House of Commons
Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that the Peter Murrell case is sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of this case. Members should not speculate about sentencing.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are taking action to foster economic growth in Scotland. According to the latest figures, the UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and last week the OECD upgraded our growth forecast for this year, as did the International Monetary Fund. Scottish businesses and communities are benefiting from our new trading relationships with India and the United States and from the UK’s defence dividend. Those are all creating and supporting good-quality jobs across Scotland.
Chris Kane
UK Government funding is transforming a former Ministry of Defence site in Stirling into a major film studio, creating opportunities for skilled jobs, innovation and growth across Scotland’s screen sector. As this industry is international and relies on a skilled workforce to thrive, a joined-up approach across Government is vital. The funding unlocks the site, but what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and local partners to ensure that my constituency has the skills, infrastructure and support needed to maximise the opportunity? Will he join me in visiting the site to see its potential at first hand?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for his community in Stirling. I am pleased to hear that the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal has had a visible impact on the region, and I appreciate his invitation, particularly to visit a film studio. The successful transfer of former MOD Forthside land through the deal has already unlocked further funding for the studio. I assure him that my officials continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the Scottish Government and other Government Departments, such as DSIT and DCMS, to ensure that the UK Government’s investment continues to generate opportunities for growth.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Aberdeen is the only UK city expected to grow by less than 1% between now and 2028, not least because of the UK’s anti-oil and gas policies. The Rosebank production facility has now arrived at the field; it is ready and just waiting for the Government to permit it. Rosebank would bring £25 billion of investment into the economy and 2,000 jobs. Would the Secretary of State welcome that economic boost and those jobs for Scotland? If so, when did he last speak to the Prime Minister or the Energy Secretary about having Rosebank permitted?
Mr Alexander
I was actually in Aberdeen at the weekend, and I am fully aware of the contribution that oil and gas make to the north-east of Scotland and to the broader Scottish and UK economy. As was made clear in exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago, this is a quasi-judicial decision that rests with the Energy Secretary. I assure the hon. Lady that discussions continue not just with me, but with Cabinet colleagues in relation to these matters. Ultimately, given the terms of the legislation, the matter rests with the Energy Secretary.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Government have pledged major investment in Scotland, which I welcome, but too many Scottish high streets are still being hollowed out by Labour’s job tax hikes while illegal vape shops, mini-marts and barbers thrive. Following yesterday’s announcement for England, does the Secretary of State have any plans to hold discussions with the Scottish Government about increasing steps to tackle this issue and bring life back into our town centres?
Mr Alexander
In relation to the Pride in Place policies that we have set out, we are directly targeting support that can be provided to high streets across Scotland. The hon. Lady will be aware that within the devolution settlement, local taxation in relation to high streets rests appropriately with the Scottish Government. I wrote to the First Minister offering to meet him immediately on his appointment, but it is a matter of regret that he has not taken up that opportunity.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The Government are harnessing the worldwide reach of our diplomatic and trade networks to boost Scottish exports and attract inward investment. We have already delivered deals with India and the United States. I was recently in New Zealand and Australia on a defence-focused visit, meeting with key investors and banging the drum for our world-leading shipbuilding capability. As we speak, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), is leading a trade mission to China promoting Scottish tech innovation and expertise, along with Glasgow chamber of commerce and representatives from five Scottish cities, including Glasgow.
Torcuil Crichton
Most Scottish interests abroad this weekend will be centred on Boston, and if the Secretary of State is considering a last-minute bid for the world cup, he can fly there from Glasgow this weekend for just £740. That is just £100 more than it would cost my constituents to fly from Stornoway to Glasgow this weekend without the air discount. The rising cost of Loganair flights and the loss of the Stornoway-Inverness morning service is of great concern in the western isles, and we have already lost the Benbecula connection, with all the consequences that has. Will the Secretary of State work with Cabinet colleagues, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport—when he returns from his jaunt to America—and others in the industry to review flights across the UK?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Secretary of State must have got the gist of the “War and Peace” question.
Mr Alexander
First, I am sure that every Scottish representative, whatever their political affiliation, will want to wish Steve Clarke, Andy Robertson and the boys the very best in Boston. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let’s hope they don’t come home too soon.
My hon. Friend raises a substantive and important point about island connectivity, particularly given the woeful, abject failure of the Scottish National party-led Government in Edinburgh in relation to the ferry service. The First Minister recently visited the western isles, and the ferry subsequently broke down; in a sense, that tells us everything we need to know about the Scottish Government’s record. The Minister for Aviation should be happy to pick up this issue with my hon. Friend to discuss what more can be done.
Martin Rhodes
Given Scotland’s significant assets in a variety of sectors, what steps is the Secretary of State taking with ministerial colleagues to ensure that city regions such as Glasgow are not only attracting inward investment, but exporting their world-leading strengths in technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing to key international markets?
Mr Alexander
One of the regrettable aspects of the SNP-led Scottish Government’s record has been their failure to fully harness the capability of city regions and the economic contribution they can make. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in China along with Glasgow chamber of commerce and representatives from Glasgow and four other cities. At the moment, they are focused on a trade mission to the Shanghai international technology fair, specifically to champion the region’s world-renowned strengths in technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Scotland exports 10 to 12 times more electricity than it needs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing a review of community benefits, and we are very concerned that that review will produce a poor outcome for the people of rural Scotland. Could the Secretary of State make representations on that?
Mr Alexander
I am always happy to make representations to colleagues within Government—of course, the Energy Minister is a fellow Scot, representing a Scottish constituency. I know this has been a matter of long-standing concern for the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to write to me, I will make sure I take it up with the Energy Minister.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When it comes to representing Scotland’s interests abroad, football is right up there. My constituent, Mr Kenny Smith, has shelled out well over £10,000 on booking his tickets to go to the States. He had visa clearance—he actually had UK security clearance, which is pretty high powered—yet last Wednesday, his visa was revoked. This poor chap is in a very bad situation, so can I appeal to the Secretary of State to give Mr Smith and me any assistance that he can provide to sort this out?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern. I can assure him that on Monday morning, from my desk in the Scotland Office, I met officials from the Foreign Office when I first had word that there were concerns about the electronic system for travel authorisation and the visa requirements. On Monday afternoon, I met the Minister for North America in the Foreign Office to raise this concern. Of course, the Foreign Office was at pains to recognise that visa and entry requirements are a matter for the country concerned—in this case, the United States—but it has already made representations on cases such as that of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is happy to share the details after today’s discussion, I will immediately take this matter up with the Foreign Office.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Secretary of State first took up his job in government, his first priority should have been advancing the economic interests of Scotland across the world, but we now know what he was really up to instead. His first external meeting as Scotland Secretary and as a Minister was to meet Global Counsel, Peter Mandelson’s international lobbying fund, and he conveniently forgot to declare that meeting for a year and a half. Was that meeting a function of official advice from civil servants in his Department, or is it just the case that when Peter Mandelson says “Jump”, Ministers like him say “How high?”?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better than that. That was a meeting facilitated, attended and minuted by officials in the Department for Business and Trade. If he were actually aware, he would know that the Prime Minister has already stated that I have “acted appropriately” and no further action is needed, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s attempts.
When it comes to propriety and ethics, SNP Members might want to look a bit closer to home before they criticise us. Recalling the evidence carefully, and mindful of the direction of Mr Speaker, if they do look closer to home, they will find three coffee machines, seven games consoles, a motorhome, and some extremely expensive salt and pepper dishes. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Dave Doogan
On the case of Peter Mandelson, the Secretary of State expects—[Interruption.]—
Dave Doogan
On the case of Peter Mandelson, the Secretary of State says, “I’m in the clear because the Prime Minister says so.” The Prime Minister is also up to his neck in the Peter Mandelson scandal, so that is no clean bill of health at all. We saw just this week a stream of gushing—nauseating, actually—messages between Peter Mandelson and the Secretary of State.
How are we to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing anything in the interests of the people of Scotland when two of his own Labour MPs this week described him as the “most absent” man in the UK Cabinet? What does it say about him that the only person who thinks he is any use is his pal Peter Mandelson?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is full of beans—that is obviously what you get with three coffee machines. [Hon. Members: “More!”] He really has to do a whole lot better than his pathetic attempts at smears.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
John Cooper
My constituents will be alarmed to hear that, because Labour’s “devolve and forget” approach is a huge problem. When the Secretary of State is away, the nats will play. We know that the First Minister has gone abroad using taxpayers’ money to talk about the breaking up of Britain. Should the Secretary of State not be inviting the First Minister down for a meeting—without coffee?
Mr Alexander
Very good; I think the First Minister would probably bring the coffee with him, if he was willing to accept the invitation. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I wrote to the First Minister congratulating him on his recent success and inviting him to meet, but no acceptance was forthcoming. That was exactly the same approach as what followed after I was appointed Secretary of State, where I offered to meet the First Minister and he refused. Crocodile tears are often spilt in Edinburgh at the suggestion that we do not have good intergovernmental relations, but if we want better intergovernmental relations, the ball is in the SNP’s court.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Scottish Secretary agree that given the incoming Scottish Government have a whole list of issues and problems on their plate, the last thing they should be concerning themselves with is another divisive referendum?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend brings long and valuable experience in both of Scotland’s Parliaments to her understanding of these issues. In 2014, there was an agreement across all parties and across civic society in Scotland that there should be a referendum. There is simply no such consensus today. This is not the time for the SNP’s obsession with independence. It is focused on division and grievance; we are focused on delivery.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I join the Secretary State in wishing Steve Clarke and the Scotland team all the best in the upcoming world cup. I look forward to them bringing football home to Scotland on 19 July. It might be obvious to most why the SNP might want to distract people from the news at the minute, but it does not excuse it wasting more of Scottish taxpayers’ money pushing its divisive separation agenda, which the majority of Scots do not want. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will recognise the wishes of the majority of Scots and say no to another needless referendum, and does he agree that the SNP should get on with the day job?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I have ongoing discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the oil and gas sector’s future in Scotland, focusing on ensuring that our oil and gas workers have a future as part of our transition to clean energy. Indeed, the Chancellor and I met oil and gas sector leaders earlier this year.
Alison Griffiths
Many businesses in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency depend on contracts linked to the North sea energy sector. With this Labour Government driving disinvestment and deindustrialisation, skilled workers are fleeing the industry. Every Member in this House will have constituents whose employment relies on this wider supply chain. Does the Secretary of State understand the chilling effect that his Government’s policies are having on business confidence and investment in this vital industry?
Mr Alexander
It seems to have slipped the hon. Lady’s mind that the energy profits levy was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It also seems to have slipped her mind that fully a third of the jobs in the North sea were lost during the Conservative Government’s time in office. They failed time and time again to come up with any credible plan. The status quo of that lost decade was 70,000 fewer jobs in the North sea.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Jobs were lost at Grangemouth following Jim Ratcliffe’s decision to close the refinery. The then Tory Ministers, half of whom are now members of Reform, treated it as a commercial decision, and did and delivered nothing. In contrast, the UK Labour Government invested £120 million in December to save Grangemouth’s ethylene plant, but given the closure of the refinery, we must move far more quickly. What efforts is the Secretary of State making to deliver a new industry in Grangemouth with the £200 million allocated to the site by the Labour Government?
Mr Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that, together with officials, I am actively engaged in efforts to secure the future of the Grangemouth industrial cluster, and I was central to the UK Government’s commitment of £120 million last December to secure the future of the wider site. In December last year, funding of up to £3 million was announced for the Scottish biotech company MiAlgae, which is expected to create up to 310 jobs over the next five years. However, the work continues.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The list grows longer every week: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca, Xodus and EnerMech have all announced redundancies in Scotland’s oil and gas industry. For some unfathomable reason, this Labour Government seem to think that everything is fine, but is it not the truth that they are carrying out the wilful destruction of this country’s domestic oil and gas industry, sacrificing thousands of jobs and making the country poorer and less secure?
Mr Alexander
History did not begin in July 2024. The hon. Gentleman can run, but he cannot hide from his record: 70,000 jobs lost in the North sea under the Conservatives, the energy profits levy introduced by the Conservatives, and zero plans for the North sea under the Conservatives.
Andrew Bowie
It is clear that Labour Members just do not get it—or worse, they just do not care. A week tomorrow, there will be a referendum on our oil and gas industry in Aberdeen, and the choice could not be clearer. Only one party is standing up for the granite city, for Scotland’s energy industry and for Britain’s energy security, and that is the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Secretary of State must agree that in Aberdeen next week the choice will be clear: vote to get Britain drilling with the Conservatives, or vote for decline and job losses with Labour or the SNP.
Mr Alexander
That was rather more like a party election broadcast than a question. As always, I would recommend the good voters of Aberdeen to vote Scottish Labour.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are and remain committed to the successful delivery of the borderlands inclusive growth deal. In March, the UK and Scottish Governments approved a deal reset, which confirmed a more deliverable and affordable financial profile. The reset will boost the delivery of key projects such as the Chapelcross development and the mountain bike innovation centre in Innerleithen, and will help the deal to make a real difference to the south of Scotland.
Ms Minns
May I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker?
Members on both sides of the border and both sides of the Chamber believe that the deal has the potential to be transformative for our region. What steps are being taken to ensure that progress on the deal is maintained, and will the Secretary of State meet me, and my colleagues on both sides of the border, to discuss the reset?
Mr Alexander
I apologise unreservedly for the unforgivable oversight of not beginning my contributions by wishing you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The borderlands growth deal is driving growth, which is why the UK and Scottish Governments have approved a strategic reset. I assure my hon. Friend that we will endeavour to take forward the work as described.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The Government are committed to boosting Scotland’s regional economies, including that of my former constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. The Paisley and Renfrewshire economy will benefit from £39 million of city deal project funding aimed at Clyde waterfront connectivity. The project is predicted to deliver up to 1,400 jobs and attract £230 million in private sector investment.
Johanna Baxter
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
Last week we heard the very disappointing news that the principal investor in the Paisley Centre redevelopment project in my constituency has been forced to withdraw from the project after years of delays and uncertainty. I have repeatedly warned that continued delays would put this project at risk, and it is deeply frustrating that those fears have been realised without, apparently, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council having any back-up plan. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me, along with local elected representatives and members of the Scottish Government, to see what we can do to get the project moving?
Mr Alexander
I know better than most the limitations of an SNP-led Renfrewshire council, and I applaud my hon. Friend’s efforts to bring this initiative to the fore. As the UK Government Minister responsible for local growth in Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), would be pleased to meet her to discuss how we can work with the council to deliver a vibrant and strong future for the town.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government are committed to empowering local people to deliver neighbourhood regeneration across Scotland. Our Pride in Place programme is directly supporting many of our most-in-need communities to shape the future of their local area. We are investing up to £480 million in 24 Scottish neighbourhoods over 10 years, and that includes £20 million for Kilmarnock.
