Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks. If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve-out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else. I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur. The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter. The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution. A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up. Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady’s question reflects the strength of feeling across the House about the volunteers who man the coastguard, as well as about the need to ensure that the consequences of the judgment are fully understood and volunteers get the support they need. I would be glad to meet her. I should also note that the chief executive of the MCA will be doing a drop-in with Members of Parliament; I will ensure that the details are shared with her.

• 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 thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope he sees that the Government have tabled amendments to ensure that Great British Railways cannot be privatised by the back door. Any changes would have to be made through an Act of Parliament, with full consultation with the House. I am sure that the people who have sent us here would look at any proposition to turn back the clock on the momentous decision we are taking—to go back to a railway that was fractured, in decline and confusing for passengers to use—and encourage every Member of Parliament not to do so. That is the importance of our amendments, and I am glad that my hon. Friends sees that.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March 2026. The United Kingdom was a founding signatory to the Paris memorandum of understanding in 1982 and a member of its predecessor since the late 1970s. The Paris MOU is a well-established international framework for inspecting foreign ships that call at member states’ ports, ensuring that international standards that reduce risks to health, safety and the environment are met. This is known as port state control. It formalises intelligence sharing on substandard ships and issues, and it adds weight to enforcement action taken by the United Kingdom by also impacting those vessels internationally. The purpose of the draft regulations is to replace the existing 2011 regulations, which currently give effect to the Paris MOU requirements in UK law. The new regulations contain an expanded list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written. Those conventions have separate effect in UK law but are now referenced in the draft regulations in order to ensure that the legislative framework for undertaking port state control inspections is up to date. The draft regulations also remove references to EU legislation and instead reference the Paris MOU directly. The 2011 regulations were made partly using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations are made using powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and, to the extent necessary, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers. The Paris MOU uses a risk-based scheme for targeting visiting ships for inspection and includes powers to exclude from ports ships that are persistently substandard. The UK’s participation in the port state control regime is an obligation of the UK under the Paris MOU, and it is also a valuable defence against substandard ships visiting UK ports. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI has noted the regulations but provided no further comments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House. There remains little else to say, other than that I have set out the purpose and scope of the draft regulations, which revoke, replace and update the 2011 regulations. The draft regulations will continue to uphold the UK’s commitments to international standards. I commend them to the Committee.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist. To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year. I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows. Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.

• 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The shadow Minister makes a valid point about the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to ensure productivity as part of GBR’s processes. We differ on the mechanism by which those efficiencies are achieved. GBR will be incentivised to improve performance via its performance duty and, in extremis, GBR and the Government will work with unions as partners to achieve necessary changes. We have discussed at length, when considering the Bill, the myriad forms of accountability and enforcement of consumer standards and the need to drive competition where it drives performance in some areas of the railways. However, our approach to union relations has been different from that of the previous Government: it has been to get around the table to address matters and avoid the need for industrial action. That in itself is a driver of productivity on the railway, which is in stark contrast to more of a scorched earth approach from the last Government, which resulted in strike after strike, often costing the taxpayer in the process.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer. In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types. In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy. New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network. As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made. Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty. When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

