Keir Mather MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

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

  More

  The amendments in this group relate to the ORR’s competition duty and primarily look to remove the various exemptions set out in clause 20. I will begin by saying that we of course recognise the benefits that competition can bring to railway users and the economy at large. In the supply chain, competition drives innovation and efficiency. In the online retail market, competition provides choice and drives up the quality of passenger experience. However, although competition may be a powerful means of achieving a goal—such as innovation—there are many railway functions where it would not be appropriate, and could even be counterproductive, to treat competition as a goal in itself. That is true of many of the ORR’s functions in the new model. Amendments 237 and 240 look to apply the ORR’s competition duty when it is advising the Secretary of State on GBR’s business plan, and when monitoring GBR’s activity against that business plan. It would also apply the ORR’s competition duty when it was monitoring GBR’s activities against its railway safety purposes. Our view on this matter is clear: if competition is not improving the railway for the passenger, taxpayer or economy, we will not be pursuing it. Competition for competition’s sake is ideological and does not help us to achieve the goal of making the railway work better. When creating its business plan, GBR will need to take into account economic considerations, as set out in the public interest duty in clause 18; and when the ORR reviews the business plan to ensure that it offers value for money, it will be applying the same tests relating to the economy and cost efficiency. It would not be right for the ORR to overlay an additional competition objective on to that advice when the purpose of the advice, as clearly set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise GBR’s proposed business plan to ensure that GBR can deliver on the Secretary of State’s objectives in a value for money way. That should be a simple assessment of performance, not a way to pursue separate goals. Amendments 37 and 210 would require the ORR actively to promote competition when hearing access appeals. The nature of the appeals role is a broader point, which we have covered to a small extent today and which I am sure we will cover in greater detail in a few days’ time, so I will endeavour to be brief now. The Bill establishes a robust and fair framework to enable GBR to take decisions on the best use of the network. The ORR’s appeals role is designed to ensure that GBR acts lawfully, fairly and consistently with its duties, but it is not there to supplant GBR as the directing mind by wholly retaking strategic decisions or applying a different decision-making framework. An active duty for the ORR to promote competition at the appeal stage would undermine that, effectively creating two decision makers, applying two different yardsticks, at different stages in the process. In fact, two different bodies taking decisions based on different criteria is exactly what we have at the moment with Network Rail and the ORR, and this is fertile ground for exactly the kind of conflict, disagreement and delay that plague the current access regime and that our approach is designed to fix. That is part of the system that has failed to deliver for passengers and taxpayers and that we absolutely must move away from if we want a better railway. Amendment 210 would have the additional effect of applying a competition duty to the ORR’s enforcement of GBR’s licence. That is also the focus of amendment 238. The ORR’s task when enforcing the licence is to ensure compliance so as to provide legal and regulatory certainty. Applying a competition duty to this function would distort the purpose of these powers. The amendment would therefore undermine the regulatory framework and be counterproductive. Flirting with tautology, amendment 239 would require the ORR to promote competition when exercising its competition powers under the Competition Act 1998. The Railways Act 1993 establishes the ORR as the competition regulator for the sector, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure effective regulation, the two must act according to the same rules, without interference from sector-specific priorities. That is why neither the ORR’s railway competition duty nor the other ORR-specific duties apply when it is acting as a competition regulator. This is a continuation of the current approach to regulating competition in legislation and not one from which we should deviate. Amendment 38 is not necessary, as it simply duplicates clause 18(2)(f), which already requires the ORR to take “into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”. An additional requirement to consider value for money would therefore be redundant. Amendment 268 seeks to ensure that the ORR exercises its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect issues such as passenger rights, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds. I support the spirit of this amendment and its focus on safeguarding passenger rights, the smooth operation of the railway and the public purse. It is precisely because I agree with those aims that clause 20 already ensures that the ORR will not be subject to a duty to promote competition when carrying out certain functions. Further, the Bill already protects public funds through clause 18. It includes an obligation on the Secretary of State, the ORR and GBR to consider cost efficiency, which should ensure that the value for money that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham is looking for is delivered. When the ORR considers value for money in the context of GBR’s business plan, the Bill ensures that it will not be distracted by the irrelevant consideration of promoting competition. Regarding passenger rights, the ORR’s competition duty, where it applies, is specifically to “promote competition...for the benefit of users of railway services.” It will therefore not be promoting competition except for the benefit of passengers. That wording, plus the fact that the ORR will continue to be the enforcer of passenger rights and consumer law, means that the ORR is already set up to recognise the importance of passenger rights. The Bill already sufficiently protects passengers’ rights, effective running of the network and taxpayer funds ahead of competition, so there is no need to duplicate efforts by making the amendment. In summary, clause 20 rightly requires the ORR to promote competition when it exercises its functions, subject to some specific and necessary exemptions, which I have just explained in detail. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