Lillian Jones
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
I was delighted that the Darvel Improvement Group was awarded £200,000 of Pride in Place funding, meaning that it can now progress its work to restore the Sir Alexander Fleming commemorative garden and create an educational memorial in Hastings Square. My right hon. Friend will know that 2028 marks 100 years since the discovery of penicillin, a world-changing breakthrough that has saved millions of lives across the world. For local people across my constituency, that is a source of deep pride—Scotland’s contribution to science from a man born in Darvel in Ayrshire, aka God’s country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by putting power into the hands of local people, we are helping communities to deliver—
Mr Alexander
Let me congratulate the volunteer-led Darvel Improvement Group, to which my hon. Friend refers, for securing £200,000 from the Pride in Place impact fund. She is right to recognise that the world owes an immeasurable debt to Sir Alexander Fleming, and it is entirely right that his birthplace in Darvel stands at the heart of celebration of his truly monumental scientific achievement.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Perth is still the only city in Scotland that has not received one penny from the Conservatives’ levelling-up fund or the Government’s Pride in Place programme. When I wrote to the Minister at the last allocation, she told me that we did not meet the methodologies or indices of deprivation. The Secretary of State was once a failed candidate in the city of Perth and surely noticed that we have poverty, just like every other city in Scotland. Why have we not received a penny, and when will we get our share?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: I did fight Perth for Labour, although Perth fought back pretty effectively. I am fully aware of the contribution that the fair city of Perth makes to the economy of Scotland, and I am also very aware of the methodology that we have used, which is an objective basis on which to allocate British public funds.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Producing the clean energy we need is not only right for our energy security and our climate; it is the right thing to do for jobs and investment. Last week, the CBI revealed that the UK’s green economy has created more than 1 million jobs. In Scotland, the industry generated £10.2 billion and supported more than 105,000 jobs, predominantly benefiting local small and medium-sized enterprises and communities all around Scotland.
Gregory Stafford
We are losing over 1,000 jobs a month in our oil and gas industry, and despite what the Secretary of State has just said, we are not seeing a similar uptick in green jobs. Skilled workers are losing their jobs in oil and gas, and are actually leaving the country. The Government’s actions are making the United Kingdom poorer and less secure, and we are waving goodbye to highly skilled jobs. How can the Secretary of State honestly tell this House that there is a transition going on?
Mr Alexander
Look at the work being done, and the investment being made, by Iberdrola and ScottishPower. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is real investment delivering real jobs. If he would like to comment further on this issue, perhaps he would like to apologise for the abject absence of a plan from the previous Conservative Government on the North sea, which explains the fact that they lost 70,000 jobs on their watch.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s £50 million Scottish defence growth deal is a true step change for Scotland’s industrial base. It will support jobs, skills and regional growth. The deal includes £10 million for innovation facilities, both on the Clyde and in Rosyth. Where the SNP will not back Scottish industry, young people or our national security, Scottish Labour and the UK Government will step in.
Richard Baker
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence set out at the GMB conference how this Government’s investment in defence is delivering for British workers. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will work with his Ministry of Defence colleagues to support Scottish yards, including Methil in my constituency? Last month, it delivered the Seahorse pontoon ahead of schedule and on budget, and it has a skilled workforce who are ready to take on new defence contracts, including Programme Euston.
Mr Alexander
There is no more doughty defender of, or advocate for, the Navantia yard than my hon. Friend. I was delighted to visit the yard with my hon. Friend a few weeks ago, and I congratulate the workforce on completing the Seahorse pontoon ahead of schedule. Having visited the yard, I have seen at first hand the expertise and commitment of the workforce, and of the young apprentices there. They are delivering for all of us.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I know that the thoughts of the House will be with those affected by the events in Belfast this week. I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a man following the attack on Monday night. That case is now sub judice. It is possible that other charges will be brought, including in respect of events in Belfast in the aftermath. I am granting a full waiver to allow Members to discuss wider issues raised in the context of this incident. However, I must urge Members in the strongest terms not to discuss the details of any individual case. This includes not discussing any motive, nor the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Last week, I noted the helicopter crash in Devon, and I want to put on record our sincere condolences to the families of Lieutenant Commander Chris Gayson, Lieutenant Lily-Mae Fisher and Petty Officer Owen Green. Our thoughts are with their families at this tragic time.
I also send my condolences to the family of Michael Storey. Michael worked as a driver in No. 10 for over two decades. He was a remarkable gentleman who was held in the highest regard by all who knew him, and will be deeply missed.
Mr Speaker, people are rightly sickened by the horrific attack on Monday night in north Belfast. As you have just said, the man who was arrested has been in court in Belfast this morning and charged. I thank the Police Service of Northern Ireland, other first responders and members of the public, who responded with such bravery. Our thoughts are with the victim.
But let me be clear: the acts of violence and arson that followed are totally unjustified. This morning, I spoke with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Constable, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting leaders in Belfast today. We are united in calling for calm and we are determined to restore order, support the police and all those on the frontline, and ensure that justice is done.
On a lighter note, Mr Speaker, as the world cup gets under way, I would like to wish the best of luck to both Scotland and England. I would also like to wish you a happy birthday.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Melanie Ward
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Let me associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the situation in Northern Ireland, and about the Scottish football team. [Laughter.]
The existence of Israeli settlements and settler violence against Palestinians is a major and deliberate impediment to peace. By working with Israeli human rights researchers, I have uncovered 32 British charities that are funnelling money to Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Last week, I submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about them. In the last five years, they have sent over £28 million to illegal settlements, with a likely taxpayer subsidy through gift aid of more than £5 million. Our constituents will be appalled by this. Does the Prime Minister agree that funnelling money to Israeli settlements is extremist activity, not charitable activity, and will he be clear that it is banned?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. Settlements are a flagrant breach of international law, and no UK charity should be supporting them. The Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the Charity Commission today to discuss those concerns. We announced yesterday further sanctions against those who support settler violence, and we will continue to look at strengthening those sanctions. British businesses should have no economic involvement in illegal settlements. Let me just say that the situation across Palestine remains desperate, and the UK will continue to lead efforts to prevent human suffering and get aid in, and to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I, too, wish England and Scotland the very best in the world cup. I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—many happy returns. May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister made about the helicopter crash? Our condolences go to their families, and to the family of Michael Storey.
I thank the Prime Minister for his short statement on Belfast. The scenes in Belfast are deeply, deeply disturbing. A man is in hospital after a brutal attack and now families are frightened after a night of violence. There is a live criminal case, so we must be careful about what we say, but we can be clear about this: people have a right to be angry—I am angry—and people have the right to expect their politicians to secure our borders, but no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police. We all have a duty to stand up for public safety in every way.
Last night, America carried out strikes on Iran in response to the downing of a US helicopter. This comes just days after renewed attacks on Ukraine. The world is getting more dangerous and the British public want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to protect our national security. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, will the full defence investment plan finally be published this week?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that in relation to both Iran and Ukraine, we are facing a more volatile world than at any time during our lifetimes. So far as defence is concerned, we have already taken a number of measures. We have increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6% in 2027. That is spending of £270 billion over this Parliament. We have carried out a strategic review of defence and we are committed to publishing the defence investment plan before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.
Mrs Badenoch
That sounded like a no. We have wasted two years waiting for the defence investment plan. Projects have been put on hold and Britain is getting weaker with every passing day. It has been reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Defence needs an extra £28 billion. Will that requirement be met in full?
The Prime Minister
We will set out the defence investment plan. It is a 10-year plan and it is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets in 18 years. The right hon. Lady is wrong to say that it has been delayed by two years. The defence strategic review was published a year ago and we have been working through the details to make sure that we get this right.
We are the Government who increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%. I remind the Conservatives that when they came into power, defence spending was 2.5% and they took it down to 2.3%. We have taken it up to 2.6% by 2027. The defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit. We have already signed 1,400 major defence contracts, and 94% of those are with British businesses. As the Defence Secretary said, that includes helicopters made in Yeovil, drones made in Swindon and armoured vehicles made in Telford. We have also given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in over 20 years. That is Labour making investment to safeguard our national security.
Mrs Badenoch
I welcome the pay rise for the armed forces. The Prime Minister says he has increased defence spending, but he has not. This year he is cutting it by £3.5 billion. What he is talking about are hopeful increases, and we do not know if he will make them because there is still no defence investment plan. At a time when we need leadership, we have total paralysis. It is reported that the Chancellor is only willing to find £13 billion for the DIP. At the London defence conference last year, the Prime Minister said that defence would be the “central organising principle” of his Government. How can that be the case when he is giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need?
The Prime Minister
We have already increased defence spending. We will spend £270 billion in this Parliament. What did the Conservatives do on defence spending? They took it from 2.5% and cut it to 2.3%. We will take no lectures from them. They sat at the heart of a Government that failed our armed services. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. They cut the Army from 100,000 down to 72,000. They missed Army recruitment targets every single year for 14 years, and they left morale in the armed forces at an all-time low, so we will take no lectures from them on the defence and security of our country.
Mrs Badenoch
We have heard the Prime Minister say that about 100 times. There is still no defence investment plan. He is the Prime Minister now—at least I think he is. Should I be calling Andy Burnham instead to ask these questions? He is the Prime Minister, and the reason he is dithering is because he does not know where the money is coming from. The military is waiting and the bond markets are watching. He has only three options: cutting spending, more borrowing, or higher taxes. We know that the Chancellor wants to put up tax to pay for defence. Will the Prime Minister rule out raising taxes?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks the House to simply ignore the last 14 years, saying, “We may have failed the armed forces and hollowed them out, but please just forget all that and act as if it didn’t happen.” Well, we cannot forget all that, given the damage the Conservatives did to our armed services. She says, “Forget all that,” but I remind the House that when they left office, 47 out of 49 major defence contracts were delayed or over budget. That is what we are fixing. We cannot just scrub it away and forget. I know that the Conservatives want to forget their last 14 years in power. So do the British public—that’s why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches. We have increased defence spending, and we are going to publish the defence investment plan. That will be done before the NATO summit that is coming up in just a few weeks’ time.
Mrs Badenoch
I remember when the last Government led Europe when we were fighting the war in Ukraine. When Russia invaded, we were ready. We supplied Ukraine with munitions. We increased defence spending. But I was not asking the Prime Minister about our record; I asked him if he would rule out tax rises. He did not rule out raising taxes, so tax rises are coming. He cannot borrow more, because the markets have no confidence in him. The Prime Minister is in this mess because he maxed out on spending in his first two Budgets. That is why the benefits bill is set to rise to over £200 billion by the end of the decade. He has things the wrong way round: he has a benefits plan until 2031, but no defence investment plan. Why not just cut welfare?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about leading the way on Ukraine. I did, and do, pay tribute to what the last Government did on Ukraine, and we stood with them. We continue to lead the way. It is the United Kingdom and France that are leading the coalition of the willing that have got the military plans together for security guarantees in Ukraine. Equally, on Iran, it is the UK and French Governments that have put together the military plans for the coalition for reassurance as soon as the strait of Hormuz is open. That is what we are doing to lead. We are not going to take lectures on defence from the Opposition after what they did to the armed forces, and neither are we going to take lectures on the economy, which they crashed and we have had to pick up.
Mrs Badenoch
At a time of increased global instability and tension, with war in Europe and the middle east, the Prime Minister is paralysed, giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need. Tony Blair says to cut welfare for defence. Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General—and also one of them—says to cut welfare for defence. We all know why he will not cut welfare. It is because he is too weak—too weak to make a decision, too weak to face down his Back Benchers and cut benefits, and too weak to stand up for our national security. As the sun sets on his premiership, he is scrabbling around for a legacy, but is it not the case that his real legacy will be a bloated welfare state and weaker armed forces?
The Prime Minister
When the Conservatives were in office, they did not reform welfare spending or invest in our armed services. The right hon. Lady sets out that choice, but, on their watch, defence spending went down and welfare spending went up—£88 billion overall, with £33 billion alone under the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). The Conservatives neither reformed welfare nor spent on our armed forces.
Every week, the right hon. Lady reminds us why the British public sent them packing. She ignores the fact that we are turning the country around: growth is up, but she does not want to talk about that; interest rates are down, but she does not want to talk about that either; immigration is down, after she cheerleaded for it to go up, and NHS waiting lists have come down at the fastest rate in 17 years. I am going to keep fighting for the people who elected a Labour Government and sent us here two years ago—people who want to live in a safer world, parents who want a better future for their children and young people growing up in poverty who deserve a better future. [Interruption.] We are investing in this great nation and standing up against those who divide us for a stronger, fairer Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. There will be a taxi, and it might be for somebody who did not request it.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the Health Secretary has said, the existing contract will be reviewed as it always is ahead of the break clause. Data security is always a priority; there will be strong cyber-security protections for the single patient record and we will protect that data, as we do with all health data. We are focused on modernising the NHS so that patients do not have to repeat themselves and can get the care they need more quickly. Our investment has cut NHS waiting lists, delivered millions of extra appointments and improved A&E and ambulance response times, and I am proud of what we are doing.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the families of those killed in last week’s helicopter crash. I associate myself with his remarks about the horrific knife attack in Belfast; our thoughts are with the victim and his family. I join the Prime Minister in condemning the disorder last night.
In Carer’s Week, I celebrate the millions of family carers who make huge sacrifices to look after their loved ones. I also look forward to an England versus Scotland world cup final, and wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy birthday.
As the chaos over the defence investment plan goes on, I am sure that Members across the House were shocked to read yesterday’s reports that the Government are considering slashing the hospital programme to fund the shortfall. Surely in 21st-century Britain people can expect both a decent local hospital and armed forces that keep them safe, so will the Prime Minister rule out any cuts to the NHS budget to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the amazing work of our carers.
I will take the measures necessary to defend our country—the first duty of any Prime Minister. The Government will also take the measures to invest in our public services, as we have done already. Forgive me, but I was running a public service when the Government that the right hon. Gentleman’s party was part of were stripping them bare under austerity. We are really not going to take lectures on austerity from him.
Ed Davey
I was hoping we were going to hear more about defence investment. I urge the Prime Minister to look at our plans for defence bonds to get £20 billion into defence.
I will turn to the horrific scenes in Belfast. We have seen the same pattern too many times: an appalling crime is committed, making us all feel immense pain and anger, and then extremists exploit that grief and anger to spread hatred and violence, aided and abetted by social media barons like Elon Musk and their divisive algorithms. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is not who we are as a country, and that it is not free speech if it is controlled by tech billionaires and their algorithms? Will he therefore crack down properly on platforms like X that are fuelling violence and hatred?
The Prime Minister
We will crack down on anyone who is fuelling this division. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we are heading into a very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the chief constable, First Minister and Deputy First Minister this morning, and they were united in saying that we should all be calling for calm. The police are on the frontline, and it is our duty as politicians to call for calm. Nobody who is a politician should be whipping up division and hatred.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the important role that flexible working spaces play in regenerating our high streets. Where the law requires a property to be treated as a single unit, the business rates are paid by the operator, not the individual business. I cannot speak for every case, but I will ensure that a Treasury Minister picks up this issue with my hon. Friend as quickly as possible.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to the tragic helicopter crash last week?
Yesterday I shared my concern that community cohesion stood on a precipice. The north Belfast attack on Monday was medieval and sadistic, and it has sadly been viewed by millions in this country. As reprehensible as it was, the outrageous violence, intimidation and community damage carried out last night in my constituency and other parts of Northern Ireland require the strongest condemnation. It is impossible to share concerns about damage to our British values and then act in a way that tarnishes the very thing we should want to protect.
The Government’s job—our collective job—is to act to protect our country and defend our borders. The Prime Minister knows that the man who has been charged entered our country illegally. He passed through two safe countries and attained asylum in record time. Will the Prime Minister meet me urgently to discuss the steps that he and his Government will take to ensure that our values are enforced, that the rule of law in this country sustains, and that he protects and closes the open, porous border between our country and the Irish Republic?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I also particularly thank him and all leaders in Northern Ireland who have urged calm, particularly before what happened last night. Standing together with that common message was very powerful. I am very happy to meet the right hon. Member and other MPs from Northern Ireland, as he requests, and I think that a slot has been identified after Prime Minister’s questions. It is important that we meet at the first opportunity.