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

  More

  The shadow Minister is right to champion the interests of users of the railway and to ensure that the people who enforce such charges are scrupulous. Network and station operators, including GBR, will be required to use their judgment to determine whether the person responsible for a vehicle should bear the cost of removing the obstruction from railway land in the first place. I am happy to commit that we will engage closely to ensure that is done in a proportionate way that protects the interests of passengers and users of railway services. By including this provision in the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the proposals. As part of that process, the shadow Minister is welcome to hold my feet to the fire to make sure that the interests of consumers are protected. Question put and agreed to. New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 61 Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State “(1) The Secretary of State may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities— (a) from the Secretary of State, a government department or a company wholly owned by the Crown, to— (i) Great British Railways, (ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (b) from Great British Railways, or a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, to— (i) the Secretary of State, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to— (i) the Secretary of State, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown, (iii) Great British Railways, (iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways; (d) from a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR to— (i) another such company, (ii) Great British Railways, (iii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iv) a proposed GBR, or (v) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR; (e) from the Secretary of State or a government department to a company wholly owned by the Crown, or vice versa. (2) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent— (a) of the Scottish Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and one or more other persons, and (b) of the Welsh Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and one or more other persons.”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  New clause 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to undertake a review of passenger safety within six months of the Act passing and to make all reasonable efforts to implement any actions identified. I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause—passenger safety is of the utmost importance as we transition the railway into public ownership—but I do not think the new clause necessary, as the Government are taking action even before the Bill is passed. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will be aware, we already have a range of security measures and guidance in place across the railway and the wider transport network, addressing the issues raised. Those will be maintained under public ownership and are kept under continuous review to ensure that they meet the challenges of the day. I highlight the recently reviewed and updated long-running public security campaign, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, which increases public awareness and makes clear how to report suspicious activity to the British Transport police via the 61016 text reporting service; I am not sure I need to remind Members of that, as it will probably be seared into every one of our minds from travelling on the railway. I am confident that in giving GBR strategic responsibility for rail workforce planning, we will create more resilient staffing and provide greater visibility and assurance to passengers, both on trains and at stations. As part of the Government’s safer streets mission, we have already committed to reduce violence against women and girls by half over the next decade. That will be tracked by Government through the violence against women and girls strategy, recently published by the Home Office, which includes ambitious measures to enhance the safety of women and girls on the rail network. That includes improving live access to CCTV images by the British Transport Police, and establishing consistent personal safety criteria across the rail network. We are also already working to improve Passenger Assist and to support staff with better tools and more consistent training across the network. The ORR also monitors and reports on Passenger Assist and releases statistics quarterly. Finally, the ORR already has general safety duties that include carrying out inspections to ensure that the train and freight operating companies and Network Rail manage passenger and occupational health and safety risks appropriately. Those remain unchanged by the Bill. Given that, a further review of safety requirements would only serve to drive attention and resource away from the action that is already being taken. Similarly, I fully agree with the principle of new clause 48, which aims further to ensure that passengers experience journeys free from disruption, harassment and criminality. I pay tribute to the train managers and guards across the network who work tirelessly in the interests of passengers to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I know the friendly and reassuring faces of the train manager on my regular trips between Parliament and my constituency. However, as I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, changing the role of train managers and guards through a legal duty could be a change to the nature of individuals’ contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. It would be up to GBR to consider what is appropriate at the time. Consequently, I do not agree with the new clause. Finally, new clause 57 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the use of electronic audio devices on rail services. I cannot begin to express the depths to which I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. The Government recognise the nuisance that irresponsibly used personal electronic devices can cause to other passengers, and I appreciate the importance of ensuring that passengers are not disturbed by excessive noise while travelling on the railways. I am pleased, however, to confirm that the matter is already addressed under existing national railway byelaws. Railway byelaw 7 states that people “on the railway” shall not “to the annoyance of” others “sing; or…use any instrument, article or equipment” to produce sound without “written permission from an Operator”. Any person who breaches that byelaw commits an offence and may be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000.

