Edward Morello MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the shadow Minister’s line of argument actually supports the Liberal Democrat amendment. The vast majority of those claims could be resolved by GBR via a repayment or penalty, without ever getting to the passengers’ council in the first place.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak in support of amendments 208 and 209, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 208 would guarantee representation for rail passenger groups within the passengers’ council. In West Dorset, we are fortunate to have active and committed groups such as the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group and the west Dorset western area transport action group—they do have snappier acronyms. These organisations bring together passengers, MPs, councils and local communities to push for better services, improved stations, more resilient timetables and new trains. They lobby operators, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and others. They understand in detail what is working and what could be done better. Groups like these exist all over the country and their expertise and insight should be embedded in the passenger watchdog from the start. Amendment 209 would strengthen that further by removing the vague caveat that representation should be included only “so far as it appears expedient”. The Bill promises a powerful new passenger champion that sets standards, investigates poor performance, and holds operators and GBR to account. We envisage that amendments 208 and 209 would do exactly that. I hope the Government will see the logic of supporting them.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, who is departing the Committee, and I are tag teaming, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 43 sets out the powers of the passengers’ council when it investigates problems affecting rail users. Amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen transparency, independence and parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 138 would require the passengers’ council to publish its findings and lay them before Parliament after an investigation, rather than that just being an option. It would ensure that evidence was made public and that Parliament could see clearly where the system was or could be failing passengers. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the passengers’ council to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before publishing a report where the investigation had been referred by Ministers. We have all lived through the experience of reports going into the bottom drawer of desks, never to be seen again, and we would like to create a situation here where that does not happen. A watchdog cannot be effective if the person who triggered the investigation can also control whether its conclusions are published. The amendments would ensure that the passengers’ council had teeth, could operate independently and could report honestly without political interference. Together, amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen accountability, protect the integrity of the passenger watchdog, and ensure Parliament and the public are properly informed when things go wrong on our railways. On the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, we intend to press amendment 138 to a Division.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 43, page 23, line 21, leave out “may prepare a report of its findings” and insert “must publish and lay before Parliament a report of its findings”. This amendment requires the Passengers’ Council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensures any report is laid before Parliament.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly to new clauses 16, 17 and 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, and new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. Accessibility is still inconsistent, poorly enforced and often treated as optional. If railways are to work for everyone, accessibility has to be planned, delivered and monitored. New clause 16 would require a full review of the Access for All programme, including past spending decisions and future investment needs. Too many stations, particularly small and rural ones, still lack step-free access to platforms, entrances and exits. New clauses 17 and 18 focus on accessible passenger information on trains and at stations. Reliable audio and visual announcements on safety, stops and interchanges are essential for passengers with sight or hearing loss, and should be consistently monitored and enforced. New clause 53 would ensure that ticket machines are accessible, standardised and usable independently by all passengers. Machines must work for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments or limb differences, older passengers, and visitors without apps or digital access, offering the same tickets and interfaces across the network. The new clauses are designed to deliver practical and enforceable accessibility that improves passenger confidence, independence and safety, and I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of them.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, at end insert— “(2) The Passengers’ Council must make arrangements for rail passenger groups to be members of a board, committee or panel of the Council.” This amendment, along with Amendment 209, guarantees representation for passenger groups on the Passengers’ Council.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do. Question put , That the amendment be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have been on that.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I will start by echoing the sentiment expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members in this debate that any decision on whether to surrender territory is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone. Peace cannot mean carving up a sovereign European state behind closed doors; it cannot mean big powers forcing Ukraine to surrender its land and its people. We must not accept the principle that borders can be changed by force or by coercion, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. It is vital that we stand up for the rules-based international order, even more so because there are those who flaunt it. I do not believe Putin’s vision of peace. I do not believe it is peace at all. It is a pause that will allow Russia to re-group, re-arm and return. We have seen this before in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas. Every inch of occupied Ukrainian land matters, whether that be Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. These are sovereign Ukrainian territories occupied illegally under international law. That is why we must finally act on frozen Russian assets. Some £30 billion of Russian assets reside in the UK. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are bombed, children are abducted and civilians freeze without power. In the coming days, temperatures in Kyiv will drop to below minus 20°. Thousands will freeze to death. Russia must be forced to pay for its illegal war of aggression. While our support for Ukraine is unwavering, it cannot be right that British taxpayers pay while oligarchs’ wealth remains untouched. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently clear that the legal and moral case exists, and to delay costs Ukrainian lives. We in this House discuss the war in Ukraine often, and time and again those debates show that our support for Ukraine is near unanimous. We hear the feelings of those in this House, but the wider public conversation is often missing from those discussions. Although we are united here, Russia is doing everything it can to divide opinion beyond these walls. It is sowing division through bots, fake accounts and co-ordinated misinformation. It is bribing politicians like Nathan Gill, the former head of Reform in Wales. It is seeking to influence elections, as I saw at first hand during my visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Moldova and Romania. It is painting itself as the victim despite being the aggressor, and it is brazenly attempting to rewrite reality in real time. The United States now has a President who openly flirts with the idea of handing Ukrainian land to Russia, and who has repeated Kremlin talking points. The Minister for the Armed Forces spoke eloquently in the Chamber the other day when he said: “there may not be a border but there is a frontline.” —[ Official Report , 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1036.] I agree, but I would also go further. Each of us is on that frontline electronically: it is our phones, our social media platforms, our Twitter feeds. Wars are not just fought with weapons; they are fought with misinformation and disinformation, with lies dressed up as common sense and comment sections filled up with bots. I am sure many of us here have been told in person or online that it was NATO or Ukraine that started this war. That is a lie. It is a lie spread by Russia, but it is a lie that gets repeated. We must speak the truth continually and relentlessly. It was Russia that started this illegal war. It is Ukraine that is defending itself. Here today, we must reaffirm that non-recognition of occupied territories is not a diplomatic theory. It is a line that protects peace in Europe, because non-recognition does not just happen in this House, in No. 10, in conferences or on international stages—it must happen in people’s lives too. It must happen in what they read and |in what they share. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration have indicated to Ukraine that US security guarantees may be contingent on Kyiv agreeing to cede the Donbas—that Ukraine should withdraw from its own territory as the price of peace. That is an attempt to strong-arm Kyiv into painful concessions that are demanded by Moscow. It is not peace; it is coercion. Ukraine has been clear: security guarantees must come before any discussion on land. Yet pressure is being applied almost exclusively to Kyiv, not to Moscow. The rules-based international order—the one that many of us learned about in schools and university, and that created stability, prosperity and the possibility of peace—allowed small nations to thrive without fear of invasion. It was imperfect, but it was grounded in rules that we believed applied to everyone. That order is now being dismantled by messages, tweets and decisions: in the humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office; in the threats to invade Greenland; in random tariffs against allies and enemies alike; in the pausing of weapons to Ukraine; and in the quiet adoption of Russian talking points about territory and responsibility. It should deeply concern us that the US national security strategy was welcomed by the Kremlin as “largely consistent” with Russia’s view. As Prime Minister Carney said in his powerful speech in Davos, middle powers have been quiet for too long—too submissive, too willing to rely on a hegemon that may no longer share our values. The UK must recognise that we are moving towards a multilateral world where co-operation between like-minded democracies matters far more than blind reliance on a single power. We may all agree that we must not recognise Russian-occupied territories, and that Ukraine must decide what happens to its territories, but agreement here is not enough if people outside are being convinced that Ukraine does not matter, that borders do not matter and that this war has nothing to do with them. During a Foreign Affairs Committee session, I asked Nina Jankowicz, the former director of the US disinformation governance board, about Russian interference in UK politics. She was clear: she pointed to the convergence of Russian rhetoric with that of specific voice here in Britain—their narrative echoed, amplified and normalised. We should not be surprised that the person she mentioned had a show on Russian-sponsored TV. We should not be surprised because he has personal ties to an authoritarian Trump Administration who parrot Russian talking points. We should not be surprised because he said Putin was the leader he admired the most. We should not be surprised that neither he, nor any of his party, is here today condemning Russia. If we allow misinformation to hollow out public support, our foreign policy becomes brittle. If people stop believing that this matters to their children’s future, Russia succeeds without firing another shot. Yes, we must act abroad with our allies—those who have consistently and constantly shared our values—with weapons, diplomacy and leadership, but we must also act here at home by taking misinformation seriously, defending truth, protecting our elections, and refusing to allow bots and lies to set the terms of any debate. Ukraine must not be forced to give up territory and we must not recognise Russian-occupied land—not in this House, not in the Government and not online. Russia is trying to divide us and, for Ukraine, we must not let it.