Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  I have given way plenty of times. This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Timetable Changes: Berwick-upon-Tweed · Hansard source

  More

  The new timetable improves capacity and journey times along the east coast main line, delivering over 60,000 additional weekly seats. Overall connectivity at Berwick has been strengthened, with more frequent regional services and better connections to Newcastle. CrossCountry now provides an hourly service, and TransPennine Express has increased the number of services between Newcastle and Edinburgh from five to eight a day in each direction, with further improvements planned.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Timetable Changes: Berwick-upon-Tweed · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for championing the needs of both elderly residents and people with disabilities, but also everybody who uses those direct services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London. I know that a small number of direct services have been cut, and I appreciate the fact that he has been doing community outreach on this important point. I suggest that he shares the results with LNER and Network Rail, which can use his findings to inform future planning, but I am very happy to work with him further on this important issue.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly why we are establishing GBR: to provide my hon. Friend with a consistent approach to making the case for the railway infrastructure improvements that he needs. Also, the devolution settlement enshrined in the Bill will ensure that GBR can work at the local level, with the ability for mayors to fund GBR directly to achieve specific local goals. It is our hope that through that devolved approach, with GBR able to work in lockstep with the mayors who are pioneering place-based politics across the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend can realise the changes to the rail system that he so desires.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that my hon. Friend is working so closely with the people who drive our railway and discussing the impact that GBR will have. She is right to say that, by integrating track and train and having a single directing mind for our railway, we can think more holistically about the skills of those we need to drive that change. That is a really exciting possibility to take forward. Finally on amendment 92, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). It is no exaggeration to say that, without his efforts, this historic provision would not be entering the statute book. I thank him for his work with my officials and the Rail Minister to make that change a reality. I see that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is again attempting through an amendment—we discussed this in Committee—to press the railway back into a mode of franchising. The 30 years of privatisation are what left our railways in the fragmented and dysfunctional state they were in when this Government came to power. We took immediate steps to fix that, passing the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. It is only right that any future Government that wish to return us to a railway with rising costs, confusing and inconsistent fares, and record cancellations should have to seek agreement from this place. I turn to new clauses 49 and 50, and amendments 124 and 132. They introduce a new route for the independent sector regulator, the ORR, to modify non-GBR operator licences. That will allow the ORR, after consultation with the operator and others and the passing of a statutory notice period, to modify the contents of a licence. That approach is consistent with that taken in other regulated sectors such as water, electricity and gas. Such modifications will be needed across the industry to reflect the changes we are making in this Bill and to ensure the consistent adoption of standards and services across the rail network. Amendments 168 and 169 ensure that the ORR can still make technical modifications to the GBR licence with GBR’s consent. That reflects the fact that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in every minor and technical amendment to the GBR licence. From day one, we have been committed to creating a simpler and more unified rail sector. Industry-wide alignment is critical to ensuring that passengers and other users of the rail network benefit from a less fragmented system. The amendments will ensure that all operators, not just GBR, are in lockstep in adhering to consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog, obligations relating to rail safety and the effective delivery of vital cross-industry functions by GBR. New clause 48 and amendments 110 to 119, and 126 to 128 all build on the transfer scheme provisions that were added to the Bill in Committee. New clause 48, together with amendments 118 and 119, introduces a new power to vary the application of certain taxes in relation to transfer schemes. That ensures that we can restructure the public sector and move staff and assets into GBR in a tax-neutral manner, avoiding a complex and unnecessary money-go-round that would hinder the delivery of better public services. Beyond that, the remaining amendments I referred to are all technical and ensure that the transfer scheme provisions are fit for purpose. Amendments 107, 108, 141 and 142 are technical amendments to clarify the definition of GBR infrastructure and to ensure that GBR can run trains on third-party infrastructure, for example High Speed 1. You will have to buckle in for this one, Madam Deputy Speaker: amendments 93, 97 to 106, 109, 120 to 123, 133, 137, 139 and 140 are all technical amendments that ensure the Railways Bill supports the potential future corporate structures of GBR. As I have already said, the Bill will be a long-lasting piece of legislation, and it is right that it provides an appropriate level of flexibility for GBR to adapt and change in the years ahead. It must design itself to meet the challenges of the day, and the Bill must enable it to do that. Finally, amendments 94, 95 and 136 correct an oversight in the legislation and ensure that Transport for London and other local government bodies can continue to co-operate with the Secretary of State for specific purposes, as well as with GBR, reflecting that decisions about devolution will remain with the Secretary of State.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that accountability and transparency should be at the heart of this. I think we have pointed to a bit of a discrepancy between the views of the major parties on how that should take place. It would be an interesting argument to say that, on the one hand, we did not want to micromanage the railway but then to put on the face of the Bill lots of key performance indicators that would allow us to do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the sentiment that accountability needs to run to the heart of GBR. That is what the passenger watchdog is there for: to enforce consumer standards on the railway as licence conditions for all operators. I thank her for raising that important point. Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause 56, on antisocial noise. That is a debate that I certainly want to take forward, and he knows how passionate I was on that matter in Committee. I thank Members once again for their contributions and for getting the Railways Bill on track for what I am sure will be a pleasant journey through the other place. Question put and agreed to. New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill . New Clause 49 Modification of licence conditions “For section 12 of the Railways Act 1993 substitute— “12 Modification of licence conditions by the Office of Rail and Road (1) The Office of Rail and Road may modify the conditions of a licence under section 8. (2) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice— (a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications, (b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect, (c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and (d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made, and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn. (3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given— (a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and (b) by serving a copy of the notice on— (i) each licence holder whose licence conditions are affected, (ii) the Secretary of State, (iii) the Scottish Ministers, (iv) the Welsh Ministers, and (v) the Passengers’ Council. (4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with subsections (2) and (3), the Office of Rail and Road decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any licence under this section. (5) The Office of Rail and Road must— (a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications, (b) state the effect of the modifications, (c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and (d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(b). (6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the Office of Rail and Road in relation to that modification. (7) The date specified by virtue of subsection (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this section.”” —(Keir Mather.) This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify rail operator licences, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue. On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute. Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality. On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary. New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train. The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-strained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports: the main five London airports as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester. The regulations are deemed necessary in the context of the ongoing conflict in the middle east, which continues to create disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector. The Government have therefore designed a slots hand-back measure for the summer and winter 2026 seasons that allows airlines to return a proportion of their slots without losing the right to the same slots the following year. The regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. The ongoing conflict in the middle east has created significant disruption to aviation. Airlines face longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and in some cases shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. Those developments remain unpredictable and continue to place pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are outside the control of airlines but nevertheless affect their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond effectively to known risks to their operations, and passengers could face last-minute cancellations and disruption at departure gates. The regulations respond directly to that uncertainty by providing limited, targeted flexibility while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system. The regulations allow airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the United Kingdom. Those are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times exceeds available capacity. Airlines will be able to hand back slots without losing their historical entitlement to those same slots in the following equivalent season. The 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under the regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance: it provides airlines with flexibility to adjust schedules in response to the impacts of the conflict in the middle east, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is strictly time-limited. The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland, and there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. It raised some comments that I will briefly address. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views were received. Although many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers therefore concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence. On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures. Where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or re-routing. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations, but this measure addresses that gap. On the final points that were raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. The powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Replacement powers are being sought through the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill and any future use will depend on prevailing circumstances. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulation informally through the pre-laying scrutiny period. It will be considered by the Committee this Wednesday, and we are not expecting concerns to be raised. The policy intent behind the measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. The regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights and remove the pressure to operate services purely to retain slots. They also help to protect connectivity, as airport slots underpin route networks built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historical rights despite temporary disruption ensures that those connections can be restored when conditions stabilise. Finally, they support the financial stability of airlines. Without these measures, airlines could be forced to operate loss-making flights or risk losing valuable slots, neither of which would be beneficial for the sector or for passengers. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on! The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents. Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades. Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations. In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process. It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about community consultation, and the CAA’s design of noise policy takes it incredibly seriously. These exemptions are designed to be used only when other regulatory avenues are not available, but we expect all operators to take noise considerations into account. I know how important that is to his constituents, and it will be part of this work going forward. As I said, the second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016. That will enable the introduction of internationally standardised extended diversion time operations later this year in the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. Those rules cannot be introduced while the criminal sanction remains attached, as the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 that we would need to use expire in June this year. The CAA has never used this sanction and has other regulatory tools to ensure compliance, including revoking approvals or limiting air operator certificates. On the wider powers gap in relation to criminal sanctions, the Department is aware of the issue, and we are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill that gap. We are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I hope I have adequately reassured Members that these provisions are proportionate, incentivise innovation and defend our robust record on aviation safety. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address. The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister. Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone. I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system. Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change. I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements. However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway. Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan. The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids. On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core. I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way. Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published. I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities. I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is correct to point out that rail services can serve as a catalyst for economic growth and as a way to connect more people to the culture that communities like Fylde have to offer. I will ensure that his request for a meeting with the Minister for Rail and representatives from his local council is passed on.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. She has made similar ones about open access, and I fully agree about how important it is. We believe that when GBR manages capacity across the rail network, it might create more opportunity for open-access services when the railway is run in a more cohesive way. Open access can absolutely be part of the picture in a dynamic railway system. The majority of passengers from Shrewsbury choose to go to Birmingham, or to other stations along the same route, and very few passengers used the Avanti service that was referenced. When Avanti withdrew its service, West Midlands Trains significantly improved its service by adding a new, limited-stop service to Birmingham, between WMT and Transport for Wales areas. Shrewsbury residents currently have three direct trains per hour to Birmingham. This is an improvement to the most popular services, and it also insulates local train service performance from issues that may occur further down the line. Since the direct service was withdrawn, Avanti has increased the number of fast services between London and Birmingham, improving interchange options for those travelling between London and Shrewsbury. I appreciate that that might not go far enough for my hon. Friend, and I am happy to take the conversation forward. Such steps represent meaningful progress, and it is not just rail services that are being improved for local communities. We are consolidating and simplifying local transport funding for all local transport authorities. Shropshire county council will receive £8.7 million from the bus services fund, which the council can use however it wishes to deliver better bus services for local people. Shropshire county council will also receive £219 million in integrated transport fund allocations between 2026-27 and 2029-30. I recognise my hon. Friend’s determination to pursue the open-access application from the Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway. The Department for Transport agrees that it would provide important connectivity for communities along the proposed route, including Shrewsbury. That is why we have provided conditional support for WSMR’s application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance, and without adversely affecting the rights of other operators. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that under the current system, access to the rail network is a matter for the ORR, as the independent regulator for the rail industry. The Department for Transport is unable to direct the ORR’s decision making directly. However, capacity remains constrained on the west coast main line, and that was a major factor in the ORR’s rejection of WSMR’s original application. Improving capacity across our rail network is a long-term priority for this Government. We are establishing GBR precisely to put in place the strategic planning and sustained investment that is needed to secure better connectivity and opportunity for communities in every part of the country. Once it receives Royal Assent, the Railways Bill will establish a new access framework. GBR will in future be responsible for decisions about access to its network, as the single directing mind for the railway. GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network in line with its statutory duties, which include promoting the interests of railway passengers, and delivering the social and economic benefits derived from railway services. Open access will continue to play a role in offering innovative solutions and improving connectivity where it represents best use of the network. The new capacity allocation framework will embed strategic planning, and under the infrastructure capacity plan, GBR will be able to provide greater clarity and long-term certainty for open-access operators in a way that the current system does not. The Government have committed to honouring all existing access rights under GBR, including for open-access operators, for the duration of those access agreements. In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for her thoughtful and constructive contributions on behalf of her constituents, and all other Members across the House who have raised the transport challenges in their constituency, have sought to hold the Department for Transport to account, and have asked how the Department can go further, faster, in delivering on its aspirations. I have listened to the points raised this evening, and I reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that the Government will reflect carefully on all of them. Question put and agreed to.