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

  More

  All the provisions in this group relate to transfer schemes. New clause 61 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to make one or more transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities, including contracted employment between public entities. The new clause is important, as it will enable transfers to and from GBR. Transfer schemes are regularly used for highly complex transfers and can avoid undue delay and costs in getting the right assets into the right place at the right time. Transfer schemes will provide a framework for the consistent treatment of workers, in line with Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) principles. GBR will bring together activities from more than 17 existing organisations, including Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, DfT Operator and 14 separate train operating companies, into a single organisation. It is therefore important that transfers be managed in the simplest, clearest and most efficient way possible to protect the staff involved and the taxpayers’ investment. New schedule 1 provides further detail on transfer schemes. The schedule is important, as it sets out the scope of what may be included in a transfer scheme. This follows standard drafting practice and will prevent individual or piecemeal issues from slowing down the delivery of an integrated railway that better serves the public as a whole. New clauses 62 and 63 will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make one or more schemes for the transfers involved to enable GBR to run devolved services on their behalf. The provisions require the consent of the Secretary of State to protect their interests and the transfer of liabilities or assets in or out of GBR that they wholly own. The provisions also provide for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make transfers between companies that they themselves wholly own. That will enable a smooth transition between delivery models for devolved services by devolved Governments. Such transfers would not require the consent of the Secretary of State, as they only involve companies owned by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers. We have worked in partnership with the devolved Governments to ensure that they can share in the benefits of an integrated railway and, if they so choose, use GBR for the delivery of devolved railway services. These transfer scheme provisions reflect the approach that we have agreed with Scottish and Welsh Ministers. New clause 65 will allow for the transfer of employment contracts from the ORR to the new passenger watchdog. The watchdog will take over most current ORR consumer roles, including the setting and oversight of standards. The new clause is important as it allows for the transfer of contracts of employment, provides protection for impacted ORR staff in line with TUPE principles, and will allow the watchdog to have the expertise that it needs to get up and running as soon as possible. Finally, new clause 64 and amendment 263 make further provision for transfer schemes. New clause 64 introduces new schedule 1 and will allow transfers into GBR to begin before GBR is fully designated to allow for sensible operational preparation ahead of establishment. Amendment 263 is required to ensure consistency of terminology with other railways legislation and to ensure that the definitions of “wholly owned” and other similar wording are accurate and make sense in the context of previous Acts. Taken together, the provisions are essential to ensure that GBR can be established quickly so that we can bring the benefits that we have promised to the public. They will allow the Government to minimise the cost of the transfer to the taxpayer and ensure that staff are protected. I commend them to the Committee.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Leagrave Station: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on the potential merits of step-free upgrades at Leagrave railway station. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing it, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents on this very important matter. I know well how deeply she cares about her community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport and safer, more accessible stations. For many residents, Leagrave station is not simply a station. It is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers, or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility that they expect. She is also right to say that the travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive for all. That sits at the heart of this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network. Many stations across Britain were constructed long before modern equality and accessibility standards existed. While around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is just not enough. I may be one of the younger Members of Parliament, but I doubt that even I will see the full realisation if we carry on at the rate that was expressed by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). There is a lot more hard work to do, and that is why we remain committed to improving accessibility through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map, and through long-term reform of the railways as we move towards the establishment of Great British Railways. In May 2024, the previous Government published a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work as part of the Access for All programme. As my hon. Friend will know, that included a nomination for Leagrave station. However, those feasibility studies were announced without clarity on how projects would ultimately be funded and significantly raised stakeholder expectations in a way that was not fair. This Government have taken a more rigorous and disciplined approach, ensuring that only affordable and deliverable commitments are taken forward. Our approach seeks to ensure that the maximum number of Access for All schemes can be delivered, and the risk of schemes overrunning on cost or encountering unforeseen engineering challenges is greatly reduced. With that wider national picture in mind, I would like to speak directly about Leagrave station. I regret that it does not currently offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and those travelling with luggage, this remains a real challenge and a deeply frustrating reality. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point to the human experience of dealing with a lack of accessibility. It is something we experienced at Selby station when our lifts were out of order and only had a barrow crossing. If there was no member of staff available to take people across it, they would have to get the train to Leeds to then come back towards Hull. It is not a dignified way to travel, and it does need to change. We have been clear, though, that the commitments we make must be affordable and represent value for money for passengers and taxpayers. As my hon. Friend knows, we have unfortunately decided that accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station will not progress at this stage. In reaching that decision, we assessed nominations against a clear set of criteria, including the number of passengers who would benefit, the need for a good geographical spread across Wales, Scotland and different parts of England, the extent to which schemes could build on existing technical developments, and the availability of third-party funding. Stations that performed most strongly against those criteria are the ones that are now progressing to delivery or design. As we know, Leagrave station meets some of the criteria, including being a busy station and contributing to geographical balance. Indeed, my hon. Friend correctly highlights that Leagrave station sees over 1 million users a year, and other stations in better connected areas and with fewer passengers were chosen to progress; however, footfall was only one of the criteria used in assessing Access for All nominations. In the case of Leagrave, there was little prior technical development work in place. My hon. Friend is also right that no third-party funding contribution was identified. I would like to make it clear to the House that the absence of that third-party funding was a key factor in the decision not to take the scheme forward at this time. Indeed, this was the case in relation to 22 other projects nationally for which no third-party funding contributions were identified, none of which, unfortunately, are progressing at this point. As we look ahead, local third-party funding contributions will remain an important consideration in future Access for All funding rounds. That reflects both the limited public funding available to the Access for All programme and the substantial economic, social and accessibility benefits that these schemes deliver beyond the rail network itself.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Leagrave Station: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate and respect the sentiment that lies behind the new clause that the hon. Member has tabled to the Railways Bill. I would say to him that, through clause 18 of the Bill, we give Great British Railways a specific legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, particularly passengers with disabilities. We also have a tough new passenger watchdog to enforce consumer standards and to put accessibility at the heart of the railways. This intersects with the long-term rail strategy. That should provide him with the assurance he needs that accessibility is at the heart of the future railway under GBR. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also shared her concerns about the current state of the footbridge at Leagrave station. Let me reassure her that Network Rail carefully monitors the condition of its assets and that whenever the rail industry installs, replaces or renews station infrastructure, the work must comply with current accessibility standards. I would be happy to talk with her further if she feels that those standards are not being met. My hon. Friend also noted that the plan for Luton airport expansion was likely to increase overall demand on local transport networks, including rail. That point was very well made. At this stage we have limited evidence to confirm the scale or certainty of the impact, but, as I have mentioned, a future round of Access for All might be funded as part of the next spending review, and this could provide an opportunity to fully or partly fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station. Let me close by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thanking her for her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. I am aware that the Rail Minister will meet her on 16 March to explain the decisions made in relation to accessibility at Leagrave, and I look forward to continuing to work with her, with Govia Thameslink Railway and with Network Rail to ensure that Leagrave station is well placed to serve its community now and into the future. Question put and agreed to .

