate through confusing, fragmented ticketing systems, trying to work out if splitting a ticket will save them extra money or just end up causing havoc. I am pleased that through the Bill, our Labour Government are clearly saying that that is simply not good enough. GBR will put passengers first, whether that is through a new robust passenger watchdog with real standards and teeth or through simplifying and modernising fares with a common-sense, consistent approach.

I also strongly welcome the Bill’s requirement for the Transport Secretary to publish a long-term rail strategy. This will be good for the sector and especially good for Derby because, for far too long, rail has been in a feast and famine cycle, with boom and bust orders, factories standing idle and workers and their families left in limbo. Derby knows this story all too well, unfortunately. In recent years, we have had to fight for the future of Alstom, pulling together across our city and standing shoulder to shoulder with our fantastic trade unions to protect skilled jobs, but this uncertainty is no way to run an industry that thousands of jobs depend upon. We need stability, we need certainty and we need a long-term plan, and that is exactly what this strategy will provide, supporting our rail supply chain, protecting  the thousands of jobs that depend on it and giving businesses the confidence to invest in the future. When Britain backs rail, Britain backs Derby and Derby delivers for Britain. \p Rebecca Smith: Great Western Railway fares are 2.2 times higher than those of European operators for similar lengths. Rail users in my constituency will be all too familiar with this reality, regularly paying more than £100 for a return ticket to London. Since the Labour Government came into power, we have seen the power of the unions once again, with eye-watering salary increases but no expectations to improve productivity. This means that on the line down to Devon, contracts were not changed when salaries were increased. This would have cleared up the mess that is the lack of seven-day-a-week contracts. Try travelling to Westminster on a Sunday! The creation of Great British Railways is being held up as a panacea to any such issues with our railway. Having served the last year or so on the Transport Committee, where we have been tracking the progress of these plans, I remain unconvinced by the Bill.

I gave my maiden speech during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, the mechanism through which the renationalisation of the railway was enabled. What I said then about that Bill remains true as we debate this one. I said that it was

“a Bill that seems to indicate ideological time travel back to the nationalised railway system of the past and a mistaken belief that state-run institutions are the answer to all our woes. Our railway system needs to drive forward into the middle of the 21st century, not creep backwards to the 1970s.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 237.]

As a child of the ’80s, I remember the old British Rail. Aside from the excitement of travelling on a 125 between Plymouth and my grandparents in Somerset, I do not recall it being any better than the privatised system we have today.

In the development of Great British Railways, the Government must work with industry. There are real concerns that without a strong independent rail regulator, this Bill will squeeze out private investment. Great British Railways will become the second biggest employer in the country—hardly an agile organisation—and it will be calling the shots. As a result, the state-owned operator will be chosen over private sector rivals. The Office of Rail and Road will see its power significantly altered, and some might even say reduced, by this Bill. It is arguable that it will lose its teeth. I would simply urge the Government to keep passengers front and centre of the Bill, but I am not sure that the quango regulator that they are setting up will be in passengers’ best interests.

Private investment extends to rail freight, which is competing not only with state owned operators but with road haulage. The Rail Freight Group warns that the Bill risks driving the sector into decline, costing the UK economy up to £ 2.5 billion and adding 7 million additional HGV movements to the UK road network. While the Government have committed to introducing a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, supported by an overall growth target, I would  be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the duty will operate in practice and how it will ensure that GBR does not give preferential treatment to state-owned operators. Where the Bill places freight in the hierarchy of railway line use is critical, but it is not yet explicit on that, which is concerning. \p Graham Stuart: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is concerned, as I am, about how Ministers will square their responsibility to the trade unions—who, of course, fund the Labour party —with the producer interest, and whether she has any reflections on their past failure to get that balance right. \p Rebecca Smith: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is that the very good conditions that private companies have been forced into by trade unions will end up TUPE-ed across to these state employees and, ultimately, the best conditions will be the ones that get delivered to the most, all in that huge new employer.

Many Members from across the House have highlighted the importance of connecting underserved areas, and nowhere in the country is that case more powerfully made than in the south-west. Before closing, I would like to highlight to the Minister two examples affecting my constituency. Both featured in my maiden speech, so I know he is familiar with them. I will continue to champion them, as well as the need to secure the railway line at Dawlish.

Many CrossCountry trains currently pass through Ivybridge station without stopping, because the platform is too short. That forces local people to travel by bus or car to Plymouth, Totnes or Tiverton, making rail travel far less convenient. I have secured with local stakeholders the funding for a feasibility study for the extension. That modest project would make a huge difference to our community and I hope it will not be hindered by the Bill.

I am also committed to securing a Plymouth metro, including plans for a station in Plympton in my constituency. Plympton’s 30,000 residents have been without a station for more than 60 years, and it would be transformative for that part of my patch. Both Plympton and Ivybridge have many residents working at Devonport naval base and at the growing defence hubs in Turnchapel and Langage. The Government have promised billions of pounds to the city as part of a defence deal, but if that deal does not include funding for transport, what is the point? I urge the Government to ensure a joined-up approach in delivering the railway that the city and surrounding communities need to deliver on the defence role that the Government want.

I support the efforts to improve our railways and to bring ticket prices down, but a simple return to a nationalised British Rail is not the answer. As Conservatives, we understand the importance of retaining a strong role for the public sector through open access, protecting rail freight, improving efficiency and providing— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Many colleagues have been waiting for a while to speak. To enable me to get every colleague in, I need to drop the speaking limit to three minutes and encourage Members not to take interventions. The next person to speak will be Dr Scott Arthur with three minutes. \p Scott Arthur: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a wonderful surprise.

I am a huge fan of rail. Every week I travel to this place via rail, and on my usual train, I am able to get to London in just four hours and 20 minutes. Since I came to the Chamber today, I have had an email from LNER saying that that time will be decreased by 10 minutes, so already this Bill is delivering for people in my constituency. The journey is only slightly longer than the equivalent flight, though it uses 14 times less carbon dioxide and is 100 times more relaxing. Most of the time, the journey runs smoothly—LNER is publicly owned—but like everyone here and across the UK, I am familiar with the delays and cancellations that regularly disrupt our wider railway. That is why I welcome the reforms that the Railways Bill brings. It is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get our railway system back on track.

The creation of Great British Railways will put passengers before profits, simplify ticket purchasing and improve passenger accessibility across the network—something we have heard about already. The Bill also respects and preserves the devolution agreements concerning rail, giving Scottish Ministers the power of guidance and direction over GBR and ensuring that those changes directly benefit my constituents and the Scottish rail sector more widely. Importantly, the Bill will trigger the integration of track and train provision across the UK. That integration has been operating in Scotland for some years and does, for the most part, work well.

It is true that there are some points of concern around provision in Scotland, including regular cancellations and delays, but by and large the system works well. I have to say that the reason that rail is in public ownership in Scotland is due to years of campaigning by both the Labour party and our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. The relationship between Network Rail and ScotRail is one area where GBR could take note. It is an effective and joined-up relationship between track and train operators, and will be vital to a successful national rail service.

I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a basis for Scottish and UK Ministers to work together and provide efficient cross-border services, and I look forward to seeing the memorandum of understanding, which will lay out exactly how that relationship will work. I look forward to supporting the Bill. I must say, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have asked for a lot of local improvements to be delivered via this Bill, yet they do not intend to support the Bill itself. They cannot have their cake and eat it. \p Nusrat Ghani: Talking of cake, I call Dr Ben Spencer. \p Ben Spencer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My mission for my constituents is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Supporting and improving our train services is a vital part of delivering that.

On the changes that the Bill delivers for people across my constituency, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I will give an example of how much this means to them. Salesian school in my constituency takes in  many children from the local and surrounding areas. They use the Chertsey to Addlestone branch line, which is one of South Western Railway’s worst-performing lines. As a result, they are very often late to school, and the school has to allocate teachers to the platforms for safety purposes, because the platforms become crowded when there are delays. That has serious material impacts on those children’s education. I am sure that that experience is replicated for schools across the local area.

The Chertsey-Addlestone loop is punished by level crossings, including in Addlestone and Egham. The Pooley Green level crossing has had downtimes of over 10 minutes, including just a couple of months ago. Constituents tell me that they do not go to the fish and chip shop and other businesses on the other side of the level crossing because of those downtimes. Whatever happens with the Bill, it is absolutely critical that there are improvements to the level crossings at Egham, Addlestone and across my constituency, so that we have data, such as from downtime monitors, to see the impact that the problem has on traffic.

We need timetabling that changes not in a click of the fingers but with proper consultation with residents about what is happening. That would mean proper train services for the children going to school in my constituency and the people who depend on commuting to get to work and to see their families. It would end the last-minute train cancellations that have seemed to be more frequent in the past few months. As a regular South Western Railways user—I live in Chertsey in my constituency—I see the impact that that is having on my constituents.