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

  More

  On the shadow Minister’s point about profit sharing, the MOU is designed to set out the operational arrangement between GBR and Welsh services. In that respect, the MOU will not affect the existing profit-sharing arrangement between the Governments for cross-border services. The shadow Minister also asked me for a little more information on how the MOU will affect cross-border services between England and Wales. The clause allows the MOU to identify services in England that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers would like to be provided alongside Welsh-designated services. It lets UK and Welsh Ministers set objectives for integration and steps to facilitate it, as well as the arrangements for sharing information. That will hopefully provide a clear framework for co-ordinating cross-border operations, enhancing efficiency and passenger experience, and supporting seamless connectivity across the Wales and borders area. The shadow Minister’s amendment 40 would require the Welsh MOU to be published at the same time as the long-term rail strategy, and to be laid in Parliament for two months before coming into force. I refer the Committee to my previous comments. The MOU serves a different purpose from the LTRS, and linking them would add unnecessary complexity for little apparent gain.

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

  More

  Regard will have to be paid to the business plan over the period for which it is implemented. It will also be possible to tell, on the business plan’s completion, whether it has been completed in a way that is cognisant of and reflects GBR’s duties. The Secretary of State will review the business plans with the duties in mind, as set out in clause 18. That approval process is in itself an assessment of how GBR has balanced its duties, affording lessons as to how they have been applied in the past but also, as the hon. Member is right to point out, for the future. The approval process is designed so that the bodies can provide checks and balances on each other, through co-operation and constructive challenge, ensuring that the common objectives are achieved in the best way possible. The business plan and the advice relating to it will be published, so Members can follow along and scrutinise whether GBR is appropriately balancing its duties at all times. This is already a transparent reporting system. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw or not press these amendments.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendments. Amendment 33 would add further duties to clause 18. The proposed duties are either duplicative of existing provisions in the Bill or would constrain GBR’s operational priorities, undermining the directing-mind approach that the Bill implements. Specifically, the proposed duty on passenger growth duplicates the existing duty to “promote the interests of users and potential users” of the railway. That duty will already require GBR to consider how to bring more passengers to the railway. As a passenger service operator, GBR will naturally be incentivised to grow passenger numbers in order to raise its own revenue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield so ably outlined. The proposed duties on economic growth would also duplicate the public interest duty, which explicitly requires GBR to consider economic benefits when making decisions on the railway. The proposed duty on passenger satisfaction would duplicate the minimum consumer standards that we expect to include in the GBR licence. On the shadow Minister’s point about enforcement powers relating to the passenger watchdog, it is worth saying that the watchdog will set those minimum consumer standards, covering things such as accessibility and passenger information, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the ORR. It can also request enforcement from those bodies, as well as improvement plans from GBR. There are mechanisms to ensure that accountability takes place.