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am doing a rapid rewrite as this speech was full of witticisms and pithy things to do with speeches that none of us can remember from earlier this week— or last week; whenever it was. I would like to speak in support of amendments 134, 137, 136 and 213 and new clause 28, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 134 would require the rail strategy to cover a 30-year period. That matters because decisions on electrification, rolling stock, workforce planning and passenger experience simply cannot be made on short political cycles. Amendment 137 is particularly important for rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Too many rural communities are poorly served by rail and have limited alternatives when services fail. The amendment would ensure that the rail strategy explicitly supports rural access and strengthens co-operation with local and regional transport authorities so that trains, buses, and cycling and walking routes actually connect. No one should miss a bus just because a train arrives three minutes late or wait 40 minutes because timetables were not aligned in the first place—an experience familiar to anyone arriving at Crewkerne. Amendment 136 would place electrification at the heart of the rail strategy. Electrification is not just about missions; it improves reliability, efficiency and resilience. Amendment 213 would introduce a vital safeguard, which the Government refused to put in place earlier when they rejected our new clause 26, to prevent Great British Railways from hiding from accountability to those who gave both it and the Secretary of State their power. The amendment would require regular reporting to Parliament and the Transport Committee. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has agreed to provide an annual update to Parliament on how we are doing against our climate and nature targets. I would hope that what is good enough for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is good enough for the Department for Transport. New clause 28 would require a cyber-security and technology strategy. We need to know whether and how GBR will use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate, develop resilience and improve the passenger experience. I know from my work on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy under your leadership, Mr Western, that the threats to national infrastructure are real and increasing. We must make sure that our public and national infrastructure remains safe and protected. At the same time, we continue to campaign for passengers to be placed at the heart of the Bill. They deserve modern, accessible services, reliable wi-fi, real-time information and inclusive design. For these and future technologies to benefit the passenger now and long into the future, we need real investment and real innovation so that we will always have a modern railway planned over the long term.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for humouring me with a second opportunity to intervene. He raised the important point that many defence manufacturers, especially in the South West, provide high-skilled job opportunities for local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has already mentioned Leonardo in Yeovil, which also employs vast numbers of people in my West Dorset constituency. Those links with local schools and higher education institutions are vital to creating a pathway for people in the south-west, especially those in rural communities, who might not have another avenue into high-skilled labour.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I want to correct what I hope was a slip of the tongue when he mentioned parties “of both colours”; he means “of all colours” because I believe the Liberal Democrats have come forward with a proposal for £20 billion-worth of defence bonds in order to properly finance the rapid scale-up in defence manufacturing that we need in the UK.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, for what I think is the third time in three days—I feel very blessed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on securing this important debate, on his incredibly moving speech and on all his hard work and advocacy in this area. Woking is extremely lucky to have somebody fighting its corner as he does. Too many families in rural areas face a system that they feel is too distant, too fragmented and increasingly under strain. Local authorities’ budgets are under immense pressure, particularly in rural areas, where delivering support is inherently more expensive. Delivering children’s services in rural areas costs more, sustainable buildings are harder to find, connectivity is weaker and long distances make everything from early intervention to crisis support more complex and expensive. The funding formulas rarely account for those challenges. Per child expenditure varies hugely between authorities, with some spending three and a half times more per child than other areas. I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest £500 million to rebuild family services under the Best Start umbrella and the creation of Best Start family hubs, but children in rural constituencies like West Dorset need safe, accessible family spaces for children’s services to take place. Local authorities should be empowered to retrofit vacant buildings, such as the stationmaster’s house at Sherborne station, into family hubs that meet local needs, rather than centralised services that can be miles away. I also welcome the extension of the adoption and special guardianship support fund into 2026-27, but short-term extensions are not enough. Children with complex needs cannot thrive without the certainty of long-term therapeutic support. The Koru Project, a local charity providing vital support in Dorset, warns that without long-term funding, children cannot receive the care they need. It has shared heartbreaking cases: a young girl in her fourth care placement who relies on her therapist as her only stable relationship; and another child, with severe additional needs, who sees therapy as her only safe