We also need improvements to accessibility. It is completely scandalous that the lift at Weybridge station is still out of service. Accessibility problems are not limited to lifts; they also affect stations themselves. Services need to be responsive to the needs of my constituents, but passengers are too often punished when engineering works take place on our tracks, causing traffic carnage for the weekend. Engineering works must be co-ordinated with local roads. \p Peter Swallow: I am delighted to speak today in this debate. I hope that the Bill marks the start of a new era for our rail system.

Bracknell’s rail links are its lifeblood, connecting us to jobs, friends, family and opportunities through lines to London and Reading, as well as to Gatwick airport from Crowthorne and Sandhurst. That is why I am so delighted that South Western Railway has now been brought back into public ownership, with Great Western Railway services to follow shortly. The renationalisation of our rail services will create more opportunities for growth, more opportunities for investment, and a rail service for the public good.

First, the Chancellor froze rail fares in the Budget, which means my constituents will save almost £300 on the cost of a season ticket into London, and now we are laying the foundations for a new, modern and joined-up railway system, owned by the public and run for the public. The new GBR livery revealed today, which proudly incorporates our Union flag in its design, is, I think, a powerful symbol of the national pride that we should feel in our railways, but which has, for many years, been undermined by high prices and low reliability.

Bracknell is already seeing the benefits of renationalisation, including the ongoing upgrade of the fleet on the Reading to Waterloo line. The new Arterio trains will provide 50% increased capacity compared with the outdated class 455 fleet, and will offer accessible toilets, air conditioning, charging points at every seat, real-time information screens, on-board wi-fi and walk-through carriages, meaning that more people can travel in better conditions every day. These trains were first purchased back in 2017 at a cost of £1 billion but have been stuck in the sidings. What greater symbol can there be for the failure of privatisation than that? I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me recently and for all his work to roll out this new stock.

I am also delighted that the Bill makes provision for GBR to take control of the timetable, as the current system has led to some inexplicable gaps in service. As the SWR timetable stands, after 9 pm there is only one service an hour from Bracknell to Reading. Trains from Reading to Bracknell are also reduced to an hourly service after 10 pm. Needless to say, that has a significant impact on the ability of Bracknell Forest residents to travel for work and leisure. Again, I call for that to be addressed.

The north downs line is deeply unreliable, and I know that Members across the House are concerned about the need to electrify it. The Minister knows that I care passionately about a rail connection to Heathrow airport as well, which is vital, and I know he cares passionately about delivering that along with private sector investment. On that, I will— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Liz Jarvis: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I am proud to represent a railway town. Eastleigh has a long railway heritage. However, over the past year, my constituents have been subjected to lots of delays and cancellations, all while paying a premium for the privilege of travelling by train.

I agree that the current structure of the rail industry is too fragmented and in need of reform. A long-term strategy, clearer accountability and a coherent approach to infrastructure and operations are well overdue. However, one of the biggest tests of this Bill is whether it will improve services and increase accessibility and safety. I campaigned successfully to keep ticket offices at our local stations in Eastleigh open, because for many passengers, including disabled people, older travellers, the vulnerable and those with visual impairments, staffed stations are essential. Accessibility must be built into the system from the start, to ensure that people can travel with confidence. We need proper staffing arrangements, clear information, reliable lifts, step-free access and a design approach that works for all passengers, not just the most agile or those most familiar with the system.

Integrating rail infrastructure and operations under one public body is not inherently controversial. However, what the Government have designed here looks more like a top-down body answerable to Ministers, rather than a modern, customer-focused railway. We have seen what over-centralisation looks like in practice, and it rarely leads to better outcomes for passengers. How will  the Minister ensure that Great British Railways is genuinely accountable to passengers, not just to central Government? To address the concerns of passengers, we need a much stronger and genuinely independent passenger voice in the system. People need to know there is someone who will stand up for them when services fall short.

I also hope the Minister will look at expanding discount schemes for young people. My constituency is lucky to have two fantastic colleges that draw students from across the region, with many travelling to Eastleigh by train. Keeping travel affordable is essential to allow them to access their education without the cost of the journey becoming an obstacle.

Eastleigh deserves a railway that is reliable, affordable and fit for the future. This Bill contains some welcome measures, but it needs to go further to bring about the transformation of Britain’s railways that our country needs and passengers deserve. \p Perran Moon: The desperately poor condition of our railway system is entirely symbolic of the wider decline in public services over the past 14 years. I regularly make the 10-hour round trip up to London from west Cornwall on trains that are often beset with delays, and a lack of water or heating. My constituents know and feel this all too well. Our one main railway line runs the length of Cornwall, from Penzance to cross the Tamar bridge at Saltash. It is a vital transport artery, connecting south-west England with Cornwall. As with many other pressures faced by remote coastal and rural communities, there are unique difficulties. Fewer trains stop at Hayle, for example, and bus services are generally suspended there at about 6 pm, cutting off communities to the west. To illustrate that point, due to a fault with the signalling system today, all trains from Penzance were cancelled.

Great Western Railway is currently operated by FirstGroup, but under this Labour Government’s rail reform programme, it will be brought back into public ownership and integrated into Great British Railways next year. This transition will ensure that decisions about Cornwall’s rail services are made in the public interest, not for private profit, and that passengers will see improvements in reliability, affordability and accountability. We need a railway that is better governed, and locally attuned and responsive to the people who depend on it, supporting growth in every region.

The revival of the railway system must be innovative and practical. I saw a great example of innovation a few weeks ago, when I attended the launch of a superfast wi-fi pilot on a GWR train. Advanced engineering and connectivity solutions, combined with leadership from transport authorities, will deliver a new benchmark and support a long-standing ambition to bring faster, more resilient wi-fi connectivity to Cornwall and south-west England.

In 2021, under the previous Government, a plan was published that included a recommendation for a new public body and a long-term strategy for rail, but the Conservatives failed to implement it. This Bill will remove friction and bureaucracy, which are endemic in the current system. We have an opportunity to sweep away duplication of roles and departments to produce substantial savings and a smooth service. We can free  up resources, trusting rail staff to build a better system than the current bureaucratic, bloated and top-heavy organisational ecosystem, riddled with institutional incompetence.

This Labour Government will bring clarity where there was confusion, reliability where there was disruption, and affordability where costs were sky high. I very much look forward to supporting the Bill. \p Siân Berry: The Green party welcomes the Bill. It is right in principle to end the failed, long experiment in surrendering public services to the private market.

We are pleased to see an extended role for the passenger watchdog set out in the Bill, and clear requirements for business plans and strategies to be published and consulted upon. I want the measures in the Bill to include deep scrutiny of those plans and strategies. Passengers, rail workers and locally elected representatives must use their voices to have more control over what Great British Railways offers, both in advance and during the development of these plans and strategies.

I am pleased that the duties laid out for Great British Railways include consideration for “potential passengers”. That will help to better include many people when they use the railways, such as disabled people, people with buggies, older people, people for whom toilet access is more than crucial and others for whom accessibility barriers are still too high on our railways. This and the public interest duty should help to create social benefits for people for whom the cost of rail travel is prohibitive, including young people, who need more connectivity and access to jobs and training.

However, the Bill still lacks on its face a specific duty to grow passenger numbers. We have an integrated transport strategy on the way, but the Bill contains a mode shift target for freight without including one for passengers. The Bill needs to say more about the need to plan for new capacity and services on the basis of creating maximum potential to reduce car dependency, to shift people away from the most polluting and socially unequal modes of transport, not just to respond to current demand or congestion on the railways.

Public ownership is popular with the vast majority of people. Before the last election, it was even backed by 60% of those who intended to vote Conservative. It is a strong desire for people in Brighton Pavilion, for whom the legacy of privatisation is too often one of expensive and unreliable services, with big gaps in accessibility. I believe strongly that local voices, such as those in Brighton, must be more in control of our public services. We need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services.

During the passage of the previous rail Bill, I argued that there should be public ownership of rolling stock companies. I understand that decisions are being made for future rolling stock not to be purchased through the evil twin of the private finance initiative. However, the fact remains that the current rolling stock is a scandal. Rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs—paid £275 million in dividends to shareholders in 2024-25, and those payments are up by 59% in five years. That is outrageous profiteering and a drain on public finances,  so I urge the Government to cut that waste, find ways to bring our rolling stock into public hands and look at a windfall tax on the current ROSCOs to address this injustice. \p Daniel Francis: I draw attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I rise to support the measures in the Railways Bill. I know that the measures will be supported by my constituents, who predominantly travel from the four train stations of Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Slade Green and Crayford, which are all located in my constituency. Three of those stations are solely served by Southeastern, with the benefits of nationalisation beginning to be seen on the service. For instance, in a new timetable that will take effect next week, the Bexleyheath line will see both additional evening services and increased capacity to Victoria at weekends. I appreciate that more remains to be done, and I will continue to campaign for improvements.