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

  More

  Amendment 36 would require GBR to make an assessment of how procurement from the private sector could help it meet its value for money duty. The amendment is drafted on the basis that GBR would otherwise be uninterested in working with the private sector, but I highlight to the Committee that that is not currently the case for Network Rail and will not be for GBR either. Currently, Network Rail spends, on average, around £8 billion per year with more than 4,000 rail suppliers. We expect that, in future, at least 60% of expenditure by GBR could feasibly be spent in the private sector. By providing a more integrated approach across track and train, and greater long-term certainty, GBR will be in a position to give the private sector the confidence it needs to invest, support innovation and promote the adoption of new technology. When discharging its duties under clause 18, GBR must consider the efficient use of taxpayers’ money, and it must be able to decide the most appropriate way to do that. That is the basis of the principle of decentralising decision making away from Government and empowering GBR to run the railway. Prescribing a specific assessment of potential private sector involvement, which might not always be relevant every time GBR discharges that duty, would itself be an inefficient use of funds. Amendments 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate passenger trains for Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership is the only way to make the railway run better, with the whole system working to one set of clear objectives.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his comments about the safety regime on our railways, and join him in the sentiment he expressed about the ORR. The Committee can argue about the merits of privatisation versus nationalisation, but the fact remains that the people who work across our railways do so with safety first and foremost in their considerations. The shadow Minister is absolutely right to recognise that we have a formidable safety record in the United Kingdom because of the hard work of people across the railway network. With regard to situations in which UK and Scottish Ministers could give potentially contradictory directions to GBR, the Bill explicitly provides for the MOU to make provision about the use of directions powers, and the intention is to use that to agree how those powers will be used to avoid giving GBR contradictory directions. We have discussed that with Scottish Government colleagues. If the shadow Minister requires further information on that point, I will be happy to provide it for him. In the meantime, I am glad that he sees the sense in the clauses, and I commend them to the Committee . Question put and agreed to. Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Memorandum of understanding: Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  As Lord Hendy was fulsome in explaining, those involved in negotiations for the MOU are extremely cognisant of upcoming election dates in Holyrood, and I would say that they are similarly cognisant of upcoming election dates in the Senedd. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with the indication that he may need. Returning to amendment 40, the MOU with Wales has the same publication requirement as the MOU with Scotland, meaning that transparency is already baked in without the need for a two-month review period. As the shadow Minister set out, the amendment would specifically require the MOU to include details of the allocation of ticket revenue from cross-border routes. That would add unnecessary complexity by effectively embedding granular, technical review formulas into a document designed to set out a strategic agreement between Governments. This detail is an operational and commercial matter rightly governed by established industry settlement mechanisms and bilateral contracts. The Bill already provides a statutory framework for fare setting and transparency, enabling GBR to set fares for its services while devolved operators manage their own. Including these details in the MOU would duplicate existing processes and could conflict with the Bill’s intent. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to move the amendment and commend the clause to the Committee. Amendment 169 agreed to .

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

  More

  As I said, it has the power to request enforcement, and that is important because, ultimately, GBR needs to be able to take those decisions but have robust accountability from the ORR and the Secretary of State should it not have regard to things such as its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities. But the watchdog plays an incredibly important oversight function in ensuring that GBR is not remiss in its duties. The proposed duty on efficiency and productivity is already in the Bill: there is a cost-efficiency duty in clause 18. On the proposal to increase private sector involvement, we want GBR to co-operate with the private sector to create the best possible railway for everyone, but not to increase private sector involvement as a stand-alone goal. There will be times when increasing private sector involvement will be needed, such as when it comes to freight growth, and the Bill already provides for that, but it should not be an end in itself. Rather, GBR should focus on delivering for passengers and taxpayers in the best possible way, using all the options available to it. The duties in the Bill are clear, and introducing additional, duplicative detail will not help GBR to deliver effectively. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw amendment 33. Amendment 32 would replace the current definition of railway service performance in the Bill with a longer list of criteria, including reliability, safety, passenger comfort, affordability, passenger growth and the establishment of new services. Those are all important issues, but the Bill already requires GBR to focus on performance, including specifically reliability, punctuality and the avoidance of overcrowding. Those are top passenger priorities when it comes to train performance. Matters such as cleanliness, passenger comfort and value for money will already be considered as part of the passenger interest duty and through minimum consumer standards, which the passenger watchdog will set. Clause 18 already requires consideration of the social and economic benefits that can be derived from the railway, which will include considering where new services might be needed. That is one of the core benefits of GBR: it will be able to look across the entire network holistically. There will be greater opportunity to maximise our limited capacity and potentially create new services compared with the current system.

