Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next. For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.

• 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

  Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it. I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today. In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.

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

  More

  I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.

• 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts. The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats. Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996. That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Ports and Port Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Mrs Jardine, to serve under your chairship. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this incredibly important and prescient debate. As an island nation, our prosperity has always depended on our ability to trade, connect and compete with the rest of the world, and that is as true today as it has ever been. True also is the importance of the ports sector across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and the contributions by MPs from across the Chamber today have reflected that. I turn briefly to some of the comments that have been made today. My hon. Friend pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the grey hulls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country. She said that we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and that I need to work hard with my MOD colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of Falmouth port and the exciting future in floating offshore wind, which I know she is challenging for, and also the next generation, who share the deep sense of civic pride in our port communities and are among the most ambitious about enhancing that status and projecting it into the future. My hon. Friend also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones that provide a catalyst for economic growth, a point also reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I also note the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about funding for the business case for the rail improvement project she speaks about. I would be grateful if she wrote to me to set out the detail of that again, and we will pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of port connectivity, not just to Northern Ireland, Belfast and his constituency, but to the entire Union of the United Kingdom and the economic bonds that exist within it. I am very pleased to say that I have accepted an invitation to visit Belfast port for myself to see those operations at first hand, and I am encouraged to hear that it is engaging in the master planning process and has such an exciting programme of expansion. On the Windsor framework, the UK Government are working hard to reset the relationship with our European partners. That will bring simplified trade procedures and reduced friction at ports, but he is right to hold us to account on that important issue for businesses in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) showed how planning reform, decarb initiatives and national growth do not need to happen to the exclusion of one another; they must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like those she represents. She is right to be ambitious about reviving the prospect for the port of Ramsgate. I just visited Portsmouth, another municipal port that shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth. I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency. I am excited to visit the port of Immingham very soon to see the investment it is bringing forward. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that, as I am a Hull lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He and other hon. Members raised the important plan for the grid connection process. I can confirm that I am working closely with colleagues in DESNZ, and also within Ofgem and NESO, to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline that are not shovel-ready and cannot be scaled at pace, so that our ports get the grid connections they deserve. That will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy that we hope to bring out later this year. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I am glad that they have focused on the fact that we can unlock efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure; that is an incredibly powerful point. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) also raised a point that we do not reflect on enough: beyond the quayside, even in some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities. There are inequalities in access to opportunity and to the fantastic roles we have in the maritime sector, but there are also major issues to do with economic inequality. It is this Government’s driving mission to address that. We want to make sure that ports such as Southampton continue to grow and offer fantastic services through the cruise sector. Part of that is about making sure that we get the grid connections right, but it is also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities that improved port connections can bring. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encourages me to make spending commitments from this Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point about rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles. That is more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy in the other place—but, if the hon. Member wrote to me about it, I would be very interested to engage with him further from a maritime perspective. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the port of Tilbury, which I had the real pleasure of visiting recently. I take his points about the implementation of EES very seriously. We continue to work with our EU partners and EU member states to encourage pragmatism whenever queues build, to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators. I assure him that I am working very closely with my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise. The impact of our ports should not be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life—the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the energy we rely on—all arrive by sea. Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities, supporting around 30,000 direct jobs. With the latest figures showing an annual contribution of over £2 billion, they are also catalysts for local, regional and national growth, although a key theme that has arisen from this debate is our obligation to ensure that the proceeds of that growth are spread more equitably among the coastal communities that Members represent. Last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy. That was in no small part down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020. The Government are working hard to match that appetite for growth. I have heard some of the limitations of the National Wealth Fund in terms of the investability of propositions before the organisation. However, £5.8 billion is being directed towards five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barriers to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date. Last year, the Government announced a further £448 million for the UK SHORE—Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports. We know that investment alone is not enough; a modern and effective planning system will also be essential to the future success of our ports. That is why we will soon publish the revised national policy statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. I put on the record my thanks to the Transport Committee for its robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our additions and updates. We are also working closely with regulators to streamline the planning and consenting process, including tackling the backlog of harbour order applications. A new prioritisation framework will ensure that time-critical applications can be identified and processed more quickly, preventing any unnecessary delays. For ports to reach their full potential, they must work seamlessly with our road and rail networks. Congestion and capacity issues, whether at the port gate or miles away, can have a huge impact on supply chains. From the lower Thames crossing in the south to the trans-Pennine route upgrade in the north, the Government are pouring billions into improving port connectivity. In March, we announced over £27 billion through the third road investment strategy, including a new performance metric to reduce delays on gateway routes. At the same time, GBR will work to improve rail access, supporting our ambition for a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050 alongside the duty in the Railways Bill to promote rail freight. As we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime decarbonisation strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future, setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us to get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports’ current and future energy needs; over the coming months, we will publish a summary of those responses and set out our next steps. For centuries, ports have supported the movement of people, goods and ideas. They have helped to build the foundations of our national prosperity. Today, they continue to drive growth, support jobs and create opportunities in all four corners of the United Kingdom. Supporting the continued success of our ports is one of the Government’s top priorities, and we will keep working with and listening to industry as we shape the right policy environment for them to thrive. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who made such considered contributions.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Transport Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is an absolute champion for Portsmouth international port and I am sure that she will be thinking of its 50th anniversary celebrations next week, when it will be bringing its pioneering work with Britanny Ferries on this issue to fruition. I recognise, however, that high electricity prices can impact the economic viability of shore power in the short term. The Government are working to improve shore power connection times, and will continue to engage with the sector and across Government on mitigating high electricity costs. UK SHORE, our £448 million investment in decarbonising maritime, will allow applicants to include onsite energy generation and battery storage to help reduce costs.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that the Court of Appeal’s judgment made clear that the current arrangements could not continue, but we are committed to protecting volunteers who preserve a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Members across the House to ensure that we continue to have volunteers at the heart of our seafaring nation.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for again raising that important point about open access, as he did on Second Reading. I share his passion for Hull Trains—I am surprised we have not met on a Hull train to have a subsequent conversation about open access. GBR needs to be the directing mind for the railway. It needs to take the decisions on what constitutes best use in a way that is fair, providing a role for open access while also being compliant with its duties, especially in respect of the need to grow rail freight on the network. The Secretary of State will also be compelled to set a rail freight growth target. There is nothing precluding open access from playing its full role as part of our railway under GBR; it certainly can, provided that it offers value for money and the great service that both the right hon. Member and I have experienced.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice. I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution. GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR. On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned. New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region. On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy. I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors. New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station. On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute. The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts. On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face. The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill. Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public. The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument. Question put.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister both for his support for the measures and for his concern for my welfare over the last few weeks. To quote one of the five Prime Ministers who graced these halls during the 14 years of chaos and disarray under the Conservative party, he is right to say, in relation to the draft regulations, that “nothing has changed.” He is right to push me further on additional regulatory improvements that can ease doing business for UK shipping companies and seafarers. I am unashamedly ambitious to grow the UK flag to make this country a more attractive place for shipping firms to do business, and I am glad that he will be holding my feet to the fire as we attempt to do so. The shadow Minister is also right that we must retain the UK’s fantastic reputation for safety and compliance with international obligations, without imposing onerous costs on businesses. He also points to the critical issue of the supply of marine fuel. I reassure him that it was a consistent theme during my week in Singapore for Maritime Week, in my engagement with shipping companies that have large interests in UK maritime and with other Government stakeholders. It is something that teams in the Department for Transport keep under constant review, in collaboration with industry, and we will keep a close watch on developments in the strait of Hormuz in relation to the critical issue of the bunkering of marine fuels. I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, for his comments on international co-operation. I am proud that the United Kingdom hosts the International Maritime Organisation, through which we continue to pursue innovative work towards achieving a net zero framework and ambitious measures on safety, innovation and business-supporting regulation. I am glad that he supports us in those efforts. I also thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for consistently raising the critical issue of ferry connectivity for his constituents. I am happy to engage with him further on the ETS and the impact that it may or may not have, especially with regard to the tonnage implications of new hybridised ferries procured on the Isle of Wight. I know he is concerned about that, and I am happy to take those conversations forward. I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. I hope I have fully answered all the points raised, and that they agree with me that the objective of the draft regulations—to update merchant shipping legislation to ensure it is operable and effective going forward—is highly desirable. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.