space. Professionals agree that, in complex cases, long-term Government support is vital. One constituent, Brenda, is a blind adopter raising a teenager with FASD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and developmental trauma. Specialist therapy funded through the scheme has helped her daughter to regulate her emotions and engage with her education, health and care plan. Kate and Dave, who care for two children with overlapping needs, face constant anxiety because, although assessments can be funded, the ongoing therapy that professionals say is essential cannot. Local authorities must have stable, predictable funding and proper support and guidance from central Government to meet those challenges. That means recognising rurality in the funding formula, ending short-term fixes and ensuring that access to services does not depend on a postcode. Children in West Dorset and in rural communities across the country deserve services that are stable, accessible and fair.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a wonderful point. It reminds me of a conversation I had recently with my council about a group of 10 to 15 parents with autistic children who definitely did not need to be in specialist schools and needed local provision. Because of the different pots of money, it was easier for the council to pay a private provider £100,000 and have the children travel 20 to 30 miles, because it could not afford the capital cost of £1.5 million to set up a local school. It wanted to do that, but it did not have the money, which disadvantages parents who now have kids travelling vast distances.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  Without wishing to labour the point, and accepting that the data may in fact show that we are getting the level of penetration that we would expect, there is undoubtedly an unquantifiable risk of another tragedy happening. Given the level of uptake in a mandatory system, and given the requests of the sector—and, in fact, the BMA—for use of the marker to be made mandatory, it seems to me, purely from the perspective of de-risking it for the Government, that that would be a logical and relatively simple thing to do, so that, when we inevitably return, at some point in the next three to five years, to talk about another tragic death, it is not laid at the feet of this Government for following the mistake of the previous Government and not making it mandatory.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate, on her hard work on the topic and on her very moving speech. This debate is about lives that should not have been lost. It is about a system that failed, when it could have made the difference between safety and tragedy. When warning signs exist but are not seen, when safeguards are optional rather than embedded and when responsibility is fragmented across an overstretched system, the consequences can be fatal, as we have heard. I support my hon. Friend’s call for change. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that firearms licensing in this country protects public safety while remaining fair, workable and, most importantly, proportionate for those who hold licences responsibly and lawfully. I want to begin by acknowledging the unimaginable loss suffered by the family and friends of Emma and Lettie Pattison. It should not take such a tragedy for us to act, but we owe it to them and to the public to learn lessons and make changes that will prevent further harm. The inquest into their deaths found that George Pattison was legally permitted to hold a shotgun licence despite having concealed relevant medical information. He had obtained significant quantities of medication for anxiety through online services entirely outside his GP’s knowledge, and when he renewed his licence there was no effective mechanism to identify that risk. The senior coroner issued a clear warning that unless gun ownership laws are tightened, the risk of future deaths will remain. That warning must be taken seriously. Mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders are a proportionate and evidence-based safeguard. They are not about punishing responsible gun owners; they are about ensuring that when someone’s health changes in a way that may affect their suitability to possess a firearm, that risk is identified early, rather than years later at the licence renewal or not at all. Effectively, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) outlined, it is an ongoing safety check against changes in an individual’s circumstances. The legal framework already recognises the importance of medical fitness. Under the Firearms Act 1968, police must be satisfied that a person can possess a firearm “without danger to public safety or to the peace.” Medical information is already part of that assessment; the question before us is whether the system is robust enough. In 2022, an important step forward was taken when GPs in England were given access to interactive medical markers that can be placed on medical records for firearms certificate holders. Making those markers mandatory would help to better identify individuals whose medical conditions may temporarily or permanently impair their ability to handle a firearm safely. Current guidance includes “post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts or self-harm or harm to others, depression or anxiety, dementia, mania, bipolar disorders or a psychotic illness” and neurological conditions such as alcohol or drug abuse. When assessed, that marker alerts a GP that a patient holds a firearms licence and allows concerns to be flagged to the police where appropriate. The system works. It respects professional boundaries. GPs do not decide who holds a licence; that decision rightly remains with law enforcement. It imposes no financial burden on surgeries. It enables safeguards throughout the life of a licence, not just at the point of renewal. But there are flaws in the system: its use is voluntary, it may not account for online workarounds, which people are adept at using, and there is no obligation on GPs to apply the marker. That is because under the previous Government, the Home Office declined to make it mandatory. As has been outlined, we do not even know how many practices actually use it. The evidence strongly supports change. The police support mandatory markers. The Countryside Alliance supports mandatory markers. