Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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 · Transport Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  Decarbonising transport is vital for our energy security and to make the network fit for the future. We are turbocharging the roll-out of electric vehicles, overhauling public transport, supporting low carbon fuel uptake in aviation, and funding technology innovation for maritime through the multimillion-pound UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research programme.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  While I think this is, in the main, an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Gentleman is right that coastal erosion can affect a variety of transport infrastructure, including our ports. The forthcoming national policy statement for ports will address the issue he raises.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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.

• 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

  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.

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

  More

  I take the point the hon. Member makes, and the point that he made earlier about the basic issue of equity for British citizens, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they live in. That being said, it is incumbent on me in my ministerial capacity to work within the framework of the regulations that have been set. Unfortunately, if they are too narrow to facilitate the interpretation that he advises us to make. I am afraid that that is the reality of the situation, but that is why it is all the more important that we find ways to engage together to solve these challenges. That is certainly what I want to do, following this debate. Since last year, Artemis Technologies and other stakeholders have taken forward activity as a result of their successful bid to the Department’s clean maritime demonstration competition fund round 6. The Department provided £750,000 to enable a feasibility study to ascertain whether Artemis’s technology could provide a viable solution for an island route passenger service, particularly in the winter months, when residents have no regularly scheduled water crossing. We expect to hear the results very soon. The UK emissions trading scheme will be extended to cover UK domestic voyages and all UK in port emissions for vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above from July 2026. I can assure the hon. Member that we have assessed that these criteria are not met for the Scillonian IV or the Scillonian III. Both remain outside the scope of the UK ETS, and the exemptions and threshold will be reviewed in 2028.

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

  More

  To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country. Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport. The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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

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

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

  More

  Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.

