Keir Mather MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing it, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their important contributions as we consider contactless payment roll-out at railway stations and its impact on ticket prices. I want to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Reigate that I listened carefully to the concerns she raised. I also want to thank her for the spirit of practicality and openness with which she has approached the implementation of contactless roll-out. Of course, the Department for Transport needs to take on board the concerns of constituents in Reigate and the other areas where contactless ticketing has been rolled out, to ensure that it does what the scheme is intended to do: provide a more seamless, integrated and easy-to-use ticketing experience for passengers. I have taken on board some of her specific points, especially on what can be done for her constituents in Reigate, and the concerns she raised about off-peak and the types of people who take those services, whether they are families visiting London or people relying on the social connections that the railway can bring. The DFT keeps implementation continuously under review. I will ensure that anomalies in the system such as those that the hon. Lady raised are passed through to the Rail Minister. Her point about guidance and communication is especially important. We want people to benefit from contactless roll-out, which means that they need to be fully informed about the implications of these changes. I thank her for raising those points in a spirit of practicality and openness. More broadly, I know that the hon. Lady is a determined advocate for her constituents. Like the Department for Transport, she understands that our railways are catalysts for cultural connection and economic growth, and I believe that her constituents in Reigate should be able to benefit from them to the same extent as those in every other part of the United Kingdom. She has mentioned the challenges people face due to limited transport connectivity, and I welcome the opportunity to respond in more detail to those concerns today. On the matter of expanding pay-as-you-go with contactless ticketing at Reigate station specifically, I appreciate how important flexible ticketing and payment options are for passengers and want to provide some information on the progress being made on the points that the hon. Lady raised. On 7 December last year, we introduced changes to paper fare pricing at 50 stations across the south-east in preparation for the launch of the pay-as-you-go ticketing system. A week later, on 14 December, pay-as-you-go was launched at 30 stations, including Reigate, enabling passengers to benefit from simpler, easier and more flexible ticketing. The introduction of new, simplified single-leg priced fares, like those already successfully implemented in London, means there is now just one peak and off-peak fare, with consistent restrictions across those services. Prices were adjusted so that a single ticket is around half the price of a return ticket, although I am cognisant of the anomalies that that has created, which the hon. Lady pointed out. The move to single-leg pricing unfortunately means that some passengers may pay more, and that is something that I will reflect to the Rail Minister, but it is important to note that, in return, it unlocks more flexibility, and other passengers may see a reduction in their ticket price. These changes apply not only to pay-as-you-go, but to paper ticket prices. We are already seeking to roll out this improved flexibility in pricing and ticketing beyond London and the south-east; we are now firmly in the delivery phase of launching pay-as-you-go to more than 90 stations in Greater Manchester and the west midlands. However, I take the point made by the hon. Members for Reigate and for Woking about the need to ensure that we learn the lessons of the roll-out as we bring it to more places, so that we can fully secure the benefits of a contactless system. Greater Manchester is already benefiting from new, simpler fares in advance of pay-as-you-go ticketing, and the west midlands will have full, integrated multimodal fares and ticketing from day one. Alongside that, we are testing other ticketing innovations through digital pay-as-you-go trials, three of which have gone live across the north and the midlands since September last year. They will help us to understand how best to deliver this new, innovative ticketing option, to meet the needs of passengers. The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about consistency of communications and a seamless experience for passengers. As we move towards delivering Great British Railways, our priority is to strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and taxpayers, to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal but also to run the railway in a more holistic way so that passengers get a consistent experience wherever they travel. GBR will enable more consistent ticketing practice across the network, ensuring that wherever people travel they can be confident that they are buying the right ticket and getting the best fare for their journey. We must also acknowledge the very real cost of living pressures that are facing many households, including in Reigate. Transport costs form a significant part of that mix, and we must balance the need to fund the railway through passenger revenue with the need to reduce the burden on taxpayers. For too long, passengers have endured relentless fare increases. Between 2010 and 2024, fares rose by around 60%, placing real pressure on hard-working families and commuters. This Government are committed to turning the page and in March we took the significant step of freezing regulated fares for the first time in 30 years. We are taking immediate action to ease the burden on passengers and to begin building, longer-term, a more affordable railway.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that our railways need to serve as a catalyst for young people to access the educational opportunities they need. I have already explained that we are freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which we hope will have a benefit for constituents across the area that she represents. Ultimately, the only way that we can get fares down in the long term is to have a railway with a single guiding mind and a single point of accountability, and that is through Great British Railways.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  This Government know that many people across the country are struggling with the cost of living. That is why we are taking historic steps to improve affordability for rail passengers, including freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving commuters up to £300 per year, and delivering another Great British rail sale in January, with over 1 million discounted tickets sold.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert— “7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).” This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary. Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert— “8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’. 8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.” This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill. Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert— 22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows. (2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’. (3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— ‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or (b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.” This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.” This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary. Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert— “24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’, (b) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and (c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’. (3) After that subsection insert— ‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’ (4) After subsection (3) insert— ‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’ (5) At the end of subsection (5) insert— ‘“working day” means any day other than— (a) a Saturday or a Sunday, (b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or (c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’” This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill. Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph 1(aa). (3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’. 25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.” This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes. Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert— “27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (4A)— (a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’. (3) In subsection (8)— (a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.” This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR. Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert “for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”. This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2). Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.” This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements. Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert— “32A Omit sections 3 and 4.” This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill. Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert— “33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8). 33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8). (3) In subsection (2) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’. 33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11). (3) In subsection (4) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.” This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system. Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert— “34A Omit section 16. 34B Omit section 18. 34C Omit section 20. 34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (10). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (8). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’. (3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’. (4) For subsection (9) substitute— ‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’ (5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’. 34G In section 32(12)— (a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’; (b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’; (c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’. 34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34J For section 36(7) substitute— ‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’ 34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’. (3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’. 34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3). 34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows. (2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute— ‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is— (a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State; (b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers; (c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers, and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’ 34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’. (3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’. 34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) at the appropriate place, insert— ‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’ (b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert— ‘(da) a mayoral combined authority; (db) a mayoral combined county authority;’; (c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a). (3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196. Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert— “35A For section 48(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means— (a) a Scotland-only service; (b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or (c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’ 35B For section 48A(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means— (a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or (b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196. Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert— “36A Omit Schedule 4. 36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert— ‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority; (eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”— (Keir Mather.) This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 89 Regulations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady raises another valid point. It is right that train operators manage and enforce the byelaws and that GBR will have the added benefit that I have identified of holistic responsibility across the network, but she is right to point out that there is much further to go. Sometimes, there are complexities around subjectivity, where somebody on the train will have to determine what they believe constitutes an unreasonable level of noise, but that does not stop the fact that there are clear incidents in which the noise is totally unacceptable. We have further to go in this space, and the signage issue that the hon. Lady raises is interesting and something that I will reflect on. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clauses.