We are all sickened by this attack, but we need to be clear that the scenes of violence and disorder have no justification. Of course there are questions that need to be answered, but destroying communities, destroying homes and driving people out of their homes is not, and will never be, the right way to respond to such an attack. I look forward to working with the right hon. Member and others to ensure a calm response and that the police are given the space that they need to deliver justice.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Mildmay hospital, which is synonymous with extraordinary care and compassion as she describes. I will ensure that she meets the relevant Health Minister to discuss the concerns I know she has in relation to it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
All those involved in the violence will face the full force of the law, and quite rightly so. The hon. Member is right to describe, as he does, the fear that this instils in some of our communities. That is a very real fear, and it is being felt today, this hour, in Northern Ireland by families who are too scared to go about their lawful work, to go to school and to go about their business. That is exactly what it does, which is why we must all condemn it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been an outstanding advocate on this issue. I congratulate the BSI on 125 years of vital work. The guidance reminds us that every part of society has a role to play in suicide prevention, and it is positive that so many businesses are putting it into practice. I am pleased to raise awareness of it and to encourage others who have not seen it yet to look closely at it and follow it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
Last week we had the terrible case of Henry Nowak, which Reform Members sought to exploit. Now we have a very difficult situation in Northern Ireland where families and communities are extremely frightened. What do they do? They try to whip up fear and division, because that is all they have got. The hon. Member talks about stopping the boats. When we passed legislation to help stop the boats, what did they do? They voted against it.
To take those measures, you need money, and the hon. Member has still not properly addressed why his companies have not just aggressively avoided tax but failed to pay the tax they legally owed. His investment company then gave huge donations to Reform. If he paid his taxes, we would have more money to deal with these issues.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Ryan’s case, the details of which, as he outlined, are very hard to hear. As the father of a 17-year-old boy, I find that particularly hard to hear. No one—no mother—should have to experience what Angie has. I know that she is here with us today, and I very much hope that I can meet her immediately after PMQs.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Let me be very clear: any blade that is used to threaten or to harm others is illegal by law—any blade. We will work with the Sikh community, knife crime campaigners and the police to learn the right lessons. That is the responsible thing to do. We all have a responsibility and a duty as politicians to respond to the case that we were discussing last week and to the events in Northern Ireland that we are discussing today with the calmness that leadership requires.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s local maternity services are seeing improvements. We now have a record number of midwives working in the NHS, and we are investing over £150 million to address critical safety risks. There is much more that we need to do so that every mother is listened to and receives outstanding care. The recommendations of the Amos inquiry will be published shortly, and we will act to deliver lasting change.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience and, notwithstanding that, congratulate him on his achievements at the London marathon. I agree with him that patients should receive high-quality, consistent care, wherever they live. Through national improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time, we are making sure that best practice is shared to drive up standards, and I am happy for Ministers to give him the details.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his great work supporting young carers for decades. We have given tech companies a deadline: introduce the device-level controls that already exist to prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images or we will change the law, with fines for companies or even criminal liability for bosses who fail to comply. When it comes to the safety of our children, standing by is not an option, and further steps will follow.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I agree that we must act to protect ecosystems that underpin our food supply and our way of life, and I am really proud that, under this Government, the UK is back playing a leading part on climate change and restoring nature.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Peter Murrell pleaded guilty to embezzling over £400,000 of Scottish National party members’ funds. Thousands of pounds were spent on luxury items ranging from a salt and pepper grinder to a new Jaguar and a luxury motorhome. When party figures raised concerns, and even resigned, they were silenced and ostracised by those at the very top of the SNP. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that a full investigation into this national scandal needs to be held as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
These are clearly serious legitimate questions that deserve answers and scrutiny—answers and scrutiny that they are not getting. I do think the Scottish Parliament should look at them closely, and I hope that it will listen to the concerns of this House.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I am very glad that we are cutting VAT over the summer with our summer savings programme, which I hope the hon. Lady will support. I note that we have not heard much from the Green party leader after he admitted he had not paid his council tax. Perhaps he has traded his houseboat for a submarine.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, integrated care boards have a statutory obligation to fully fund all essential medicines and pharmacy provision for the delivery of specialist end-of-life and palliative care at our wonderful hospices, such as St Catherine’s and Derian House, serving our respective constituencies of South Ribble and Chorley. However, this is not happening, with ICBs claiming that the costs are covered by the hospices’ core grant. Will the Prime Minister support my private Member’s Bill—St Catherine’s law—which seeks to place an explicit obligation on every ICB to fund all essential medicine and pharmacy provision for all our hospices, separately from any core grant they receive from the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. As he knows, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning palliative care and end-of-life services, including hospices, to meet the needs of their area, and that includes decisions on how services are funded, including medicines and pharmacy provision. I am happy to talk to him further about it.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case—it is obviously awful. If he shares further details with my office, I will ensure that the Water Minister picks it up and acts as quickly as possible.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister warned that NATO needs to be ready for an attack from Russia by 2030. Indeed, we have an increasingly belligerent, expansionist and imperialist Russian leadership to our east and a Donald Trump US leadership to our west, for whom Ukraine and European security are not a priority, so we need to meet the moment. To his credit, the Prime Minister has increased defence spending since taking power, but the House of Commons Defence Committee is adamant that we need to spend 3% of GDP on defence. When the Prime Minister signs off on decisions in the defence investment plan, which I hope—touch wood—will be published imminently, will he agree to that 3% GDP spend on defence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns that we have. We have increased defence spending, and the defence investment plan is going to be set out very soon and before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Lindsay Foreman and her husband Craig have not eaten in 32 and 23 days respectively. They are being held hostage by the terrorist Government of Iran, but this Government’s weak words have abandoned them, so will the Prime Minister stop raising their case and start fighting for them? He can do that by declaring today in this House that they are being arbitrarily detained—something he has refused to do—and by referring their case to the International Court of Justice, so we get them home.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important case and give her and the House the assurance that this is raised regularly by us. The Foreign Secretary has raised it very recently. We raise it every time we can; we do everything we can in relation to this case. We are doing everything that we can, as she would expect and as the Conservatives would have done in office, but she is right to raise the case.
Belfast: Violent Disorder
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the violent disorder that took place last night in Belfast.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this question, which I am answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who this morning met the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to receive an update on the situation.
Let me start by saying that my thoughts, as I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, remain with the victim of the horrifying knife attack in north Belfast earlier this week and with his family. The House will be aware that a man has been charged in relation to that incident, and I can confirm that he is a 30-year-old Sudanese national who received refugee status in 2023 and was granted five years’ leave to remain. We must now allow justice to take its course.
The attack on Monday evening has understandably caused anger and profound concern. However, there is a line between concern and disorder, and we must never allow it to be crossed. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the disgraceful scenes of violence and disorder that occurred in Northern Ireland last night. Houses and vehicles were set on fire, placing lives at risk, terrifying law-abiding citizens and forcing residents to flee their homes. Reports that ethnic minorities were targeted are sickening.
I wish to pay tribute to the police and the other emergency services for their work last night. Faced with an extraordinarily challenging situation, they responded with great courage and they are owed our thanks.
Our message to those responsible for last night’s disorder is altogether different. To them we say this: you will be caught and you will face the consequences of your actions. As of this morning there had been three arrests, but more will surely follow. To those considering joining further disorder, my message is clear: do not do it—you will be held accountable for your actions, and you will feel the full force of the law.
As hon. Members are aware, policing is a devolved matter, but the Home Office is of course monitoring the situation closely, and we are working with operational partners to understand and act on any implications for public order across the United Kingdom.
Finally, I recognise that tensions are running high. At times like this, there is an even greater onus on us all, as the custodians of our democracy, to respond with unity, to choose our words and actions with care, and to uphold the first duty of the state, which is to maintain order on the streets and to keep the public safe, because the shameful scenes that we saw last night are not who we are, and they never will be.
Claire Hanna
It has been a shocking two days in Northern Ireland. The horrific knife attack in north Belfast has left a man fighting for his life, and an entire community distressed by what they have seen. Justice must of course take its course and deliver for that victim, whose family have asked for calm.
Last night brought further outrage. Children in my constituency, and in others, were lifted out of their beds as their homes burned. Masked men roamed the streets, going from door to door, menacing and setting fire to cars, buses and homes, terrorising people on the basis of the colour of their skin or the sound of their voice—people from Sudan, people from India, people from Ukraine, and people from Belfast. Today, businesses are shuttered, medical appointments are cancelled, and schools are being closed for fear of getting young people home. So many people are frighted to walk the streets and to be in their own homes tonight. And when all the online agitators who stoke this stuff move on to their next target, we will be the ones left to pick up the pieces.
People are of course entitled to their views on immigration, and of course Government policy is not perfect, but this has not been a debate or conversation. There have not been proposals, and there has not been honesty about the trade-offs. There has been mob justice, and some of the same-old, same-old proposals for a hardened border on the island of Ireland. Political leaders have a duty to lead, not to lean into people’s worst fears and anxieties. That video of the awful crime in north Belfast was unusual in its brutality, but the cycle of deflection and disorder has not been unusual. We have seen this movie too many times before.
In Belfast we know all about blaming an entire community for the actions of others, we know all about scapegoating and tit-for-tat violence, and we know all about street justice. Violence creates division. It is affecting our economy, and undermining the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to work together to build a better future. What support will the Government provide to those who have been harmed by this awful violence? Will they ensure swift justice for all the perpetrators of the last few days, and what will they do to bring to heel the online platforms that drive this madness?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady describes with great clarity the impact of the scenes that we have seen in Northern Ireland over the past number of hours. Let me be absolutely clear: the scenes of disorder that we witnessed in parts of Northern Ireland last night are not only damaging communities, but literally putting lives at risk. Like her, I utterly condemn the attacks on property and vehicles, and the other related violence that we have seen. There is no justification at all for that type of thuggery, and no place for it in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
The hon. Lady will agree that it is now vital that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is given the time, space and full support that it needs to continue with its investigation. The rule of law must, and will, prevail; justice must, and will, be served.
Violence is never a justified response, and this disorder only causes pain and suffering for those living in the area, as the hon. Lady eloquently described. Those involved need to take a step back and consider the consequences of their actions. I strongly urge anyone who has information, no matter how small it might seem, to come forward and contact the PSNI urgently in order to assist it with its inquiries.
The hon. Lady specifically asked what support is being offered. She will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Belfast today, and I know that he will be working with colleagues there to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to deal with this very troubling situation.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Monday night’s attack was disgusting and barbaric. The victim suffered serious injuries to his neck and lost an eye. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with him. I thank the police and emergency services for responding and pay tribute to the members of the public who so bravely intervened. I commend the police for confirming the suspect’s identity swiftly, because full transparency is vital in these cases. Will the Minister confirm that the PSNI will have all the resources needed to deal with these issues?
We have all seen the footage of the appalling attack, featuring a Sudanese illegal immigrant, but let me be clear: violence of any kind in protest is never justified. Innocent people should never be targeted and nobody should ever set fire to houses or cars. Speaking as a father, no one should ever feel unsafe in their homes. I hope that the police will bring the perpetrators swiftly to justice.
I do understand, though, why people are angry. The suspect came into the UK illegally—he should never have been here in the first place. Mainstream politicians must now understand how angry the public are about mass illegal immigration. If mainstream politics does not stop this, the public will turn elsewhere.
Since the election, 73,000 people have entered the country illegally via small boat, mostly young men, and many have committed serious crimes. I recently met the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, a young woman brutally murdered by a Sudanese small-boat migrant. There have been multiple rapes and sexual assaults, with victims as young as just 13. Over time, I have come to realise that there is ultimately only one way to end illegal immigration: by leaving the European convention on human rights so that we can deport all illegal migrants upon arrival. Illegal migration will then stop, and these appalling crimes with it.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points that he has raised and, in particular, for the clarity with which he made the point about violence never being justified. He is absolutely right, and I hope that we can speak with a strong sense of unity about that. He specifically asked about ensuring that the PSNI has the resources it needs to do the difficult work being asked of it at this moment. I know that he understands that policing is devolved, but as I have said, the Secretary of State is in Northern Ireland this morning to work out what more we can do to provide support and to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke about the anger that people feel, and that is absolutely understood. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the footage that is circulating online. While clearly I have to be incredibly careful not to get in the way of a live investigation, it is understandable why people will feel extremely angry at what they have seen, but it is important that that anger does not tip over into criminality and the kind of thuggish behaviour that we have seen.
The shadow Home Secretary rightly raised concerns about the importance of making sure that this Government, as with any Government, have the right framework in place to deport those foreign national offenders who come here and engage in criminality. I think he is aware of the figures: there have been 67,000 deportations and removals under this Government, which marks a significant increase. I hope that he and the House recognise the seriousness and the urgency with which we take these matters. They need to be dealt with calmly and effectively, but this Government will do everything in our power—and if further powers are required, we will ensure that we have them—to deport and remove those people who present a threat to the public.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing the urgent question. I pay tribute to the Chief Constable, the PSNI and the emergency services for their work and their bravery, which continues to be unstinted. Does the Minister agree that the events we witnessed last night demonstrate the importance of political leaders speaking with one voice in condemning violence, rejecting extremism and supporting those working to build a shared and prosperous future for all communities and the people in Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in Northern Ireland, is absolutely right to highlight the bravery of the police. I have spent a lot of time in Northern Ireland over the years and have something of a sense of the importance of the work that they do and the risk that they carry. Looking at the scenes that unfolded last night, it is impossible not to conclude that the police did an incredibly good job under very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to them, their service and their families, who would have been at home, sick to death with worry at the kind of risk and threat that their loved ones were having to deal with.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of responsibility. As political leaders, and as Members of this House and further afield, we should all understand that words have consequences. While I understand the temptation for some to score cheap political points, at moments like this the public expect all of us to rise above that and think about how we can stand together to address the problems that we undoubtedly face.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My thoughts and those of the whole House are with Stephen Ogilvie, who suffered truly horrific injuries on Monday night, and with the residents of Belfast who were forced to flee by rioters who do not speak for any legitimate community grievance. The knife attack was repugnant, but so too were the scenes that followed. This is the second consecutive summer of racially motivated disorder in Northern Ireland that the PSNI has faced while understaffed and underfunded. The Minister rightly says that the PSNI should be given time and space, but will he confirm what additional financial support the Government will provide for the PSNI, because it needs it?
Although the alleged attacker had leave to remain, concerns about irregular migration across the Northern Ireland border are being exploited by right-wing extremists to foment hatred and division. Given the importance of accurate information, will the Minister confirm whether the Government will begin collecting data on such crossings, as officials were unable to provide it when I recently raised the issue as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sensible way in which he has brought his points forward. He is right to raise the resourcing of the PSNI. The Government recognise the financial pressures that the PSNI faces. As he will understand, policing is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but in recognition of the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Government are providing the PSNI with £37.8 million in additional security funding for each financial year until 2028-29. As I have said, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Northern Ireland with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher this morning, and I am certain that they will be having conversations about whether we can provide any further support.
