I beg to move Amendment 39, in Clause 23, page 13, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) The memorandum of understanding must be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy.

(4) The memorandum of understanding must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of two months before it can come into force.”

This amendment would require the memorandum of understanding to be published at the same time as the Rail Strategy, and laid before Parliament for two months before it can come into force.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Clause stand part.

I do not know why I bothered going to the gym this morning, Mrs Hobhouse, because I have been doing squat thrusts every time I rise to speak to a new group of amendments.

Clause 23 deals with the memorandum of understanding, about which we have heard so much but know so little, and the relationship between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. It sets out the key arrangements between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, stating the intention for the memorandum of understanding to include steps to facilitate the integration of GBR infrastructure and Scottish railway services. The elephant in the room is that is none of that is set out in the Bill. The Opposition believe it is vital for Ministers to outline, at the very least, the broad framework for the basis of the memorandum if they will not commit to provide core elements in the Bill itself.

It really is very frustrating: we are paid to come to this Committee to give the Bill line-by-line consideration, set up the function of GBR and improve the relationship among Ministers in Whitehall, Edinburgh and Cardiff, the ORR and the other organisations affected by GBR, yet time and again we get the blank answer, “Oh well, this is going to be sorted out somewhere else.” It is very hard to say with confidence that we have scrutinised the Bill and come to an improved outcome when the Government have not done the work on the detail. This is not the first time Members have heard me say that—

It won’t be the last!

I hope it will be the last, but I fear I will not be.

I have some key questions for the Minister. I understand that the memorandum of understanding has not yet been finalised; has the work to scope it out even begun? The Minister should at least be able to answer that. At what stage in the deliberations between the two Ministries has it got to? What is the timeline for a memorandum of understanding under the Clause being finalised and therefore made public? How often, if at all, must the memorandum of understanding be reviewed, updated or renegotiated? Or is it a one-stop shop?

It currently seems that the memorandums will have no statutory force. Unless I have missed something in the Bill—I always enjoy being corrected when I have missed something—it is not in there at the moment. Is that by design? What legal standing will the memorandums have? They do not appear to have statutory force, and there is very little democratic accountability, as I have mentioned. As far as I can see, the memorandum is essentially a handshake agreement. Not a single member of this Committee is any the wiser about what will be part of the memorandums.

Finally, what happens if no agreement is reached on a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers? The Minister can give evidence about his willingness to reach agreement, but he cannot give evidence on the part of Scottish Ministers. They can be willing to negotiate, but he cannot say with confidence that they will achieve full agreement until such time as that agreement is reached. I stand to be informed by the Minister, but my current understanding is that that agreement has not yet been reached.

The lack of oversight is clearly at the core of this issue. Parliament is expected to allow the Secretary of State and her Scottish counterpart to set the tone of the nature of rail operations without any say from this House, beyond this clause. The Government criticise the franchise system, but at least the parameters for its operation were clearly set out. Memorandums of understanding are nothing more than IOUs to the trust of parliamentarians, and we should not willingly give those out.

There is a further issue at stake here: the Scottish parliamentary elections. This is a matter of practicalities, as opposed to principles. The pre-election period, or purdah, is rapidly approaching for the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that it will be coming into force in late March, which is only weeks away. Given that the Minister will be eager to ensure that all the appropriate orders and memorandums are in place as quickly as is reasonably possible, what thought has he given to avoiding a rush job ahead of the election, or to the timetable for the memorandums of understanding being reached with any change of Government in Scotland? This is actually quite a significant question. Is the Minister going to rush it through to get it in before March? What happens if there is a change of Administration north of the border?

It is with that uncertainty in mind that we believe the clause ought to have a clear timeframe for the publication of the MOU. The memorandums of understanding should be laid before Parliament for approval. Parliament is being asked to give broad Executive powers as if an international treaty were being negotiated, but this is not an international treaty. Parliament ought to have the right to approve the memorandums to ensure, in particular, that Members whose constituencies are affected by them have a say on behalf of their constituents. That is what Amendment 39 would provide, by providing two additions: that a memorandum be published at the same time as the rail strategy, which would give a concrete timeframe for the delivery of that important document, and that it be laid before Parliament for a period of two months before it can come into force. I look forward to the Government’s response.

I will endeavour not to detain the Committee for long. In the Committee’s second sitting, when Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald gave evidence—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham alluded to—Mr McDonald stated:

“In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December…We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 56, Q104.]