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

  More

  Later in the Bill, we will turn to different forms of traction, but I doubt whether we will cover the horse-drawn variety, so I am glad that the shadow Minister found the opportunity to weave that into our debate. We support the aspiration for every single part of the United Kingdom and Crown dependencies to realise the full benefits of a reformed railway, with regulation that is fit for the future and that allows them to realise their aspirations, however they see fit, to make rail more accessible and more efficient for passengers. That extends to the Isle of Man, so we were pleased to table amendment 201, which will extend those powers to it. I hope that the Isle of Man can benefit in its own way. Question put and agreed to. Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 23 Charging for removal etc of road vehicles “(1) Costs incurred by the operator of a network or station in relation to removing or storing a road vehicle that has been parked or left— (a) on land or other property comprised in the network or station, and (b) in contravention of bye-laws having effect in relation to the land, are recoverable by the operator from the person in charge of the road vehicle, where removal or storage is carried out in accordance with bye-laws having effect in relation to the land. (2) In this section ‘road vehicle’ means a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance.”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause provides that, where road vehicles are causing an obstruction on railway land, charges may be imposed for the removal etc of those vehicles. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  Amendments 201 and 202 in my name will allow the Government to extend clause 86, on the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol to the convention as they relate to railway rolling stock, and part 4 of the Bill to the Isle of Man. We have consulted the Isle of Man and the other Crown dependencies on whether they would like us to extend this section of the Bill to them. The Isle of Man alone asked that we extend the protocol and these provisions to it. Given that the Government traditionally agree to such requests, we have tabled these amendments. Extending this section of the Bill will grant the Isle of Man power to make regulations under clause 86. Alternatively, regulations made by the UK Government can be extended to apply to it with appropriate modifications. That would eliminate the need for the Isle of Man to legislate for itself, but it would still have the benefit of having the convention and protocol applying to it. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments. Clause 86 will allow the United Kingdom to implement and ratify the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg rail protocol, as they relate to railway rolling stock, via secondary legislation. The convention and the protocol aim to provide more security for creditors financing rolling stock by reducing the risk to those involved in such transactions and providing greater security over their interests. The agreements establish an international legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock and make provision for legal remedies in the event of default or insolvency. Implementing the agreements will therefore make the UK a more attractive place for investors to hold financial interests in rolling stock with UK-based lenders, who will also be able to benefit from the protection of the protocol when they invest in overseas markets. The UK signed the Luxembourg protocol in 2016. That power allows the UK to meet its international obligations, especially now that the protocol has come into force as a number of states have ratified it. These agreements are supported by the industry and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  Absolutely. The Government want to realise the benefits of the aviation sector—its economic potential, but also, as my hon. Friend pointed to so powerfully as it pertains to rail, the human benefit of being able to be connected to loved ones and to access new places. The two things need to work in tandem. I would be glad to engage in those conversations further. Local partners are also encouraged to develop a local funding package, drawing on opportunities such as section 106 developer contributions and city region sustainable transport settlements. These can be used to match-fund Access for All projects and are another way to bring forward accessibility projects. Further detail on this matter is set out in the written ministerial statement published on 15 January 2026. I recognise that this decision will be disappointing to my hon. Friend and her constituents; however, funding for future rounds of Access for All may be available as part of the next spending review. That could provide an opportunity to fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station. Positive accessibility work is already under way in the neighbouring constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire. At Luton station, an Access for All project is currently under construction, which will provide step-free access across the station and make a tangible difference for passengers. Nearby Luton Airport Parkway also provides full step-free access to all platforms, less than a 20-minute drive from Leagrave station.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to enlighten me as to the reality of motoring your way through Luton to access certain areas. She sets me a formidable challenge, which I dare not take on, given her advice. Likewise, I congratulate and respect the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on securing those improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North is right to point to the fact that the people in her constituency who need to benefit from that accessibility at their doorstep need those improvements to come faster and further. That is why, through Great British Railways and the work we are progressing through the Railways Bill, as well as through the next spending review and other ongoing work, we hope to ensure that those accessibility improvements are available to people across the country. I can understand her impatience and I thank her for it, because it keeps our feet held to the fire.

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

  More

  The hon. Member pre-empts me, as I will turn to how this particular issue to do with the rail service intersects with the needs of the aviation sector. He is of course right to point to the fact that surface access must play a really important role in the considerations around how we grow our aviation sector in a way that is sustainable but meets the accessibility requirements of which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North spoke so powerfully. It is reasonable that organisations and developments that benefit directly from improved step-free access—such as local authorities, major employers, developers and transport hubs, including Luton airport—should play a role in contributing to their delivery. Even partial local funding would significantly strengthen a future case for accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station and demonstrate shared local commitment to the scheme.