The hon. Gentleman made some entirely reasonable points, which I agree with, including around transparency. It is important that there is always transparency in this case and in all cases, but I know that he will understand that I am very limited in what more I can say because of the ongoing live police investigation.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing the urgent question and the Minister for his answers. Of course, my thoughts are with the victim of the grotesque knife attack earlier this week. Northern Ireland is a wonderful place with wonderful people. The scenes on the streets of Belfast were utterly disgraceful and do not reflect the Northern Ireland that I know and love, and that many of my family live in. I am concerned about the young people who have had to bear witness to the violence and disorder, as generations of young people in Northern Ireland have had to do. What support will be given to the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the young people of Northern Ireland are protected, supported and shielded from the disgraceful impacts of the criminality seen in Belfast last night?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important wider point. Many hon. Members who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will have a long-standing affection for and knowledge of the place. I first went there in 1998 and have been a regular visitor ever since. It is an extraordinary part of the United Kingdom. It is a place that has been on something of a journey over the years. When I was in Northern Ireland recently, I was incredibly impressed with that journey and the progress that has been made in recent times. We have a shared endeavour across Government and across this House to ensure that that journey continues in a positive direction. Key to that is the point that he made about young people in Northern Ireland. We have a shared responsibility to them to ensure that they can enjoy the brightest possible future, and that will a priority for the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I join others in paying tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has once again acted without fear or favour and walked bravely into some of the most dangerous situations.
To follow on from the previous question, I was struck by just how many young people were involved in the disorder yesterday, incited not only by what they have seen on social media but by gangmasters who have groomed them into committing violence day in, day out across Northern Ireland. Will the Home Office look into a review of the treatment of young people in Northern Ireland and how so many of them have been groomed? In effect, it is modern slavery.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. I absolutely give her a commitment that, working with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will do that. Like her, I was struck by the presence of young people taking part in the criminality in Northern Ireland. We have seen it before, in the bad old days of the troubles, and we must never go back to that. We are looking at specific points around the extent to which any of the criminality and disorder has been directed by paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, but I am not yet in a position to say more about that.
The right hon. Lady may be aware that the UK Government provide 50% of the funding for a programme specifically designed to tackle paramilitary activity and organised crime, and £8 million of investment currently goes into that. I absolutely accept and agree with her key point: we have to make sure that young people in Northern Ireland are diverted from paths of criminality. I will take up that matter with colleagues in the Home Office and with the Secretary of State.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her urgent question. People in this House and beyond, including from Moscow, are whipping up hate and disorder in our country, and what happened last night in Northern Ireland was a sickening example of that. Children nearly died.
All of us in this House agree that we must secure our borders. Does the Minister agree with my proposal that the sight of people arriving here by boat or by crossing from Ireland could be ended by processing asylum claims at the nearest point of safety? That would be thousands of miles away, thus bringing an end to the people-smuggling trade.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right in her first point, in the sense that, very concerningly, there will always be malign actors seeking to whip up community tensions through the use of misinformation and disinformation. We are acutely alive to that and will work with partners and law enforcement to make sure we are on top of all that.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, I am joined on the Front Bench by a ministerial colleague from the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), who I know will have listened carefully to what she said. I am sure she understands the determination that exists in the Department and right across Government to tackle the small boat crossings, and we are working at pace to address that issue.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right that those who engaged in the violence last night should face the full weight of the law, because legally, morally and politically they were wrong. However, if the law is going to apply to those who protested, it should also apply to those who have broken into our country illegally, broken our immigration laws and become the source of many of the problems we face. Instead of that, they are taken by the hand—they have state resources spent on them and accommodation made available to them, and they are then given the right to stay here, even though they have come in illegally.
If this issue is to be addressed, the Government must change their attitude. Those who come into our country illegally should be told, “You will never get asylum.” The Irish Government should be spoken to as well, so that the Irish Republic does not become the conduit for illegal immigration, as the route used by the person who has been accused of this crime.
Dan Jarvis
The law should, of course, always be applied without fear or favour. While I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I hope he understands the Government’s determination to address the issues he raised. The Government have been crystal clear about our commitment to reduce to zero the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers, and there is a commitment to carry out that process in a different way through the use of larger sites. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the remarks I made earlier about the increase in the removal of foreign national offenders. This issue is a priority for the Government and for the Home Secretary, and we are working at pace to address the issues he raised.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The attack in Belfast on Monday night was horrific, and the scenes last night were terrifying. It is understandable that people are seeking answers, and that yet another horrific crime is facing public scrutiny and political debate. One of the challenges is that, right now, people are finding those answers online and in the toxic world of social media. We can either feed the tension that is creating, or we can dispel it by standing together against those who wish to target entire communities, and by being committed to replacing the fictions with fact.
I know the Home Secretary and the Minister have been looking at this issue, but what more can we do to help people to have access to trusted sources of information when it comes to difficult issues like this, so that we can challenge people who spread hatred? How can we lead from this place and deliver to the affected communities the information they need to be able to heal themselves and deal with the trauma of what they have seen?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There will be agreement and recognition that activity online can provide extraordinary opportunities and benefits, but clearly it can also provide a toxic environment that drives the kind of criminality we have seen in recent times.
I hope my hon. Friend will understand that we are working at pace across Government through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and right across law enforcement, as well as with operational partners, to make sure that activity online is monitored in a way that will best enable us to reduce and eliminate the kind of activity she referred to. She will understand that that is not an easy thing to do. We are constantly looking for the social media companies and the tech companies to exercise greater responsibility, but I assure her of the importance we attach to these matters. I have had meetings recently with ministerial colleagues to look at what more we can do, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into that carefully.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern that, irrespective of the personal motivation of the perpetrator, the circumstances by which he came into this country send a signal to those ideological movements abroad that wish us harm that there is a very easy back door by which they can infiltrate this country? If an operation of that sort is mounted in the future, what sort of violent response will there be to a spectacular terrorist attack that could and should have been prevented by secure borders?
Dan Jarvis
As always, the right hon. Gentleman raises a very thoughtful series of questions. I know he will understand that I am not going to get into the detail of the potential motivations of the alleged offender in the particular circumstances, but his general challenge is the right one. It is the job of this Government, and of any Government, to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for our adversaries and for those who would do us harm.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, from his previous service on the Intelligence and Security Committee, a lot about the nature and range of threats that we face as a country. I hope he also knows that this Government, like the last Government, do everything they possibly can to make sure that where there are particular points of vulnerability, we are bearing down on them, and that we have in place the right capabilities and resources to keep the public safe. There is no more important duty of any Government than being able to do that, and that is what I as the Security Minister and my colleagues across Government spend each hour of every day making sure that we do.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The crime committed was horrific, and the violence in response has been appalling. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned at seeing what look like racially motivated attacks on families, and people in my community are feeling more scared. I seek reassurances from the Minister that we will continue to stand together to reject extremism and violence and to support those who work together to maintain a safe, tolerant and united community, both in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely can provide those assurances, and my hon. Friend is right to make her points in the way that she does. It is at moments like this that we are collectively tested. The test is whether we are prepared to stand together against the kind of horrific violence we have seen—in both the initial attack and the response to it—and reject extremism. That is not about seeking in any way to minimise the horror of the scenes we have seen, but the job of the Government is to provide a grown-up, balanced response that seeks to bring communities together, not drive them apart. That will always be the response of this Government.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
The Minister said to criminals—who are criminals, Minister, not thugs—“Do not do it.” With respect, that will not cut it. It suggests that the Government are simply a passive, pearl-clutching observer rather than an active participant. I accept that operational matters are for the PSNI, not the Minister, but will he say what the Government are doing to try to fix the fundamentals that underpin the dreadful situation in Belfast?
Dan Jarvis
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but his characterisation of the words I used in my opening remarks is unfair, not least because I was seeking to provide a degree of clarity to those in Northern Ireland who might find themselves swept along by some of the violence we have seen in recent times. It is entirely reasonable that there is clarity about the message that I, as a Government Minister, send to those people, which is that they should not do it, and that if they decide they want to do it, they have to be prepared to face the full consequences of their criminality. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.
The right hon. Gentleman’s second point was a wider, systemic one. He will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily seasoned political operator who dedicates his service in this House to serving the people of Northern Ireland as the Secretary of State, and Members right across the House will understand how seriously he takes these matters. But the right hon. Gentleman is also right to infer that this is a shared endeavour across Government, which is why we will look carefully at what has happened in Northern Ireland and ensure that our collective response is proportionate.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her words in this place. My constituents will have been horrified by last night’s scenes in Belfast, just as they were horrified by the attacks on police in Southampton. Both followed horrifying individual incidents that were subsequently exploited for extremist political ends, including online, as the hon. Lady said. The only difference between shouting something through a megaphone and posting it on social media is that the latter might reach millions, so what consequences will be faced by those who meet the threshold for encouraging acts of criminality, including online?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the disturbances and disorder we saw in Southampton recently. The scenes in Southampton and Belfast—of course, we have also seen them in other parts of the United Kingdom—are utterly abhorrent, and it is ridiculous for the people who participate in that kind of criminality to sometimes describe themselves as patriots. They are not patriots. They do not believe in our country; they want to undermine our country. The real patriots are the people in the police force who are dealing with the disorder and criminality. On my hon. Friend’s second point, I give him an absolute assurance that those who decide that they want to engage in violent criminal disorder will face the full weight of the law.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker, to the Minister for his condemnation, and to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing another opportunity to raise these important issues. The condemnation has been strong, and the condemnation from the Minister has been appropriate. He is also right to highlight that you cannot protect British values while tarnishing them and trampling on them, destroying the rule of law, and intimidating members of our community—putting them out of their homes and destroying their lives. That is not British, and that is not what we need in our country.
As Security Minister, he has a number of responsibilities, and I urge him to look at the swift processes for asylum applications that were deployed three years ago. I understand that the individual in question regarding what happened on Monday was most likely not even interviewed as part of the asylum process, given the constrained timescales. I also understand that individuals just give a name and a date of birth, and that there is no database to confirm whether that name and date of birth are true. Without making any comment on the individual in question, that is a huge loophole in the security of our nation. There is a need to engage with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and ensure we have uniformity, including in the protection of our borders, and I ask the Minister to commit to doing so.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman made an excellent point at the beginning of his remarks about the activities we have seen not being British. I completely agree with his analysis of the situation, and I hope he acknowledges my very long-standing interest in, and affection for, his part of the United Kingdom. Lots of right hon. and hon. Members feel a huge sense of determination to support him and his colleagues in the important work they are doing.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points, and he will understand that I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, who was also listening very carefully. Of course, when a situation such as the one we have seen in recent days occurs, the Department will want to look very carefully at the circumstances of that case. In general terms, some of the metrics relating to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points are heading in the right direction, not least initial decisions on asylum being up by 71%. The Government are determined to make sure we are processing claims much more quickly and effectively than was the case previously. However, we will give further consideration to his points and should he wish to discuss them, I would be very happy to do so.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I echo the statement from the Minister and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who spoke so well and with such clarity. This was a horrific attack, and I join others in extending my sympathies to the victim. I also commend the bravery of Maitiu Mág Tighearnán and those who ran towards danger to disarm the attacker, and the PSNI and emergency services for their swift response. However, it was disappointing—but not surprising—to see the usual suspects using this as an opportunity to divide, point-score and help whip up violence and disorder online, which then played out on the streets of Belfast. Will the Minister join me in condemning those who have done so, and does he agree that it demonstrates the need for urgent action against the online platforms that facilitate and spread this hate?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, not least because I know that he also has a very long-standing affection for Northern Ireland, and I join him in praising the bravery of all those involved in the actions we saw a couple of nights ago. He is also right to raise significant concerns, which link to the point I made earlier about words having consequences. While the usual suspects, as he describes them, will come forward to try to derive some kind of political advantage from circumstances such as these, I genuinely believe that the majority of the public expect us to act in a sensible, consensual way—to address the problems about which people are rightly angry, but to do so in a way that brings people together rather than driving them apart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I never thought I would see a situation where masked men would go from door to door, seeking to drive families from ethnic minorities out of their homes. What happened on Monday was truly barbaric, but nothing in the world could ever justify that type of behaviour. I and others in this House have been warning about the rise of the far right and those pernicious people who would influence this type of behaviour on our streets. Will the Minister now acknowledge that we have a new, emerging problem with elements of the far right, and will he commit to ensuring that we tackle it effectively?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the hon. Member that the scenes he describes were utterly abhorrent and not something that any right-minded person would ever want to see, whether in Belfast, the United Kingdom or anywhere else. I hope that there is shared agreement about that. On his second point, I acknowledge as the Security Minister that to keep our country safe we have to deal with a range of different threats that sit across the spectrum. That includes extreme right-wing activity, as well as a range of other specific threats. In truth, my approach is always to be ideologically agnostic, in the sense that it does not make a difference to me what the particular motivation or ideology is of those who would do us harm. I will make sure that we have the defences to stand against those threats, regardless of where they come from.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
First, I take the opportunity to condemn the appalling assault on the gentleman on Monday night and to praise the members of the public, the PSNI and emergency services who stepped in to try to help that individual. I also put on the record that I condemn the violence that took place last night. There is no place for violence in our society—no matter the issue, it is just wrong.
However, I have some concerns. We have raised issues about resources for the PSNI. It is not that the PSNI might need resources; it urgently needs help and support. We are more than a thousand police officers down in Northern Ireland, and I urge the Minister to send support as quickly as possible.
As the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) mentioned, we also have the problem of an open border, which is a back door for illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. Can the Minister provide us with figures for how many people are using that back door? What plans do the Government have to close it? Finally, many decent, law-abiding people have genuine concerns about illegal immigration, and they feel that this Government and politicians are letting them down. What can the Minister and the Government do to try to assure those people that their genuine concerns are being taken seriously and will be resolved?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his condemnation of the violence and the words he said in praise of those who acted with great courage. I understand his points about PSNI resources. I have discussed those matters twice previously with the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be having further conversations with the Chief Constable today and on an ongoing basis. I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member has raised, and the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government will want to reflect on them further in the light of recent events.