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mr Western. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for these amendments, which all seek to make changes to GBR’s access and use policy. First, I will provide a brief explanation of what the access and use policy sets out to do. It will set out a clear and consistent process for any operator seeking to run services on GBR’s network. It will therefore provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators—such as freight and open access—on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with when seeking access to GBR’s infrastructure. It will be very similar in concept to the way the ORR publishes access processes and policies today. It will therefore follow a well-known path by which industry can engage with the access process, and like today, this engagement will be underpinned by legislation. I can reassure hon. Members that the access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on the initial contents of the policy has already been published. It can be reviewed by hon. Members of this Committee and anyone else who wishes to contribute to its development. I will turn to amendment 79, which seeks to add an appeals route to the working timetable after the dispute resolution process. I am delighted to start in a place of agreement with the hon. Member for South West Devon because the addition to clause 59 is, in fact, already in the Bill. The Bill provides, first, a mechanism for resolving disputes relating to the working timetable and, secondly, an appeals route to the ORR. GBR will be required to set a dispute resolution procedure within its access and use policy for applications to be included in the timetable. That will allow parties to resolve disagreements collaboratively before escalation to the ORR, as detailed in clause 61(5). To be clear, the Bill already provides a subsequent route of appeal to the ORR for operators who have disputes over the working timetable. The amendment is therefore duplicative of that existing appeals route, and risks creating additional bureaucracy and confusion within the process. It would not improve the dispute resolution framework and, in our view, is redundant, but I am pleased that we have found at least one thing in these clauses on which the official Opposition and the Government can agree. Amendment 217 would add requirements that GBR should use the access and use policy to promote high-quality service and competition. I cannot agree with this amendment. GBR’s duties under clause 18 cover the range of points that the hon. Member for South West Devon has suggested GBR must consider for its access and use policy. For example, I agree that GBR must promote a high-quality service, and this is already reflected in GBR’s duty to ‘‘promote high standards” of performance. We must remember that the clause 18 duties are the key decision-making criteria that GBR must apply at every stage—including when making its access and use policy—and so the requirement to drive towards a quality service is already embedded. On competition, however, I must clarify that the Government support competition on the railways where it can add real value to passengers and farepayers. As the directing mind, GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network for all operators under a new and simpler legislative framework that ensures passengers and taxpayers are at the heart of decisions that are taken on the railways. Where competition can support GBR in fulfilling its statutory duties—for example, to grow the economy and to provide improved choice and benefits to passengers —without undermining the vast investment made by taxpayers, we are supportive of the benefits of competition, and GBR must take those benefits into account. However, what the Government will not support is competition for competition’s sake. It is ideological and does not help us achieve the goal of making the railway work better. The hon. Member for South West Devon seems to be equating promoting competition with fairness, but they are not one and the same. GBR must be fair to all third-party operators at all times. To ensure fairness for all parties, GBR will be bound by the Competition Act 1998, under which rules it cannot discriminate or abuse its dominant market position, and the ORR will continue to enforce this as the competition regulator. GBR does not need to actively promote competition to achieve that aim. Amendment 77 would require GBR’s access and use policy to be laid before Parliament for three months before it can be implemented. GBR would be unable to implement any part of the access and use policy for a period of three months after it had been laid in Parliament. This would only result in delays for operators seeking to access the GBR network—a concept that is unlikely to be considered favourably by either open access or the freight industry. The hon. Member for South West Devon should note that the access and use policy is a technical railway document. The purpose of this document is to provide a fair and transparent process for operators to apply for access. It sets out, for instance, the timings for applications, so that operators can prepare for the application window in advance. It also sets out what information applicants will need to supply and how applications will be assessed by GBR in accordance with its statutory duties. It is therefore right for GBR to develop it in consultation with industry and other railway bodies such as the ORR. This document should rightly be industry and expert-led. To reassure hon. Members about the content of the access and use policy, Network Rail has published a discussion document that sets out emerging thinking on a future access and use policy, with input from industry stakeholders. If Members of Parliament are keen to scrutinise the document, they are welcome to do so now, and I encourage them to engage with Network Rail’s external engagement process, or the usual processes in Parliament. The industry has responded positively to the transparent and collaborative approach that has been taken in the development of the access and use policy. The freight sector has commented on how the discussion document acknowledges the key role of private investment. Network Rail’s engagement with industry will continue as the policy is developed, and there will be a further full consultation on the access and use policy with the ORR as a statutory consultee, which Members of Parliament are again welcome to contribute to.