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

  More

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

• 14 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.

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

  More

  As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review. Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.

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

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency. As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come. I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Question put and agreed to.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process. It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review. On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere. The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS. On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review. On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document. The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it. Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links. To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise disruption of commuter services on behalf of her constituents. It links back to the point that our railways are meant to be catalysts for economic growth, which should be the case in Esher and Walton, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I will make two separate points. First, if the hon. Lady writes to me specifically about the disruption being experienced in her constituency, I will ensure that she receives a full response about what the Department for Transport intends to do, working with the operator, to achieve changes. Secondly, if she feels that the ministerial correspondence that she received on ticketing, which she mentioned in her intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, did not go quite far enough in giving her the information she needs, I will ensure that she receives a fuller response to that point, too. I thank her for raising that important point. Thanks to this Government, the price of travelcards will be frozen until March 2027, meaning that weekly and daily caps will remain unchanged from 2026. That will make a real difference for people who rely on pay-as-you-go travel in places such as Reigate, allowing them to reach their caps sooner and ensuring that the cost of their journeys does not rise significantly throughout the year. These decisions will put more money back into the pockets of working people and form part of our wider plans to bring the railway into public ownership, in order to create a simpler and more reliable network that delivers for passengers. The hon. Member for Reigate also highlighted the challenges that constituents face with transport connectivity more broadly. On securing reliable rail and bus connectivity, we recognise the concerns that exist and have a clear plan to address them by equipping major city regions with the tools they need to roll out locally ticketing that reflects local travel patterns. This will include a shared technology solution allowing for integrated pay-as-you-go with contactless across different transport modes. We will set out further details in due course, while of course taking into account the specific challenges that the hon. Lady raised. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are firmly committed to improving the travel experience for her constituents and for passengers across the network. That means simplifying fares, making them more flexible to meet the needs of passengers, and delivering innovative solutions that fully realise the benefits of a truly modern transport network. I assure her that I have taken on board her specific points about the roll-out and will ensure that they are reflected through to the Rail Minister. I thank her for her contribution on this incredibly important topic. Question put and agreed to.