The hon. Member also made an important point about the common travel area. As he will know, it is without border controls, and that has been the case for many years. Currently, that data cannot be collected. However, we have immigration enforcement teams who conduct intelligence-led raids, and we have a new data-sharing agreement among the UK Government, local authorities and the PSNI to protect the CTA from abuse. We will look carefully at the points he has raised, and there will be further conversations with ministerial colleagues about them.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Rioting is utterly wrong, and the scenes we saw in Belfast yesterday deserve our total condemnation, but law-abiding people across the country are rightly furious about the Government’s failure to stop dangerous and violent men entering our country illegally. One reason that they enter is the pull factor of our asylum and welfare system, and another is the open border with the Republic. I stood on that border last week. Nobody wants to see physical infrastructure erected there, but what conversations is the Minister having with the Irish Government to get them to do more to stop illegal migrants travelling north into the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the condemnation of the violent behaviour that we saw. It is right that we all do that and do not allow any ambiguity in the words we use in that regard. The hon. Member will understand that I do not share the particular critique that he has offered of the Government in recent times, not least because the number of foreign national offenders who have been deported is up by 36%. That is more than 10,000 people who have been deported since this Government came to office. He raises specific concerns about the common travel area. We work closely with the Irish Government to protect the integrity and security of the common travel area, while at the same time preserving the rights of British and Irish citizens. Where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will have to look at that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
In January, I wrote to the Home Secretary because a whistleblower suggested that Border Force lacked sufficient personnel to cover night sailings from Belfast and Larne to Cairnryan, the main port in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. We have heard today that much more focus is also needed on the clearly unlocked back door to the United Kingdom between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What can the Government do to address that and in turn prevent the North channel between Scotland and Northern Ireland becoming a conduit for illegals and for other contraband?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he makes an important point. I met officials this morning specifically to discuss the points that he raises. We will use all the tools at our disposal, including intelligence-led operations, to address those points. We look closely at these things, and where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will do so.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this urgent question, and I thank the Security Minister for his characteristically serious and thoughtful responses. It strikes me that there are three lines of investigation: first, into the abhorrent act on Monday night, and we have a suspect; secondly, into the disorder that we saw last night, and I heard the Minister say that three people have been arrested as suspects; and thirdly, into those who seek to incite violence. Can the Minister confirm that there is that third strand of active investigation—that we are seeking to find the people who incited the violence last week and last night, and who continue to do so?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree with his characterisation. He is right to reference the attack and the subsequent disorder, but also to reference concerns about those who would seek to initiate violent criminality under these particular circumstances. I give him an absolute assurance that we will take these matters incredibly seriously, as I am sure will the police.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Rightly, there has been unanimous condemnation of the violence last night in Belfast, as there was of the incident that occurred in north Belfast that precipitated the protests last night. Does the Minister agree that two years ago, following the Southport attacks, similar violence to last night appeared in Northern Ireland? We all condemned that too, and I asked the Deputy First Minister to accompany me on a visit to our local hospital to reassure ethnic minority workers there that we not just condemned the violence against them, but stood shoulder to shoulder with them in opposition to it. However, we need more than just words and people standing shoulder to shoulder. We hope that there will never be a repeat of last night’s violence, but if the Government do not deal with the fundamental underlying problem of the previous night, we will have more nights like that one.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he provides me with the opportunity to make a point that I know he will agree with: Belfast is a truly great city. It is a place with incredible history and extraordinary character, and I believe it is a place of great potential and possibilities with a bright future ahead. That is why it is so tragic to see the kind of criminal disorder that all of us hoped had been consigned to the past. I understand the passion with which he speaks, but I hope he will also understand this Government’s commitment to dealing with what he describes as the fundamental underlying problems. He is right to raise them. Nobody is remotely blind to them, and we completely understand the anger. That is why we are working in the Home Office, and with colleagues right across law enforcement and Government, to ensure that we are making progress on the areas that he references.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
All that the perpetrators of last night’s dreadful violence did was terrorise the innocent, inflict harm on their own communities, and distract from the awfulness of the north Belfast attack—and, indeed, distract from the many peaceful protests that took place in my constituency and elsewhere. On all these issues, the law must take its full course against all illegality, wheresoever it comes from.
However, the deadly impact of the continuing open border with the Republic of Ireland for illegal migrants still stands. This Government preside over a situation in which it is illegal to bring a garden plant from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, yet we have an open border with the Irish Republic, which gentlemen like this Sudanese man—an illegal immigrant—can cross unhindered into the United Kingdom. Does the Minister not see the problem?
Dan Jarvis
I certainly agree with the framing of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, and with the point that he made about peaceful protest. I know he will understand that my remarks referred only to those engaging in criminal disorder. I have heard the points that he made about what he describes as an open border, and he will have heard the comments that I have made previously, including the point about the very close co-operation that takes place between the Irish police, the PSNI and other police services to ensure that there is the most joined-up and effective response. However, I accept the challenge he has issued, and I accept that this is something that the Government will need to continue to look at.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The House owes a big debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for raising this question today. Last night the scenes of racist violence on the streets of Belfast, with gangs going from door to door looking for “foreigners”, and the racist abuse being thrown at any minority ethnic person on the streets of Belfast, were utterly disgusting, as were last night’s attempts by people in Glasgow and Liverpool to emulate that and do exactly the same.
What message does the Minister have for the far-right racists who are encouraged by parties represented in this House to make it clear that they will not be allowed to assemble in the next few days and over the weekend to promote the same kind of racist language and violence against minorities within our society? None of this racist stuff builds a house, feeds a child, or educates anybody. Surely what we need to do is unite people against racism in any form in our society.
Dan Jarvis
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very powerfully. To those who would consider any kind of racist activity or any further criminality or disorder, my message is very simple: break the law, and get ready to face the full consequences of the law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers, which are helpful to those of us asking questions.
I totally condemn the violence that took place in Belfast. Yesterday I stood in this place and spoke about people’s right to protest peacefully and to have their Government take account of their fears and their views. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I can say that not one stone was thrown by the hundreds and hundreds of people who stood by the cenotaph in Newtownards last night. Women with zimmer frames, young mothers with children and families stood in companionable silence, and the PSNI has confirmed that no thuggery whatsoever took place.
Those people did what they needed to do to have their voice heard. Now it is time for the Government to do what they need to do, and listen to and act for those decent and reasonable people who are not thugs and who have valid fears. Will the Minister confirm that the views of the reasonable thousands throughout the Province who quietly asked for their voice to be heard will not be ignored as a result of the loud actions of some terrible thugs?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully, and with huge experience of these matters. I completely agree with his central point that we must not allow the violent criminality and disorder that we have seen to drown out the important but peaceful voices of those who, entirely understandably, have concerns and express anger about the situation. He was right to make that point, and I can give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker? I forgot to do that during Prime Minister’s Question Time. Let me also thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her very balanced question.
Of course we recognise and commend the efforts of the individuals who intervened on Monday to help the victim and of those in the emergency services, who were no doubt confronted with very challenging scenes last night. My question is very simple: will the Minister be considering the use of special courts to expedite matters by giving rioters harsh sentences to act as a deterrent?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I think he will understand that his question does not sit within my area of ministerial responsibility, but I know that colleagues elsewhere in the Government will have heard it, and I will ensure that they respond to it.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The victim, Stephen Ogilvie, is a health service worker, a radiographer. Our health service across the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland, depends on many workers with many nationalities and from many communities. It was therefore abhorrent to see some of those health service workers being attacked last night by those contemplating and delivering violence.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all authorities in Northern Ireland have the full support of this Government for any action that needs to be taken not only against those who are perpetrating the violence, but against those who are acting online to spread the hatred and the violence that we are now seeing? This morning the leader of my party spoke to the father of the victim, who has made a direct appeal to those who are spreading disinformation online to stop—and that includes the disinformation that his son has died. What steps can the Government take to support the family, including the father, in their asks?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns—which I am sure will be shared throughout the House—about the attacks on health service workers, to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude for their incredible work. He is also right to raise concerns about activity taking place online. As I said in an earlier response, we take that very seriously and work on it across Government.
I think it important to reiterate that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), are in Northern Ireland today. I know that they will be talking to colleagues, I know that they will be consulting widely across this place to ensure that the support we provide is proportionate, and I know that when there is more that we need to do to help, the Government’s door will be open.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The pogroms that we witnessed last night should shock the nation. They were horrific in every sense, and are bound to have left minority communities across the country terrified. We saw widespread scenes of violent disorder, with homes ablaze, and there were reports of people’s cars being stopped and checked on the basis of their race. The depraved scenes of violence that triggered the eruptions last night were also horrific, and understandably provoked anger.
These are scenes more reminiscent of the darkest chapters of history than of modern Britain. We must be honest: something is profoundly wrong. Why is it that isolated incidents are repeatedly followed by such extreme and widespread eruptions of violence? What failures of policy and governance over the decades have brought us to this point, where anger and vulnerability have become so dangerously heightened and so easily exploited?
Dan Jarvis
I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but there were a number of them. Let me reflect on them, and then I shall be happy to discuss them with him further.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Having seen violence in my constituency last night, I want to say clearly that violence is never the answer, that it is wrong, and that those engaged in it should face the full force of the law. Despite what Sinn Féin tells us, there is always an alternative to violence. We do not want attacks on people—including the police—on homes or on businesses. We do not want families to feel unsafe. We do not want little children from different ethnic backgrounds to feel afraid or fearful even to go to school.
However, the many people who are angry and scared because of uncontrolled immigration, and because of the barbaric act just two nights ago and the footage of the incident that has been displayed, want to see politics and democracy fill the space. There is significant concern in Northern Ireland about open borders. Will the Minister release the numbers on those who have crossed into the United Kingdom via the border with the Republic of Ireland, and will he commit himself to at least starting to replicate the Republic of Ireland’s system of checking people who travel from the United Kingdom—from Northern Ireland—to the Republic of Ireland? People need to see this Government take action.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her condemnation of the violence. The Government absolutely understand the concerns and are working to address the underlying issues that underpin those concerns. It is important to make the point that, on top of increased deportations and removals, we are seeking to remove the pull factors that bring people here in the first place. Illegal work arrests are up by 60%, hotel use is down by 63% since its peak, and asylum claims are down by 12%. Much has been done, and there is much more to do, but we absolutely understand the concerns.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the House in thanking the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for this urgent question and for her remarks. I associate myself with the House’s condemnation of the abhorrent attack on Monday evening and the scenes that we witnessed yesterday.
A pastor at the scene in north Belfast, where multiple houses were on fire, said that people were being put out of houses “because they’re black”. According to media reports, even a two-month-old baby had to be evacuated to safety by the police last night, amid mob violence and rioting in Belfast. That is the reality of what this violence represents—not legitimate protest, but the terrorising of innocent families. This is where far-right rhetoric takes us: to pogroms that force the police to escort children from their homes. We know from history where this road leads: to a path of destruction and division. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to counter the spread of racism and to ensure that one individual’s actions are not used to stigmatise entire communities?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the scenes that we saw were appalling and unacceptable, and were in no way legitimate protest. I hope that I was crystal clear in my opening remarks about my message to those who may be considering, or who have been involved in, this kind of violent criminality and disorder. I was crystal clear about the fact that they should not do that, and that anybody who considers doing it needs to be prepared to face the full weight of the law. I am confident that the police are working at pace to address the scenes that we have seen in recent times. Arrests have already been made, and I have no doubt that we will see further arrests in the very near future. This kind of criminality and disorder is utterly unacceptable.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We all condemn the actions on Monday night, and we look with concern at the subsequent rioting, but my concern is about those who make it possible for such actions to happen—those who politicise and weaponise. When I was younger, in the 1970s, if somebody was going to attack me for racial reasons, which did happen, I could spot them from a mile away. Now, those who instigate racial hatred wear smart suits, speak the King’s English, and occupy every radio wave and television channel to instigate hate. We seem to be repeating the same situation—Southport, the Liverpool fans who were run over, and the Huntingdon train stabbing. People are looking at crime through a lens of racialisation, but many in this Chamber have spoken in unity today. This week, we commemorate 10 years since the death of Jo Cox, who spoke about what unites us rather than divides us. May I ask the Minister to consider setting up a cross-party taskforce to tackle this issue, which is going to affect every single member of our communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Member, who makes some very important points in a considered and constructive way. He is right to make the point that words have consequences. Where people stoke the fire and seek to incite violent criminality, they should take responsibility and be held responsible for their actions. We have had a very constructive and reasonable debate in the House today, but it is for those online to think carefully about the words that they use and the messages they deploy. All of us who serve in public life have an absolute responsibility to do the right thing, to ensure that people act within the law and to work to bring people together, not drive them apart.
Defence Investment Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We are going to come to the statement, but I have a concern. There are strong rumours that the Government are going to produce their defence investment plan on Friday. That would be an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face to Members of this House. I say to Downing Street that, under the ministerial code, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that major announcements are made here. This may be speculation, and I am sure it will be corrected, but I will be appalled if it is done on a Friday, given that Members have been waiting so long.
This affects all parties who have a great interest in the defence investment plan, including Members on the Government Benches. We all have jobs, and we all have people who serve in the armed forces. We must end the speculation and treat this House with the respect that elected Members deserve. Once again, it seems to me that we are becoming second-class citizens under this Government. I do not want that to be the case, and I hope that I am going to be proved wrong.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.
Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.
Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.
After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?
You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?
There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?
Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that
“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]
That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.
The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.
The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week.
The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions, and for the condolences on behalf of his party. It was polite of him to promote me in his question; I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he had to say.
It is important to set out that we have not waited for the defence investment plan to deliver the new capabilities, the new contracts and the new investment. The hon. Member mentioned small businesses, and earlier this year we stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to create a single doorway for small businesses to access defence. We have supported more small businesses, and we have increased the target for direct spend by the Ministry of Defence by 50%, which is an extra £2.5 billion of direct spend going into small businesses.
We will continue to support SMEs. The 1,400 major contracts I mentioned in my response to the initial question support not only companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales—the very large defence primes—but the entire supply chain, with many of those contracts going to small businesses. We want to see the innovation, job creation, energy and dynamism of small businesses have a bigger role in defence, and that is especially true in areas such as autonomy, in which many of the companies from which we are buying capabilities are small businesses with huge growth potential. When the defence investment plan is published, the hon. Member will see that we are backing those innovative companies and SMEs.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difficult decision made to move 0.2% of GNI spent on international aid to defence spending was an important one. It showed that, in this new era of hard power, we need to increase spending on defence and to increase capabilities, which is precisely the decision taken in the past. We are very proud to be increasing defence funding. Compared with the Conservatives, who cut defence spending in their first Budget, we increased defence spending in the first Labour Budget.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House.
That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I think everybody will know—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee—that the Defence Committee has been calling for the DIP to be delivered for quite some time. The businesses in our patches, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need urgent clarity on where they go and where they invest. That is vital.
I say kindly to those on the Opposition Benches who have been yelling from sedentary positions that they should not be proud of what they delivered in 14 years. I gently say that what the Government inherited on defence was an absolute bin fire, and the Opposition should be ashamed of the mess they left us. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely right the DIP is presented accurately and for the situation in which we find ourselves today, not three years ago when the world was a different place?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.
We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have seen for myself the skill and experience of the workers at Samlesbury and Warton in supporting our Typhoon operations and building parts for the F-35 programme. One lesson we can take from the war in Ukraine—a key learning recommended in the strategic defence review—is that we look at the growth of autonomy in particular. We can see that already in how drones have massively changed the frontline, the fighting doctrine and the force structure required to deter and fight in the 21st century. That is true on land, in the maritime domain and in the air domain. A key part of the DIP will be to provide the latest technology for our forces, and to support our industrial base to not only build more of those capabilities in Britain, but ensure we can export them to our allies, too.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?
Luke Pollard
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is suggesting we delay the DIP further, but I understand his argument. We will publish the DIP before the NATO summit. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and we will do that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.8 million Bournemouth University has received to develop cyber-defence, intelligence and autonomous system courses. They are due to start in September and will equip the next generation with the technical skills they need to contribute to the UK’s defence capabilities, and ensure that we lead on the development of new technologies. In that context, can the Minister confirm that an increase in defence spending will be spent not just on kit, but on skills, and that universities such as mine will continue to be part of our strategy to address the challenges the nation faces?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for defence businesses in and around Bournemouth. I am really pleased that we were able to announce yesterday the universities and colleges across the country that will receive the uplift in student places, with the supplementary places grant that will enhance the skills provision. We have already enhanced the provision of skills for further education, with the announcement of five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland if the Scottish Government will support a second one, and one in Wales. We need to go further with more higher education places in defence and defence-adjacent courses. The money announced yesterday, not just for Bournemouth but for universities and colleges nationwide, will help to support the next generation of talent to work in defence—good, well-paid, decent jobs.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.
Luke Pollard
I equally have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, which is why I will say politely that I disagree with her characterisation. I will also politely say to her, as someone who reads the media speculation on what is in the DIP and what discussions have taken place, to not always believe what is written down online.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham.