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

  More

  It is my understanding that the system this Bill creates for GBR to engage with third-party retailers through ticketing will include the sharing of necessary data. I presume that would apply to such things. However, I will clarify that for the hon Member and get back to him on that point as I do not have the exact answer at the moment. Amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to clarify the application of the general duties in clause 18, and I thank him for it. It is important for the reformed sector that there is a set of duties shared by the key sector bodies, and that these duties apply to Ministers, GBR and the ORR. I am happy to reassure the hon. Members that clause 18(1) already sets out clearly that the duties will apply to Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR when carrying out the functions specified in clause 18. There can, in my view, be no question as to who and what they apply to. In that regard the amendment is unnecessary from a drafting perspective, and does not provide greater legal certainty. The hon. Member also asked about GBR’s purpose. Those functions and duties are quite literally GBR’s purpose. It seems to me that all this amendment does is rewrite them in a different format, but the functions themselves are clearly segregated for each organisation to which they apply. However, the duties apply to all and must be balanced by all. On that basis, I commend clause 18 to the Committee. It sets out the general duties which will be shared by key players on the railway. The duties apply to GBR, the ORR, the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The duties will apply whenever those bodies carry out their relevant functions. The shadow Minister has already outlined what the duties are. If Members wish to have a look at them, they are on page 10 of the Bill, so I will not repeat them. We believe that this common set of goals across the key sector bodies provides shared incentives to ensure that everyone works together to create the railway that we all want to see. The new duties also reduce the confusion, complexity and duplication that exists in railway legislation, allowing everybody to be clear on what their objectives are. While the functions in clause 3 of the Bill explain what we expect GBR to do, these duties set out what we want GBR to think about and achieve. Together, these two clauses set out the purpose of GBR, as the Government promised we would during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. To conclude, clause 18 is a critical part of the Bill. It sets the foundation for how the key sector bodies will operate, guided by the public interest and empowered to deliver a railway that works for its users, taxpayers and the wider public. These duties are the core criteria that should guide every decision that GBR and others make about the railway. They are therefore imperative to the proper functioning of the future railway. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I begin my remarks, may I seek a piece of advice on amendment 250? We are considering it as part of this group, but if it has not been moved and has been proposed by a Member who is not on the Committee, am I required to speak to it?

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

  More

  The shadow Minister pre-empts what I am sure will be a spirited debate about open access in later clauses. Open access provides a proportionally very small percentage of passenger services on the railway, but it makes a really important contribution, especially in terms of inter-city links, which I personally benefit from with Hull Trains running from Selby to London. GBR does not want to lose the benefits that open access can provide. In fact, having a more streamlined and cohesive railway, as a result of GBR’s responsibility for capacity, could even increase the ability for open access services to run on within the network. That does not change the fact that, in our view, overwhelmingly across the UK, public ownership is the right way to make the railway run better, as it can work to a whole-system approach and a clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers. Privatisation created conflicting priorities and complex contracts that cost the taxpayer £150 million annually in unnecessary fees. A 2020 report found that Network Rail and train operators were employing hundreds of people just to work out who was to blame for disruption. That system was outrageous, and it was symptomatic of a privatised system in which operators were financially incentivised to point fingers instead of fixing problems. We cannot continue with no one in charge, and the Bill makes it clear that, in future, GBR will be responsible for making the railway work, and no one else.