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation supports them, and has suggested that they be incorporated into GP contracts. The British Medical Association now recommends their use. Perhaps most compellingly of all, 70% of firearms certificate holders support the change, according to a survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and among the wider public that support is at 86%. It is a sensible proposal enjoying widespread support among the public and the sector. In 2016, Christopher Foster killed his wife and daughter before taking his own life. He had discussed depression and suicidal thoughts with his GP, but there was no way for the GP to know that he owned a firearm. In Plymouth in 2021, six people were killed with a licensed firearm. The inquest found that a marker had not been placed, despite the police requesting one. Thankfully, in the UK, murders, suicides and deliberate injuries by licensed firearm owners remain mercifully low. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of licensed gun owners in this country are responsible gun owners, but there is no ignoring the fact that lives could have been saved in those cases if medical markers had been mandatory. Medical markers are about early intervention. They protect the licence holder as much as anyone else. They ensure that when someone is struggling with their mental or physical health, support and safeguarding go hand in hand. Having safeguards in place is important because of the wider issues at play. The process for approving or refusing a firearms licence is currently slow, inconsistent, expensive and, in large parts of the country, under huge strain. The processing time varies wildly depending on where a person lives, fees differ, and huge backlogs exist in some places. Firearms licensing is a specialist function delivered by local police forces, yet rural police forces such as mine in Dorset, which are responsible for areas with high levels of gun ownership, are under the greatest financial pressure, struggling with overstretched resources. Firearms in farming communities are not recreational; for most farmers, they are an essential tool of their trade. When renewals are delayed, livelihoods are affected. There are further challenges. The Home Office is consulting on merging section 1 and section 2 licensing. This may be well intentioned, but it risks adding complexity, cost and delay to an already fragile system unless carefully handled. Licensing is already expensive, and delays already undermine confidence. That is why I believe we must look seriously at proposals for a dedicated firearms licensing agency. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper acknowledges that firearms are a specialist area and that concentrating such functions in centres of excellence could improve effectiveness, consistency and value for money. A centralised body could standardise fees, reduce waiting times, ensure the consistent application of medical markers and take the pressure off local police forces, freeing them to focus on their job—frontline policing. A specialist agency would be better equipped to process licences efficiently, apply safeguards properly and respond to risks swiftly. It would also ensure that reforms such as mandatory medical markers were implemented consistently and effectively, rather than, as at the moment, unevenly across the country. The Liberal Democrats are proud champions of rural communities. We support responsible gun ownership. We are also clear that safeguarding must go hand in hand with support. We will always stand up for people experiencing mental ill health or addiction, but that is precisely why early identification and intervention matter. Mandatory medical markers are about not punishment but protection. At a time when mental health services are under immense strain and online medical services can be used to bypass safeguards, it is more important than ever that our licensing system is joined up, informed and proactive. Will the Minister release the data that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has requested? Will he give consideration to centralised licensing systems and to making medical markers mandatory? Will he ensure that public safety measures are not undermined by a system that is slow, inconsistent and overstretched?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As always when following my hon. Friend, I find myself with little to add. All of the very good points have been made, but it is probably worth reinforcing why we think amendments 216, 147 and 215 are important. Amendments 216 and 215 speak to an absurd anomaly. I am probably unusual in this Committee in that I am not a rail expert—far from it—but the absurdity of not having aligned funding cycles for passenger and infrastructure strikes any outsider as madness. As somebody who regularly travels on the Salisbury to Exeter line, which is in need of electrification and new rolling stock, I ask any Minister who is responsible to tell me when the operator should make a decision on whether to buy new rolling stock, when they do not know whether electrification is going to happen. Do they wait for the electrification and then buy the rolling stock, having just spent all this money extending the life of diesel carriages? Having the two interoperable is just common sense. I would hope that making the two funding cycles run simultaneously would be a non-contentious idea. On amendment 147, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage gave the example of the outbreak of war, which is definitely an extreme one, but we must also insulate any piece of legislation against future politicians—Ministers—wanting to meddle and perhaps not adhering to the desire that it was designed around. The amendment is intended to make sure that Ministers, whether in the Department for Transport or the Treasury, cannot rip the funding carpet out from under the rail operators. If the Bill really is about long-term planning, then there has to be long-term security of funding as well, and amendment 147 is about making sure that there is an additional safety net should any future Government, of any make-up, not want to adhere to the spirit of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give consideration to our amendments.