Inquiry · 5 November 2025 → 21 July 2026
Railways Bill
From: Transport Committee
What this inquiry is asking
The inquiry examines the Railways Bill, which proposes to create Great British Railways (GBR)—a single state-owned organisation combining track and train operations to replace the current fragmented rail system. The committee scrutinised whether the Bill's governance structure, accountability mechanisms, passenger protections, devolved arrangements, and retail competition safeguards will actually deliver better railways for passengers and value for taxpayers.
Headline findings
- Committee supports the Bill's core principle of integrating track and train under one body, but identified critical gaps: GBR's detailed corporate structure, licence terms, and regulatory enforcement mechanisms remain undefined and must be published during passage
- Secretary of State retains ultimate control via 'mandatory directions' if GBR breaches duties, creating tension between the Government's 'arm's-length' framing and centralised ministerial power—committee recommended this be used only 'sparingly' and enshrined in law
- Passenger protections are weak: the duty to 'promote disabled passenger interests' lacks measurable targets or enforcement teeth; committee found the Bill accounts for only ~30% of what's needed, with rest dependent on unpublished secondary legislation
- Ticket retail competition threatened: Trainline controls ~30% of sales (above CMA monopoly threshold); witnesses warned GBR's vertical integration poses conflict-of-interest risks unless structural separation is mandated
- Devolution arrangements formalised but fragile: Scotland and Wales secured new consultation rights and governance roles, but both governments flagged that critical memoranda of understanding and asset-transfer mechanisms remain unlegislated
Why it matters
This Bill restructures how Britain's £15bn-a-year railway operates; it centralises power in a state body while weakening independent regulation and passenger protections, with critical safeguards left to unpublished secondary legislation and ministerial discretion.
Tone arc
Started procedurally focused on regulatory transition (ORR session, November), shifted sharply toward skepticism about passenger enforcement gaps and competitive fairness (December passenger advocacy and retail sessions), then became cooperative but conditional as devolved administrations demonstrated their models work (Scotland/Wales sessions, December), before final evidence session revealed officials' reliance on flexibility and post-legislation documents to solve governance detail.
Themes
Key witnesses
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Rail Minister), Jeremy Westlake (Network Rail CEO), Fiona Hyslop MSP (Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport), Peter McDonald (Welsh Government Transport Director), Anthony Smith (Independent Rail Retailers Association), David Pitt (SilverRail Technologies), John Davies (Trainline), Alex Robertson (Transport Focus CEO)
Outcome verdict
Government accepted committee's broad support for integrated GBR model and committed to publishing draft licence during Bill passage, but did not concede on statutory duty language for disabled passengers, structural separation of retail operations, or mandatory parliamentary oversight of Long Term Rail Strategy—declining to embed 'sparingly' language for Secretary of State directions into the Bill itself.
Outcome
Responding to: 8th Report - Railways Bill
The Government accepts the committee's broad diagnosis that rail reform through GBR is necessary but partially accepts or rejects specific legislative amendments. It argues that existing public law principles, arm's-length body precedent, and the GBR business planning framework—subject to ORR review and Secretary of State approval—provide sufficient safeguards without new statutory requirements. The Government commits to greater transparency through published timelines, discussion documents, and memoranda of understanding, but resists prescriptive amendments it views as either unnecessary (because existing law already constrains ministerial action) or counterproductive (because they would undermine GBR's operational independence). On accessibility and the Passengers' Council, the Government accepts most recommendations in principle but prefers administrative rather than legislative implementation.
Reports & Government Responses
Special Report · 24 April 2026 · HC 1836
Report · 10 February 2026 · HC 1472
Witness sessions
Oral evidence · 26 November 2025 · HC 1472
Session 1 of 9Oral evidence · 26 November 2025 · HC 1472
Session 2 of 9Oral evidence · 10 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 3 of 9John Davies; Anthony Smith; SilverRail Technologies UK Ltd; +1 more
Oral evidence · 10 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 4 of 9Oral evidence · 10 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 5 of 9Ben Plowden; Emma Vogelmann; Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; +1 more
Oral evidence · 17 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 6 of 9Oral evidence · 17 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 7 of 9Oral evidence · 17 December 2025 · HC 1472
Session 8 of 9Oral evidence · 7 January 2026 · HC 1472
Session 9 of 9Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill; Jeremy Westlake; Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill; +2 more
Written evidence & correspondence
Correspondence · 3 June 2026
Correspondence · 28 January 2026
Correspondence · 4 December 2025
Correspondence · 26 November 2025
Correspondence · 12 November 2025
Correspondence · 30 October 2025
Themes & actors
Topics across publication summaries
Top organisations & named entities
- Ruth Cadbury MP·5 references
- Department for Transport·4 references
- Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill·3 references
- Transport Committee·3 references
- Great British Railways (GBR)·3 references
- Transport Select Committee·2 references
- Great British Railways·2 references
- Office of Rail and Road (ORR)·2 references
- Ruth Cadbury·2 references
- Heidi Alexander·2 references
Source · parliament.uk inquiry record ↗