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

  More

  I take fully on board the hon. Member’s point that we need to ensure services are not squeezed out. The process I am outlining is specifically to ensure that that does not happen. Where GBR has regard to its duties under clause 60 when deciding best use, it has to have regard to the freight target and the need to grow freight, but also the need to accommodate a range of services on the railway. That best use policy is locked in. It is under clause 63 that the capacity duty comes into effect, and GBR can make practical operational decisions about how to effectively actualise those proportions being allocated on the railway. GBR will have to have regard to open access and freight under its duties in clause 60 when making the macro decision about what constitutes best use, which at the end of the day is not a binary yes or no question. The capacity duty in clause 63 merely ensures that it can provide the services it has been allocated. I will come to that in a bit more detail and set it out further. The hon. Member is welcome to intervene again if he feels my subsequent detail is insufficient. On the capacity duty more broadly, the Government have been nothing but consistent. Put simply, the services that offer the genuine best value proposition for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer, consistent with GBR’s duties, should be allocated capacity. Clause 63, meanwhile, creates a legal duty for Great British Railways to ensure there is enough space in the timetable to run the services funded by the Government and taxpayers. To reiterate, clause 63 is a requirement for space in the timetable. It is not a requirement for space in the capacity plan. It does not apply to the capacity plan and it therefore does not and cannot undermine the best use decisions taken at the capacity planning stage. That is because the Government are paying for certain GBR services and must not waste public funds. The clause 63 duty is about managing taxpayers’ money after best use has been determined. It is not about keeping anyone out. Amendment 78 would require GBR to consult open access and freight operators in preparing the infrastructure capacity plan. Amendment 80 would require GBR to have regard to its key performance indicators when preparing the plan, and amendment 81 would amend clause 63 to require GBR to retain capacity for open access and freight operators. Amendments 253 and 229 would both give freight operators more weight in the capacity process. Adding a further consultation requirement to clause 60 is unnecessary as there is already a separate requirement in clause 66 for GBR to consult affected operators when developing or amending the capacity plan. Were GBR to publish or amend a capacity plan at any point without consultation, that would constitute a breach of its duties under the Bill and present strong grounds for appeal to the ORR. Amendment 78 is therefore duplicative of the provisions already in the Bill. As for amendments 80, 81, 253 and 229, the intended effect of clause 63 is to create a statutory duty for GBR to ensure that there is enough space in the timetable to run its own passenger services, which are funded directly by taxpayers. That is because taxpayers spend many billions of pounds subsidising the railway. Any responsible Government would be obligated to protect that investment and ensure that taxpayers get full value from it. The clause is therefore needed to ensure that where GBR considers its services constitute the best use of the network, and where it then allocates capacity to itself, it will actually run the trains that it is proposing to run and which it will be funded for. I do not believe anyone on this Committee would be delighted to find that, following GBR being paid several billion pounds to run services, it was unable to do so. Clause 63 is therefore an essential legal safeguard to prevent that from happening. The interests of freight and open access operators are protected by GBR’s general duties under clause 18, and freight operators are further protected by the duty on GBR to have regard to the rail freight target set by the Secretary of State under clause 17. Those duties will apply when GBR establishes best use at the capacity planning stage for all operators, including freight. The existence of not just one but two statutory duties is a clear signal of this Government’s view that freight must be front and centre of GBR’s decision making. This will give freight much greater prominence in capacity planning and allocation decisions than the current system, in which capacity is too often allocated on a first come, first served basis without reference to any coherent view of the best overall use of available capacity. The clause 63 duty exists only to protect the Secretary of State’s investment in the railway; it is not intended to influence GBR’s capacity planning or to keep anyone out of the network. The amendments are therefore not compatible with the intended purpose of the clause. Amendment 80 draws a link to the concept of key performance indicators. As I have set out in previous debates, the Government do not accept the need to make statutory provision about KPIs and so cannot support the proposed reference. As I have consistently said throughout these debates, KPIs should be in GBR’s business plan and not in legislation. Amendment 211 would require GBR to publish a statement on any decision not to provide access on the basis of capacity. As a public body, GBR is bound by public law principles to behave in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. That means that GBR must set out its decisions transparently, including when granting access, with robust evidence that shows how it has acted in accordance with its duties, access and use policy and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. If GBR failed to do that, it would be grounds for appeal to the ORR. The amendment is unnecessary because GBR is already required to transparently account for its access decisions, whatever the reason for them. Finally, new clause 56 would require GBR to report on the merits of a centralised train planning and auctioning scheme, with high-yielding services being operated by private sector operators rather than GBR. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with responsibility for passenger services and infrastructure brought together in a single organisation, is the only way to make the railway run better. It enables everybody to focus on a single set of objectives centred around the needs of railway users and the interests of the taxpayers who fund it, rather than shareholders and private profit. Public ownership of passenger services will save the taxpayer up to £150 million a year in fees to private operators alone. Therefore, GBR, rather than private operators, must be responsible for operating the services that taxpayers will fund it to deliver. Making GBR responsible for essential services also avoids the costs of maintaining a public sector operator of last resort function ready to step in if a private operator suffers financial failure or chooses to withdraw from operating the services. While I fully support the provision of services by open access operators on the network where they add value and where there is capacity on the network, the model set out by the new clause is not compatible with the mandate that this Government were elected on: to bring franchised passenger services back into public ownership. It is not compatible with the regime set out in the Bill, which already provides clarity about the role of private sector operators and the opportunities for them to run services. Given what I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon feels able to withdraw the amendments. I commend clauses 60 and 63 to the Committee.