My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is certainly right that recruitment matters, and that this Government inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the Conservatives. I am pleased to report to the House that inflow to our armed forces is now up 11.6% in the last year, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up three points in the last year alone. My hon. Friend make a good point about recruitment, and I would be pleased to arrange a meeting between him and the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after recruitment.
My hon. Friend is also right about disposals. We work closely with our friends in Ukraine to provide them with kit and equipment direct from British industry, supporting procurement with our allies as well. Also, when we retire UK kit, we look at whether there is a Ukrainian need for it, so I assure him that that is a process that is under way. I continue to speak to my Ukrainian counterpart about the additional support we can provide not just for the fight tonight, but for the deterrence that Ukraine will need in the future, when peace has hopefully arrived, to prevent Putin from ever invading again.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We have had some huge wins for defence firms in Yeovil, such as Leonardo and Honeywell, but lots of other small and medium-sized enterprises doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that they cannot properly plan without the DIP. What reassurance can the Minister give Yeovil’s defence SMEs that the limbo will end so that they can plan investment and provide quality jobs? Will he meet with them to discuss that further?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?
Luke Pollard
As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.
Luke Pollard
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?
Luke Pollard
I sit in his chair now, so that explains what happened with the previous Minister and the voters. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was one of the few Defence Ministers re-elected as an MP at the last election, with many others not returned to the House. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of long-term security, which is why we are setting out the investment in our kit and capabilities, effectively replacing the equipment plans that were published previously, and looking at our personnel, skills and infrastructure. One of the areas that was hollowed out and consistently underfunded as capital was taken from those budgets was our defence estate. We know the scandal of the armed forces housing that many of our constituents were asked to live in, which is something we are addressing with a £9 billion programme. We have to look at lessons to improve our personnel and experience.
We are in regular dialogue with our friends in Ukraine, learning lessons on kit and capability, how Russia fights, how we deter Russian aggression against NATO allies, and how we invest in the capabilities that Ukraine needs. Programmes such as Brakestop, as a low-cost cruise missile informed by the work of our friends in Ukraine, deliver that. The lesson I take from Ukraine and Iran is that we will need more autonomy, drones and understanding about mass as well as exquisite high-end capabilities. Expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan when it is published.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.
Luke Pollard
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate the way in which he asked the question. Scotland is an integral part of our national security apparatus. From the aviators who fly from RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, to the submariners who serve from Faslane, as well as the extraordinary number of defence companies, large and small, across Scotland—not just in the central belt—there are huge opportunities.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to pass on to the Scottish Government the importance of signing up for the second defence technical excellence college. I am still waiting for a reply to the letter that the Scottish Secretary and I wrote to the Scottish Government. We will fund one DTEC in Scotland, and if the Scottish Government can support the initiative with a second, we can have one in both the east and the west of Scotland, supporting the hugely important defence industry there. I hope that is a point on which we can find consistent cross-party support. If we are looking for more cross-party support, I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to back the brilliant submariners who support our independent nuclear deterrent, which sails from Faslane. The independent nuclear deterrent is the foundation of our national security, and something that we will continue to support in the defence investment plan.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside airport is benefiting from a £173 million MOD contract for Draken. Looking at that contract and at the others the Minister has set out, I think it is fair to say that the Department is not waiting for the defence investment plan to get moving, although we do, of course, need to see it very soon. The elephant in the room is what we are seeing in Ukraine, where capabilities are advancing and becoming obsolete in a matter of weeks—it is happening extremely quickly. What assurance can the Minister give that the DIP, when it arrives, will be flexible enough to deal with the changing nature of warfare in the months and years to come?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?
Luke Pollard
I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
First of all, I would like to say what a great honour it was to attend Windsor castle on Friday to see the presentation of the new colours to the Royal Marines. It was an absolutely superb event and carried out to extreme precision.
It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence is considering delaying or scrapping plans for the Type 83 destroyer, the long-term replacement for the Type 45, due in the 2030s. If that is the case, will the Minister confirm what alternative the Government will review to ensure the future of the Royal Marines’ anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People are suffering due to the cost of living crisis, and taxes are at an all-time high. The delayed investment decisions are paralysing planning for defence businesses, which are stuck in limbo. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to use innovative mechanisms such as defence bonds and the rearmament bank to support the defence sector without placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her continued interest in defence, even with her new role in the Liberal Democrats. We are continuing to place contracts with British industry—1,400 since the general election, announcing a number of those in just the past few weeks—which is seeing jobs growth and both capital investment in infrastructure and investment in people and the skills that are required. The hon. Lady refers to innovative finance. We will set out the spending in the defence investment plan. As the hon. Lady will know, we are increasing defence spending, and I welcome a debate about innovation and how we can get more value out of the pounds we spend. Under the Labour Government, fewer contracts will be sent abroad—something that was commonplace under the Conservatives. I want to see the activation of more private capital to look at how we can support not just the supply chain, but, potentially, defence capabilities. We have committed to doing that with the development of a defence finance and investment strategy, which we are working on currently.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?
Luke Pollard
For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?
Richard Tice
Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?
Luke Pollard
No, but I understand entirely the Conservatives’ partisan attack line on this one—and it is good to see the hon. Gentleman joining in. Let me be very clear: we have increased defence spending. We did so from the very first Budget that the Chancellor delivered at this Dispatch Box, and we are continuing to do that. Defence spending is £11 billion more per year today than under the last year of the Conservative Government, and we are directing more of that money at British-based firms.
We are fixing military accommodation, which is in such a state. The first 1,200 of the worst military homes have now been refurbished, and we will continue that work until nine in 10 military homes are refurbished. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years—a 14.1% cumulative pay rise under this Labour Government compared with the pay freezes that many of them endured under the Conservative Government. We are rearming and backing Britain, and when the defence investment plan is published very shortly, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Following the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), I want to welcome the Gripen contract, which benefits my constituency. Others have mentioned the fast-paced development of uncrewed weapons, but I am concerned about the domestic attacks the UK might see on our cyber, energy and food security. Can the Minister assure the House that the DIP will address that risk and fund public awareness of the threats to our home security and the role we must all play in the defence of the realm?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for championing the defence firms that she has around her constituency. They are a really important in making the case that defence is an engine for growth.
The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face as a nation are more complex than they have been for a very long time. They are not just military threats. The United Kingdom is under constant cyber-attack from our adversaries; that is one of the reasons why we have invested so much in our cyber defences and will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady also hits on the really important point that defending our nation is not just a job for the Ministry of Defence: it is part of a cross-Government effort that must include securing our food—because food security is national security—and our energy supply. That is one of the reasons why we are investing so much in our clean power mission to generate more of our energy in the United Kingdom. By investing in renewables, we can have good clean green jobs for the UK while also reducing our reliance on energy from further afield. Iran’s reckless actions in the middle east have shown to everyone in the House why investing in our energy security is so important. It is about home-grown energy, not relying on imports from abroad.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about military housing, which is not just for our armed forces personnel but, importantly, for their families. As someone who represents a military area in Plymouth, I know that when our forces are deployed abroad, if their families back home are living with black mould in their kids’ bedrooms, leaky roofs or broken boilers, it affects their ability to do the job we have asked them to do—on the frontline or wherever it may be. That is why in opposition we committed to making defence housing a priority.
In government, we have announced the defence housing strategy to improve, rebuild or refurbish nine in 10 military homes—along with our substantial commitment of £9 billion—and we have already made substantial progress on the 1,200 worst family homes. We are looking at what we can do not only with service family accommodation, but single living accommodation, because those who live on bases should also be reassured that we value their service and want them to live in decent accommodation, whichever service they may be in and wherever they may be deployed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. Every single nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the defence investment plan. Wales is already the recipient of one of the five defence growth deals that we announced, with new capabilities and new investment in skills. We look forward to speaking with the new Welsh Government in due course about how we operationalise that. The MOD’s main objection to the development of wind farms predominantly relates to the impact on air defence radars. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me some details in advance of us meeting.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As somebody who represents Devon as well as Somerset, may I share the Minister’s sentiments about the very tragic loss of lives in west Devon last week?
I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the Ankara summit is imminent, but is he not deeply concerned that the Government’s dither and delay in publishing the defence investment plan is seriously undermining our credibility with our friends in the world and sending a signal of immense weakness to our foes, and furthermore that at a time when we should be showing leadership the Government are showing lethargy?
Luke Pollard
I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.
Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.
Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Luke Pollard
indicated dissent.
Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Railways Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clauses 49 and 50.
New clause 1—Passengers’ Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;
(b) targets for reliability of services;
(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—
(i) seat design,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,
(iii) provision of power outlets,
(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;
(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;
(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.
New clause 2—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
New clause 3—Fund for future railway improvements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a fund for the purpose of providing improvements to the railway in the long term, including investment in new or reopened railway lines and stations.
(2) The fund under this section is to be called the Tomorrow’s Railway Fund (‘the fund’).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for monies to be allocated to the fund for each funding period.
(4) Local and regional transport authorities may apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund, for the purpose of enabling construction of new railway stations and associated infrastructure.
(5) A purpose enabling construction under subsection (4) includes a feasibility study for any station or associated infrastructure.
(6) In this section ‘funding period’ has the meaning given in Paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 2 to this Act.”
This new clause would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid to central government for funding for feasibility studies on, or construction of, new stations, railways, or other enhancements.
New clause 4—Restoring Your Railway fund: review—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the Restoring Your Railway Fund.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the effect of the fund on the reopening of railway lines and stations.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous Government in February 2020.
New clause 5—Rails to Trails Programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—
(a) walkers,
(b) wheelers,
(c) cyclists, and
(d) horse riders.
(2) The programme must include—
(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),
(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;
(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.
(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the ‘Rails to Trails Programme’.”
This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.
New clause 6—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—
“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).
(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to—
(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,
(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,
(c) offer discounted fares for passengers who are UK armed forces veterans,
(d) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,
(e) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,
(f) introduce a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,
(g) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,
(h) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and
(i) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—
(i) multiple rail services, or
(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.
(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”
This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s and veterans’ discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.
New clause 7—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—
(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;
(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.
(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).
(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”
This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.
New clause 8—Great British Railways: environmental targets—
“(1) In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to take steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.
New clause 9—Great British Railways Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or,
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
New clause 10—Devolution of rail to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended according to subsection (2).
(2) In section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the transfer of functions relating to rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) the management of rail infrastructure;
(b) the operation and funding of rail infrastructure;
(c) the planning, funding and management of maintenance, enhancement and renewal of rail infrastructure;
(d) the regulation of capacity, access, charging and performance arrangements of rail infrastructure; and
(e) the integration of passenger services with rail infrastructure.
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) must come into force—
(a) on a date no later than three years after the passing of this Act, or
(b) on a date agreed between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers,
whichever is the earlier.
(6) Regulations under this section must make provision about funding for the Welsh Ministers relating to the functions transferred to them under subsection (4).
(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the level of funding to be provided under subsection (6).
(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause devolves rail in Wales to the Welsh Government and makes provision about the devolution of commensurate funding.
New clause 11—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—
“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.
(2) In this section ‘safe bicycle storage’ means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.
(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—
(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and
(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”
This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.
New clause 12—Welsh rail funding report and strategy—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) an estimate of the cost of unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal need in Wales since 1 April 2000;
(b) a strategy to fulfil any need identified under paragraph (a).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include a definition of “unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal”.”
This new clause requires a review of funding, including as needed to make up for rail infrastructure not developed since 2000.
New clause 13—Investment in rural areas in Wales—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy (‘the strategy’) to increase levels of investment in railway infrastructure enhancement in rural areas in Wales.
(2) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the strategy.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers when preparing the strategy.
(4) The Secretary of State must receive the consent of the Welsh Ministers before publishing, revising or replacing the strategy.”
This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on improving railway infrastructure enhancement investment in rural areas of Wales.
New clause 14—Passenger growth target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.
(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—
(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and
(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.
New clause 15—Travel facilities for rail staff—
“(1) Great British Railways must, following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify, provide free and discounted travel to persons who are—
(a) employed by GBR;
(b) employed by a subsidiary of GBR;
(c) employed by a company owned by GBR;
(d) employed by a company contracted to provide a service to GBR;
(e) employed by a company licensed to operate railway services on GBR infrastructure;
(f) employed by a railway services company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority;
(g) employed by a company that is subcontracted to provide rail services to a rail company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority; or
(h) any other person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the creation of an industry wide concessionary travel scheme for rail staff, and a requirement for that scheme to be consulted with the trade unions.
New clause 16—Reopening of services to underserved areas—
“(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.
(2) In meeting its purpose, the department must consider—
(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and
(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.
(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.
(4) In subsection (3), relevant transport authorities means—
(a) Scottish Ministers;
(b) Welsh Ministers;
(c) in England—
(i) any—
(a) mayoral strategic authority,
(b) combined authority, or
(c) combined county authority
with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and
(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”
This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.
New clause 17—Duty to consult certain Members of Parliament—
“(1) Great British Railways must consult certain Members of Parliament before making a decision within subsection (2).
(2) A decision is within this subsection if—
(a) it relates to railway passenger services or railway infrastructure, and
(b) in the opinion of Great British Railways, making that decision would have a significant effect on the economy of any area or on persons living, working or travelling in that area.
(3) In this section ‘certain Members of Parliament’ means any Member of the House of Commons who represents a parliamentary constituency that includes any part of an area as described in subsection (2)(b).”
This new clause would require Great British Railways (GBR) to consult MPs whose constituencies include areas likely to be affected by decisions made by GBR relating to passenger services or railway infrastructure.
New clause 18—Railway services: safeguarding accreditation scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that all operators of passenger railway services participate in a recognised safeguarding accreditation scheme.
(2) Any scheme under subsection (1) must be recognised by—
(a) the British Transport Police, or
(b) any other authority determined as suitable by the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires all rail service operators to engage with a nationally recognised safeguarding scheme.
New clause 19—Railway workforce: dispute resolution—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about railway workforce terms and conditions and dispute resolution.
(2) Regulations under this section may designate which terms and conditions for staff working on the railways require—
(a) consultation prior to agreement, or
(b) can be imposed without consultation.
(3) Any industrial disputes about arrangements under subsection (2) must be referred to a dispute resolution process.
(4) Any findings of a dispute resolution process under subsection (3) must be accepted and actioned in full including—
(a) any enforcement action to be taken;
(b) any award of the dispute resolution by all parties.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to define which railway workforce terms and conditions can be imposed, and which must be agreed, and for any that must be agreed, to refer disputes to binding dispute resolution.
New clause 20—Duty to integrate across modes of transport—
“In exercising any of their functions under this Act, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must seek to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—
(a) bus and coach services,
(b) tram and light rail, and
(c) micromobility.”
This new clause puts a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to promote the multimodal transport integration with rail.
New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR.
(2) Any scheme under this section must—
(a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);
(b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate.
(3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.”
This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.
New clause 22—Duty to provide step-free access—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State has a duty to approve such works as are necessary to enable step-free access to all platforms at qualifying stations served by any GBR passenger service.
(2) In this section, a station is a qualifying station if—
(a) in any given year, at least one million passengers—
(i) start a rail journey,
(ii) end a rail journey, or
(iii) transfer between passenger train services
at the station; and
(b) on the day on which this Act is passed, there is not step-free access to all platforms at the station.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to approve work on ensuring stations serving more than one million passengers a year are step-free.
New clause 23—Accessibility strategy for the railway network—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an accessibility strategy for the railway network (‘the strategy’).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to describe how the railway will be made accessible for all passengers by the end of the period of ten years beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, having particular regard to disabled persons.