I have a long-standing interest in these matters, having served for four years as a member of the board of London TravelWatch—or, as it is technically known as and referred to in the Bill, the London Transport Users Committee. That experience lives with me, and it is the reason why I support the Bill. On far too many occasions at board meetings, I heard excuses from train operating companies and Network Rail blaming each other for issues relating to punctuality. That led to the lunacy of hundreds of staff being employed to establish who should cover the cost of delays.

Earlier this year, we saw the Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route unite under a single leadership team to form South Eastern Railway. The partnership is delivering improvements, with increased customer satisfaction and reduced cancellations. Initiatives include shared planning, daytime track access without service disruption, and trials of drone and AI technology.

I welcome the measures included in the Bill to help ensure that the railway is made more accessible for all. Hon. Members will have heard my tales of my experience using public transport as the parent of a wheelchair user and my requests for the introduction of a National Rail accessibility app. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State has named accessibility as one of the six key objectives for the railway.

Having one national operator, rather than competing operators, will improve the assistance offered and the simplification of ticketing for disabled passengers. Importantly, paragraph 49 in schedule 3 to the Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that the public sector equality duty applies to GBR. I welcome the Government’s road map to an accessible railway based around seven priority themes.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of an expanded passenger watchdog, having served on the board of London TravelWatch and having worked alongside Transport Focus on some aspects of joint working during that time. Those changes in London to the London Transport Users Committee include the expansion of the current role for my constituents, which will see a

“particular regard to the interests and needs”

of disabled people.

For the reasons I have outlined, I look forward to voting against the amendment this evening and voting in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. \p Ann Davies: Getting to grips with the railways by simplifying and integrating aspects such as freight, passenger services, ticketing and long-term planning is welcome. This Bill makes great sense for England. However, it does not work for Wales.

Currently, two Governments on either side of the M4 control different parts of what should be a single unified train and rail network in Wales. This bizarre split makes designing railways in the best interests of the people of Wales almost impossible. We can see that in the broken promise by Whitehall to fully electrify the south Wales mainline beyond Cardiff, or even to start work on the equivalent line in the north. This overlooking of Wales will only continue, as under the Bill Welsh Ministers can only request that Wales is consulted in long-term rail planning as part of an England and Wales strategy. The people of Wales do not want consultation; we deserve control.

Wales’s lack of control means that funding decisions from Westminster are made at our expense—an injustice that this Bill is silent on. With Welsh control over the rail track, Whitehall could no longer continue its perverse logic of designating English rail projects, such as HS2, Oxford-Cambridge Rail and now Northern Powerhouse Rail, as “England and Wales projects”. When combined, they deny £6 billion of funding to Wales. The absurdity of the situation would be laughable if it was not so serious. Not one of those projects has an inch of track in Wales.

While in opposition, the Secretary of State for Wales previously called for Wales to receive £4.6 billion in HS2 funding. She has U-turned on that and now celebrates only £350 million, which was announced at the spending review for Welsh rail over the next few years—just 5% of what we as a country are owed. While the money is welcome, it does not touch the sides when it comes to the decades and decades of underfunding that we have experienced.

It saddens me to say that this Government have decided to follow an age-old adage: “For Wales, just see England.” We are the only nation in Great Britain who do not have full control over our own rail network. Only last week, 11 Welsh Labour Members of the Senedd wrote a letter to the Prime Minister saying that expectations were raised by the Labour party in opposition that it would support the devolution of rail to Wales. Plaid Cymru is clear that Welsh rail should be in Welsh hands, and that it is time to devolve it to Wales. \p Alex Ballinger: In our part of the country, in Halesowen and the Black Country, we have a long history of building trains and railways. Indeed, in Stourbridge—just one stop down the line—Foster, Rastrick & Co. built the Stourbridge Lion, the very first steam locomotive to be exported to the Americas in 1829.

However, since the closure of passenger services at Halesowen train station in 1927, my constituents have had to travel to Cradley Heath, Old Hill or Rowley Regis to get on to the Birmingham-Worcester line that runs through Snow Hill. Sadly, the performance of that line is very poor—only 70% of West Midlands trains are on time, and 7% of them are cancelled. This means that my constituents are getting earlier trains so that  they can ensure they catch their connection and get to their meetings on time. Frustratingly, that train route no longer goes into Birmingham New Street, so if my constituents need to travel to other parts of the country and make connections elsewhere, they have to walk for 10 minutes through the middle of Birmingham, from Moor Street to New Street.

In that context, I welcome the Bill, which puts Great British Railways on a statutory footing as the guiding mind of the system, giving us a single body that will be responsible for managing infrastructure, planning services and overseeing passenger operations. I also welcome the fact that franchising was abolished in November and that West Midlands trains will be brought back into public ownership in February 2026. Public ownership of Great British Railways gives us a chance to simplify objectives: run the trains on time, with enough seats and at a fair price.

I also want to highlight the midlands rail hub, which is a programme of improvements that will deliver real benefits for the people of Halesowen. Midlands Connect estimates that the scheme will deliver 300 extra trains a day in and out of Birmingham, with 20 million extra seats a year, providing many shorter and faster journeys on the Birmingham-Worcester line that my constituency runs on. It will mean more trains from Kidderminster and Worcester running through Stourbridge and past Rowley and Cradley Heath to Birmingham; more capacity at Moor Street, easing the pressure that ripples back down the line; and an opportunity for trains to run direct from my constituency into Birmingham New Street, so that people will be able to make their onward journeys up into the rest of the country.

The Black Country helped give our country and the world the railways, and my constituents are not asking for anything extravagant in return. They want a service that runs on time, with enough carriages, under a system in which someone is clearly in charge and accountable. They want the benefits of the midlands rail hub and rail nationalisation to deliver fewer cancellations, shorter journey times and a decent chance of getting a seat. If we get this right, not only will we honour our railways’ past, but we will finally give our constituents the modern railway they deserve. \p Gideon Amos: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with the things I welcome in the Bill and in what the Government are doing on railways. After increasing rail fares by almost 5% last year, it is very welcome that the Government have frozen fares—something that Liberal Democrats have been asking for for seven years. That is really positive, as is the Government’s investment in the new station at Wellington in my constituency—they deserve credit for that investment. It is important that the DFT is involved in that project, and I might write to the Minister after this debate to pursue this issue, because it is one of only a small number of new stations being built in the country, and it is really important that the project is seen through. There needs to be a recognition that the year of delay has increased costs.

I also want to say some words about the importance of open access rail providers. I am concerned about the provisions in the Bill that potentially make open access  a lot more difficult. Go-op rail wants to open a route from Taunton through to Wiltshire, which would be very important. We also want to see opportunities for future investment in railways, including reopening lines. There is a heritage line from Taunton to Minehead that should ultimately be provided with a proper rail service. If it were, the West Somerset Railway would become an open access railway on the same line.

What is important to most of my constituents is not just seeing a new station like Wellington, but seeing a reduction in fares and an improvement in reliability. The number of services from Taunton has recently been cut in half, which means that people cannot get on the trains. What is needed is the form of investment that I have described, and moving the rail institutions over from the private to the public sector will not necessarily deliver the improvements that we need. I therefore remain to be convinced about the Bill. \p Mary Foy: I am pleased to speak about a matter that is so important to my constituents. For too long, our railway has been held back by fragmentation, competing interests, and a lack of clear accountability. By bringing services back into public hands and creating Great British Railways, the Bill gives us the opportunity to plan, run and improve the railway as a single coherent system. For my constituents, a key priority is reliability. People want trains that turn up when they are meant to, connections that they can trust, and information on which they can rely. A unified, public operator, with responsibility for timetabling, infrastructure and service delivery, gives us the best chance of reducing disruption and building a network that works consistently, day in and day out.

A strengthened public railway also depends on the people who operate it. The workforce is essential to improving reliability and delivering a better experience to passengers. Staff deserve clarity about how, and if, the transition to GBR will affect their jobs. If we want a well-run railway, we must support the people who maintain the tracks, staff the stations and run the trains. I ask Ministers to continue the constructive dialogue with trade unions, in order to ensure that the employment conditions of their members are protected during the creation of GBR and into the future.

The need for a more co-ordinated railway has been brought into sharp focus in Durham recently. London North Eastern Railway’s proposed timetable changes would have removed important morning commuter services on which many local residents rely. I worked closely with local people to challenge those plans, and I welcome the progress that has been made, but the experience showed how vulnerable local connectivity can be when decisions are made in isolation, or via flawed consultation processes. Communities must have certainty that key links will be protected, strengthened, and not placed at risk.

The Bill gives us a chance to build a railway that is more reliable, better connected, and more focused on meeting public need. I support it strongly, and I look forward to working with Ministers to ensure that, as it progresses, it delivers the improvements that passengers in Durham expect, and the support that rail workers deserve—including my niece Kate, who has just started  her training with Northern Rail. I look forward to her getting me to King’s Cross and back to Durham on time, and safely, in the future. \p Alex Mayer: This summer, when I was travelling by train to a bus conference, I managed to lose my bag. I did what everyone in that circumstance would do and panicked slightly, because my purse and my keys were in it, along with my House of Commons pass. I thought, “Who on earth do I contact?”, because I was not entirely sure where I had left it. Had I left it on the train? Had I perhaps left it at the station when I was changing trains—and, indeed, which train might I have left it on?