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is why the point about designing the scheme in close consultation with industry partners is so important. The hon. Member has read my mind, as I am about to turn to specific instances or potential demarcations with respect to what does or does not constitute being within or outwith GBR’s control. It is probably important to briefly explain what happens if an unforeseen situation arises and operators believe it is GBR’s fault but GBR disagrees, and the role of the ORR in that process. That brings us back to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The Bill will include in the future scheme a clear route to appeal, to protect all parties in instances that are disputed, but the risks will be mitigated by requirements for GBR to clearly publish the details of the performance scheme, including criteria for when GBR would be liable to pay compensation. That goes back to the public law point about transparency and fairness. The ORR, as the independent appeals body, will have a legal obligation to review the situation impartially and advise on appropriate action where necessary. In addition to the ORR, to further mitigate the risk, operators will be able to seek other means of resolution though the Access Disputes Committee where matters relate to a contractual dispute. We believe that the clause is important, as there is a need to balance rightly protecting operators whose services have been disrupted with protecting taxpayer interest where it is reasonable to do so. For example, in instances of trespassing, we would not expect the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) to apply, as the disruption that it causes should be within GBR’s gift to mitigate through investment in defences, and GBR would have significant opportunity to influence how quickly services are restored. In such an instance, therefore, we expect that compensation would be payable. However, where disruption follows events in extremis that are clearly not within GBR’s ability to mitigate against or control—for example, an act of terror—we envisage that the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) might apply. I reiterate that formulating the scheme in consultation with industry will allow us to flesh out in far greater detail the demarcations, and make sure that private sector operators and rail freight have the surety they need that the scheme has been designed in the right way. The ORR will play a key role in the process in ensuring fairness, acting as the independent appeals body if GBR does not act in line with its duties. Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that third party operators do not face penalties for disruption outside their control. The Bill stipulates that only GBR is protected from paying penalties or compensation for disruption outside its control, because GBR is the only party that bears responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of its network. There is no responsibility for that placed on third party operators, including freight. On that basis, we do not see how the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon that a freight operator could face penalties for, say, infrastructure failures or planned engineering works would arise in practice, other than in extremely unusual circumstances —perhaps where an operator’s faulty train had caused damage to the infrastructure. Such events could only be the responsibility of GBR, as today they are not the responsibility of the infrastructure manager or the operator, so it is GBR that would pay the penalties for such issues. It is right, therefore, that the Bill pursues a policy that protects the rights of third parties to reasonable compensation when disruption occurs as a result of another party’s actions or inactions, while also mitigating the risk of unjustified costs to the taxpayer when disruption is not reasonably in GBR’s gift to avoid or resolve. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, as we believe the Bill already achieves the intended effect. Amendment 86 would prevent the performance scheme set out in clause 65 from becoming operational until it has been laid before Parliament. Such provisions for parliamentary scrutiny are a well-trodden path at this stage of the Committee’s proceedings, and we again believe that the amendment would add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy to what is effectively a technical industry process. In reality, the expertise about what specific incentives should be set for different operators on different routes is within the rail industry, and those experts are the ones who need to review and help GBR to develop the performance scheme. That is why the Bill includes requirements for GBR to consult on its performance scheme and requirements for what GBR must include and consider as part of its design, with clear rights to appeal to the ORR in the event of disputes. The amendment would add little practical value. It would delay the new access regime and the benefits it will bring to passengers. Clause 65 requires GBR to provide for and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise it, its subsidiaries and other train operators to minimise disruption to other train services and to the network itself. The scheme may include provisions for GBR and other operators to be required to pay penalties for causing disruption, receive compensation for disruption caused and receive bonuses that reward better-than-planned performance. The scheme may not provide