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

  More

  It is my pleasure to speak to this long-awaited group of amendment to what are arguably some of the most critical aspects of the legislation. Clause 60 will require GBR to set out its proposal for the best use of its infrastructure, while clause 63 will require GBR to retain sufficient capacity to run its own passenger services and carry out engineering work. First, I will explain how the Government have reached that conclusion. We are here because the current system for allocating capacity is clearly not working; it is designed so that each part of the railway acts and takes decisions in isolation. There was a four-year delay to the implementation of the new east coast main line timetable that was finally achieved in December 2025. Meanwhile, there is no single body with a clear vision for the best use of the network, and therefore no clear statement of the capacity that can be made available for different users of the railway. As a result, open access operators have expended considerable effort and resources in developing proposals for access to the network, many of which have ultimately been rejected by the ORR. Both freight and open access operators would benefit from a single body empowered to provide that clarity about future opportunities for them to grow their presence on the railway. The only possible answer to fixing that is GBR, which can take decisions strategically, making the very best use of the limited capacity that we have. Only GBR can review the network holistically with a view to creating more space, which will benefit open access operators where they can show that their new services constitute best use of the network. That will benefit every hon. Member’s constituents, because there will be more opportunity for connectivity and more co-ordination to avoid disruption and delays. In our new system, the process of allocating capacity starts with clause 60. The infrastructure capacity plan will set out GBR’s view of the best use of the network, showing how capacity can best be allocated between GBR’s own services, freight services and open access services. In creating that plan, GBR must have regard to the need to accommodate all types of services. The clause is one of the most crucial in the Bill, because it is where GBR—having consulted carefully with existing and prospective operators and other interested parties, and taken account of its statutory duties—will set out its view of the best use of the network. Once established, the plan will provide much-needed certainty for operators contemplating investment in new services. I will be crystal clear for the benefit of the Committee: the capacity duty mentioned in clause 63 does not apply to the creation of the infrastructure capacity plan. Under clause 60, GBR will make its best-use assessment on the basis of the duties in clause 18 and other general duties in the Bill only. At this stage, it will not have any basis to refer to the duty as described in clause 63. It will take the decision fairly and transparently, in line with its duties, with the need to allocate paths for freight, open access and itself in mind. There is absolutely no intention for other operators to be unfairly pushed out or disadvantaged by GBR. We want the best service for passengers, freight users and the public on every part of the route, to enable the best possible connectivity, quality of service and overall economic benefit. That is the goal, regardless of who provides those services. Were GBR to mistakenly apply the capacity duty at the capacity plan stage as part of its determination of best use, that would be grounds for appeal to the ORR.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister and others for their contributions. It is a small point, but the shadow Minister raised international obligations and treaties, and I want to reassure her that infrastructure managed and operated by parties other than GBR, including High Speed 1, will continue to be governed by the existing access and management regulation. There will therefore be no impact on international obligations and treaties. Hopefully, that will instil confidence throughout the rail supply chain as to how seriously we take those obligations. I will speak first to clauses 69 and 70, before turning to the amendments. Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to exempt GBR from the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. In short, the clause prevents the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. Amendment of the existing provisions is vital to allow the Government to fulfil their commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind responsible and accountable for making best use of the railway. Retaining the role of the ORR as the decision maker on access is not the answer. Under the current ORR system, decisions on the timetable are plagued by delays and disagreements between ORR and Network Rail, and require ministerial intervention for timetables to be finalised. As the regulator, the ORR does not have the ability to review the system holistically, create more routes and optimise the overall use of the network—it can only respond to the specific applications that are submitted to it. If we keep the current system, we will continue to see disruption and delays caused by timetabling problems, and inefficient use of the network that is no one’s best interests. We will continue to see problems, such as trains running without passengers on them, purely because of the systematic issues that govern access and timetabling decisions. Retaining the ORR as the access decision maker would not lead to better performance, and would not benefit passengers. The only way to achieve the high-performing and high-quality railway that this country needs is to put one body—GBR—in charge of the railway and of granting access to it. It is only GBR—not Ministers or the ORR—that will have the level of expertise and the detailed knowledge of the whole railway system that is needed to make the right decisions for