All the station staff were very helpful. They all pointed me to different online forms, and I have to say that my faith in humanity was absolutely restored about two weeks later, when everything was found, all of it still in the bag. I received an email saying “Come and collect it.” I paid my ten quid and got it back. Then, about three weeks later, I received another email, this time from Transport for London—which I had also contacted—telling me that unfortunately my bag had not been found, and they had finished the search for it. That, I think, is just one illustration of the fact that we have a completely un-joined-up railway. I was struck by the five mentions of competition in the Bill and the absence of any mention of standardisation, which is what I think our passengers are really after.

I have a couple of other points on which the Minister might be able to provide a bit of commentary. As mentioned by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), clause 18 lacks a target for passenger growth. Although that might be missing, I very much welcome the inclusion of the phrase “potential users”, which feels very much like the idea of “prospective” passengers that I tried to get into the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill but did not.

I really welcome the five-year stability for infrastructure funding, but could we extend that to operations? I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on whether schedule 2 will allow Ministers to cut funding mid-period too easily. On devolution, I hope we will soon get guidance on how mayoral combined strategic authorities will be able to get the necessary powers. How will they get a devolved railway? There are many references in the Bill to mayoral strategic authorities, but perhaps the wording should sometimes be “mayor”, because it is important that we actually consult the democratically elected person. Finally, on data being open by default, will the Minister assure us that all ticket sellers will get exactly the same data that GBR gets? All in all, this is a fantastic Bill, so we are all on track—full steam ahead. \p Christopher Bloore: I must declare an interest: I have been a railway geek since childhood, travelling up and down the country, and I am a member of my local rail user group. I personally kept both Hornby and Bachmann train models alive for several years, and I now torment my son by taking him on the Severn valley railway far more than he would prefer. I also declare my membership of the ASLEF parliamentary  group, and I am a regular commuter who did not recognise the railway utopia described by the shadow Minister.

Those interests, both personal and formal, only strengthen my belief that the Bill marks an important moment for our railway network and for the people who rely on a fit-for-purpose service. For too long, passengers have lived with the consequences of a fragmented railway system divided among multiple operators, with split responsibilities, inconsistent priorities and a lack of clear accountability. The result has been a network that too often fails to meet the needs of commuters in Redditch, who just last week faced every service being cancelled on the morning because of poor weather.

The Bill brings together track and train—Network Rail and the passenger operators—under one coherent structure. This is the most significant structural reform of our railways in a generation, and it restores the principle that the railway should operate as a single integrated system. Passengers understand this, and those who work on the railway understand it. Organisations such as my local railway user group and ASLEF have long campaigned for an integrated national system, and consistently argued that our railways simply work better when the parts work together.

The Bill delivers simplicity. Today’s railway involves a bewildering array of actors—there are 17 different organisations with overlapping responsibilities. This structure does not serve passengers, freight customers or the taxpayer. Great British Railways will bring clarity. There will be a single guiding mind, a single organisation responsible for the railway’s performance, and a single body accountable to Parliament and the public. That alone will improve the experience of millions of travellers.

The broad implications of the Bill are clear. It introduces long-term planning, strengthens freight, modernises ticketing systems and ensures that the railway is accountable to the public it serves. Too often, my constituents in Redditch have suffered from cancellations and poor service. On top of the investment in the midlands rail hub and the freezing of fares, the Bill lays the foundations for an integrated railway that works for passengers and the staff who keep the system running every day. It is an important and necessary step towards building a railway worthy of the future of this country. \p Jayne Kirkham: The Government are simplifying a very complex system, so that we can take forward a railway that is fit for the future, and I really welcome the measures on timetabling, tickets and the merging of the 17 bodies. I also welcome the 30-year long-term rail strategy, which is a fantastic idea.

Rail is so vital in Cornwall, but the main line is slow and badly designed—sorry, Brunel, but it goes to the wrong places and is very poorly defended. We do, though, have successful and busy branch lines in St Ives and Falmouth, and we would like more of them. We have just had a pilot of wi-fi on trains. We may have very slow trains, but we would like very fast wi-fi. If that could be rolled out across the south-west, it would really help us on those 10-hour return journeys.

The staff, who are fantastic, will probably have a single employer, but it would be good to have that confirmed. There is also insourcing rather contracting out, particularly on cleaning and food—and my goodness, do I make a plea for the return of the buffet, so that we do not just have the trolley that goes up and down, but which people can never get to.

I want to focus most of my speech on how much I welcome the duty to promote the role of rail freight and set a growth target for rail freight. I want to set out a huge opportunity for the Minister and the Department for Transport. In Falmouth, we have a beautiful multi-use port; uses involve defence, repair crews, I hope floating offshore wind in the future, and exports. We also have the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in Cornwall, with a £50 million strategy from this Government. That will lead to a great requirement for freight transport, but each train would take 129 lorries off our narrow Cornish roads. We have the full support of our businesses, chamber of commerce and council, and we have an enterprise zone. As a next step, we need a feasibility study, but for a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, we could open up the 150 yards to Falmouth docks for rail freight. That would be a step for the future; critical minerals could come into or leave Cornwall, and we could grow our economy, as we would love to. \p Marie Tidball: One of the most special moments of my first year as an MP was singing ABBA on the Penistone line train with the wonderful We Can Survive Singers, while travelling through my beautiful constituency. This line is the spine connecting south and west Yorkshire, running between Huddersfield and Sheffield. It courses through eight constituencies, serves over half a million people, and connects six hospitals, four universities, several further education colleges, and hundreds of schools and GP surgeries. It laces together communities with rich histories, vibrant high streets and industry with huge potential.

When I was growing up, our south Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ broken promises resulted in an unacceptable north-south transport divide. On the day that the previous Conservative Government announced that the money for Network North was going to be spent on potholes in London, three out of the six Penistone line services were cancelled. What about Reform? The Reform Members have not even bothered to turn up to this debate. They do not care about rail, but this Government do.

I am thoroughly delighted to support this Bill to take back control through Great British Railways, to deliver improvements for customers, and to take long-term decisions in the national interest. Those at the Penistone Line Partnership are brilliant advocates for our local line, and their voices will be strengthened by the Bill’s introduction of a new passenger watchdog, which will set tough standards.

This Labour Government’s Bill—along with the work of our Labour mayor, Oliver Coppard, and local councils —provides the opportunity to restore the transport network, so that it is once again the envy of the world, including by delivering phases 1 and 2 of the Penistone  line upgrades. Our Labour Government have already begun to power that change with our £48 million investment in phase 1, and phase 2 is much needed.

We must go further and fulfil the recommendation of Lord Blunkett’s Yorkshire plan for rail, which includes delivering two trains an hour. South and west Yorkshire deserve better than the once-an-hour service we currently have on this line. It is crucial that the second stage is covered in the next spending review to ensure that my constituents in Dodworth, Silkstone Common, Penistone, Chapeltown and all the places in between can get to college, university, hospital and employment. My constituency helped to build the prosperity of this great nation, and it needs this line’s second upgrade to ensure that it is once more the beating heart of rail. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Dave Robertson: After years of falling standards under the Conservatives, this Labour Government are investing in our railways. Anyone who commutes from Lichfield to London, as I do every week, will have seen for themselves how sorely needed that is. We have all had trains cancelled and re-routed, and been crammed in with standing room only. The Bill, creating Great British Railways, is the biggest overhaul to our rail system in a generation. GBR will run our trains, set the timetable, and control the track, stations and depots. It is about putting our railways back squarely in taxpayers’ hands—a public service under public control.

GBR will be a step change compared to some of the difficulties that my constituents, in places such as Fradley, Handsacre and especially Streethay, have had with HS2—years of delay and disruption under the last Government. This Government are putting new management in place at HS2 to sort it out and I know my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be holding them to account, just as she will be holding GBR to account. It is really important that we get this right, because the failings of HS2 Ltd have been so significant for so long. Continuing with the way that the previous Government ran our railways is clearly not the way forward, especially when we look ahead and at the wonderful project that is the midlands rail hub.

GBR will give taxpayers control over the railways and projects such as the rail hub by investing record sums in upgrading the network. That project, almost £1 billion, will mean that the clogged Birmingham New Street will have its capacity significantly increased, allowing 300 more trains to run through the city each day. It will unlock huge increases in the number of services across the midlands and beyond. This is amazing news for people in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, especially those who use the cross city line, which links Lichfield to Birmingham and is the busiest commuter line outside London. Since covid, we have had only two trains an hour. The midlands rail hub will help us get that back to the four we need.

Beyond that, Labour believes in our railways, publicly owned and run for people, not profit. No longer should shareholders benefit while passengers suffer poor service. I really want to see every single pound from tickets reinvested in great services and further expanding our rail network.

