Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today. Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to start by asking for the leave of the House to speak again, and then wish a very happy birthday to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I was so keen to wish him a happy birthday, I nearly put a foot wrong when it came to parliamentary protocol. I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday during consideration of the Railways Bill with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). May I say, it was raucous, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) will attest? I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the Lords amendments and for his strong support for the principle of decarbonisation of aviation. I am starting to receive slightly mixed signals from the shadow Transport team as to how passionately they stand behind this prospect across different modes of transport. Perhaps that is one to be hashed out over a beer at his birthday celebrations. I am glad that the shadow Minister agrees with the Government amendments. He is right to point to the economic value of decarbonisation across the United Kingdom and the need to focus on value for money for taxpayers. We are committed to delivering that in the revenue certainty mechanism by controlling the scale and the number of contracts that are entered into, as well as the prices that are negotiated in each contract. I assure him that the cost of the scheme and the impact on passenger ticket prices will be kept under continual review. I do not just acknowledge his commitment to be vigilant on this issue; I actively welcome it, and I thank him for his contributions. May I also acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)? I have already thanked him for his work on the Bill, but he was not in the Chamber, so I would like to take the opportunity to restate my thanks to him for getting this crucial legislation to where it needed to be. I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). They were right to focus on and say that the benefits of SAF production must be felt in my home of Yorkshire as well as in Lincolnshire and across the United Kingdom. The point about Doncaster Sheffield airport is important, because the consumers who use our airports and seek to use aviation travel to connect themselves to the world also care that they can do so in a form of technology that the Government are doing their utmost to try to decarbonise. I am glad that they feel that that level of ambition is reflected both in these amendments and in the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) also pointed to that. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), was right to say that SAF is only one piece of the puzzle in aviation decarbonisation. Hydrogen flight, greenhouse gas removals and airspace modernisation all require focus. Those points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Worcester (Tom Collins). My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked me about the concerns about crop use in SAF. Currently, crop-based SAF will not be eligible for the SAF mandate, but a call for evidence on the subject is open and will close on 16 March. More broadly, he asked me a range of questions that were quite detailed, some of which lie outside the exact scope of the Lords amendments. I would therefore be grateful if he would write to me and set them out so that I can give him the full response that he requires. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his contribution. He is right to point to the skills benefit that the generation of a thriving UK SAF industry can bring to his constituents and to support the work in Stansted airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also raised the important point of ongoing questions surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. I reiterate, as he asked me to, that we are calling on investors to come forward and join us in the major opportunity to secure the long-term industrial future of Grangemouth as a hub for our clean energy future. With Government backing, we believe that now is the time for private sector partners to step forward and help shape the next chapter for Grangemouth. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to invest £200 million to support those new opportunities. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with us, and we are ready to engage with investors on that point.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026. The draft order will assist in the replacement of the ageing and increasingly obsolete vessels belonging to the general lighthouse authorities by increasing the amount of borrowing they can access under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is the second of an anticipated series of 10 similar orders. As arm’s-length bodies of the Department for Transport, the GLAs perform a vital role in meeting the UK’s obligations under the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The UK has some of the busiest and most dangerous waters in the world, and the potential for calamity is clear. With over 85% by volume of UK imports and exports transported by sea, the importance of the work of the GLAs cannot be overestimated. They