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

  More

  These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed! The operating environment may also change and GBR may need more funding than is committed. It is right that elected Ministers are able to make decisions on public spending and allocate resources as needed, balanced against the clear benefits of certainty. Amendment 147 would restrict Ministers’ ability to vary funding by adding a requirement that the ORR must provide written consent. Although the Office of Rail and Road will have an important advisory role, it would not be appropriate for it to entirely determine changes to funding. Responsibility for decisions of public expenditure must remain with the Secretary of State, particularly where changes may be required due to wider fiscal circumstances. The amendment would also result in ORR consent being needed for increases in funding and immaterial changes. The Bill provides assurances. If the Secretary of State considers that the impact of a funding reduction could be material, the Bill requires her to notify the ORR, giving it an opportunity to comment publicly on the likely effects on the railway. That balances the need for the Government to retain control over Government funding with the opportunity for independent evaluation and, if needed, public pressure, to protect certainty for the railway. On amendments 215 and 216, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for so ably setting out, based on his practical experience, and far better than I ever could, the need for a single guiding mind for the railway. His explanation was buttressed by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendments, which seek to align passenger service funding within the five-year infrastructure funding cycle. I support that intention. The Government agree that many benefits are derived from integrated funding streams. However, I do not agree that the amendments are necessary. It is important to note that passenger services are already fully considered under GBR’s statutory duties and through the integrated business plan, in which GBR will plan all its activities on a five-year basis across track and train. The Bill requires GBR to deliver safe, reliable and efficient services, taking passenger needs into account.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 119, which would require the Government to commit funding for a five-year funding period at least two years before the period starts. I can appreciate and identify with his desire to provide certainty to industry, and agree with the ambition that the amendment presents to generate a stable operating environment for the railway. However, as I said in response to new clause 34, I believe that the desire to require funding to be committed so far in advance is misplaced. There will inevitably be changes to economic circumstances and new projects will surface. If there is no practical discretion, a settlement agreed two years in advance may be redundant before it starts. I can assure the hon. Member that the Bill already accounts for the need to provide the railway with certainty and ensures that the funding process completes before the start of the next five-year funding period.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendments will improve clarity and ensure that the Railways Bill works as intended. Clauses 7 and 9, as drafted, set out that the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Scottish or Welsh Ministers when issuing a direction and guidance to GBR “in a manner that directly affects the operation of” a GBR-provided Scottish or Welsh service. That definition could unintentionally exclude scenarios where Great British Railways is exercising functions delegated by Scottish or Welsh Ministers that do not directly affect operation of railway passenger service functions, such as in relation to branding. The amendments provide a clearer and more precise approach. Consent will now be required whenever GBR is acting on behalf of Scottish or Welsh Ministers under formal arrangements enabled by clause 4, or contracts awarded under clause 31. That is a better way of defining where consent is needed as it reflects the responsibilities devolved to Scottish and Welsh Ministers under the Bill. The amendments remove ambiguity from the Bill without changing its core purpose. They ensure that devolved Governments have a clear and consistent role in decisions affecting services devolved to them, while maintaining the Secretary of State’s ability to protect the network as a whole. That approach has the support of both Scottish and Welsh Ministers because it provides certainty and transparency. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendments. Clause 7, to which the amendments apply, provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue legally binding directions to Great British Railways. Clause 8 replicates that power for Scottish Ministers when GBR is exercising functions relating to Scottish railway services in Scotland. Such powers are common in relationships between Government and arm’s length bodies and used only when absolutely justified and in a proportionate way. For example, the Oil and Gas Authority has received only one ministerial direction in its 10-year history. Clause 7 is a normal, standard accountability provision that follows established precedent. It is a type of power that is always used sparingly. It is not a new and extraordinary means of interfering with the railway that the Government are trying to decentralise to GBR. The powers are necessary to reflect the overall democratic accountability of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers for the performance of GBR within the areas of the country that they are responsible for and fund. To protect GBR’s day-to-day operational independence as the directing mind, the powers will be used only where there is strong justification, in consultation with the ORR and after agreed processes have been followed. For Scotland, those processes include following a series of procedures and controls that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers that is required under clause 23 of the Bill. They also include consulting the Secretary of State before using the power. To ensure appropriate transparency, the clauses require that the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers must publish any issued directions, including when they are amended or revoked. As GBR may also provide services on behalf of Scottish or Welsh Ministers, clause 7 requires the Secretary of State to secure the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers to issue directions to GBR relating to areas that fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scotland or Wales. Finally, to avoid a scenario where GBR receives contradictory directions from Ministers or where directions issued by Scottish Ministers appear to go beyond their responsibilities, clause 8 provides the power for the Secretary of State to revoke Scottish Ministers’ directions. We have agreed with Scottish Ministers that that provision is necessary to protect the overall network as a whole. The clauses are essential to provide a clear and proportionate route for intervention while still enabling GBR to deliver as the directing mind in the interests of its customers, taxpayers and the public. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On memorandums of understanding, I point the shadow Minister to the fact that the heads of terms for the memorandum of understanding with the Welsh Government have already been published. On the overall principle on the development of memorandums of understanding, the stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee were very clear that the process is being carried out in close consultation with devolved Governments and that it is very common for such operational documents to be developed in consultation in this way. We are creating an operational framework by which GBR can function as an organisation. It is very important that that platform exists before the devolved settlements that will dictate the operational reality of how the railway works are layered on top. On the shadow Minister’s point about direction powers, these are the same direction powers that exist, almost like for like, with Great British Energy, Great British Nuclear and the North Sea Transition Authority. They are there to respond to urgent and pressing matters. His points on overreach should have applied to the creation of those organisations as much as to the creation of GBR. The factual reality of how the direction power has been used in the case of oil is that only one direction has been issued in 10 years. It is the Government’s intent—we have been very clear in saying so—that this direction power must operate in a similar way and only respond to urgent, pressing and persistent matters. On the issue of direction from Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State cannot revoke a direction if it pertains purely to a devolved matter, but Scottish Ministers did agree that revocation powers are necessary when there are conflicts in directions. Speaking from my perspective on how this Bill puts the devolved settlement at the centre of how the railway functions, there are sufficient methods to create accountability, mutual working and shared recognition of priorities and ambitions across devolved Governments, the UK Government and GBR, so that I do not envisage a revocation of a direction being used regularly. It is only there to ensure the smooth function of the railway. Amendment 166 agreed to. Amendment made: 167, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out “operation of a GBR-provided Welsh service” and insert— “exercise by Great British Railways of functions— (i) on behalf of the Welsh Ministers in accordance with arrangements made under section 4, or (ii) under a contract awarded under section 31(4)(b).”.— (Keir Mather.) This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers, where giving directions to GBR. Amendment proposed : 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, after “publish” insert “and lay before Parliament”.— (Jerome Mayhew.) This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay any directions given to Great British Railways before Parliament. Question put , That the amendment be made.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification. I want only to add, as a further clarification, that in the future GBR will account for about two thirds of passenger services in Britain, and GBR infrastructure will make up 90% of station stops. It is quite important to give that level of context, so that people can better understand the impact that these changes in the railway will have on their lives. Amendments 3 and 4 would limit GBR’s research, advice and standards development functions to only the railway and services managed by GBR. I reassure the shadow Minister that the vast majority of research and innovation carried out by GBR will relate specifically to the services that it provides and the operation and maintenance of its network. However, research, development and innovation tend to be general in nature and application. It is critical that GBR’s research, development and innovation should be able to support the wider rail network, not just the elements that GBR manages itself. Collaboration between the independent parts of the sector on learning and innovation is, we argue, crucial for the rail network to operate as an integrated whole, and limiting this function could arbitrarily restrain wider adoption of best practice. Various organisations, including Network Rail and train operating companies, currently publish standards adopted on the railway, so this is not a unique or abnormal practice. However, these amendments could arbitrarily constrain it and might even hinder GBR from supporting research that might bring benefits to parts of the network, or services, not managed by GBR. Amendment 5 seeks to return responsibility for taking access decisions to the ORR. That is one of the fundamental questions sitting at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The amendment is contrary to the Government’s manifesto commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind for the railways. It would reintroduce the fragmentation and conflicting accountabilities that exist in today’s system. At present, there is no single body in charge of taking a whole-system approach to making access work. That leads to conflicting opinions about what services can fit where and when. Differences in view between Network Rail and the ORR cause delays in producing the timetable, hindering efforts to tackle congestion, disruption, cancellations and overcrowding. The current system is not fit for purpose: it lets passengers down every day, and taxpayers are not getting value for money. In the current system, the absence of a single directing mind, with a single set of objectives, leaves us with ridiculous situations such as the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. I do not understand how hon. Members