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

  More

  I do not dispute some of the points that the shadow Minister makes on open access, but could he tell us a little more about how this relates to his perspective on the access regime? One of the reasons open access is unable to thrive on the west coast main line is insufficient capacity, and part of the access challenge is created by Network Rail and the ORR not having a cohesive system for managing access and timetabling in a way that makes sense. Would having one unified body to manage that access regime not allow open access opportunities to be realised in shorter order?

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

  More

  It won’t be the last!

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I very much identify with the sentiment identified by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. This is something that impacts Selby town, much as it affects communities across the country. It is right that GBR has regard to managing the way in which level crossings impact road users as much as it does the way that railway infrastructure and passenger services do. My question is whether that obligation is best placed in this part of the Bill. Network Rail already has a system for considering the impact of changes on local communities, and that will be mapped over into the way that GBR functions. I believe that the transfer of that process, in a way that is reactive and operationally agile, is probably the best way to ensure that those considerations remain integral to how GBR carries out that work. On connectivity and multimodal journeys, I am happy to confirm that strategic objectives in the long-term strategy will already include supporting better connectivity between communities. This will provide direction on the long-term trends affecting the railway. However, as with others in this group, amendment 261 would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term assessments of passengers’ ability to change between rail services or different modes—things that could change frequently, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in a document that sets out long-term strategic aims. However, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be pleased to hear that we will soon be publishing our integrated national transport strategy, which will set out the Government’s vision for domestic transport across England. It will focus on a transport network that works well for people across the country, including improving integration across modes, but I will of course take the sage advice of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about my personal role as part of that process. Amendments 225 and 213 both seek to make the strategy subject to additional procedural requirements. Amendment 225 requires consultation with operators during preparation of the strategy. I can reassure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Government have already committed to consultative engagement with key stakeholders, including freight and passenger train operating companies, which will be essential for gathering evidence and informing the strategy’s development. Therefore, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 213, meanwhile, requires regular reporting from the Secretary of State to Parliament on delivery of the strategy. However, as GBR will be the principal organisation responsible for delivering the vision and outcomes that will be set out in the long-term rail strategy, it will be for GBR to report on its progress in delivering it. GBR already must have regard to the strategy, and will respond to it through its business plans, on which it will report regularly. Given that and other existing reporting mechanisms, the amendment would be duplicative. The new clauses in this group all propose new strategies or reports—for example, on rolling stock, cyber-security and technology, Sunday working arrangements or signalling. Those all naturally cut across the long-term rail strategy and, if accepted, would, in my view, risk GBR being busier completing strategies than actually running the railway. However, I would like to take each new clause in turn to give them due regard. On new clause 27, the Government absolutely agree with the principle of a long-term rolling stock strategy. In fact, we would go a step further and say that this strategy should cover not just rolling stock, but the related infrastructure as well, in a single integrated strategy. Such a strategy was sadly lacking during the last three decades of privatisation, with decisions about rolling stock and related infrastructure taken to meet short-term and route-specific needs of operators seeking to maximise their profits. It is this Bill, establishing GBR, that will put that right. However, I do not agree that the Bill needs this as a duty on GBR. Rather than creating a duty for GBR to deliver at some time in the future, we are already working with relevant parties across the industry to develop a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy to be published this summer. GBR will inherit that strategy and act on it to deliver improvements for industry, taxpayers and passengers. Likewise, there is no need for a reporting requirement relating to cyber-security and technology. Cyber-security remains a priority for my Department; we are committed, through both existing cyber legislation and policy, to ensuring that GBR operates safely and securely. While new clause 28 reflects priorities that the Government share, the measures it proposes, such as on artificial intelligence, digitalisation and innovation, are already being delivered without the need to include them in this Bill. On new clause 29, relating to Sunday working arrangements, I would first like to say that I have no doubt that creating GBR to improve both the quality and dependability of train services on Sundays will drive up demand and allow more people to benefit from the railway. We want a railway that operates reliably and sustainably, seven days a week, on a lower net subsidy than today, with built-in resilience and a diverse workforce. However, this is not an overnight change, but a long-term one, and not a process that, in my view, needs to be set out in legislation. Rather, we will continue to work with staff, managers and unions across the future railway to deliver this change collaboratively.

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

  More

  On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place. I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be. The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy. Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy. The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.

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

  More

  Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address. Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed. Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.

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

  More

  I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them. First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs. On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR. The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.

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

  More

  We want GBR to be empowered to address and deal with all these questions relating to personnel and timetabling in a way that is consultative and in partnership with both unions and private sector operators. My point merely remains that it is not appropriate to freeze them in aspic as part of this Bill, in a way that might prevent GBR’s ability to work properly through those considerations with the workforce once it exists. Producing a separate report on the demand for Sunday travel would duplicate the work that GBR already has to undertake through its business plan, which will set out the outcomes and key deliverables for GBR, including train service levels, which will be agreed with the Government and published accordingly. Finally, new clause 54 relates to a signalling strategy, and again there is no need to place such requirements in this Bill. Network Rail has released its approach to digital signalling for 2024 to 2029, setting out the routes that will be converted to digital signalling. GBR will take over that approach and would be expected to develop it in its future business plans. To bring the focus of the discussion back to clause 15, the long-term rail strategy will ensure that the railway will always have long-term direction from this Government and future Governments. Such directions are vital for stability and confidence within the rail industry. The strategy will help to prevent the constant short-termism that has been called out by both the industry and its supply chain. I hope that, following my response to these amendments, the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw them, and I commend clause 15 to the Committee.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate. For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables. We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway. New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement. New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements. On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy. Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments. Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Ivanhoe Line: Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) on securing the debate, and thank everyone for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Patrick Hurley), for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). On a practical point, may I say that I will chase the correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire referred to in relation to HS2? More broadly, I thank her for her work in advocating on behalf of her constituents and championing their need to have public transport that serves their interests. She rightly points to the fact that this Government believe that transport is not just a means of getting from A to B; it is a key way in which we fulfil the lives of people in the United Kingdom and connect them to greater economic opportunity and to their families. We will use the transport network as a catalyst for economic growth and for making sure that we have the housing people need. My hon. Friend appears to be laser-focused on those principles in her work and advocacy, and I thank her for that. I am grateful for the passionate case that my hon. Friend made for reconnecting the towns of North West Leicestershire in the heart of the National Forest, such as Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville and Swadlincote, with passenger railway services to Burton-on-Trent and Leicester —bringing back services lost in 1964 where only quarry freight services still operate today. Transport connections such as the ones that she mentions underpin the core missions of this Government, whether that means kick-starting economic growth, unlocking housing delivery, or breaking down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. Our objective is simple but ambitious: to build a stronger, more connected transport network that works for everyone, wherever they live. We believe that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the investment priorities in their areas, but too often, places such as North West Leicestershire have faced fragmented funding and limited flexibility. That is why, from April, we are providing all local transport authorities with more consolidated funding settlements, giving them the ability to align transport investment with local priorities and wider regional objectives, accelerating projects that matter most to their residents, businesses and visitors. The Ivanhoe route cuts through Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire. In Leicestershire, for example, this means that a total of more than £251 million of vital investment—across highways maintenance, active travel, electric vehicles, bus services and other local transport—will be delivered through consolidated funding by 2029-30. Elsewhere along the line, Staffordshire will receive £342 million, and the Mayor of the East Midlands will receive more than £2 billion by March 2032. That said, I will take away the point, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire made very powerfully, about the disparities between funding in mayoral combined authorities and the local authorities that directly border them. That is something that we are working on through the Railways Bill, to create more democratic