have been doing this work for hundreds of years and are world-class experts, but expertise is not enough. It is equally vital that they have modern, efficient equipment to support them. The GLAs work their vessels extremely hard. Their average economic service life is 25 years. Replacement on these timescales is therefore business as usual. I am delighted to note that the first of a new generation of GLA vessels, the Northern Lighthouse Board’s Pole Star, was delivered on Christmas Day 2025. This represents a sea change from her predecessor, as she is a significantly more capable, greener and more comfortable ship. That is a tangible demonstration of the Government’s continuing investment in the GLAs to ensure they continue to have the right tools to deliver their vital statutory duties. The cost of new vessels is what brings the draft order to this Committee today. The GLAs are funded by light dues, which are an hypothecated tax paid by commercial and other shipping interests. The GLAs are not paid for by general taxation and make no call on the UK Exchequer to meet their day-to-day operational costs. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 recognised that GLAs would occasionally need additional borrowing to afford large capital purchases, but it also set a cumulative limit of £100 million on the amount that all three GLAs could borrow. That figure was first included in legislation in 1988. It was not changed until the first of these orders, approved by Parliament in 2024, increased the limit to £133 million. However, it did not recognise inflationary or other pressures, or changes in international financial reporting which resulted in other costs, such as fixed-price elements of contracts, being treated as “borrowing” in accounting terms. That figure also included all borrowing, regardless of source—commercial or Government. In real terms, £100 million in 1988 is equivalent to £197 million today. The GLAs were able to keep comfortably within the original £100 million limit until the need to purchase new vessels meant that it is now insufficient to meet forecast borrowing requirements. However, the 1995 Act places restrictions on how and when the power to increase the limit can be used. First, increasing the limit requires advance approval from His Majesty’s Treasury. My colleagues accepted our case and have provided that approval. Secondly, the limit can be increased only by order, hence the statutory instrument before us today. Thirdly, the limit can only be increased by a maximum of £33 million at a time—that is, in a single order—as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments advised. Given those legal constraints, we need to increase the limit by the maximum £33 million once again. Additional orders will be required for future increases to ensure that the limit aligns with forecast GLA borrowing. We will submit these orders for parliamentary approval in due course. I must stress that increasing the borrowing limit does not represent a commitment to new funding. Every vessel replacement project will remain subject to the highest levels of scrutiny under Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury spend controls and approvals. However, these orders are essential to enable the GLAs to fund new vessels through borrowing when they need them. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman left off and send everyone involved in the maintenance and continued use of Happisburgh lighthouse my sincere congratulations on keeping it going strong. I hope it continues to do so long into the future. Responding to the points the shadow Minister made, I have met all the GLAs and remain confident in their capacity to manage this financial programme. I believe that they will make sure that when borrowing is undertaken, it is in a financially responsible way, and that they have the capacity to pay back borrowing in good time, owing to the close and thorough work Department for Transport officials have done with them on this programme. One vessel has already been brought to fruition in a cost-effective way, through a procurement process that I believe the authorities think worked well and served their interests, providing the vessel in a good timeframe. I have no concerns about the financial security of the GLAs, but if any arise, I will be sure to inform the shadow Minister, whom I thank for his general support. We are an island nation, but I think we do not appreciate shipping’s importance to our economy and thus the importance of keeping seafarers safe. I hope you will indulge me, Sir Desmond, and allow me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all seafarers and the staff of the GLAs, who go above and beyond to ensure that our vital marine aids to navigation remain operational. With the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, our GLAs are recognised around the world for their world-class standards and expertise. The draft order and the others to come will support the purchase of vital new, modern vessels and other equipment they need to perform their statutory duties, and enable them to continue the work they have successfully done for hundreds of years of ensuring the safety of all mariners in UK waters. Question put and agreed to .

