Rail Freight Group calls on Parliament to amend Railways Bill 2025

Rail Freight Group (RFG) has called on Government and Parliamentarians to amend the Railways Bill 2025 to strengthen the independent appeals function for rail freight.

Under the Bill, which starts its Commons Committee stage this week, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) will be stripped of its current role in awarding track capacity, and will become an independent appeals body for operators outside of Great British Railways (GBR), including rail freight. However, there are serious concerns over the provisions in the Bill which significantly restrict the right to appeal and the ability of ORR to overturn a GBR decision.

RFG says it has obtained legal advice which contradicts the Government’s claims of a continued robust and independent appeals body. In particular, the requirement for appeals to be made under Judicial Review principles sets an incredibly high bar for appeals, which can be frustrated by regulations issued at any time by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, ORR can only overturn a GBR decision where there is an error of law and only one possible alternative outcome, criteria which are almost impossible to meet.

Without changes to the Bill, RFG says the ORR will “become toothless and unable to challenge GBR’s decisions effectively, enabling GBR to mark its own homework and prioritise its own trains which risks undermining rail freight and stymieing economic growth.”

Yesterday (Monday 19 January) RFG published its position paper which sets out its key concerns and proposes the changes necessary to create an effective appeals function.

RFG Director General Maggie Simpson OBE said: “However well GBR treats rail freight there could be times where a future decision causes harm to customers or hinders future growth. In these circumstances, a strong independent appeals function that can hear cases on merit and enforce decisions is essential.

“The Bill needs urgent amendments to ensure that the commitment to rail freight growth is not damaged by an inadequate and ineffective appeals function.”

Image credit: iStockphoto.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *