{"id":23079,"date":"2026-04-27T10:37:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T10:37:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/23079\/"},"modified":"2026-04-27T10:37:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T10:37:09","slug":"uk-government-agrees-to-provide-further-information-on-railways-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/23079\/","title":{"rendered":"UK: Government Agrees to Provide Further Information on Railways Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"

The UK Government has stated that it agrees with statements included in the Transport Committee\u2019s recent report on the Railways Bill, and has pledged to provide more information about key documents discussed within.<\/p>\n

Published in February; the Committee\u2019s report<\/a> stated that provided legislation supplied \u2018only a partial picture of the framework\u2019 for the regime under Great British Railways.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

The Government\u2019s response has largely agreed with statements made by the Transport Committee<\/p>\n

\u00a9 Department for Transport<\/p>\n

The Committee called for more detail, as well as the publication of a comprehensive list of target dates for decisions and key documents. In response, the Government has stated that it \u2018recognises the value in providing further clarity to Parliament and stakeholders in the run up to GBR establishment\u2019, adding that it now intends to publish a document this Spring that outlines key documents and target dates.<\/p>\n

In its report, the Committee also suggests that legislation should be amended in order to avoid \u2018potential tension\u2019 regarding the Secretary of State\u2019s central role in the new system and the Government\u2019s expectation that GBR will be a responsible, arm\u2019s-length body.<\/p>\n

In response, the Government has stated that \u2018[it agrees] with the Committee that any Secretary of State\u2019s use of directions should never become a routine step \u2013 it is a responsive tool for necessary course correction, to be used proportionally and where there is strong justification.\u2019 Despite this, however, the Government, has remained somewhat firm, suggesting that \u2018Whilst we expect this power will be rarely used, it is necessary in instances of serious operational failure or unforeseen crises\u2026 However, the Government disagrees that amending the Bill is necessary to achieve this.\u2019<\/p>\n

Elsewhere in the report, the Transport Committee called for the Railways Bill to be bolstered with a duty on the Secretary of State to set a \u2018passenger journey growth target\u2019. In response, the Government has agreed with the committee about the importance of increasing passenger numbers, but also added that it disagreed that \u2018including a passenger growth duty is the only way to ensure this\u2019.<\/p>\n

Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury said:<\/p>\n

In our scrutiny of the Railways Bill, the Transport Committee identified a host of key documents that were yet to be published and we called on Ministers to clearly set out the outstanding pieces of the puzzle. I\u2019m pleased that the Government has now agreed to do just that and the Committee therefore looks forward to getting further clarity about the plans in the next few weeks.<\/p>\n

In response to some of our other recommendations, the Government argued on a number of fronts that it would not be necessary to amend the Railways Bill to achieve the outcomes we are looking for: from avoiding political micromanagement, to growing passenger numbers, and ensuring representation for disabled passengers.<\/p>\n

It is useful to have the Government\u2019s intentions on the record, but intentions can change and future ministers may not see things the same way. We think changes to the Bill could help ensure that Great British Railways is set up to deliver for passengers well into the future.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTags<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The UK Government has stated that it agrees with statements included in the Transport Committee\u2019s recent report on…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":23080,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[10446,2010,5,6],"class_list":{"0":"post-23079","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uk","8":"tag-great-british-railways","9":"tag-policy","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@UnitedKingdom\/116476237757108388","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23079\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23080"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}