Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come. GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true. We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators. New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield. The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments. I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land. The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration. New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations. The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund. With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.

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

  More

  I will speak first to the clause and then to the amendments, once I have heard hon. Members’ comments on them. Clause 48 will establish the passenger watchdog as a statutory adviser, able to advise Ministers and industry bodies on matters of importance to passengers. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to provide advice to certain bodies, including the Secretary of State, rail operators and devolved Governments; they may also refer matters to it. The watchdog will also have a duty to provide advice without a referral if it considers it appropriate. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand passenger experience because of its research and investigations functions, as well as its access to complaints and core industry performance data. We wish to establish the watchdog as the central body that Ministers, mayoral strategic authorities, the ORR, GBR and other train and station operators can go to for advice on passengers’ interests, needs and priorities. We also want to ensure that the watchdog is an authority on all passenger matters, so that Ministers and others take its advice seriously. This will be the first time that the rail industry has had a statutory adviser covering all passenger matters. Clause 49 will place a duty on GBR to consult the passenger watchdog when developing or changing policies or procedures that significantly affect the interests of passengers. The clause sets out an indicative list of matters on which GBR should consult the watchdog. Those include passenger rights, handling disruption to rail services, determining fares, and arrangements for the sale of tickets. By feeding the watchdog’s insight to GBR when central policies and procedures are being developed, it will support GBR in creating better policies that prioritise passenger needs. I return briefly to the official Opposition’s wise words about culture last week, because the Government absolutely agree that getting culture right is essential to the success of the railway. The watchdog’s role here will be critical in influencing the culture of the reformed rail industry, being involved in all relevant policymaking to ensure that the focus on passengers is at the heart of everything the railway does. I therefore commend clause 49 to the Committee. Clause 50 will give the passenger watchdog the power to publish any information or advice it considers that passengers, or potential passengers, may find useful. For example, this could include publishing information on train operator performance to encourage improvements, such as league tables or the naming and shaming of poorly performing operators or routes. It could involve setting out complaint handling processes or advising passengers on their rights. Before publishing information or advice, the watchdog must consider whether it is necessary to exclude any matter relating to an individual or body that would have a serious and negative impact on their interests. This could include sensitive, personal or market information. This power will be central to the watchdog’s ability to hold operators to account publicly. I now turn to clauses 51 and 52. Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to exclude certain rail services from the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48. This power mirrors an existing power in the Railways Act 1993 and has been included because it is not appropriate, nor a proportionate use of resources, to require the watchdog to investigate services that are not part of the wider national network, are not licensed and mainly operate for tourism or leisure purposes—such as heritage trains. As service providers change over time, the clause can also be used to include new services in the watchdog’s remit, or to modify its duties in relation to specific services. In the future, there may be new services that the watchdog ought to monitor, or which it ought to monitor in a slightly different way. The power therefore exists to ensure that all relevant operators can be appropriately held to account by the passenger champion. The clause does not mean that the watchdog is prevented from monitoring any excluded services, just that the watchdog is not obliged to do so. Clause 52 provides additional clarity by defining some of the terms used in this chapter. For example, the clause defines a “disabled person” as “a person who is a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010”. I commend clauses 48 to 52 to the Committee.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Mr Bowker, for coming to give evidence. Just the other day, a group of DFT civil servants were recommending your podcast to me, so you will be pleased to know that you have friends on the inside, at the heart of Government. I was pleased to hear that you agree with the concept of a guiding mind for the railway—a unified body able to direct services in the interests of passengers. I want to point to the specific provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to passenger experience. One of GBR’s duties is to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, including those with disabilities, and clause 18(3) talks about having reliable services, and the avoidance and mitigation of passenger overcrowding. Does what is contained within the legally binding duties on GBR reflect the overall aspiration to have a unified railway with the passenger at its heart? Richard Bowker: Yes, I think it does. There is a danger in being overly prescriptive about how you do those things, but the duties are fairly widely drafted, and they probably do do that. Much of this will depend not so much on what the Bill says GBR’s duties are; they are pretty clear and comprehensive. It is about how it is then structured to go on and do these things. Previous panel members talked about culture and behaviour, and those are really important. So, yes, I think the duties are broadly fine.