That is encouraging in the case of Wales, but Mr Reeve was unable to offer any similar assurance as to where things were with Scotland. He said:

“We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be”.––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 55, Q100.]

He also said it remains a priority.

A different pace appears to be being reached in Wales compared with where we are with the MOU with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight the fact that in both cases we will, in a few short weeks’ time, be entering the pre-election period for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. In the case of Wales, there is a degree of reassurance. Will the Minister update the Committee on where the discussions with the Scottish Government have got to; when the DFT and Scottish Government will publish the heads of terms, as the Welsh Government published them in December; and whether he is still convinced that the March timescale will be met and that we will see both MOUs published?

Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is pragmatic and proportionate. It simply seeks to put a degree of certainty around the timescales and, quite rightly, as he highlighted, to give the process a degree of transparency by gently nudging all Administrations concerned to lay the MOUs before the House so that right hon. and hon. Members can consider them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Before I speak to Amendment 39, I will respond to the questions about the timings of the MOUs, but may I bring the Committee’s attention to the fact that, by reaching this Clause, we are now one quarter of the way through the Bill? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The hard work progresses.

Work has begun on negotiating the MOUs with Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The MOUs are subject to negotiation with the two Governments, but as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston pointed out, the heads of terms for the Welsh MOU have been published. It is our intention to publish the Scottish MOU as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham imagined a nightmare scenario in which we are not able to publish the heads of terms because we do not reach an agreement. Both the testimony we heard at the Transport Committee and what Scottish Ministers, including Fiona Hyslop, have had to say suggest that the negotiations are progressing, as are deliberations on the Bill overall.

The hon. Gentleman was right to ask what the pre-election period means for the publication of the MOUs. I refer him to the noble Lord Hendy’s testimony on publication to the Transport Committee, in which he essentially conveyed the message that we are cognisant of the fact that that period is approaching and that we are working on the development of the MOUs on that basis.

I want to tempt the Minister. I hope he will look at me and not catch the eyes of his officials, because I am very well aware, from my time as a Minister, of phrases such as “in the fullness of time”, “at the appropriate juncture” and “in due course”, and exactly what they mean, not least as a keen student of “Yes Minister”. I am sure that, on occasions, I used them myself. May I tempt him a little further as to whether he is going to put an actual timescale on this?

As tempting as the right hon. Member’s requests are, if he would like me to use another phrase, I will say: as soon as possible. I say to the Shadow Minister that, although he has to keep asking me about publication of the MOUs today, he may not have cause to do so in the future. That is something we are working to progress as quickly as possible.

The shadow Minister is right to point out—this is an important point—that the MOU itself is not legally binding or enforceable; it does not create new legal powers or obligations beyond those in the Bill. However, its preparation and publication are a statutory requirement; both parties are legally required to produce and publish it. That ensures the transparency and public accountability piece of the puzzle. The MOU is being designed to set out practical arrangements for co-operation between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to provide clarity on governance, track and train integration arrangements, and accountability, without altering statutory responsibilities.

Amendment 39 would require the memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government to be published alongside the long-term rail strategy and laid in Parliament. Unfortunately, it is our view that that would serve to undermine the effectiveness of the MOU, which is intended as a flexible mechanism for inter-governmental co-operation, setting out principles and objectives jointly agreed between Ministers. Requiring it to be published at the same time as the long-term rail strategy would unnecessarily lock both Governments into the same rigid timeline for two unrelated documents that serve different purposes. The long-term rail strategy sets out long-term priorities for the network, while the MOU is designed to support intergovernmental co-operation. There is no rationale for linking them.

Further, Clause 23 already requires that the MOU be published, providing a meaningful process of transparency without the unnecessary delay that the two-month review period would introduce. Amendment 39 would therefore be counterproductive, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Clause 23 provides a sensible legislative basis for the MOU to ensure that appropriate collaboration and accountability mechanisms are in place between the two Governments. That statutory commitment to the MOU enables the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to ensure that decisions on Scotland’s railways are taken in a way that reflects Scottish and UK transport priorities. The MOU also enables a route for joining track and train in Scotland, which will ensure that Scotland is able to benefit from these reforms to the same degree as the rest of Great Britain while preserving the devolution settlement. As the Committee will be aware, there is full support from Scotland for the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s strong hints that the memorandum of understanding may be much more advanced than we had previously been led to believe. The intention of Amendment 39 was to flush out the MOU—it sounds like it may well have already achieved its purpose. Taking the Minister’s words at face value, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.