can think that continuing the current system benefits anyone, least of all passengers. The Government have been clear that for GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions consistent with the best use of the network, the ORR’s current role must change. GBR must be the decision maker on access; it must have authority and full accountability for what happens on the tracks. The ORR will play a key role as a robust appeals body that ensures that GBR’s decisions are fair. Without one body in charge of taking access decisions, we cannot deliver the performance improvements that we have promised passengers and the public. Amendment 6 would remove the delegated power for the Secretary of State to confer further statutory functions on GBR in the future. Although clause 3 has been drafted to cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake, it is responsible to legislate with proportionate flexibility. For example, in the future there may be new technologies or other responsibilities relating to the railways that GBR would need to take on. We heard in oral evidence on Tuesday that the advent of artificial intelligence and wi-fi are two examples of that type of change, and that witnesses understood the need for this type of flexibility for GBR. There is precedent for this type of power in legislation. For example, the National Health Service Act 2006 includes a power to add functions to special health authorities specified in regulations. That power is already limited to adding new functions that relate to the railways; any regulations conferring new functions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable transparency and parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 241 seeks to require GBR to act “in a fair and non-discriminatory manner” when carrying out its statutory function in clause 3 —specifically, when GBR is providing back-of-house functions to facilitate railway services run by operators other than GBR, such as a journey planner. The amendment is not needed, because the duties set out in the Bill will govern GBR’s behaviours when carrying out its statutory functions. I assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the duties will require GBR to act in the interests of the public, taxpayers and passengers. GBR will act fairly and in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions. In addition, competition law will apply in full to GBR. This requires GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. Both the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority will regulate GBR’s behaviour against its competition law obligations, so I hope that hon. Members will be assured that GBR must always treat all private operators with fairness and in a non-discriminatory manner. Given those safeguards, the addition proposed would be duplicative. I turn to new clause 15, which seeks to implement a statutory electrification programme. Living near Selby station, I know better than most that rail electrification is important, including to realise the Government’s wider goals of decarbonisation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage ably set out the fact that decarbonisation is not the sole efficiency and aspiration that can be realised through electrification. We fully realise the need to reduce the cost of electrification and accelerate the delivery of committed schemes in comparison with past experiences. We are currently developing a long-term strategy for rolling stock and associated infrastructure. That will be published in the summer and will consider the future approach to electrification. That being said, a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is not the right way to deliver these important upgrades. In the effort towards net zero, electrification may not always be the right solution—although the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage made a well-reasoned case as to how, in many cases, it is. Other opportunities, such as trains powered by batteries, may be more appropriate. It is also hard to predict the pace at which battery technology and other alternative technologies will progress over the next 20 or 30 years, and what that means for the extent of electrification that will be needed as we move towards net zero.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes an important point about resilience on the railway; it complements the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the fact that we live in a changing climate. That creates pressing resilience challenges across the breadth of the railway. The right hon. Member makes a good point about not being over-reliant on one technological mode. That being said, I hope that, through an overall transition towards decarbonised rail transport, alongside the other decarbonisation measures that the DFT is taking across the piece, we will be sufficiently resourced, capable and in pursuit of innovative solutions to make sure that electrification can play a prominent part in the future of the railway. We believe that the way to achieve that is to have something more flexible to future direction and opportunities, such as GBR’s business plan, which is already provided for in the Bill. Of course, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy might be more appropriate as a way to set out GBR’s plans for electrification rather than their being in the Bill. We move to new clause 20, which would require GBR to work towards climate change targets. I assure the Committee that the environment will form an important part of GBR’s considerations through various mechanisms already included in the Bill. One of the strategic objectives for the long-term rail strategy will be environmental sustainability. GBR will have a duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy and a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, which includes environmental considerations, when developing its business plan. Finally, it is important to point out that Network Rail is not currently directly obligated to deliver on those targets, but has still published “The Greener Railway Strategy”, which includes targets on net zero, climate adaptation, air quality, biodiversity and other environmental areas. To conclude, we remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges faced not only by rail, which is already a comparatively green way to travel, but across all transport modes, and GBR will be an important partner in that work. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured and will consider withdrawing their amendments.