for penalties or compensation when one train service causes disruption to another but they are both operated by the same person. The clause also prevents GBR from having to pay penalties or compensation in relation to disruption outside its control. The clause gives GBR the power to require operators to provide information necessary for the scheme to function and offers no right to compensation or bonuses for parties that do not comply with those rules. The clause allows any person aggrieved by a provision in the scheme or any replacement or revision to it to appeal to the ORR. The clause is vital to create an efficient and reliable railway. It equips GBR to design a scheme that safeguards operators, forces accountability across the network and promotes continuous improvement. I therefore commend it to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Me too, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for placing such confidence in me; we will see in due course if it is justified. I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to amendment 222, which would require the ORR to monitor KPIs. My response will be brief, to avoid repeating myself, as the amendment is heavily linked to new clause 2, which we have already debated. We expect GBR to have KPIs, as I have said before, but the right place for them is in GBR’s integrated business plan, alongside the detail of the activity that GBR will carry out over the five-year funding period. No sensible business would ever set its KPIs in stone, potentially for generations to come. It is important that the ORR, in its role scrutinising GBR’s proposed business plans and monitoring its delivery of them, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious and realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR will have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s KPIs. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is already ensured by legislation. Amendment 97 would require the ORR to monitor whether GBR is implementing safety recommendations and standards set by industry bodies. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. Britain’s railways remain some of the safest in the world, which is why we are maintaining the roles of the statutory bodies in this area—the ORR and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch —and preserving the legal duty on all public bodies, including GBR, to give due regard to the investigation branch safety recommendations addressed to them. Existing safety legislation already gives the ORR broad powers to monitor GBR’s safety management, including its implementation of investigation branch recommendations, and to take enforcement action if it finds that GBR is not managing safety effectively. The amendment risks confusing or duplicating well-understood roles and responsibilities in relation to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety best practice. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member that this suggestion is already covered. Amendments 99 to 101 would require the ORR to audit GBR’s statutory functions when undertaking its monitoring role. That is unnecessary, and would distort the clear and distinct roles set out in the Bill for both GBR and the ORR. The Bill retains the ORR’s important role as sector regulator and creates an enhanced monitoring function through which it will monitor GBR’s statutory functions and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. The ORR’s role as sector regulator is rightly separate to the role of an approved auditor. The annual accounts of GBR will be audited by the National Audit Office in the usual way. We do not propose to change that effective system, and cannot agree to an amendment that would layer it with unwarranted and inappropriate duplication, given that the ORR will already be monitoring GBR’s delivery of the KPIs within its business plan and GBR’s consideration of its duties when doing this. Oversight of GBR will be proportionate, risk-based and focused on the outcomes that matter most to users of the railway, taxpayers and the wider public. The ORR will have a crucial part to play in providing this oversight, including by undertaking its enhanced monitoring role in the way it, as the independent regulator, considers appropriate. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member not to press those amendments. I commend clause 74 to the Committee. It will provide the ORR with enhanced monitoring powers, in line with its new role in the reformed sector. It will ensure that the ORR can effectively scrutinise GBR and provide independent expert advice for the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on its performance. As set out in the Bill, GBR will be required to produce an integrated business plan that demonstrates how it will deliver its priorities across the breadth of its statutory functions, including passenger services and the management of the GBR network. Although GBR will report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of the plan, the ORR will be required to monitor the performance of GBR and independently advise the Secretary of State. The clause sets out that the ORR will monitor how GBR exercises its functions, including whether the commitments in GBR’s business plan are being met, how costs and income compare with estimates in that plan, and the extent to which GBR is ensuring safety on the railway. On an ongoing basis, the ORR will be able to escalate concerns to Ministers as it considers necessary, enabling the Secretary of State to make informed decisions in line with her responsibilities as funder of GBR. Given that the Secretary of State is democratically responsible for the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy invested in the railway, it is right that she has the final say on how it is used, with proper, comprehensive advice from an expert independent regulator to support her. To fulfil its new role, the ORR must have the ability to gather information, conduct