accountability, irrespective of mayoral arrangements. I think that point was very well made, and I will take it away from this debate. However, that settlement will support transport authorities, including those outside of MCAs, to strengthen their road, public transport, walking and cycling links between towns, cities and rural areas, and ensure that improvements are felt across the entire region. Soon, we will embed that approach right across the country through our integrated national transport strategy. The strategy will champion transport that is designed, built and operated with people at its heart, recognising that different places face different connectivity challenges and therefore need different solutions, but also that they have different opportunities. My hon. Friend made an important point about the latent potential of the tourism industry in her constituency, and how the Government must work hard to realise it in partnership with her. We want to focus on making transport safer, more reliable and more accessible, giving more people confidence in the network and confidence that it will work for them. Crucially, we will also align transport more closely with housing and with public services, recognising that poor connectivity entrenches inequality, while good connectivity expands opportunity. I commend the work of my hon. Friend in championing the case for reinstating passenger services on the Ivanhoe line, building on previous work to assess the viability of the scheme. While the Chancellor took essential steps to help balance public finances in 2024, closing the previous Government’s unfortunately unfunded commitments in the restoring your railways programme, we welcome transport authorities using local funding to develop the business case for their important local priorities. Indeed, authorities can work with Network Rail to develop and present business cases and investment proposals for consideration through the rail network enhancements pipeline, the Government’s funding portfolio for rail upgrades, at any stage of development. That process ensures that funding decisions are affordable and represent good value for taxpayers. The Government are also keen to facilitate third-party investment in railway infrastructure that could support local development and housing plans. I urge local transport authorities to make best use of the funding we are making available to them, and to make the right decisions for improving transport connections across all modes, for Ashby, Coalville, Swadlincote and elsewhere. Recognising the importance of improving transport connections in the wider midlands region, the Chancellor committed in the July spending review to progress to the next stage of the midlands rail hub, which will unlock thousands of homes and drive economic growth, with better connections and more reliable journeys for passengers. The first phase will create capacity in central Birmingham to improve reliability and enable additional trains both locally and to Worcester, south Wales and the south-west. We are working closely with Network Rail to ensure passenger benefits as soon as possible. Depending on future investment decisions, the later phases of the rail hub would also mean major benefits for the east midlands, with extra trains between Birmingham, Derby and Nottingham, including possible stops at Burton-upon-Trent and between Birmingham and Leicester. East Midlands Railway’s new bi-mode Class 810 Aurora trains have already started to enter passenger service on the midland main line through Leicester and will continue with a phased roll-out through 2026. These new trains will bring a step change in the customer experience and will support growth. Once all those new trains are up and running, they will provide a 46% uplift in capacity, with more seats and carriages. To conclude, today’s discussion has been an opportunity to reflect not only on the case for the restoration of the Ivanhoe line but on this Government’s priorities for improving transport connections to help people get about and to access the opportunities they deserve, and on how we can support local authorities in the east midlands to deliver on the transport priorities of their communities. Although I feel that I may not have been able to answer the noble and ambitious aspirations that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire has put forward today, I encourage her to keep the conversation going and to continue to hold DFT Ministers’ feet to the fire on this most important of issues. She is a tireless champion on behalf of her constituents and of their ability to get where they need to go, realise economic opportunity and lead richer, more fulfilled lives. I encourage her to continue in those efforts and I will watch with interest as she does so. Question put and agreed to.

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

  More

  Schedule 2 will establish a new funding process for GBR that takes what we have learned from the successes of the periodic review process and applies them to the new GBR world. The new funding period review will provide GBR with five years of funding to carry out its job in operating and maintaining the railway network, and will create a structure through which GBR will develop and own integrated business plans across track and train that reflect its role as the directing mind for the railways. The schedule retains the role of the ORR in testing and scrutinising the plans, ensuring they are ambitious but deliverable, and providing confidence to the Government. The new funding process, with the five years of certainty it provides, will help to result in the best price for Government and the taxpayer, and generate consistent, longer-term work for private partners in the rail supply chain—keeping good, well-paying, specialist jobs alive and thriving in the United Kingdom. The schedule will also give greater representation to devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities, providing them with a real opportunity to advocate for the countries and places they serve at the national level. The funding period review will provide GBR with the structure it needs to set out how it will make our railways reliable, offer better value and be more accessible. I therefore commend schedule 2 to the Committee.