passengers, freight users and taxpayers. Clause 70 makes technical changes to the body of law that currently governs access, to exempt GBR and make some other consequential changes, so that the existing access and management regulations will no longer apply to GBR in relation to its infrastructure. The technical amendments in the clause are necessary to enable GBR to become the single decision maker and directing mind for its infrastructure. The existing regulations will continue to apply for adjacent infrastructure managers, such as Transport for London and Core Valley Lines in south Wales. Clause 71 provides the Secretary of State with a time-limited power to ensure that contracts can continue to operate effectively, following the establishment of Great British Railways. The Government have made the commitment that, following its establishment, the existing access rights held by operators, known as schedule 5 rights, will be honoured, as will the charges set by the ORR for the remainder of the current control period. The clause does not change those commitments. However, the power is needed to prevent contracts from becoming inoperable because they are reliant on the previous legislative framework in the Railways Act 1993, which will not be applicable once the Bill is enacted. In a similar way to how the ORR provides notices for contracts today, the Secretary of State will, if necessary, and only as a last resort, use the power to make technical changes to existing contracts, simply to ensure smooth transition to the new access and charging regime under GBR—for example, to account for the establishment of GBR and address the changed roles of the ORR and GBR, so that contracts still operate as they should. Without those changes, operators with access rights would potentially not be able to provide the services that they have contracts and rights to run, because the contracts will become inoperable. However, recognising the need for reassurance, and to offer certainty for third parties, the Government have also committed publicly to ensuring that operators with existing contracts in scope of needing that power will be engaged with and consulted, to identify inoperable clauses and agree on replacement wording. Amendment 146 would take away the ability to amend or terminate contracts. However, it is necessary for the clause to be drafted widely, including with reference to termination, in case the best way to effect the technical changes to the contract is to terminate and immediately replace the contract with one that is aligned to the new legislative framework, rather than making numerous technical amendments throughout that would otherwise render the contract unusable or unwieldy. As stated earlier, that will not affect any operators’ schedule 5 rights, nor will it impede the existing charging determination set by the ORR until its natural expiry in April 2029, which the Government have confirmed both publicly and in writing. Not including that provision would be a risk to the smooth transition to the new regime, which the Government are not prepared to risk. Given all that I have discussed, I urge hon. Members not to press the amendment to a vote. Amendment 175 agreed to. Amendments made: 176, in clause 69, page 39, line 26, leave out from “after” to end of line and insert— “subsection (1) insert— “(1A) Where the facility owner is Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road may give directions under subsection (1) only for the purpose specified in subsection (2)(e).” See the explanatory statement for amendment 175. Amendment 177, in clause 69, page 39, line 32, leave out— “to which this section applies” and insert— “of the description specified in subsection (2)(e) unless one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is satisfied; and any such contract is void unless one of those conditions is satisfied.” This amendment replaces the general restriction on Great British Railways entering into access contracts with one that will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts. Amendment 178, in clause 69, page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (4)(c). This amendment removes the restriction on Great British Railways as a facility owner entering into installation access contracts. Amendment 179, in clause 69, page 40, line 4, at end insert— “(4A) In section 21 (model clauses for access contracts), after subsection (5) insert— ‘(6) The powers of the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (5) may not be exercised in relation to an access contract where the facility owner is Great British Railways unless the access contract is of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’” This amendment provides for the ORR’s model clauses powers to be exercisable in relation to access contracts entered into by GBR only where the access contract is a “facility to facility” access contract. Amendment 180, in clause 69, page 40, line 6, leave out “if” and insert “where”. This amendment and amendment 181 provide for ORR approval to be required for amendment of “facility to facility” access contracts entered into by Great British Railways. Amendment 181, in clause 69, page 40, line 7, at end insert— “unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e)”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 180. Amendment 182, in clause 69, page 40, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert— “(5A) Directions may not be given under this section in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).” This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements. Amendment 183, in clause 69, page 40, line 12, at end insert— “(7) In section 22C (amendment: supplementary), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) Directions may not be given under subsection (1) in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”— (Keir Mather.) This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22C of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement Great British Railways in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.