investigations, and assess whether GBR is fulfilling its statutory functions and business plan commitments. Clause 74 provides that statutory basis. It will allow the ORR, where it deems appropriate, to publish any information or advice it provides to the Secretary of State in connection with this monitoring function. That will ensure that the public can see how GBR is being held to account for its performance and how it is delivering in the interest of its customers, taxpayers and the public. The policy rationale is clear: the Government are committed to preserving an independent expert adviser within the rail system and are providing the necessary tools for that body to operate and scrutinise GBR effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak to this group of provisions, which concludes the scrutiny on the access chapters of the Bill. Clause 72 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to amend the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 via the affirmative procedure. The access and management regulations are the existing body of secondary legislation that sets out the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers, train operators and the role of the ORR in relation to access, capacity allocation, access charges and performance. At present, those regulations can be amended only using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, but those powers will expire on 23 June 2026, which means that, after that date, there will be no means other than an Act of Parliament by which those detailed and technical regulations can be amended. Great British Railways infrastructure will not be subject to the regulations, as the Bill establishes a new access framework to enable GBR to be the directing mind, which we have discussed over the last few groups. However, alongside Great British Railways there will be a number of rail networks, such as Transport for London, London St Pancras Highspeed and the Core Valley Lines in Wales, that will continue to be subject to the access and management regulations. Those “adjacent infrastructure managers” will therefore not be part of GBR’s access regime. The purpose of the power in clause 72 is to ensure that the legislative framework governing the other infrastructure managers can be updated to address any inconsistencies between networks—to “keep pace” between the two different regulatory regimes. Without this power there may be disruption to the smooth passage of train services across different networks—which the Government have a duty to protect. For example, the power might be used to secure alignment on the date when a new working timetable must come into effect. The access and management regulations currently stipulate a date in December, but given the risk of weather-related events, staff absences during the Christmas season and the engineering works that usually take place between Christmas and the new year, GBR will likely want to move away from that. If it did, it is not unreasonable to think that other infrastructure managers might want to follow suit to avoid being affected by the same risks and to ensure consistency in the timetable change date. To achieve that, it would be necessary to amend the regulations for the other infrastructure managers who wish to align with the date that GBR chooses in the future. The regulation-making power would enable that simple change to be made without needing an Act of Parliament. There may also be opportunities for adjacent infrastructure managers to seek further simplifications to the current regulations in a way that meets our ambitions to reduce regulatory burden and support growth, while maintaining a sustainable and predictable framework so that businesses have confidence to plan and invest. The Government consider regulations, rather than primary legislation, as a better way in which to achieve that. Regulations made under the clause must be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Before exercising the power, the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties, ensuring full transparency, that industry has the chance to comment and that Parliament approves the regulations before any changes can be made. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 all seek to narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings and terminals; amendment 231 would similarly exclude freight-only facilities. Those amendments are unnecessary, as the purpose of the power is to ensure alignment and remove inconsistencies in the regulatory regimes that will apply to GBR and non-GBR infrastructure and to enable simplifications where they align with the objectives of adjacent infrastructure managers.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments, which would place a statutory duty on GBR and on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to ensure that discounted rail fare schemes are available for persons aged 26 to 30—I do not know whether I should declare an interest, as a holder of one of those railcards. The Government have stated that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the 26-30 railcard, but we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to list specific age ranges in the Bill in the way proposed. Listing specific age ranges would be unnecessarily inflexible. The Government are absolutely committed to retaining discount schemes for younger people; however, much of the current discount system is fragmented due to its origin in the franchising system, so GBR may want to rationalise the existing range of discount schemes currently targeting younger people to simplify duplicative and overlapping offers and age ranges between 16 and 30, for example, as part of introducing a modernised, more consistent offer for passengers. Given that Acts of Parliament are drafted to last a generation or more, placing specific age ranges in the Bill would likely remove those opportunities and potentially limit opportunities for young people. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