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will ensure that his request is put through to the Rail Minister. Let me turn to the matter of direct services between Shrewsbury and London. I fully understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for a direct connection to London. I reassure her and the community she represents that the Government are determined to improve rail services across her constituency and elsewhere. We will set out some of our ambitions in more detail in our forthcoming integrated national transport and long-term rail strategies later this year. We have been clear that GBR must be a railway for everyone, and it will be required to engage widely with local leaders on delivering the best service for their area, supporting local growth in a way that is affordable, and supporting a high-performing railway for everyone. I welcome the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and that of other Members, and I look forward to GBR working in partnership with them to reshape services so that they meet the needs of the communities they serve.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Cheadle Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment. The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability. In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services. Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities. The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops. The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services. The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals. This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts. I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Isles of Scilly: Transport · Hansard source

  More

  The Department, of course, wants to pursue these projects at pace. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will respond to him in writing with a more detailed timeline of when roll-out will begin. To conclude, the Government are investing in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. Our multi-year transport investments help local authorities to drive economic growth and deliver on our plan for change. There are still challenges that we need to overcome, and I commit to working with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we tackle them for residents of the Isles of Scilly. I sincerely thank him for securing the debate, and for allowing me to address the House on these important issues, which I know are of paramount importance to both him and his constituents. I am sure that he will be able to cover this subject in more detail when he meets Lord Hendy, Lord Berkeley, Baroness Taylor and representatives from the Isles of Scilly council tomorrow morning. I look forward to working closely with him on delivering better transport provision and improved connectivity for everyone in his constituency and right across the United Kingdom. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Isles of Scilly: Transport · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to this Adjournment debate. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing it and for speaking so passionately about transport provision for the Isles of Scilly? He speaks with his characteristic good nature on what are really severe and challenging issues facing his constituents and, at the first instance, I acknowledge that and his tireless work across many decades in Parliament where he has advocated on their behalf. I also thank him for his kind offer for us to work more closely together on this issue, which is certainly a commitment I would be glad to accept. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Isles of Scilly are unique, both in their beauty and their appeal to both residents and visitors, as we have so ably heard, but also that they have clear and pressing challenges in their transportation needs. Their location, 30 miles to the west of Cornwall, brings a set of unique transport challenges that the hon. Member has set out. If he will allow me, first, I will briefly highlight some of the work that this Government are doing across transport, and notably in Cornwall, that will benefit the hon. Member’s constituents, before turning to the specific concerns that he has raised. We are providing record levels of investment to road, bus and active travel projects across the country to boost connectivity through simplified multi-year settlements. Although I appreciate that the Isles of Scilly are treated separately for funding purposes, Cornwall council, the local authority for much of the hon. Member’s constituency, will receive over £30 million of local authority bus grants during the spending review period, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. It will also receive over £4.5 million for active travel, up to £221 million for highways maintenance and £24 million in local transport grant funding over the next four years. However, I appreciate that the hon. Member has brought this debate today because he wants to speak about the specific concerns of islanders, and it is those matters that I will now turn to. The Isles of Scilly are served by a ferry service for eight months of the year, provided by the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company and its vessel, the Scillonian III. I am pleased that the company has commissioned the building of a new passenger ferry, the Scillonian IV, which, as the hon. Member has outlined, is due to come into service next year. In addition, it has two new freight vessels coming into service this summer, and a further vessel is to be launched in 2027. These investments will help secure services between the isles and the mainland for the foreseeable future. The hon. Member is right to point out the cost of living impact of the transport challenges that his constituents face. The cost of living is a key issue for this Government, and I recognise his and his constituents’ concerns regarding the unique challenges around the high cost of travel to, from and between the islands. I acknowledge the difficulties the island communities face, both in travelling to and from the mainland and in travelling between the islands, and my Department remains committed to delivering better, sustainable and more affordable transport provision. This will be reaffirmed in the integrated national transport strategy, which will soon be published. Although the amount of transport funding that we are able to offer the Isles of Scilly through the legislative means that the hon. Member outlines is, in my view, limited, that does not mean that we do not wish to do all we can to improve the services there. I can confirm that we are providing the council with a total of £291,000 in highways maintenance incentive funding, up to and including 2029-30, to maintain and improve local roads. Alongside this, we have allocated £140,000 in active travel funding to support the development and construction of walking, wheeling and cycling facilities, and to support network planning and community engagement. I would like to reassure the hon. Member that I am committed to continuing the engagement between the Government and the Isles of Scilly. It is of paramount importance to me and other Ministers that this continues. Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government visited the Isles of Scilly last year and spoke to residents to gain a greater understanding of the challenges that people face. This was followed by a visit in July from Baroness Taylor. These visits were valuable for our Departments, which have worked collaboratively to understand the challenges for people on the islands, including economic difficulties and transport-related issues. Both Departments remain in regular contact with the Isles of Scilly council, which is proactive in driving forward change. I also recognise the impact of the increasing cost of fares and of transport operations on the people of the Isles of Scilly. It remains the case that all air and sea services to and from the islands are commercially operated, without public subsidy. As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, the threshold for Government intervention in such markets is extremely high, and there are no current plans to intervene, given that commercial services remain viable. I take his point about the provision for the Scottish islands and the legislative hangover from previous Governments’ time in office, but I would note that the situation in question was distinct, in that the services could not operate on a commercial basis. I reassure him that, through the Department’s public service obligations, a policy is in place that if any air transport routes were at risk of being lost, we would assess whether intervention was needed to ensure that the vital links between the islands and the mainland were maintained. I also recognise that inter-island boat services are vital for the Isles of Scilly community. As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman, however, if a service is to be covered by the £3 national bus fare cap, it has to meet the necessary criteria, including being an open bus service that allows all members of the public to board. The English national concessionary travel scheme is a statutory bus-specific scheme, and it does not extend to maritime transport, but I understand his concerns about the limitations of that framework. Local authorities have the discretion to offer concessions on other modes, and I am aware that the Isles of Scilly council already provides a health pass, as well as a discretionary concession pass. On ferry services, it is for the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company to decide whether to offer concessions, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s very reasonable point about the fiscal pressures faced by the council, and the concessionary offers that it is able to provide. That is certainly something that I will take away and reflect on as a result of our debate.

• 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 · 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.

• 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

  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 (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Enabling mayoral combined authorities to be consulted on GBR’s proposals creates a basis on which MCAs and GBR can engage with each other to explore challenges as could relate to economic impact. The issue with calling in consultation in every instance is that it might not always be appropriate to do so. Where a more iterative process is possible, and Scottish Government and Welsh Government colleagues, for example, are best able to feed in and solve problems through consultation, it is not necessary to layer more formal processes on top. It is worth restating for the benefit of the Committee that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are pleased with the basis on which the devolved arrangements have proceeded in the creation of the Bill. Clauses 80 to 82 as drafted will ensure that GBR engages on issues of importance, and that it consults Scottish and Welsh Ministers, rather than drowning in irrelevant detail. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw amendment 103 and not to move amendments 104 to 106. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report “at least once every five years…assessing long term-changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure.” Across this Parliament, the Government are making a record £120 billion capital investment in long-awaited infrastructure projects—including road, rail and green energy projects—that will generate the jobs of the future and drive growth. The Government also hugely support collaboration to encourage a more locally focused railway. Insights from local communities, who know their areas best, will play a significant part in achieving that. The Bill requires GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and to have regard to their local transport plans. GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable effective collaboration and local influence. That will mark a change in approach in how the railway engages locally, providing single-point accountability and enabling GBR to better meet the needs of areas and wider communities. Furthermore, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward-facing and engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. Such engagement and partnerships will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities to be collaborative with GBR on their priorities and to consider proposals. Government amendments 158 to 160, which are a continuation of the technical amendments that we debated when considering the group led by amendment 165 to clause 6, will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. They clarify the definition of a London passenger railway service to provide consistency in geographical scope with other duties and powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They expand the scope of the duty on GBR to consult with TfL so that it applies to passenger services to, from and within Greater London, and not just those within it. In summary, clauses 80 to 82 introduce statutory duties on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, MCAs and TfL before it makes a decision about services or infrastructure that would significantly affect the interests of their areas. The rationale for the clauses is compelling. They provide assurance to the relevant people and organisations that they will be properly engaged when GBR makes decisions that significantly impact their areas. By embedding such a broad duty in legislation for the first time, we ensure that engagement is not optional but a requirement. That will lead to better decision making, stronger relationships and outcomes that take account of the needs of communities across Great Britain.