• 12 Feb 2026 · Heathrow Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Heathrow Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Calder Valley Train Line · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mr Speaker, and most importantly, I wish you a very happy start to the super league season. Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the biggest transformation in travel in the north of England in a generation. Under NPR, officials will assess options to improve Bradford to Manchester connectivity, including consideration of the Calder Valley line. I know my hon. Friend has been a great advocate for electrification, and the Rail Minister will be keen to work with him on this issue.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Calder Valley Train Line · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on accessibility, and I would be glad to engage with him further on this matter. The project to which he refers was originally remitted to Northern Trains for delivery, but the contractor was stood down from works in August 2024 due to unsafe behaviours. Network Rail has taken over delivery of the project, the funding remains available, and it is currently undertaking survey works and option selection to provide an accessible route to and between platforms. I look forward to engaging with him further on this important issue.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  Better late than never, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister is becoming exercised about rail fares now, but fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2014 under his Government, and there was an £850 million strike cost to the taxpayer. For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares so that passengers can have money back in their pocket and continue to use the railway. If the shadow Minister wants to bring down costs for passengers in the long term, the only way is to get behind our move to create Great British Railways.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that our railways need to serve as a catalyst for young people to access the educational opportunities they need. I have already explained that we are freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which we hope will have a benefit for constituents across the area that she represents. Ultimately, the only way that we can get fares down in the long term is to have a railway with a single guiding mind and a single point of accountability, and that is through Great British Railways.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  This Government know that many people across the country are struggling with the cost of living. That is why we are taking historic steps to improve affordability for rail passengers, including freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving commuters up to £300 per year, and delivering another Great British rail sale in January, with over 1 million discounted tickets sold.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who continues to be a determined advocate for his constituents in Harlow. GBR will allow us to rationalise the way the railway is run, think about it holistically and make sure that passenger services are run in the interests both of the passengers who use them and of the British taxpayer.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to raise the transportation issues on the Isles of Scilly and in his constituency more widely—I would be very grateful if he wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter. I understand that the Rail Minister will be meeting the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly to discuss further some of the issues that the hon. Member is campaigning on.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are currently considering the judgment handed down in the Groom case and the next steps that we will take with His Majesty’s Coastguard. In the meantime, we are grateful for the contribution of volunteers across wider society. They are a crucial part of how this country comes together and delivers for the common good.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Energy Coast Train Line: Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend continues to be a determined champion both for the project and for the economic benefits that it could bring to her constituents. I agree that a meeting with the Rail Minister is the right way to progress the matter; I give her an assurance that that meeting will happen in short order.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Energy Coast Train Line: Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I thank her for her efforts to push the project forward; the energy coast train line has great potential to boost the local economy. Cumberland council is rightly leading the development of proposals, and my Department will continue to work with it, and to facilitate engagement across Government.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Passenger Railway Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am aware of both the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. While there are currently no specific plans to deliver on those aspirations, we would encourage both him and local stakeholders, including local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network Rail to continue to work together to develop those plans, including sourcing funding opportunities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play his part as they do so.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Passenger Railway Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Passenger Railway Services · Hansard source

  More

  Rail performance is improving following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. Those include timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to have the aspiration that public sector workers, who keep the wheels of our economy turning by facilitating connectivity and allowing the private sector to thrive, deserve to be fairly remunerated for doing so. Having a public sector body run in the public interest provides efficiencies in itself, with publicly owned English rail operators receiving 33% of Government funding and yet generating £4.5 billion or 38% of the income. If we remove the £850 million of unnecessary strike costs that would have been incurred, that shows that efficiencies and productivity are being built into the system by having a fairer, more decent and practicable relationship with trade unions. On a more specific point, drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure was also mentioned. Such inspection is already carried out by Network Rail and there are no plans to change that under GBR. Consequently, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to move new clause 32 and to withdraw new clause 31. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 55. It is imperative that GBR delivers for its passengers and employees alike. GBR workers will be key stakeholders in its success, so it is important that they, and the trade unions that represent them, are treated with respect, listened to and involved in the key decisions that affect them. The model for how that will work in GBR is still being considered and developed, together with GBR’s corporate governance and employee engagement structures, and it would be inappropriate to commit GBR to reporting on its structure or employee engagement arrangements when decisions on such matters are still to be taken. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to move his new clause.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them. Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on. Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities. However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it. I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026. For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, in what could well be our final session, unfortunately, on this big and beautiful Bill, as somebody across the pond might say. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for new clause 31. The previous Government introduced minimum service levels legislation akin to that proposed in the new clause, which this Government repealed under the Employment Rights Act 2025 as it did not support a positive and productive relationship between employers, employees and their trade unions. Indeed, it served only to exacerbate the national rail disputes under the previous Government, who saw two years of widespread strikes and disruption to millions of passengers. The previous Government’s inability to solve the industrial dispute is estimated to have cost £850 million in lost revenue—a debilitating amount for industry and the taxpayer. In agreeing pay deals last year, we have more than halved the proportion of rail services lost due to cancellations and national strikes since the height of industrial action under the previous Government, and we have begun the critical job of making the railway work for the passenger once again. Further, although many rail employers had the opportunity to use minimum service levels regulations, none chose to do so as they deemed them either unworkable or unnecessary. For those reasons, we do not agree with the principle behind the new clause, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. On new clause 32, the hon. Gentleman’s proposed working practices and productivity modernisation framework under Great British Railways covers various areas, with the aspiration, which the Government share, of delivering a modernised railway that fully meets the needs of passengers. I am grateful to him for his considered suggestions for a framework. It covers some matters that we are already taking steps to address, such as the extension of rest day working agreements to improve the reliability of train services seven days a week. As I confirmed to the hon. Gentleman last week, some train operators already have Sunday in their working week, and we are very serious about improving performance everywhere. We want a railway that works on all seven days of the week, which is why we have instructed train operators to set out detailed resourcing plans, including on recruiting sufficient drivers and crew. However, the suggested framework also proposes some changes that could breach an individual’s contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. They need to be negotiated and updated as part of staff contracts, and that is not appropriate for legislation. Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. On the proposal to require GBR to establish a train driving school with streamlined training methods to increase driver availability, I assure him that steps have already been taken to address the driver shortage. In May 2025, we announced a reduction in the minimum age to become a train driver from 20 to 18 to allow train operating companies and, in future, Great British Railways to create career pathways for school leavers and broaden the pool of people they can recruit from to address shortages. On training in general and the need for training to reduce unnecessary delays in deploying rolling stock and other areas, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that comprehensive and targeted training is essential to the proper running of the railway. GBR will implement best practice across the railway to ensure its staff have everything they need to succeed. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his desire to end short-notice holiday approval, the dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave and the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails. As I have said, we want a railway that works seven days a week. It is our view that the privatised railway caused this issue, with a fragmented set of employee terms and conditions that has resulted in differing approaches to the workforce. In bringing together train operators, GBR can start to tackle some of those issues, which are rooted in the privatised system. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that must not come at the expense of safety or workers’ rights. On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the Secretary of State should be prevented from awarding general pay rises to workers when train performance has fallen, may I suggest that performance is something that GBR can improve in a lot of ways, including by bringing track and train together and by sensibly co-ordinating the timetable? Those are both lacking today and create many performance problems.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert— “7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).” This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary. Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert— “8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’. 8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.” This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill. Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert— 22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows. (2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’. (3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— ‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or (b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.” This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.” This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary. Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert— “24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’, (b) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and (c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’. (3) After that subsection insert— ‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’ (4) After subsection (3) insert— ‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’ (5) At the end of subsection (5) insert— ‘“working day” means any day other than— (a) a Saturday or a Sunday, (b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or (c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’” This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill. Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph 1(aa). (3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’. 25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.” This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes. Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert— “27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (4A)— (a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’. (3) In subsection (8)— (a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.” This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR. Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert “for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”. This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2). Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.” This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements. Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert— “32A Omit sections 3 and 4.” This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill. Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert— “33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8). 33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8). (3) In subsection (2) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’. 33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11). (3) In subsection (4) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.” This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system. Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert— “34A Omit section 16. 34B Omit section 18. 34C Omit section 20. 34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (10). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (8). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’. (3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’. (4) For subsection (9) substitute— ‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’ (5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’. 34G In section 32(12)— (a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’; (b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’; (c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’. 34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34J For section 36(7) substitute— ‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’ 34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’. (3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’. 34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3). 34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows. (2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute— ‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is— (a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State; (b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers; (c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers, and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’ 34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’. (3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’. 34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) at the appropriate place, insert— ‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’ (b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert— ‘(da) a mayoral combined authority; (db) a mayoral combined county authority;’; (c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a). (3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196. Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert— “35A For section 48(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means— (a) a Scotland-only service; (b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or (c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’ 35B For section 48A(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means— (a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or (b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196. Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert— “36A Omit Schedule 4. 36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert— ‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority; (eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”— (Keir Mather.) This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 89 Regulations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that important clarification and I happily correct my remarks to reflect that. However, I do not believe that it changes the substance of my point: improvement of performance and productivity can be achieved through myriad factors that do not include preventing the Secretary of State from awarding pay rises to workers when the level of train performance has fallen. There is a point about fairness and equity there, as productivity is outwith the control of some people who work on the railways. The amendment would, in effect, punish people for factors that could be beyond their control.