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

  More

  I am pleased to speak to clauses 37 and 38 relating to the passenger watchdog’s duty to keep matters under review and its power to collect information. Clause 37 ensures that the passenger watchdog proactively monitors any matters affecting passengers, whether they relate to passenger services or stations. It also requires the watchdog to consult relevant people and to co-operate with other bodies that represent passengers, such as London TravelWatch. Clause 37 also gives the watchdog the power to collect information so it can effectively monitor the passenger experience. The clause will ensure that the watchdog is proactive and has a good overview of any emerging issues that may impact passengers. It will also ensure that the watchdog engages and co-operates with relevant bodies and seeks information to effectively address potential issues with the passenger experience. I hope hon. Members will agree that that power is fundamental to the effectiveness of the watchdog as a passenger champion. Finally, clause 38 will enable the passenger watchdog to enter into agreements with other public bodies so that, if necessary, they can perform the functions under clause 37 instead of the watchdog itself. The Secretary of State’s consent is required before entering into agreements under the clause. The clause replicates section 76A of the Railways Act 1993, which we wish to retain for cases where another body could keep certain passenger matters under review more effectively than the watchdog. That could, for example, happen in a certain geographical area where there is an effective devolved body with specialised local knowledge. The clause supports the watchdog to operate as an effective passenger champion by ensuring that it can flexibly co-operate with local bodies to the overall benefit of passengers.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution as part of this debate, and throughout our proceedings, on the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities and for parents with children. She has already shared with me, for my benefit, examples from across Europe of where family-friendly accessibility measures are baked into the way train services operate. One notably striking example was of a children’s playground in a railway carriage in Finland. We hope that accessibility in all its forms can be embedded into GBR’s operational processes, including where it creates new opportunities for things like additional passenger services. I also point my hon. Friend to the fact that the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is a really important piece of the puzzle in ensuring we have rolling stock that is unified in its capacity to offer better services for passengers with disabilities and for families travelling on our railways. Her point is very well made. The Government are committed to ensuring that Britain’s railway continues to rank as one of the safest worldwide and, as promised, the Bill does not change that safety regime. In my view, there is no need for further safety duties in the Bill. In short, everything that amendment 32 seeks to do is already in the Bill’s provisions, so to include it would be duplicative and would muddy the definition of “performance”. Amendment 31 is intended to require a report on how GBR has balanced the general duties in clause 18, but the amendment is unnecessary. The clearest account of how GBR has balanced its duties will be set out in its published business plan, which the ORR must advise on and the Secretary of State must approve—both reviewing the plan with those same duties in mind.

