More Detail, Same Direction: Government Stands Firm on Railways Bill

The government has agreed to provide greater clarity on the rollout of the Railways Bill, but has once again resisted calls to amend key elements—particularly around how rail capacity will be managed under Great British Railways (GBR).

In response to a report from the Transport Select Committee, ministers confirmed they will publish a forward plan outlining key decisions, documents and consultation timelines ahead of GBR’s launch next year. The move is intended to give Parliament and industry stakeholders more confidence in how the transition will unfold.

However, despite welcoming greater transparency, the government has held its ground on some of the Bill’s more contentious clauses.

Capacity concerns remain

A major sticking point centres on how future rail capacity will be allocated. Freight operators have raised concerns that GBR could prioritise its own passenger services over freight when taking on responsibilities currently held by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

The committee had recommended amendments to clarify that certain capacity duties would not apply until after a formal Infrastructure Capacity Plan is developed.

But the government insists the Bill already makes this distinction clear. It argues that capacity duties only apply when granting access to operators or setting timetables—not during the strategic planning phase.

In short: planning the network and allocating access to it are treated as separate processes, and ministers see no need to rewrite the legislation.

Appeals and accountability

The government also rejected proposals to allow freight operators to appeal access decisions directly to the ORR. Instead, it defended the Bill’s existing approach, which limits appeals to a framework similar to judicial review—focused on fairness, legality and adherence to policy rather than revisiting strategic decisions.

Ministers say this strikes the right balance between accountability and efficient decision-making.

Secretary of State powers

Another area of debate is the role of the Transport Secretary in directing GBR. While acknowledging concerns about potential overreach, the government maintained that formal powers of direction are necessary—albeit as a last resort in exceptional circumstances.

It stressed these powers are not intended for routine use, but again declined to amend the Bill.

What’s next?

The government has indicated it will publish a draft licence for GBR ahead of the Bill reaching its next stage, offering further insight into how the new body will operate.

Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury welcomed the commitment to greater transparency but warned that intentions alone may not be enough, suggesting legislative changes could provide longer-term certainty.

As the Railways Bill progresses, the message from government is clear: more detail is coming—but the core structure is staying firmly on track.