(3) The strategy must include—
(a) a timetable and programme of works for delivering permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms;
(b) measures for ensuring accessible rolling stock, interchange, and station facilities;
(c) an assessment of costs and funding requirements to meet the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) a plan for monitoring progress against any goals set in the strategy, including through annual reporting to Parliament; and
(e) arrangements for consultation with such disabled persons’ organisations and other persons as the Secretary of State may designate.
(4) The strategy must not consider any reasonable adjustment for disabled persons as a substitute for the provision of permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms.
(5) Arrangements under paragraph (3)(e) must include consultation throughout the development, implementation, and review of the strategy, including involvement in design and delivery of any activity proposed by the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a ten-year railway accessibility strategy, within one year of the passage of the Bill.
New clause 24—Regional railway services passenger organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a passenger organisation for each region in which Great British Railways operates (‘GBR regions’).
(2) Any user of railway services who is resident in, or who regularly uses services within, a region may join the regional passenger organisation established under subsection (1) for that region.
(3) The purpose of each regional passenger organisation is to represent passenger interests, including representation of passengers’ expertise to management boards of GBR regions.
(4) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of each regional passenger organisation, including that members of each organisation must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (4) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(6) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (5).
(7) No less than one-third of any regional board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise representatives of regional passenger organisations, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(8) Any representative to which subsection (7) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the organisation, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(9) Regulations under this section must create a disabled people’s committee as part of each regional passenger organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the regional passengers organisation and the GBR regions.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish regional passengers groups in each region in which GBR operates, with the purpose of representing passengers' interests and putting forward passengers' expertise.
New clause 25—National passengers group—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a national passengers group (‘the group’), comprising representatives of each regional passenger organisation under section [Regional railway services passenger organisations].
(2) The purposes of the group under subsection (1) are to—
(a) facilitate engagement with regional passenger organisations on national rail proposals,
(b) act as a body that the Secretary of State and GBR must consult on national rail proposals, and
(c) provide oversight and scrutiny to the regulatory work of the Passengers’ Council.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of the group, including that members of the group must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (3) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(5) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (4).
(6) Any national board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise at least one-third representatives of this national passenger organisation, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(7) Any representative of the group to which subsection (6) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the group, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(8) Regulations under this section must create a National Accessibility Panel as part of the national passengers’ organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the national passengers group and the national GBR board.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a new national passengers group made up of representatives of regional passenger organisations and requires that the group is represented on a GBR national board.
New clause 26—Transfer of employees to GBR—
“(1) For the purpose of meeting GBR’s function in section 3(1)(i) of this Act, the Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment for—
(a) Network Rail,
(b) any franchise operated by DfT Operated Ltd, or
(c) any franchise operated by a rail company under a contract with the Department for Transport,
become employees of GBR.
(2) A scheme made under this section must in particular include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”
This new clause is consequential on Amendment 64 and enables for the transfer of employees to GBR from Network Rail and DfT-operated franchises.
New clause 27—Pension schemes—
“(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to active members of the Railway Pension Scheme who joined the scheme after 4 November 1993.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide that any person who—
(i) is an active Member of the Railway Pension Scheme,
(ii) joined that section of the Railways Pension Scheme after 4 November 1993, and
(iii) becomes an employee of GBR through arrangements made under this Act,
remains a member of the Railway Pension Scheme under terms and benefits that are no less favourable than those terms and benefits received by the person prior to the passing of this Act;
(b) provide that persons employed by GBR are eligible to join either—
(i) the Railway Pension Scheme, or
(ii) any other scheme, provided that the terms and benefits of that scheme are equivalent to the Railway Pension Scheme.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would provide that employees of GBR, or those transferred into GBR, can continue to access the Railways Pension Scheme or a pension scheme providing equivalent benefit.
New clause 28—Season ticket discount—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) under the age of 25, and
(b) enrolled in full-time education at a recognised educational institution
to access a discounted season ticket for travel on railway passenger services provided by participants in the scheme.
(2) A discounted season ticket under this section—
(a) must cost no less than a third of the price of the full-price season ticket provided by Great British Railways, and
(b) may be limited to allow travel only between the holder of the season ticket’s residence and recognised educational institution.
(3) ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 29—Duty to co-operate—
“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—
(a) reduce transport disruption, and
(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.
(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—
(i) maintenance;
(ii) construction;
(iii) any other work;
related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.
(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.
New clause 30—Accessible rail strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.
(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—
(a) percentage of stations with step free access,
(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,
(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.
(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.
(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.
New clause 31—Service changes: consultation—
“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—
(i) its functions under Section 1;
(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;
(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;
(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;
(d) consult—
(i) local stakeholders,
(ii) passenger groups, and
(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements
about those changes.
(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it includes changes to rail—
(a) timetables;
(b) routes;
(c) service capacity.
(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.
New clause 32—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) capacity of the rail network,
(b) the potential need for new lines or services,
(c) level crossings, and
(d) the accessibility of the rail network.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.
(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.
New clause 33—Rail devolution: Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—
(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;
(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;
(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;
(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and
(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.
(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.
(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 34—Mutual and co-operative structures—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual and co-operative corporate structures.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider mutual and cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.
New clause 35—Duty to consider capacity at Ely Junction—
“(1) In exercising functions under section 17 (rail freight target) and section 15 (rail strategy), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase capacity at Ely Junction.
(2) The rail strategy prepared under section 15 must—
(a) identify Ely Junction as a capacity constraint of national strategic importance for freight and passenger services, and
(b) set out how the Secretary of State will work with Great British Railways and other relevant bodies to address that constraint.
(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress towards resolving capacity constraints at Ely Junction.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely Junction as a nationally significant capacity constraint and to report to Parliament on progress in addressing it.
New clause 36—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.
(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—
(a) is a member of the armed forces;
(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or
(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.
(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.
(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.
New clause 37—Train frequency duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must—
(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;
(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.
(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).
(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—
(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;
(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.
New clause 38—Accessible ticket machines—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—
(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;
(b) have the same user interface;
(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and
(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.
New clause 39—Passengers’ Council Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) The persons appointed to the board by the Secretary of State must include a minimum of two disabled persons.”
This new clause would ensure representation of disabled people on the Board of the Passengers’ Council.
New clause 40—Population change: railway services—
“(1) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State have a duty to provide railway services for an area or at a station proportionate to any increase in population of the area served by that station.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a population increase includes any change in residency of an area that is either—
(a) permanent, or
(b) seasonal.
(3) In this section ‘seasonal’ means any period, or periods, of at least seven days where in the opinion of Great British Railways it is reasonably predictable that the population of an area will increase relative to the population during any time that is not the period in question.
(4) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State must consider provision of—
(a) infrastructure,
(b) rolling stock
(c) services, and
(d) any further investment necessary
for the purpose of meeting the duty under this section.”
This new clause would put a duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to any permanent or seasonal increases in population in areas.
New clause 41—Contribution of rail to environmental targets: report—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and before the end of each period of twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Report on the contribution of rail and rail travel in the UK to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with—
(a) meeting the UK carbon account target for 2050, as provided for in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.
(2) A report under this section must include recommendations to Great British Railways for any actions to increase the contribution of rail to the goals in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the contribution of UK rail to net zero and climate change goals.
New clause 42—Assessment of passing loop at Tisbury—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the West of England line.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits to—
(a) reliability of services on, and
(b) capacity of
West of England line railway services that pass through Tisbury.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing an assessment under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a new passing loop at Tisbury.
New clause 43—Provision of food and drink—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to provide food and drink on all qualifying GBR services.
(2) A GBR service is a qualifying service if it has a journey time of at least one hour from the station from which the service first departs to the station at which it terminates.
(3) In meeting the duty under this section, Great British Railways may provide food and drink through such means as it considers appropriate.”
New clause 44—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 45—Great British Railways Governance—
“(1) This section applies to a person who—
(a) works for, or
(b) has a financial interest in
a private company involved in the railway sector.
(2) A person under subsection (1) is ineligible for appointment to positions within the governance structures of Great British Railways, including—
(a) any Board of GBR,
(b) any regional Boards that oversee GBR at a regional level,
(c) Passengers’ Council, and
(d) Office of Rail and Road.”
This new clause requires that people who work for private companies involved in the railway sector or who hold a financial interest in the railway sector are ineligible for participation in the governance of GBR, including on the board of national GBR and in regional GBR boards.
New clause 46—Review of passenger safety—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of passenger safety.
(2) A review under this section must in particular have regard to the safety of women and disabled people.
(3) The review must consider—
(a) staffing levels at railway stations and on board trains, including for late-night services and other services which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety;
(b) lighting in waiting areas;
(c) opening hours and accessibility of help points;
(d) CCTV coverage at stations and on trains;
(e) the potential merits of introducing real-time reporting applications for incidents where a passenger is harassed or otherwise is unsafe, and an associated rapid response protocol following a notification being made to an appropriate authority via such an application;
(f) public awareness of methods to report concerns about safety, including the British Transport Police text facility;
(g) the potential merits of providing a dedicated phone number that allows passengers to directly contact the next station on the line to report incidents or safety concerns;
(h) coordination of travel connections from stations at night, including between rail operators, local public transport and licensed taxi services;
(i) the potential merits of increasing, where it is practicable, patrols of trains and stations by train managers, guards or other appropriate persons for the purposes of identifying incidents, supporting accessibility, and promoting passenger safety.
(4) Where the review recommends any action to improve passenger safety, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must make all reasonable efforts to implement that action.
(5) In this section, ‘appropriate persons’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that it may have different meanings for different purposes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review ways to improve passenger safety. It sets out the content of such a review, and requires the Secretary of State and GBR to take reasonable steps to implement the review’s recommendations.
New clause 47—Free train travel for 16 to 18-year olds in education or training—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide for a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) aged 16, 17 or 18, and
(b) either—
(i) enrolled in full-time education or training at a recognised educational institution, or
(ii) undertaking an apprenticeship
to travel for free on railway passenger services subject to the condition in subsection (2).
(2) The condition is that the travel undertaken must be between a person’s residence and either—
(a) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(i), the recognised educational institution at which the person is enrolled, or
(b) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(ii), any place at which the person is employed, or undertakes any training relating to that employment.
(3) In this section ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 51—Long-term freight access agreements—
“(1) Great British Railways may enter into long-term access agreements with—
(a) Freight operating companies, and
(b) Persons developing, owning or operating rail-connected logistics facilities.
(2) An agreement under this section may be granted for a period exceeding 5 years where the ORR is satisfied that the agreement—
(a) Supports the rail freight target set under section 17, and
(b) Does not unduly restrict network capacity for other users.”
This amendment would allow GBR to enter into long-term access arrangements for freight.
New clause 52—Purpose of Great British Railways—
“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—
(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,
(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,
(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,
(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,
(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,
(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,
(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,
(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,
(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,
(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,
(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,
(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and
(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.
(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
New clause 53—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).
(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—
(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,
(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and
(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.
(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.
New clause 54—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must include measures to—
(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;
(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;
(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;
(d) end practices including—
(i) short-notice holiday approvals;
(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;
(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;
(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;
(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;
(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;
(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;
(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;
(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—
(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or
(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.
(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.
(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.
(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.
(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—
(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;
(b) data on—
(i) workforce productivity,
(ii) cost savings,
(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and
(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).
(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”
This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.
New clause 56—Anti-social noise—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.
New clause 57—Ticketing and Settlement Agreement—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (‘the agreement’).
(2) The agreement must set out the—
(a) opening hours, and
(b) range of products sold,
at any ticket office operated by Great British Railways or the Department for Transport Operator.
(3) The agreement must include all measures set out in Schedule 17 of any Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in place on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Changes may only be made to the agreement regarding opening hours or the range of products sold if—
(a) an equality impact assessment, and
(b) consultation process
has been undertaken by the relevant passenger body.
(5) Regulations under this section must establish a process for challenging any changes proposed under subsection (4).
(6) The Secretary of State must decide on any challenge made under subsection (5).”
New clause 58—Metroisation—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a rail metroisation strategy.
(2) The purposes of a strategy under this section must include increasing the proportion and number of passenger journeys under 10 kilometres undertaken using metropolitan rail services.
(3) The strategy under this section must—
(a) include proposals—
(i) for cooperation between Great British Rail, the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and mayors for the purpose of developing and delivering metropolitan rail services;
(ii) for the funding of those services;
(iii) for the development of local metroisation area plans by local planning authorities and mayoral authorities;
(iv) for provision of multimodal ticketing across transport within the area served by any metropolitan rail services;
(b) specify the governance arrangements for metropolitan rail services provided for by a corporation under subparagraph (a)(i).
(4) For the purpose of this section—
‘local metroisation area plan’ means a plan for the delivery of rail services and ancillary services to an area served by metropolitan rail provision, including—
(a) the intended outcome of the provision of such services;
(b) station access and interchange arrangements;
(c) the funding model for those services;
(d) a projection of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre travelled using the relevant metropolitan rail provision;
‘mayoral authorities’ means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning given by section 107A(8) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) a mayoral combined county authority within the meaning given by section 27(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
‘metropolitan rail services’ means rail services that start and end within an area with a radius of 25 km from a designated point within a local authority or mayoral authority area.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for rail metroisation, including cooperation with mayoral authorities to deliver that metroisation.
New clause 59—GBR contribution to town growth—
“Great British Railways may enter into a joint venture or partnership vehicle with a mayoral development corporation for the purpose of delivering rail infrastructure and services to town growth zones, station investment zones, or new green towns promoted by, or otherwise connected with, that mayoral development corporation.”
This new clause would enable GBR to enter into agreements with mayoral development corporations to deliver rail to areas of new local growth.
Government amendments 92 and 93.
Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
“on an equal basis via any means of sale, including online and at station ticket offices,”.
This amendment would give GBR a statutory function to ensure that passenger fares must be sold at ticket offices on the same basis as online.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 56, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) ensuring the safety, including safety from assault, of all GBR and non-GBR employees that facilitate railway services, and
(i) ensuring that there are safe staffing levels to facilitate railway services.”
Amendment 64, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) acting as the single employer of all persons currently employed by—
(i) Network Rail,
(ii) franchises operated by DfT Operator Limited,
(iii) franchises operated by rail companies under contracts for passenger rail services between those companies and the Department for Transport, and
(iv) such other companies operating or facilitating rail services as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that any such specification is made following consultation with and with the agreement of relevant trade unions.”
This amendment would add to GBR’s statutory functions a duty to act as a single employer for all rail workers transferring into it from Network Rail and DfT franchises, and for persons employed by rail companies wholly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers to be transferred into GBR subject to the agreement of those ministers.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.
(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.
Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(a) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal under Section 67 a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary.”
Amendment 166, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) a regional railway undertaking that is nominated by any other body that is a relevant local government body for the purposes of this subsection.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘regional railway undertaking’ means a company that is—
(a) wholly owned by a relevant local government body, or
(b) limited by guarantee.”
This amendment would ensure that a devolution agreement could be reached with a devolved railway body whose geographic coverage may vary from current mayoral area boundaries.
Government amendments 94 and 95.
Amendment 150, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.
Amendment 46, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of a direction, variation or revocation published in accordance with subsection (5) to the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5B) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment would require that any published direction, or variation or revocation of a direction, issued to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State is provided to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
Amendment 151, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 152, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 7, line 27, at end insert
“, including the levying of charges on providers of railway rolling stock.”