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

  More

  The amendments in this group relate to the ORR’s competition duty and primarily look to remove the various exemptions set out in clause 20. I will begin by saying that we of course recognise the benefits that competition can bring to railway users and the economy at large. In the supply chain, competition drives innovation and efficiency. In the online retail market, competition provides choice and drives up the quality of passenger experience. However, although competition may be a powerful means of achieving a goal—such as innovation—there are many railway functions where it would not be appropriate, and could even be counterproductive, to treat competition as a goal in itself. That is true of many of the ORR’s functions in the new model. Amendments 237 and 240 look to apply the ORR’s competition duty when it is advising the Secretary of State on GBR’s business plan, and when monitoring GBR’s activity against that business plan. It would also apply the ORR’s competition duty when it was monitoring GBR’s activities against its railway safety purposes. Our view on this matter is clear: if competition is not improving the railway for the passenger, taxpayer or economy, we will not be pursuing it. Competition for competition’s sake is ideological and does not help us to achieve the goal of making the railway work better. When creating its business plan, GBR will need to take into account economic considerations, as set out in the public interest duty in clause 18; and when the ORR reviews the business plan to ensure that it offers value for money, it will be applying the same tests relating to the economy and cost efficiency. It would not be right for the ORR to overlay an additional competition objective on to that advice when the purpose of the advice, as clearly set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise GBR’s proposed business plan to ensure that GBR can deliver on the Secretary of State’s objectives in a value for money way. That should be a simple assessment of performance, not a way to pursue separate goals. Amendments 37 and 210 would require the ORR actively to promote competition when hearing access appeals. The nature of the appeals role is a broader point, which we have covered to a small extent today and which I am sure we will cover in greater detail in a few days’ time, so I will endeavour to be brief now. The Bill establishes a robust and fair framework to enable GBR to take decisions on the best use of the network. The ORR’s appeals role is designed to ensure that GBR acts lawfully, fairly and consistently with its duties, but it is not there to supplant GBR as the directing mind by wholly retaking strategic decisions or applying a different decision-making framework. An active duty for the ORR to promote competition at the appeal stage would undermine that, effectively creating two decision makers, applying two different yardsticks, at different stages in the process. In fact, two different bodies taking decisions based on different criteria is exactly what we have at the moment with Network Rail and the ORR, and this is fertile ground for exactly the kind of conflict, disagreement and delay that plague the current access regime and that our approach is designed to fix. That is part of the system that has failed to deliver for passengers and taxpayers and that we absolutely must move away from if we want a better railway. Amendment 210 would have the additional effect of applying a competition duty to the ORR’s enforcement of GBR’s licence. That is also the focus of amendment 238. The ORR’s task when enforcing the licence is to ensure compliance so as to provide legal and regulatory certainty. Applying a competition duty to this function would distort the purpose of these powers. The amendment would therefore undermine the regulatory framework and be counterproductive. Flirting with tautology, amendment 239 would require the ORR to promote competition when exercising its competition powers under the Competition Act 1998. The Railways Act 1993 establishes the ORR as the competition regulator for the sector, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. To ensure effective regulation, the two must act according to the same rules, without interference from sector-specific priorities. That is why neither the ORR’s railway competition duty nor the other ORR-specific duties apply when it is acting as a competition regulator. This is a continuation of the current approach to regulating competition in legislation and not one from which we should deviate. Amendment 38 is not necessary, as it simply duplicates clause 18(2)(f), which already requires the ORR to take “into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds”. An additional requirement to consider value for money would therefore be redundant. Amendment 268 seeks to ensure that the ORR exercises its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect issues such as passenger rights, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds. I support the spirit of this amendment and its focus on safeguarding passenger rights, the smooth operation of the railway and the public purse. It is precisely because I agree with those aims that clause 20 already ensures that the ORR will not be subject to a duty to promote competition when carrying out certain functions. Further, the Bill already protects public funds through clause 18. It includes an obligation on the Secretary of State, the ORR and GBR to consider cost efficiency, which should ensure that the value for money that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham is looking for is delivered. When the ORR considers value for money in the context of GBR’s business plan, the Bill ensures that it will not be distracted by the irrelevant consideration of promoting competition. Regarding passenger rights, the ORR’s competition duty, where it applies, is specifically to “promote competition...for the benefit of users of railway services.” It will therefore not be promoting competition except for the benefit of passengers. That wording, plus the fact that the ORR will continue to be the enforcer of passenger rights and consumer law, means that the ORR is already set up to recognise the importance of passenger rights. The Bill already sufficiently protects passengers’ rights, effective running of the network and taxpayer funds ahead of competition, so there is no need to duplicate efforts by making the amendment. In summary, clause 20 rightly requires the ORR to promote competition when it exercises its functions, subject to some specific and necessary exemptions, which I have just explained in detail. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