In my area, the next stage of rebuilding our railways really does need to be getting a passenger service back on the line from Lichfield to Burton and Derby, and a new station at Alrewas for the National Memorial Arboretum. The arboretum is our national centre for remembrance, but public transport links to it are extremely limited. Opening that line up and reinvesting what we can from a publicly owned railway service will connect people to jobs and take pressure off our roads. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has heard me make the case BEFORE and she will hear it again. I will keep pushing the business case for that line under a new publicly owned railway service. \p Laurence Turner: And now we turn, at last, to a fundamental question which has perhaps gone unasked in this House for too long: what is the mass and acceleration of an average-sized peacock? The question does not spring from the pages of a script for “The Goon Show” or “Monty Python”. It is a real case that came before the rail industry’s Delay Attribution Board.

A delay caused by a collision between a train and a small bird is the responsibility of a private operator, which pays the cost of compensation, but if the unfortunate bird is deemed to be large, then taxpayers are on the hook. And so it came to be that one day expensive lawyers gathered to compare calculations and precedent, and argue out whether the unfortunate peacock was more akin to a goose than a duck. Few incidents better illustrate the costly absurdities of rail privatisation.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that the cost of privatisation is borne by all taxpayers, whether they use the railway or not. The railways received nearly £700 million in subsidy in 1990-91. By 2018-19, before the pandemic impaired the industry’s finances, the net subsidy requirement had increased to £4.3 billion—an increase after inflation of some 236%; more than doubling, even after passenger journey increases had been accounted for. To this day, subsidy is lower in Northern Ireland, where the railways remained in public hands.

Everywhere, the railway’s contingent parts are divided and separated by contractual barriers. For passengers, that can mean station staff who cannot even board a train to help someone with mobility issues, because they work for different companies. There is a multiplicity of such unnecessary contractual barriers, and public money and public confidence drains through each one.

We should not expect a complete change of services on day one of operations under GBR, as there was not on the Attlee Government’s vesting day for nationalisation in 1948, but change over time it will, and for the better, including for my constituents who travel from Longbridge, Northfield and Kings Norton. The Bill is the instrument of that transformation.

Tonight’s vote is on the principle of establishing Great British Railways. In the weeks ahead, there will be time for detailed line-by-line scrutiny, to which I look forward to contributing, including through the Transport Committee. But for tonight, I just want to say that there can be no doubt that this is the right policy and the right Bill. It has been a privilege to have had the occasional view of the development of this area of transport policy down the years. I look forward to voting for it tonight. \p Jacob Collier: As we mark 200 years of our railways, it is fitting that we are embarking on a new chapter in their history. They continue to be an integral part of the story of Britain, as I am reminded every time I visit London St Pancras, which helped Burton upon Trent to become a brewing powerhouse. Below platform, passengers walk where Burton beer barrels were once stacked high—a reminder of the importance of our railways in shaping the very fabric of Britain, and of course supplying punters with the very best beer.

Great British Railways will be the new guiding mind of our railways, joining up operations and putting passengers at the heart of the rail service. Particularly important is the Bill’s focus on disabled people, who must currently navigate a network of inaccessible stations and who constantly worry about whether accessibility services will be in place. Our railways are and must be for all.

My constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter borders what will be the new home of GBR, Derby. Putting aside our rivalries for a second, that will bring benefits to my area and the wider region, and build on 185 years of rail expertise. The long-term rail strategy will be the first of its kind in setting out strategic objectives over the next 30 years. Just as in defence, we are creating an always-on supply chain. I welcome that long-term approach, which means we can bring security to rail workers and prevent the cliff edge that has affected workers in Derby and Newton Aycliffe. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) would like to see the return of the InterCity swallow livery, but delivering improved passenger services must be the priority; that is what this Government will be judged on.

The Select Committee has heard concerns about rail freight, which have been addressed today, particularly in relation to clause 63. We also heard concerns about the operator appeal process as set out in clause 68, which is equivalent to a judicial review; some of the evidence we heard suggests that that is a very high threshold.

The Railways Bill is exactly the change that my Burton and Uttoxeter constituents want to see. With public ownership, we are taking a long-term approach to the railways, with investment through GBR putting passengers and railway workers back at the heart of their railway. In 2027, CrossCountry and East Midlands Railway will come into public ownership, and it will not be long until the people of Burton and Uttoxeter will see the benefit of a publicly owned railway. Right now, the reality is that people face unaffordable tickets, unreliable or cancelled services, inaccessible stations and overcrowded carriages. For many of my constituents, those are barriers to railway travel. The Bill is about changing that. It is how we keep the promise we made in the election to get our railways back on track. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Jerome Mayhew: This has been a very popular debate with a lot of contributions; I congratulate all those who managed to  make their points in just three minutes. I will do my best to summarise the debate, starting by noting the excellent contributions from Opposition Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) brilliantly managed to discuss a Railways Bill by referring to ferries, but he did make the serious point that we want pragmatism, not ideology, to reform the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) made the good point that, through nationalisation, the taxpayer now has to replace private investment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made three important points: that the reforms simply advance the sprawling centralisation of powers; that, again, they involve practicality giving way to ideology; and that their drafting puts open access concessions at risk.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who is a member of the Transport Committee, was concerned that this was ideological time travel that takes us back to the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that, post nationalisation, cancellations of South Western trains had increased on his Chertsey-Addlestone loop.

There were also many thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Democrats. It is telling that the Government’s insistence on nationalisation as the only answer has united the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is worth noting that we have heard nothing from Members of the fag packet party, who, I think, still support nationalisation. Then again, however, they would not recognise a transport policy if it slapped them in the face.

Then there was Labour, with speech after speech welcoming the nationalisation of the railways—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Bring it on. In speech after speech, they showed deep suspicion of the profit motive. The tone was set by the Transport Secretary, who said that the current system benefits companies over passenger services—as though the two things are mutually exclusive—and taken up by the hon. Members for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), with claims of profit prioritised over customer experience, large-scale profiteering on the railways and dividends prioritised over people. I could go on.

This is the authentic voice of Labour: the private sector is not good—not good in the way that the state is good. The private sector invests to make a return, not to create unionised jobs. It innovates to make a return, not to satisfy a Government productivity goal. It innovates to beat the competition and make a return, not to satisfy a ministerial target. However, it does invest, it does innovate and it does improve to compete. Nevertheless, Labour clings on to its ideological faith in the efficiency of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary—and there is evidence. After all, we have tried this experiment before. \p Laurence Turner: When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes,  will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again? \p Jerome Mayhew: Let us wait to see if Labour actually nationalises it first; but the Conservatives are here to lead, not to follow.

There is plenty of evidence because we have tried the nationalisation experiment before. The railways were nationalised in 1948. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they might learn something. When the railways were nationalised in 1948, there were a billion passenger journeys a year. Thereafter, the impact of nationalisation was immediate: year after year, fewer customers chose to use the trains; year after year, they voted with their feet because the service did not give them what they wanted and was not focused on them and their needs. There was low investment because the railways were competing with schools and hospitals, followed by poor industrial relations with an organisation more focused on itself than its customers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), says from a sedentary position that it was because there were more cars—let us just hold that in our minds.

By the 1990s, just 735 million passenger journeys were taking place a year, instead of a billion. In 1993, the system was privatised by the Conservative Government. The unions hated it, and Labour therefore hated it, too. However, every year, more and more passengers were attracted to use the trains—not just a few more, but vastly more. By 2019, 1.75 billion people were using the railways each year—and there were many more cars. Labour cannot explain it; it should not have happened, but it did.

If the purpose of the railway is to carry passengers, any rational observer must conclude that privatisation beat nationalisation hands down. Why? Profit is made only by attracting customers. Train operating companies focused on new and more trains, more services, innovative ticketing and customer service, and people voted with their feet.

The railways are a complex system where capacity is limited and costs are high. It is absolutely crucial to drive efficiency, maximise the scarce resources of track access and drive value for money with dynamic management. Can hon. Members think of a nationalised organisation that is a byword for management dynamism and efficiency anywhere, in any country at any time? I cannot either. If poor railway management is the problem, nationalisation cannot be the solution. Why is it that socialists and the fag packet party are such bad learners? \p Graham Stuart: The Minister responding to this debate represents Selby. One of the great successes of the open system has been Hull Trains, which provides a fantastic service from Hull, through Selby, down to London, and then back again. Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that open services such as Hull Trains will be crushed by Great British Railways and the Minister, despite whatever he may say? \p Jerome Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is right. If Members read the Bill properly, they will see that it spells the death knell for open access.

It is true that the last few years have exposed serious weaknesses in the train franchise model. The separation of track and train created perverse incentives—I accept that. Too often a lack of effective competitive tension allowed there to be poor services. Changes to the DFT contract meant that franchises were encouraged to overbid, leaving them financially vulnerable to any downturn. This Bill was the golden opportunity to address those issues, but the Government have messed it up. Instead of keeping the best and fixing the rest, we have a damaging return to 1970s state control, with 1970s industrial action likely to follow.