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

  More

  The Committee will be glad to hear that I do not intend to re-rehearse the argument that I pre-emptively set out in response to the amendments. On the broader point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham about the passenger watchdog and its capabilities, I am of the view that having independent monitoring powers for the passenger experience, having investigation powers, having the ability to demand information by a deadline, enforcing an independent dispute resolution service, and making sure that minimum consumer standards are protected with the ability to escalate to the ORR for enforcement is a suite of measures that will allow the watchdog to fully account for the passenger experience. That relates both to this clause and ones that I am sure we will arrive at in short order. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw his amendment.

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

  More

  I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which relate to the standard-setting role of the passenger watchdog and to accessibility. I will speak first to those related to the passenger watchdog. Amendment 71 would allow the passenger watchdog to set accessibility standards for all users and potential users of the railway, replacing the current reference to disabled passengers and those needing assistance. It is important that all passengers can access the railway, and I support the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that that happens. However, clause 46 already covers both users and potential users of the railway who require assistance to access services. Furthermore, the list of areas in which the watchdog may set standards is not exhaustive; it can set accessibility standards for anyone it deems appropriate, potentially including passengers travelling with prams or some of the other examples that were outlined. Let me also clarify that the wording of the clause is not exhaustive, so as well as the examples given in the Bill, the passenger watchdog can set standards on any other matters relating to passenger experience, at its discretion. That allows it to be responsive to passenger feedback and passenger needs. For that reason, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. Amendment 72 would expand the list of example areas where the passenger watchdog may set standards. First, as I mentioned, the clause already allows the passenger watchdog to develop standards covering all areas of the passenger experience. The list in subsection (2) sets out matters that may be covered by the standards and is not exhaustive, so it does not prevent the passenger watchdog from developing further standards in other areas in time; in fact, we expect that it might do so, for some of the very reasons that the shadow Minister suggested. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as it would not make a practical difference to the watchdog’s powers. Let me also clarify that standards on safety and security would significantly expand the remit of the watchdog, and are best left to expert safety bodies such as the ORR.

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

  More

  I turn first to the shadow Minister’s point about either diffusing enforcement capabilities between the ORR and the passenger watchdog or seeking to double them up as part of legislation that is designed to rationalise and simplify notions of accountability and enforcement within the railway. Under the system outlined in the Bill, the ORR can use the findings of the watchdog; the watchdog just has to make its own assessment of the materials given to it by the ORR. In my view, that does not constitute the same thing as reinvestigating a matter. The intention is for the ORR to be made aware of the passenger watchdog’s work at every step toward referral by the watchdog itself. There is therefore a low risk of the ORR having to retake steps, given that it is actively consulted as that process unfolds. I will now speak directly to amendment 66 and clauses 40 and 41. As the shadow Minister has outlined, amendment 66 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when its requests for information were not met. The Government are creating a strong passenger watchdog that will have powers to monitor passenger experience, and to hold GBR and others to account. Although it will not have full enforcement powers, it will be able to demand information from operators to a deadline, investigate problems, demand improvement plans and refer cases for enforcement action to the ORR. It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers creating additional bureaucracy would be too high. The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will enforce all other railway licences to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. We expect our licence proposals to include a condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog. That will help to ensure that other licensed operators co-operate with requests from the watchdog. That type of provision is typically found in operator licences. For example, there is a similar requirement for operators to co-operate with Transport Focus today. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary. Turning to clauses 40 and 41, clause 40 gives the passenger watchdog the power to request the necessary information to effectively carry out investigations into issues affecting passengers. That information could be requested from train or station operators including, of course, GBR. The information must be provided to the watchdog within a reasonable timeframe, unless the person did not have, or could not reasonably obtain, the information. If the watchdog did not receive a satisfactory response to its information request, it could refer the matter to the ORR, which will continue to act as the enforcement body for the rail sector. The watchdog’s power to request information from operators to a deadline is a new one, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to a strong passenger champion that can make an impact on the railway. That will ensure that the watchdog can carry out its investigations effectively and in a timely manner. Clause 41 protects any information where the person who provided the information has requested that it be held in confidence. That will ensure that confidential or sensitive information is not published or disclosed by the watchdog, with some sensible exceptions such as ensuring that the watchdog can refer the matter to the ORR for enforcement and that relevant law is complied with. Clause 41 also ensures that information held by a rail operator that may help an investigation but is sensitive or confidential—due to its commercial nature, for example—will not be published in any investigation reports. That will encourage operators to share information and ensure that the watchdog can carry out any investigation effectively while protecting confidential information.