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

  More

  The shadow Minister pre-empts what I am sure will be a spirited debate about open access in later clauses. Open access provides a proportionally very small percentage of passenger services on the railway, but it makes a really important contribution, especially in terms of inter-city links, which I personally benefit from with Hull Trains running from Selby to London. GBR does not want to lose the benefits that open access can provide. In fact, having a more streamlined and cohesive railway, as a result of GBR’s responsibility for capacity, could even increase the ability for open access services to run on within the network. That does not change the fact that, in our view, overwhelmingly across the UK, public ownership is the right way to make the railway run better, as it can work to a whole-system approach and a clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers. Privatisation created conflicting priorities and complex contracts that cost the taxpayer £150 million annually in unnecessary fees. A 2020 report found that Network Rail and train operators were employing hundreds of people just to work out who was to blame for disruption. That system was outrageous, and it was symptomatic of a privatised system in which operators were financially incentivised to point fingers instead of fixing problems. We cannot continue with no one in charge, and the Bill makes it clear that, in future, GBR will be responsible for making the railway work, and no one else.

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

  More

  I disagree with the shadow Minister’s interpretation of how the duties function in this regard. GBR cannot take a wholly self-interested, cynical interpretation of what constitutes “best use” under clause 60, which we will turn to in due course. GBR has to make a best-use decision that takes into account the needs of open access and freight. Also, under GBR’s duties, it must take account of promoting the interests of users and potential users of the railway, some of whom—even though open access constitutes a small proportion of the railway network usage overall—will be people using open access operators. Further, the duty in clause 18(2)(d) says, “so as to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance”. Such persons would not be able to do so if they were being levied unreasonable charges. There are supplementary safeguards that I will turn to. Existing competition legislation will also require GBR to ensure that the charges it sets are fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. The ORR will retain its enforcement role in consumer and competition law, concurrent with the Competition and Markets Authority, so it will be able to ensure that GBR is treating the private sector fairly. It is also important that, as a public body, GBR must be able to recover appropriate costs from those who benefit from the services that it provides. If it were prevented from doing so, the burden would ultimately fall on taxpayers and passengers. The Government’s ambition is to have a successful rail industry that attracts investment and can support its own costs, rather than unnecessarily relying on the taxpayer. Amendment 23 would introduce an appeals role for the ORR on these charges. Again, we fully support the principles of fairness and transparency that underpin the amendment. For significant charges, such as charges for access and the use of infrastructure, the Bill already provides an appeals route to the ORR. However, an appeals route to the ORR for every possible charge that GBR may levy in relation to its statutory functions is clearly disproportionate. The amendment would require an appeals route to be provided even when those charges may be small, such as contributions to cover a railcard cost. Clause 13, in its sum, simply ensures that GBR can recover the costs of managing and delivering services, such as back-office retailing services, by charging those who use GBR services, such as non-GBR operators or retailers. It is essential that GBR should have a clear statutory right to recover costs from users of its services. That supports the sustainability and efficiency of GBR’s operations, and ensures that taxpayers and GBR customers are not subsidising the operations of others. Importantly, it replicates how those cross-industry functions are paid for today. The Bill and existing competition law already provide adequate protections for third parties and a route of redress, should that be required. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw his amendment and commend clause 13 to the Committee.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom. The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.