Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

The Government, represented by the Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh, presented the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill as the first major piece of legislation under the new Labour government. Haigh argued that the bill fulfills a key manifesto commitment to end the "30-year ideological privatised experiment" on the railways that has failed passengers, failed to modernise, and failed the economy. Haigh stated that the bill will bring immediate benefits, with railways serving the public interest rather than private profits. She pledged to use every tool available to drive up performance, including terminating contracts early where operators continue to let passengers down. Haigh acknowledged the bill is not a silver bullet, but the first step in a journey to create a "modern railway for a modern Britain" under the leadership of the new Great British Railways. In response, the official opposition, represented by Helen Whately of the Conservative Party, recognized the government's mandate to nationalise the railways but remained unconvinced by the bill. Whately argued that the government has failed to address key issues around controlling costs, particularly workforce costs, and has caved to union demands without securing modernisation in return. She criticized the lack of scrutiny given to the bill, questioning whether it is being rushed through to appease backbenchers or union donors. The ensuing debate saw members from across the House deliver their maiden speeches, highlighting the diverse perspectives and priorities of their local constituencies. Topics discussed included the need for improved regional connectivity, the importance of community engagement, and concerns over the impact on open access operators and devolved authorities. Several amendments were proposed, seeking to enhance transparency, accountability and passenger-focused outcomes under public ownership. However, the government resisted these, arguing they were unnecessary or would constrain future flexibility. The House ultimately voted down the opposition's key amendments, with the bill then passing its Third Reading. Throughout the debate, there was broad acknowledgement of the need to reform the railways, but clear divisions remained over the government's approach and the balance between public interest, workforce considerations and fiscal responsibility. The passage of the bill sets the stage for further railway reforms to be introduced later in the parliamentary session.