The Government are already finding out that money does not grow on trees, that merely saying that they are in favour of growth does not make it happen, and that funds from hard-pressed taxpayers are not limitless. Their plan replaces private investment with taxpayers’ money, drawn away from schools and hospitals and Labour’s ever-growing welfare bill. Their plan replaces railway management teams with civil servants, increasingly micromanaging operations, who will have powers to direct GBR across all its functions.

Then there is that trademark socialist arrogance: gone is the independent economic regulator, for the gentleman from Whitehall knows best. GBR will mark its own homework, save for a toothless passenger council that has no enforcement powers. It will not just mark its own homework but decide whether to allow any competition against itself. It will decide how much to charge its competitors, limited only by how much it thinks they will be able to pay. GBR, on the other hand, will pay no charge at all. The right of appeal is not to be allowed on the merits of a decision, only on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

The Bill marks the end of competition on the GBR rail network, and it is such a shame. This could have been transformational. It could have solved the tensions between the operation of track and train. It could have refined concession and franchised contracts, removing the micromanagement of DFT officials. It could have solved the stop-start funding approach by National Rail and its dysfunctional control periods. It could have focused relentlessly on benefits to passengers and the taxpayer.

Instead, we are seeing a Government floundering at 14% in the polls, whose Back Benchers are in open revolt against their own leader, and whose union paymaster, Unite, is discussing disaffiliation in the press. This is a Government desperate to shore up their fading support. They are sacrificing the future of our railways on the altar of left-wing ideology. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members demonising profit as a motive for economic activity. Do they have any idea how the productive economy works? Ideology before practicality, state direction before dynamic management, and union demands before passenger demand—no, no, no.

I ask colleagues to support the reasoned amendment in my name and help put this bad Bill in the bin. \p Keir Mather: May I begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate? My response is centred on a strong belief that if somebody takes the time to say what they think about our railway, for whom it should  be run and in whose interests, they should be listened to, because it is going to make clear whose side they are really on. This Government’s loyalties are clear. We are proud to be creating through this Bill a united Great British railway run for and by the British people. Our ambitions are clear for all to see. We want to end the miserable era of Tory disruption and delay and make travelling on our railway simpler and fairer.

What reactions have we produced? What passions have we stirred? Many colleagues across the Chamber have spoken in support of the Bill’s provisions but asked meaningful and searching questions that it is our responsibility to answer. \p Wendy Morton: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors? \p Keir Mather: I carefully noted what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I will come to accountability, and if she thinks that I do not cover her point, she is welcome to come in again.

I will start with accessibility, which 11 hon. Members across the House raised, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. The Bill sets out a passenger and accessibility duty, ensuring that GBR promotes the interests of passengers, including in particular the needs of disabled persons. I have heard the calls from colleagues across the House about the importance of the Access for All scheme. In our published accessibility road map, we commit to continuing that programme; work has already been completed to roll out step-free routes to 270 stations so far.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) raised the important matter of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand the passenger experience through its research and investigation functions as well as its access to complaints and performance data. It will use that to advocate for passengers, set tough consumer standards for the railway and advise the Government and GBR.

Many hon. Members pointed to the critical importance of freight to UK growth. The Government are committed to supporting rail freight growth across the United Kingdom. Freight operators will benefit from a legal duty for GBR to promote freight. The sector will also be championed within GBR by a representative on its board with responsibility for freight. There is also a requirement for the Government to set a rail freight growth target for GBR, so insinuations and accusations from the Conservatives that freight does not sit at the heart of what GBR is designed to do are flatly wrong.

With Christmas coming, I am afraid that I need to turn to my naughty list. The Conservatives have painted a dystopian picture this afternoon: they have told us to  imagine a railway where the needs of the passenger come last; one that is plagued by disruption and poor management, strikes and shutdowns. My answer could not be clearer: the British public do not need to imagine a rail service on its knees, because for 14 years they have been living with one.

Let me turn to the points raised by Opposition Members. First, on cost, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked whether we need to reduce the subsidy. Absolutely we do; hon. Members will not hear me say anything else. The way to do that is to ensure that somebody is finally in charge of running our railways in a cohesive and united nature, saving the £150 million that the public pay to private operators every single year. The cost of establishing GBR will account for just 1% to 2% of the operating budget for a single year. That, alongside the Government’s other rail reforms, could unlock up to £1 billion in efficiencies by the end of the decade, alongside the £600 million in savings for passengers in the fare freeze that is being introduced next year for the first time in 30 years.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the important point of open access services, and a Back-Bench contribution noted that I get Hull Trains every single week to Selby. I know how important open access is, and I want to reassure the House that it will have a role as part of the establishment of GBR. The Government are not opposed to open access, and the idea that GBR is bad for open access is simply false. We believe that, under the right circumstances, GBR can in fact create more opportunity for all towns and all operators by reviewing the network holistically with a view to how it might work better under our new, reformed system with open access playing its part. \p Graham Stuart: I am sure that Hull Trains will be grateful for the passionate way in which the Minister made its case. Would he be open to amendments to the Bill that would look again at that balance? As the Bill is currently drafted, it looks as if GBR can just squeeze out the open operators—it has all the power and they have none. \p Keir Mather: The right hon. Member and I have a philosophical difference on the question of track access. It is critical, if we are establishing Great British Railways to manage access, that it has the full ability to do so. It will be regulated by the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that its access decisions are fair, but the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to make sure that open access can continue and continues to provide incredibly important support to communities such as mine.

I turn back to the point about accountability, which is incredibly important, to set out some of the ORR’s functions and to tackle some of the disinformation coming from Opposition Members. The ORR will continue to be the sector regulator and the Bill will enhance its monitoring role. It provides independent advice to the Secretary of State, it will enforce GBR’s licence, its industry obligations and its minimum standards, and it will work with the passenger watchdog to make sure that passengers are once again at the heart of our railways. The ORR’s accountability function is hardwired into the Bill. \p Wendy Morton: To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways? \p Keir Mather: I have no doubt whatsoever that the right hon. Lady is perfectly capable of holding her elected mayor to account on rail infrastructure within her constituency, but she will also be able to do so through the passenger watchdog.

Time is short and I must address the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. It claims the Bill does not grow rail freight when in fact it contains two specific duties that require GBR to do so. It fails to engage with the reality that the Bill places the ORR at the centre of GBR’s functioning and allows open access to continue to play a vital role on our railway. The amendment is, frankly, as intellectually stunted as it is ideologically blinkered, and I urge Members across the House to reject it.

I am disappointed to say that we have received the news throughout this debate that the Conservative party will vote against Great British Railways and say no to its only chance to right the wrongs that it has committed. Let me therefore spell out to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that if they decide not to vote for the Bill tonight, they will be working against the interests of passengers across the country and their right to have the railway that they deserve. The Conservatives and their former coalition partners will have to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they want to continue the insanity, bureaucracy and waste of 17 different organisations running our railway instead of one united service; why they want to deny passengers a one-stop-shop app with timetables, tickets and accessibility support literally in the palm of their hand; and why they want to waste the opportunity of changing ticketing to take advantage of the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years. \p Siân Berry: To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers? \p Keir Mather: That is critical. GBR will be set up as an organisation to facilitate as many people as possible to use our railway. Wanting to grow passenger numbers is inherent in what we are doing, but we do not want to do that in a way that overly congests the railway and is not strategic. That is something we will work on. Parties will also have to explain why they want to waste the opportunity to take this reform forward.

In sum, I ask everyone in this House to support the Bill, to seize the opportunities and to show the public whose side they are really on. This Government know who the Bill is for and who we are for: we are for passengers and not profit; we are for the commuters, the football fans, the hen parties, the grandparents and the rail enthusiasts; we are for everyone who gives our great British railway its distinctly British personality. If Members across the Chamber want to join us in that mission, I look forward to seeing them in the Aye Lobby tonight. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 332.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 173.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Railways Bill: \p UNKNOWN: (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 February 2026.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. \p UNKNOWN: (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading. \p UNKNOWN: (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State to Great British Railways,

(b) any other expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or by a government department, and

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of Secretary Heidi Alexander relating to Railways Bill: Carry-over.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Railways Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will bundle motions 6 and 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft International Development Association (Twenty-First Replenishment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 11 September, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 1199), dated 17 November 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p Robert Jenrick: I rise to present a petition on behalf of almost 15,000 members of the public from the borough of Rushcliffe, much of which falls in my Newark constituency. The petition declares that

“the people of Rushcliffe strongly oppose a forced reorganisation of local government which would merge their community into a new authority combining Rushcliffe Borough Council with Nottingham City Council.”

The parts of Rushcliffe that I represent are rural areas, made up of market towns, villages and hamlets, and it would be patently absurd for them to be merged with the urban Nottingham city council. These areas have been well served by Rushcliffe borough council for generations, while Nottingham city council has been a catalogue of financial disasters for as long as I can remember. My constituents do not deserve that fate.