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling the new clauses, which relate to enhancements on the rail network or the impacts of other projects on rail. New clause 11 would establish a fund for future railway improvements. Local and regional transport authorities could then bid for funding from the pot for their local areas. I certainly share the support the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has for improving the railway across the whole country, and I believe that the railway can bring benefits to the places it serves. However, it should be for GBR, as the organisation run by experts and charged with running railways, to maintain close relationships with local and regional authorities, including the local commissioning of infrastructure projects where agreements can be reached. The fund the hon. Member proposes risks removing GBR’s opportunity to organise, design and implement enhancements, which is a job that it is best placed to do, as the directing mind. Of course, GBR will engage closely with local and regional authorities when planning, and should invest where real benefits would be gained. Enhancements funding should continue to be set at the spending review; that is appropriate where projects are discretionary. GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. I also expect the publication of GBR’s integrated business plan to provide further transparency on the enhancements GBR plans to undertake, and the associated funding. That should help set the roadmap for the five-year funding period. I hope the hon. Member can agree that such decisions should be made by GBR, working with local authorities and with mind to the long-term rail strategy. New clause 35 would establish a report on a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work, on a line-by-line or service-by-service basis, and with considerable detail on the specific timing, scope and sequencing of works over a 15-year period. I share the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to create transparency around GBR’s spending, and certainty for the railway supply chain. We are already working to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and supporting infrastructure, such as electrification, that will provide clear direction for the supply chain. As I am sure he already knows, the Bill contains a duty for GBR to consider certainty for railway service providers. However, I disagree that this needs to be in statute and that a pipeline containing the level of detail proposed in this amendment, over 15 years, would be a good way of achieving the goals of transparency and certainty for GBR. GBR will have a five-year integrated business plan, backed by five years of funding for infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewals. That has been established as the appropriate balance between long-term planning and the realities of a changing operational environment. Forecasting specific infrastructure works beyond five years becomes increasingly unreliable, potentially leading to instability for the supply chain and for GBR—the exact thing this amendment is trying to avoid. Enhancements funding will continue to be set at the spending review, while GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. That ensures that larger projects have longer term certainty. The current process has resulted in £2 billion being invested in the railway network every year, from 2019 to 2024. I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can understand that creating a stable long-term rail strategy and business planning environment will do more to achieve these aims. Finally, I turn to new clause 71, which raises the importance of understanding rail impact when considering major infrastructure projects. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for raising this issue, but I do not agree with it primarily because the matters that the amendment seeks to mandate are already comprehensively addressed in the existing statutory framework. Under the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statements applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the transport, energy, waste and water sectors, the Secretary of State will consider requirements to mitigate adverse impacts on transport networks arising from any developments. For transport projects, promoters must provide detailed assessments of the impact of their proposals on transport networks, including rail capacity, demand and operational implications. These assessments are a routine and established part of the development consent order process, which the Secretary of State must consider. This amendment would introduce an entirely new statutory reporting step before an application could be examined, which would go against the Government's reforms to streamline the consenting regime following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aims to make the system quicker and more efficient. Instead of adding value, this new requirement would instead risk adding delay in introducing uncertainty, which could hinder timely progress on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Having laid out the Government’s arguments to these amendments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

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

  More

  The Government are committed to a more locally focused railway under GBR, and provisions in the Bill, and ongoing engagement with local government partners, demonstrate the strength of that commitment. The amendments are primarily technical in nature, but will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. I will briefly summarise their purpose and effect. Amendment 161 widens the scope of services about which relevant local government bodies may be required to provide advice to GBR under clause 83. This is achieved by including reference to services between places in the body’s area and those outside it, rather than only services operating exclusively within the body’s area. Amendment 162 has the same effect in relation to Greater London. All the amendments are consistent with the original policy intent of the Bill and simply clarify the drafting. Amendments 163 and 184 include important and relevant definitions from other primary legislation, namely the Railways Act 1993 and this Bill. Clause 83 introduces statutory requirements on mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This duty ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State can have access to advice from local authorities, which have detailed knowledge of their areas, including in relation to local transport. Ultimately, that will support GBR and the Secretary of State in obtaining relevant local insights. Clause 84 replicates that approach for Transport for London by amending the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert a new section 176A after section 176. The new section introduces a statutory requirement on Transport for London to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This change ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State will have access to Transport for London’s expertise and its detailed knowledge of transport in the Greater London area.