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. You raise the really important point that the operational reality of how GBR works as an organisation matters as much as the accountability targets and metrics laid out in the legislation. Could you talk a little more about that? An overall theme across the sessions today has been the balance in terms of the legislation not binding the hands of future Secretaries of State and not being overly prescriptive about how we deal with the railway now, in a way that might not suit how the railway modernises in the future. In terms of setting a freight target, a duty to promote passenger interests and a duty to have regard to freight, do you feel the Bill as it stands gives enough of a long-term indication as to the direction of travel we want for the railway, without being overly prescriptive, or do you think we have a little more work to do around the edges? Richard Bowker: No, I think there is a danger of being too prescriptive. Having a long-term rail strategy is an extremely good thing, but there is a danger, to take that as an example, of being too prescriptive. In terms of it being 10, 15 or 20 years, I was running the Strategic Rail Authority 20 years ago. We had no social media; it did not exist—I am jolly glad it did not, in terms of decision making—and AI was also not a concept. So there is a serious danger of being overly prescriptive in these things. Setting out a clear strategy, and having clear policy and direction, is exactly what the railway needs more than anything else. It does not need to be tied down in too much of a straitjacket. What is absolutely crucial in all this is the relationship between the Department for Transport and GBR, and with mayoral combined authorities and local authorities as well, as we heard from previous panel members. That relationship between the DFT—between how Government sets their policy—and how GBR then delivers will be one of the most defining things in terms of whether these proposals will be a success. If we get it right, this could be transformational; if we get it wrong, it could be yet more micromanaging and meddling, which would be a disaster.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is critical. GBR will be set up as an organisation to facilitate as many people as possible to use our railway. Wanting to grow passenger numbers is inherent in what we are doing, but we do not want to do that in a way that overly congests the railway and is not strategic. That is something we will work on. Parties will also have to explain why they want to waste the opportunity to take this reform forward. In sum, I ask everyone in this House to support the Bill, to seize the opportunities and to show the public whose side they are really on. This Government know who the Bill is for and who we are for: we are for passengers and not profit; we are for the commuters, the football fans, the hen parties, the grandparents and the rail enthusiasts; we are for everyone who gives our great British railway its distinctly British personality. If Members across the Chamber want to join us in that mission, I look forward to seeing them in the Aye Lobby tonight. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their comments. I also commend the work of businesses in Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the draft regulations. I have taken into account both the points raised on regulatory equivalence, and we have heard a diverse range of ideological perspectives on alignment with the European Union. In most cases, the draft regulations offer alignment with the European Union; that is incredibly important for regulatory alignment that facilitates international trade and the export of drones produced in the United Kingdom, which is an important piece of the puzzle. That being said, there are areas where we may want to carve out a competitive advantage for the United Kingdom by going further, faster—particularly with hybrid remote IDs. It is important to learn lessons from the aviation regulations of others across the world, and we intend to do that. We will go further, faster if we can, but it is good to have regulatory alignment where possible to facilitate trade where it is needed. On the transition period and people being adequately trained, the CAA is taking on a lot of work to make sure that people are in the right place. It has emailed all registered drone users—some 500,000 operators—and promoted the changes via Google Ads and promotional messages on social media to reach specific audiences. The CAA also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September, ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test. The CAA is well resourced to engage with operating companies and has done so through the consultation. It will very much continue to do that, as we make sure that these regulations suit and reflect the lived experience of drone users, while avoiding some of the inadvertent slip-ups that occur when they use regulated airspace and so on. This is an iterative process in which the CAA will have to work hard to make sure that it is answering the concerns of drone users, but I have every confidence that it has the resources and capability to do so. I finish by thanking both Opposition spokesmen for their considered contributions to this debate, and I hope the Committee will support the draft regulations. Question put and agreed to.