Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  The shadow Minister asked about the interaction between Transport Focus and London TravelWatch in instances in which cross-border services might need active deliberation between the two organisations. They currently operate under a memorandum of understanding, and I understand that they are planning to update it when the Bill becomes more mature, which will allow them to develop a consistent framework for dealing with cross-border issues. Where a case is under investigation and is fully within the London railway area, it falls within the remit of London TravelWatch: rightly, the passenger watchdog must refer the case to London TravelWatch as the independent expert on travel in the London area. The shadow Minister also asked some operational questions about the passenger watchdog’s budgetary planning and the size of its staff. Those matters will be actively developed later in the process, once we have set the legislative foundation for the organisation to be created. The shadow Minister made a fair point about the principle of investigation, but intensive investigations are one thing, and the ability to have regard to complaints that are not vexatious is quite another.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have already discussed amendments 166 to 168, which provide clarity on the situations in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when issuing directions or guidance to GBR. Amendment 169 will provide the opportunity for further clarity by encouraging the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to address how the power of direction and consent requirement will be used within the terms of the memorandum of understanding. That mirrors the provision in clause 23 for the MOU between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. The amendment is a sensible mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will work together to hold GBR to account against their own priorities within a stable and co-operative framework that supports the operation of the whole system. I commend it to the Committee. Clause 24 provides the legislative basis for the MOU with the Welsh Government. Just as clause 23 does for Scotland, clause 24 requires the preparation and publication of the MOU and states some of the areas that it may cover. The areas the MOU may cover for each devolved Government are different to reflect their distinct devolution arrangements. For example, clause 24 explains that the MOU for Wales may contain joint objectives for the railway within the Wales and borders area. That creates a practical mechanism to drive co-operation and to set out the detail of how the railway will be run. It will encourage both Governments to carry out their functions in a joined-up way, while ensuring appropriate accountability and transparency. In turn, that will drive better outcomes for passengers on both sides of the border. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the shadow Minister’s point about profit sharing, the MOU is designed to set out the operational arrangement between GBR and Welsh services. In that respect, the MOU will not affect the existing profit-sharing arrangement between the Governments for cross-border services. The shadow Minister also asked me for a little more information on how the MOU will affect cross-border services between England and Wales. The clause allows the MOU to identify services in England that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers would like to be provided alongside Welsh-designated services. It lets UK and Welsh Ministers set objectives for integration and steps to facilitate it, as well as the arrangements for sharing information. That will hopefully provide a clear framework for co-ordinating cross-border operations, enhancing efficiency and passenger experience, and supporting seamless connectivity across the Wales and borders area. The shadow Minister’s amendment 40 would require the Welsh MOU to be published at the same time as the long-term rail strategy, and to be laid in Parliament for two months before coming into force. I refer the Committee to my previous comments. The MOU serves a different purpose from the LTRS, and linking them would add unnecessary complexity for little apparent gain.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As Lord Hendy was fulsome in explaining, those involved in negotiations for the MOU are extremely cognisant of upcoming election dates in Holyrood, and I would say that they are similarly cognisant of upcoming election dates in the Senedd. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with the indication that he may need. Returning to amendment 40, the MOU with Wales has the same publication requirement as the MOU with Scotland, meaning that transparency is already baked in without the need for a two-month review period. As the shadow Minister set out, the amendment would specifically require the MOU to include details of the allocation of ticket revenue from cross-border routes. That would add unnecessary complexity by effectively embedding granular, technical review formulas into a document designed to set out a strategic agreement between Governments. This detail is an operational and commercial matter rightly governed by established industry settlement mechanisms and bilateral contracts. The Bill already provides a statutory framework for fare setting and transparency, enabling GBR to set fares for its services while devolved operators manage their own. Including these details in the MOU would duplicate existing processes and could conflict with the Bill’s intent. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to move the amendment and commend the clause to the Committee. Amendment 169 agreed to .

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.