The petitioners therefore request that

“the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposal for the Rushcliffe Borough Council area to be merged with the Nottingham City Council area, and to retain the borough of Rushcliffe within the county of Nottinghamshire.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the Rushcliffe area,

Declares that the people of Rushcliffe strongly oppose a forced reorganisation of local government which would merge their community into a new authority combining Rushcliffe Borough Council with Nottingham City Council.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposal for the Rushcliffe Borough Council area to be merged with the Nottingham City Council area, and to retain the borough of Rushcliffe within the county of Nottinghamshire.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003143] \p Rebecca Paul: I am pleased to present a petition on pornography on behalf of my Reigate constituents. Pornography has never been more accessible than it is today, and it is fuelling an epidemic of violence against women and girls. It is vital that action is taken to protect both those viewing this material and those individuals featured in pornographic content.

The petitioners therefore request that

“the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Reigate,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003144] \p Joani Reid: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). It is a petition calling for stronger action on online pornography, which fuels violence against women and girls. As we approach the end of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, we are reminded of just how pervasive online pornography is, and how it is shaping attitudes towards women and girls. Its production relies on coercion, and violent portrayals of women are treated as routine. This normalisation is fuelling misogyny and contributing to a culture in which sexual violence against women and girls is minimised.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003145] \p Calum Miller: I am proud to present this petition from my constituents who care deeply about protecting our natural environment, and especially the River Cherwell, from criminal pollution from the enormous dump of illegal waste close to Kidlington. I thank all those who signed the petition, and those who collected signatures from more than 950 people. Billy Burnell, Anthony and Emma Henman, Laura Reineke and Vanessa Langton—who are here in the Gallery tonight—represent the anglers, farmers, environmentalists and residents who signed the petition.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to press the Government to direct the Environment Agency to clear the illegal waste at this site urgently and prevent waste”—

further waste—

“from entering the River Cherwell.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Bicester and Woodstock,

Declares that the discovery of one of the largest illegal waste dumps in the UK on land near Kidlington, located metres from the River Cherwell and on a known floodplain, has caused deep concern; further declares that rising river levels pose an imminent risk of contaminated waste entering the river and surrounding soil, and that there is also a risk of fire at a site adjacent to the A34; further declares that the cost should not be met through council tax.

The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to press the Government to direct the Environment Agency to clear the illegal waste at this site urgently and prevent waste from entering the River Cherwell.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003146] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Rupert Lowe: The scale of illegal immigration and its impact on our country is simply not understood in this Parliament, and nor do most Members even care. British people are genuinely scared—women are frightened to go into their towns alone, and parents are terrified to let their children walk to school. It is getting worse and worse. The British people are not stupid; they can see their communities radically changing, and they can feel their streets becoming more unfamiliar, more dangerous and more menacing, all while the Home Office deliberately conceals the true extent of the change from our citizens.

I am contacted by dozens and dozens of women who genuinely fear for their lives and who feel ignored by this place—ignored by those who are supposed to represent and protect them; ignored and abandoned; thrown to the wolves in pursuit of some sick multicultural experiment that is being forced on our people, one that has very real-world consequences.

What happened just yesterday? Two Afghan illegal migrants were jailed for raping a schoolgirl. The footage exists—she filmed herself during the rape. Even the men’s barrister warned that it would lead to “disorder” if it was released, as it was so horrific. “You’re going to rape me”, the girl cried as she was dragged away. She screamed for help and begged not to be taken. One of the migrants gagged her with his hand. The Afghan men forced her to perform sex acts in a secluded area. She is heard screaming for help; she calls for her friends; she wants to go home. She is pleading for help from passers-by—none came. Can you imagine her horror, her fear and her desperation? Think if it was your daughter. How would that make you feel? Honestly, think about that. \p Carla Lockhart: The hon. Member is giving a very powerful introduction to his speech. He and I share profound concerns about the scale of illegal migration to the UK, and the ability of those migrants to arrive here and then disappear. For me, the most disturbing aspect of the case that he has mentioned, which was reported yesterday, is the fact that we are being gaslit by the media. Those two Afghani boat arrivals were described as being from Leamington—they are not from Leamington. Does the hon. Member agree that women and girls are less safe in this United Kingdom now, today, than they were five years ago, for this reason? \p Rupert Lowe: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I completely agree with what she has said.

The girl was then pushed to her knees before being brutally raped. Another—one of too many.

Last year, a 35-year-old old Iranian small-boat migrant raped a 15-year-old girl in an alleyway. He was known to police in Germany, where he had been convicted of assault offences. He told the girl she could be his “sex doll”, and that he wanted to—I quote— “fuck her”, before dragging her down an alleyway, forcing her to her knees outside a secluded doorway, and then  raping her. The poor girl’s anguished mother later asked, “Why was he in this country?” It is a question that millions and millions of British people are asking. Why are they here?

These are unimaginable horrors, but they are happening, right across our country, every day, brutally and relentlessly. This House may not like to hear this, but it must listen; it must understand; it must digest. This is a political choice, and it is one that this Parliament has made. These are men who should never have been in our country to begin with. They should have been detained, and they should have been deported, indiscriminately and without question. They were not: they were housed, fed and cared for at taxpayer expense. They were released on to our streets and allowed to roam freely—thousands and thousands of them, unvetted foreign men from barbaric cultures that have no place in our communities. Words cannot adequately describe my disgust at what has been forced on to the British people.

Since being elected, I have used what little influence I hold to try and uncover the impact of these migrants and just how severely the British people are suffering because of it. I have asked more than 600 questions of the Home Office, but I receive very few answers, particularly when the question is regarding illegal migrants. “No data”, “not centrally collected” and “disproportionate costs” are often cited. I thought that perhaps it was incompetence, but evidence has come to my attention that proves the Home Office has been misleading MPs. On 20 January, I asked the Home Office

“what information the Department holds on the number of irregular migrants defined as absconders.” \p John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I did give him notice that I was going to intervene. It is inconceivable, is it not, that Home Office Ministers would not know the answer to that question? When I was a Home Office Minister, I would ask my officials for exactly that kind of information. It is not just that the hon. Gentleman did not know; it seems that Ministers did not either. I cannot believe that. It is inconceivable. \p Rupert Lowe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has illustrated with the story that he has related, and by citing the evidential base, how bad things are. Data from the Home Office—I checked this before the debate—shows that, as of October 2025, 53,298 migrants had breached their immigration bail or absconded from detention, which means that their whereabouts were unknown. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this only adds to the stress in our communities, including that caused to the health and housing systems, and that more must be done to find those who have illegally breached immigration bail and deport them to their countries of origin? \p Rupert Lowe: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will come to that point in a minute, but I completely concur.

To recap, I asked the Home Office

“what information the Department holds on the number of irregular migrants defined as absconders.”

A Minister replied:

“The requested data is not readily accessible from published statistics, and could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at a disproportionate cost.”

That was not true.

On 3 September, I asked the Home Secretary

“what estimate she has made of the number of foreign nationals who have absconded after being served with a deportation order.”

The answer, from a different Minister, was:

“The Home Office does not hold any central record of the requested information.”

That was not true.

On 24 November, I questioned the Home Office permanent secretary in the Public Accounts Committee on the number of illegal migrants who have absconded from Home Office accommodation in the past five years. I got no concise answer.

During all this, a Home Office whistleblower presented themselves with these figures, in black and white, regularly disseminated within the Home Office. The actual data is as follows: there are 736 foreign criminals in the total absconder pool for foreign national offenders. That is 736 foreign criminals who have been released from prison and then absconded before deportation. Please think about that: 736 criminals—rapists, murderers, paedophiles. They were meant for deportation but have escaped into the community—736 of them. It is a terrifying thought.

Overall, the total absconder pool stands at 53,298, largely referring to the number of illegal migrants who were once in the system and whose current whereabouts is unknown. \p Alex Easton: Given that 53,000 illegal immigrants have absconded with no address, and 736 who have committed crimes have absconded, does the hon. Member agree that this Government have lost control of their borders and their immigration policies, and they have lost all credibility when it comes to immigration issues? \p Rupert Lowe: I do agree with the hon. Member’s helpful intervention. Unvetted and unknown men—sex pests, misogynists, and even far worse—are in our communities, on our streets and near our schools, in the thousands and thousands. This is a national security emergency and must be treated as such.

The evidence is undeniable. I have seen it in Home Office documents. It exists. It is real. The figures were not even disputed by the Home Office; they simply told The Daily Telegraph:

“The Home Office has refused to confirm whether the figures are accurate, saying it does not comment on speculation.”