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak briefly to new clause 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. In simple terms, the new clause would ensure that Great British Railways’ funding is reviewed, published and scrutinised by Parliament halfway through each funding cycle, so that there is transparency and accountability on public money and it is spent effectively. Any long-term rail strategy, particularly one that involves large sums of public money, must be open to proper scrutiny, regularly reviewed and accountable to Parliament. This is especially important as the Bill in its current form gives the Secretary of State a significant concentration of power over the future, shape, funding and direction of the railways. If Parliament is to be asked to confer that level of authority, accountability should increase alongside it. New clause 26 provides a sensible and proportionate mechanism to do exactly that without dragging Ministers or officials into day-to-day micromanagement. As currently proposed, Great British Railways risks becoming the rail equivalent of NHS England—a fear raised previously in Committee—a large, centralised body distant from accountability and with blurred lines between ministerial direction and operational responsibility. Transparency is the safeguard to protect against ending up with another unaccountable arm’s length body. The new clause would require a statutory funding review halfway through each five-year settlement. That review would set out, in clear figures, exactly how much funding GBR had been allocated, how much revenue had been raised from fares, and how much Government subsidy had been received. Crucially, it would also be sent directly to the Transport Committee, thereby ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny. That matters because taxpayers are funding the railway twice: once through general taxation and again through ticket prices. Passengers and taxpayers alike deserve to know where their money is going, how it is balanced between subsidies and fares, and whether it is being spent evenly and effectively across the funding cycle, not just all at the start or at the end. A mid-point review would also allow us to see what is working and what is not, particularly given that GBR will be a new organisation. It would give time to correct course when things are failing, and to continue or scale up when results are delivered. Above all, it is about hardwiring trust into the railway system, with clear information, published transparently and scrutinised by Parliament, with a focus on passengers. We believe new clause 26 would strengthen the Bill and hope the Government will give it due consideration.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Repeatedly.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak briefly to amendment 206, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The amendment goes to the heart of what we Liberal Democrats believe the Bill should be about: putting passengers first. It would expand the objectives that the Secretary of State sets for the rail funding settlement to include customer experience and satisfaction explicitly. In other words, it would ensure that when decisions are made about money, priorities and trade-offs, the people who actually use the railways are not an afterthought. Making customer satisfaction central to GBR would help to rebuild trust in the railways, which many people currently feel have stopped working for them. If we are serious about encouraging people to shift away from the convenience of cars and toward more sustainable public transport, customer experience has to be central. People will not make the switch because they are told to; they will do so because trains are easier, more comfortable and more reliable. The creation of customer satisfaction targets and objectives that are tied to rail funding settlements will create the incentives for change. It will make it more likely that investment decisions will focus on what actually improves journeys for passengers, rather than just on what is cheapest in the short term. It will find the balance between what is affordable and what is best for users.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Vast swathes of Bridport, Beaminster, Maiden Newton, Yetminster and Thornford—whole parts of West Dorset—are under water. Dorset and Wiltshire Fire Service is doing an amazing job of rescuing residents who are trapped either at home or in cars, but unfortunately it will suffer a £1.2 million shortfall in the long-term funding settlement because the Treasury’s underlying assumptions are incorrect. Will the Chancellor meet me, so that we can show her why this is a problem for the service?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  At one point, going through all the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill, I concluded that accepting them all would mean that the only people who would pay for a full-price ticket would probably be working-age men aged 35 to 45—they would have to single-handedly fund the entire rail network. I am not sure that that is a desirable long-term system, but a simplified system is ideal. I accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s intervention: the regionalised or localised railcards have their own benefit. But invariably we are just creating more and more carve-outs, and a simplified national system may be fairer and easier to sustain over the long term. A move towards a national tap-in, tap-out system would modernise the network and make it far more user-friendly. In West Dorset, passengers too often step off a train only to have to wait 45 minutes for a bus, because timetables are poorly aligned. Enabling multimodal ticketing would allow rail, bus and other services to work together, making journeys smoother for residents and visitors. New clause 9 would require Great British Railways to report on and plan for fair fares, modern ticketing, innovation through an open-source system and integration across all transport nodes. Like new clause 8, it would allow us to advocate for passengers, which should be the central theme of the Bill.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect. Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage. The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities. The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government. I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead. New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use. Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.