This is not speculation. This is cold, hard data. The numbers demonstrate quite spectacularly how the Home Office has failed to keep the British people safe. It is an outrageous scandal that this information has been deliberately hidden from the British people. We deserve to know the facts. We deserve to know what is being forced on to our communities. The answer is staggering: 736 foreign criminals gone, disappeared; and 53,298 illegal migrants gone, disappeared. My questions— \p Mike Kane: There will be 18 of them. \p Rupert Lowe: My questions are these. Where are they now? What is the Minister doing to detain them? Where did they come from? What are their convictions? How has this been allowed to happen? \p Mike Kane: That was No. 5. \p Rupert Lowe: I can count, thank you. Why did the Minister mislead the British people? Who is being sacked? \p Alan Gemmell: Is that allowed? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We do not need commentary from a sedentary position. I remind Mr Lowe that we do not accuse other Members of misleading the House, so please refrain from using such terms and please check your language. \p Rupert Lowe: Will the Minister now commit to publishing these figures on a regular and transparent basis, or will I have to continue exposing this? Further whistleblowers have already come forward with additional information, and I thank them for that. My warning to the Home Office and to other Departments is this: be very careful about any further misleading statements. There are many decent people in the civil service who will not tolerate it, and I want them all to know that they have a safe and secure channel to release this information publicly through me. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this festering, rotting mess desperately needs to be disinfected. \p Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend write to the Procedure Committee with his file on this case? The Procedure Committee is at the moment inquiring into the quality of answers to written questions, and is very concerned about the lack of quality. I am also concerned about receiving answers, in my case from the Treasury recently, that suggest there was an attempt to deliberately mislead, which has been exposed only as a result of supplementary answers. \p Rupert Lowe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will indeed write to the Committee.

I have one final question for the Minister: what else is the Home Office lying about? \p Hon. Members:: No, no! \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Lowe, have you finished? \p Rupert Lowe: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Lowe, we spoke about this earlier. We do not accuse each other of misleading and we do not accuse each other of lying. There are different ways of framing such questions— \p Alan Gemmell: You have a responsibility to be an adult! \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. If I needed the hon. Member’s help, I would have asked for it.

Mr Lowe, this is a very serious subject. We have to make sure that our language is appropriate and serious. I will now call the Minister, and no doubt you will want to intervene on him, but please keep your language in check. \p Mike Tapp: I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to him and all other hon. Members who have participated. As we have heard, this an important issue for the Government, the public and the Home Office, which does not lie. A lot of ground has been covered, and several claims and criticisms have been aired about how this Government are tackling illegal migration, many of which I would contest or flatly reject, as I do the apocalyptic picture that he paints of our great country. He can continue to talk it down, but it will not gain him any more votes.

I will respond to this issue in more detail shortly, but before that, I must do two things. The first is to state without hesitation or equivocation that this Government are utterly determined to tackle the scourge of illegal migration. Anyone who comes to this country illegally or remains here illegally should not expect to stay. In cases of an individual with no right to be in the UK absconding or disappearing, efforts are made to trace them and bring them back into contact with the Department. As the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, the ability of the state to determine who can come to this country and who must leave is an essential part of any functioning immigration system.

Public safety is paramount, and the hon. Member mentions some disturbing recent events, but we will do everything in our power to protect our citizens, our communities and our country. It has been a top priority to fix the mess that we inherited, and our efforts are having an impact. Removals of those with no right to be here have increased dramatically. Almost 50,000 people have been returned since July 2024. That is up 23%—a record increase. Deportations of foreign criminals have also increased significantly in the last year, with over 5,430 foreign national offenders having been returned as of the end of October 2025. That is an increase of 12% on the previous year.

I must stress that the mess we inherited is not fixed in a week, a month or a year. We inherited open borders. We inherited hotels full, costing taxpayers £9 million a day. In the Home Office, we inherited a system that had ground to a halt. Processing has now increased by 50%. That demonstrates very clearly that we are making progress, and that Britain will not be a soft touch for illegal migration. We have ramped up enforcement activity, whether against the criminal gangs, illegal journeys or illegal working here at home. In the past year, enforcement action to disrupt illegal working across all sectors reached record-breaking levels; there were over 11,000 visits and 8,000 arrests. That is up 51% and 63% respectively—the highest levels that this country has ever seen. On top of that, people-smuggling arrests, convictions and seizures have increased by 33% in the past 12 months. That all contributes to the Government’s comprehensive and systematic work to reduce the incentives that draw people here illegally and to scale up removals. \p John Hayes: My experience in this House over almost 30 years is that most people here—indeed, the overwhelming majority—want to do the right thing, irrespective of party, and I make that perfectly clear through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But in that spirit, I know that you will take the view that it is critically important that parliamentary answers be full and accurate. That is something that I conjured with as a Minister, answering many, many written questions in a variety of Government Departments. Will the Minister address the specific issue raised about the accuracy and completeness of answers to questions? \p Mike Tapp: I thank the right hon. Member for his two questions. On the first, I completely agree that the vast majority of those who come to this country are decent people. The sweeping changes to the asylum system over the past few weeks further encourage people to integrate and contribute, and further ensure that there is not the asylum shopping that we currently see across Europe. But there are bad eggs, and when we get those bad eggs, we will do what we can to deport them. That is why we have also seen changes in the last few weeks to make it easier to remove and deport people. I will come on to written questions shortly.

More broadly, we must never forget that the chronic problems we face long predate this Government’s time in office. When we took office, we inherited an asylum system overwhelmed by escalating costs, record hotel use and a backlog that undermined public confidence. We recognise that the current arrangements for accommodating asylum seekers are not suitable. The Government will close every asylum hotel, and we are on track to do that by the end of this Parliament. We are working to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation, such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country.

It remains necessary to use hotels in the short to medium term to deliver our statutory responsibility to ensure that individuals are not left destitute, but whereas over 400 asylum hotels were open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, fewer than 200 hotels remain in use. This is not just about cost; it is about restoring control to our asylum system. International co-operation is key to improving returns, and through our landmark UK-France agreement, we have strengthened our ability to return individuals to France. Our efforts are having an impact, and they will go further.

Turning to the focus of the debate, I am aware of the interest in these issues, and specifically in absconders. I will not comment on leaked data, but I can set out to the House the steps that are taken to ensure that an individual remains in contact with the Home Office, and the consequences should they abscond. An individual granted immigration bail may be required to reside at a specified address, and to report at regular intervals, either in person to a reporting officer or a police station, or by telephone or digital messaging. In some cases, a person may also be required to wear an electronic fitted device. Where someone fails to comply with that, efforts will be made to re-establish contact through the most appropriate method, which might be a visit from an enforcement team.

Individuals can come into contact with the Department for a variety of reasons, but if they are considered to be an absconder, their details will be circulated on the  police national computer. The Home Office has a range of tools to locate those who abscond, and a dedicated tracing capability, which works in partnership with the police, other Government agencies and commercial companies.

Tracing foreign national offenders will always be a priority, and tracing is just one of the ways in which contact with an individual can be re-established. Many individuals who are out of contact may also re-engage with the Department voluntarily or decide to leave the UK. Individuals are also encountered through routine immigration enforcement and police activity. In all cases, the Home Office will consider the most appropriate action, including arrest and detention. \p Jim Allister: I am listening with interest to the Minister, but as a Member of this House, I would like to know whether the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) are correct or incorrect. Surely the House is entitled to know that. \p Mike Tapp: I thank the hon. and learned Member for his question. We do not comment on unverified leaks.

After internal reviews, my officials have acknowledged that the interpretation of an absconder requires clearer definition in departmental policy. Work is under way to amend guidance and operational processes, so that it is easier for immigration officials interacting with individuals to know when an absconder marker should be associated with a person, enabling them to take the right action in a timely way. Of course, there is more to do. That is why we are implementing the most significant immigration and asylum reforms of modern times. \p Mike Kane: When we talk about emotive subjects such as this one, it is important that we establish the facts. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) recently railed on social media against illegal migrants coming to his constituency. They happened to be canoeists traversing the Atlantic and fundraising for motor neurone disease. Now he is Billy No Mates; he is like some latter-day King Cnut, without his courtiers, on the beach, railing at the tide to go backwards. Does the Minister not agree? For the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that I pronounced Cnut correctly. \p Mike Tapp: In public life, it is important to ensure that we are not sensationalising, or raising the temperature on such an important and divisive issue. That is precisely why the Home Secretary is looking to restore order and control to the system—so that the likes of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth cannot use it as a divisive tool for their own political ends.

I turn to the published figures, and will address the questions around them. The Government are not in a position to state the current number of illegal migrants whose whereabouts are unknown because the information is not available from the published statistics. The data would have to be taken from a live operational database, and would include historical records, which means that any figures would not be sufficiently robust and would not be verified.

I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth again for securing this debate, and thank all Members who have contributed. These issues are a source of concern for   many of our constituents, and it is right that they be discussed in this House. Perhaps inevitably, given the subject matter, a range of views and arguments have been advanced. Let me conclude by reasserting the Government’s stance: we will not stand for abuse of our immigration system, we will always put the safety of   our citizens and the security of our nation first, and we will use every possible measure to find and remove those individuals with no right to be in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.