This amendment ensures that the charges GBR may impose include possible levies on rolling stock companies.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after “publish” insert “lay before Parliament”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the Rail Strategy before Parliament.
Amendment 4, page 8, line 23, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
Amendment 55, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the expansion of the railway network to rural population settlements that are currently not served by the railway, and
(d) co-operation between GBR and relevant local and regional transport authorities, for the purpose of integrating railways with bus services and active travel options including cycling routes and walking routes.”
This amendment would require that the rail strategy to include measures to support rail travel in rural areas, and measures to better integrate rail travel with other travel options, including active travel.
Amendment 68, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) resolving key capacity constraints of national strategic importance, including Ely Junction.”
This amendment is related to NC35. It would require that the Rail Strategy includes consideration of key capacity constraints, and include Ely Junction as such a constraint.
Amendment 72, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the provision of rail services to areas experiencing permanent or seasonal population change within the meaning of section (Population change: railway services).”
Amendment 65, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 66, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 85, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include Key Performance Indicators for GBR, including—
(a) for operating a safe railway,
(b) for promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,
(c) for promoting the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods,
(d) for increasing the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport,
(e) for promoting high levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers Council,
(f) for minimising the number of services delayed or cancelled,
(g) for delivering value for money, taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,
(h) for improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.
(2B) The rail strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 38, page 8, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) When the strategy is revised or replaced [in accordance with subsection (4)(b)], the Secretary must lay before Parliament the revised or replaced strategy, subject to subsection (4B).
(4B) The duty under subsection (4A) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that all revisions made to the strategy are non-substantive.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any replacement, or substantively revised, rail strategy.
Amendment 86, page 8, line 34, leave out
“the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement strategy”
and insert
“the revised or replacement strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 170, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) When preparing the rail strategy, the Secretary of State must ensure that it aligns with the ten-year strategy for UK Infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to align with the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 90, page 9, line 2, after “Ministers” insert
“, Scottish Ministers, the Mayor of London, Mayors of Mayoral Combined Authorities or Mayoral Combined County Authorities,”.
Amendment 171, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, at end insert—
“(d) the ten-year strategy for UK infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to have regard to the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 87, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) Great British Railways must prepare an annual report to be laid before Parliament detailing its performance in meeting, and its forward plan to meet, its statutory duties.”
Amendment 67, in clause 17, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Railways about how they intend to meet the target under this section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (a) and insert—
“(a) so as to protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment replaces the requirement to consider the interests of users of the railway and needs of disabled users of the railway with a requirement to protect and promote the rights of those persons.
Amendment 70, page 10, line 17, after “particular,” insert
“in the manner best calculated to make improvements for”.
This amendment would require the duty-holders to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network rather than only promoting the interests of disabled persons.
Amendment 53, page 10, line 26, at end insert
“including the value of public investments”.
This amendment adds a requirement to consider the value of public investments as part of the general duty on cost-efficiency in relation to public funds.
Amendment 30, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) so as to maximise, so far as practicable within the resources available, the social and economic benefits resulting from the operation of the railway network in Great Britain,
(h) having regard to the effect the provision of railway services has on the environment,
(i) so as to increase the use of railways relative to other modes of transport,
(j) so as to achieve targets towards the full accessibility of the rail network,
(k) so as to secure the affordability of fares,
(l) so as to improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to maximise social and economic benefits, achieve targets for modal shift and accessibility, secure the affordability of fares and improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.
Amendment 35, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to promote the transfer into direct employment by GBR of non-GBR employees who facilitate railway services.”
This amendment ensures that Great British Railways performs its duties in a way that ensures the maximum possible insourcing and integration of the rail workforce.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) acting in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner,”.
This amendment would place a requirement on Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR to exercise their functions in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers—
(i) by rail,
(ii) by rail relative to private car use and domestic flights, and
(iii) resulting from the integration of rail services with active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry and any other public transport services.”
Amendment 157, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway,
(h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth,
(i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services,
(j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways,
(k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and
(l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.
Amendment 59, page 10, line 28, at end insert—
“provided that they must not favour the conditions of paragraph (f) over the conditions of paragraph (a) to the extent that any station may not have step-free access as a result of balancing the requirements.”
Amendment 36, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“‘non-GBR employees’ means—
(a) employees of a company or body contracted to provide services to GBR to facilitate railway services, including cleaning;
(b) employees of companies granted a licence to operate services on GBR infrastructure;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 158, page 10, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including levels of fares, the availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion, including growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”
This amendment defines standards of railway performance for the purposes of Great British Railways functions.
Amendment 167, page 10, line 41, at end insert—
“‘rights’ of passengers and disabled passengers includes rights under the Equality Act 2010, data protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and consumer protection legislation (including the Consumer Rights Act 2015), and other legal rights to non-discrimination, accessibility, privacy, fair treatment, information and redress.”
This amendment is consequential upon amendment 29.
Amendment 57, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) In meeting the duty under subsection (2), they must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce incidents of assault against persons working on the railways, and
(b) ensure levels of staffing sufficient to meet the duty.”
This amendment would ensure GBR will have a duty to reduce staff assaults and protect safe staffing levels.
Amendment 159, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment requires the ORR to promote competition in its appeals role.
Amendment 160, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.
Amendment 31, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(h) its functions as the enforcement body for rail passenger rights and obligations, consumer protection and accessibility, including passenger related licence conditions.”
This amendment means that the ORR’s duty to promote competition does not apply when it conflicts with its passenger rights enforcement duties.
Amendment 54, page 11, line 31, insert—
“provided that such exercise does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration or unreasonably increase the cost to public funds of providing railway services.”
This amendment means that ORR must exercise its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds.
Amendment 91, in clause 25, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not designate a service currently commissioned by—
(a) a local government body as defined in Section 5, or
(b) Transport for London
without obtaining consent from the relevant body.”
Amendment 75, page 14, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not vary or revoke a designation so as to permit the operation of railway passenger services by any person other than a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing any designation of services in such a way that allows operation by a company other than a public sector company.
Amendment 76, in clause 28, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section must not provide that railway passenger services are exempt from designation unless those services are to be provided by a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from exempting any passenger service from designation unless it is provided by the public sector.
Amendment 77, in clause 31, page 16, line 31, leave out from “contract” to end of line 37 and insert “to—
(a) Great British Railways, or
(b) one or more GBR companies that are public sector companies.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of passenger rail services is performed using public sector companies exclusively.
Amendment 88, page 16, line 32, at end insert—
“(a) Great British Railways or a GBR Company may sub-contract a direct award under this section to a private train operating company.”
Amendment 78, page 17, line 5, leave out from “companies” to end of line 6.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Scottish Ministers.
Amendment 79, page 17, line 11, leave out from “companies” to end of line 12.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 80, page 17, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) In this section “direct award” means the award of a public service contract without any competitive tendering procedure.”
Amendment 143, in clause 34, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 144 to 147 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, or young people aged 26 to 30.
Amendment 32, page 18, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are British residents to travel at discounted fares for an annual fee on railway passenger services provided by all licensed rail operators.”
Amendment 144, page 18, line 30, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 145, page 18, line 33, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 146, page 18, line 37, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 147, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
“(a) Great British Railways, being a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State,
(b) a GBR company, that is, a company wholly owned (directly or through one or more wholly owned subsidiaries) by Great British Railways,
(c) a company that is wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers,
(d) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers, or
(e) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;”.
This amendment defines GBR and GBR companies in such a way as to ensure that they are always public sector companies.
Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) must protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment adds the requirement to protect and promote passenger rights and the rights of disabled persons to the duties of the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 71, page 19, line 35, leave out
“must have particular regard to”
and insert—
“must take all reasonable steps to promote improvements in meeting”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.
Amendment 60, page 20, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) In taking into account costs under subsection (1)(b), and having regard to its duty under paragraph (1)(a), the Council must not treat the cost of providing step-free access as sufficient reason for preferment of other reasonable adjustments to meet the interests and needs of disabled persons.”
Amendment 47, in clause 42, page 23, line 12, leave out from “must” to the end of line 18, and insert—
“take such action, from the range of enforcement actions open to them, as is necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention, unless there is a legal impediment to so doing or the issue has satisfactorily been remedied.
(4) The ORR must take such enforcement action as required by this section within one month of the matter being referred by the Passengers’ Council.”
This amendment would require the ORR to take enforcement action within one month of an issue being referred to it by the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 61, in clause 46, page 24, line 29, at end insert—
“including provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Amendment 161, in clause 47, page 25, line 24, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert—
“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”
This amendment gives the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.
Amendment 39, in clause 48, page 26, line 3, before “a mayoral strategic authority” insert “the mayor of”.
This amendment clarifies that statutory duties to consult apply to the mayor of a mayoral combined authority.
Amendment 51, in clause 49, page 26, line 29, at end insert—
“(fa) any proposed—
(i) closure,
(ii) reduction in provision of, or
(iii) amendment to the operating hours of,
ticket offices,”
This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council on closure of, reduction in provision of, or any changes to opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 58, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) any proposed changes to staffing levels at stations or on trains.
(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsections (2)(a) and 2(h).”
This amendment would require any changes to staffing at stations or on trains to be subject to consultation with the Passengers’ Council, and require the Passengers’ Council to consult the public on such changes as well as on changes under subsection (2)(a).
Amendment 62, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”
Amendment 52, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsection (2)(fa).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51 and requires the Passengers’ Council to consult the public about proposals from GBR to close, or change the opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 63, in clause 53, page 28, line 12, after “persons” insert
“including but not limited to provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 69, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In performing the duty under subsection (1), Great British Railways must have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for both freight and passenger services.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways, in performing its capacity duty, to have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for the benefit of both freight and passenger services.
Amendment 162, page 36, line 1, leave out from “to” the end of line 4 and insert—
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Amendment 8, page 36, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.
This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.
Amendment 9, page 36, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Amendment 163, in clause 64, page 36, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 148, in clause 68, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”
This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.
Amendment 26, page 38, line 16, leave out from “must” to the end of line 20 and insert—
“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”
This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.
Amendment 27, page 38, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or
(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”
This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.
Government amendments 97 to 106
Amendment 73, in clause 70, page 40, line 36, at end insert—
“a GBR company, or other public sector company,”.
This amendment would change the definition of an infrastructure manager in the relevant 2016 regulations so as to exclude GBR companies and other public sector companies, alongside GBR.
Amendment 74, page 41, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) In regulation 14 (establishing, determining and collecting charges) after paragraph (9) insert—
‘(9A) Paragraph (9) does not apply to GBR.’
(5) In regulation 19 (capacity allocation), after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) Paragraph (4) does not apply to GBR.’”
This amendment exempts GBR from the requirement on infrastructure managers to operate separate accounts for separate functions.
Amendment 164, page 41, line 5, leave out clause 71.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts.
Government amendment 107.
Amendment 149, in clause 72, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this clause.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under clause 72, clarifying that privately funded sidings and terminals are not brought into scope.
Amendment 165, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Amendment 41, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 40, page 48, line 6, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 42, page 49, line 4, after “must consult" insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 110 to 117.
Amendment 44, page 55, line 38, leave out clause 92.
Amendment 45, in clause 92, page 56, line 24, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision for the public ownership of rolling stock by Great British Railways;
(b) make provision for Great British Railways to buy and own future passenger rolling stock as—
(i) current rolling stock contracts end, and
(ii) old rolling stock are taken out of commission.”
Government amendments 118 and 119.
Amendment 82, in clause 96, page 58, line 5, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Scottish Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 83, page 58, line 7, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Welsh Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 84, page 58, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In this Act, a company is ‘wholly and jointly owned’ by the Secretary of State, Great British Railways, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers if every member of the company is—
(a) one or more of those persons, or
(b) a company that is itself wholly owned by one or more of those persons.”
This amendment defines the terms “wholly and jointly owned” in such a way as to ensure that companies that are wholly or jointly owned by GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, are always fully public sector companies.
Amendment 3, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.
Government amendments 120 to 123.
Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 63, line 6, at end insert—
“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”
This aims to ensure that the Code of Practice explicitly includes a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.
Government amendments 168 and 169.
Government amendment 124.
Amendment 154, in schedule 2, page 65, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) The date specified in sub-paragraph 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.
Amendment 7, page 65, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.
(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—
(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);
(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);
(c) fares;
(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;
(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”
This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Amendment 43, page 66, line 19, at end insert “mayor”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 155, page 67, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.
Amendment 156, page 67, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.
Government amendment 125.
Amendment 6, page 74, line 27, at end insert “including passenger services”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 7, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Government amendments 126 to 140.
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 92, line 20, at end insert—
“, and any person exercising functions of a public nature on its behalf in connection with rail systems or services for which Great British Railways is responsible.”
This amendment makes any person exercising functions of a public nature on behalf of Great British Railways subject to the public sector equality duty.
Government amendments 141 and 142.
Keir Mather
It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts.
On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face.
The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill.
Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
One concern that has been repeatedly raised during scrutiny is that Great British Railways will both operate services and have significant influence by being the directing mind over access to the network. If a future Hull Trains application were to compete with a GBR-operated service for scarce capacity on the east coast main line—I know that the Minister, like me, uses Hull Trains—who does he believe passengers would trust to make that decision: the independent regulator or GBR itself?
Keir Mather
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for again raising that important point about open access, as he did on Second Reading. I share his passion for Hull Trains—I am surprised we have not met on a Hull train to have a subsequent conversation about open access. GBR needs to be the directing mind for the railway. It needs to take the decisions on what constitutes best use in a way that is fair, providing a role for open access while also being compliant with its duties, especially in respect of the need to grow rail freight on the network. The Secretary of State will also be compelled to set a rail freight growth target. There is nothing precluding open access from playing its full role as part of our railway under GBR; it certainly can, provided that it offers value for money and the great service that both the right hon. Member and I have experienced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Mather
I would like to make a little bit of progress. [Interruption.] I will let the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) make a short intervention.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on, the issue of open access agreements is very important, because there is an inherent conflict in the arrangements in the Bill. I am unclear about whether it is the Transport Secretary or the Office of Rail and Road who will take decisions. The open access bid from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway would see a direct link from Shropshire to London, with trains stopping in the important market town of Wellington. He talked about economic growth, and if that direct access were to be allowed, it would give a multimillion-pound boost to the market town of Wellington. Who will make the decision on that?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pushing me further on this issue. It is GBR’s responsibility to determine what constitutes best use of the railway in relation to its duties. The role of the ORR in that process is that decisions can be referred to it when it is the view of stakeholders—whether it be an open access operator or anybody else—that GBR has incorrectly applied the framework by which it needs to determine best use on the railway and has made a decision in a way that is irrational or unfair, prejudicing one stakeholder over the other. There are important and robust safeguards for the ORR to be able to determine whether the way in which GBR has determined best use is consistent with the framework that we have provided for it. I hope that provides him with reassurance.
Keir Mather
I would like to make some progress; I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.
I will use my first speech to speak about the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which I commend to the House. I look forward to hearing about some of the amendments tabled by other hon. Members; I will respond to them at the conclusion of proceedings.
Let me begin with amendment 92. I believe that in this House we need to be honest: under previous Governments, the British people were promised real change only for it to be abandoned on first contact with political reality. Not this time. Labour promised to nationalise our railways—no ifs, no buts—and today that is exactly what we will do. We are acting in law so that Great British Railways—the people’s railway—is owned by the British people and run in their interests, not in the service of private profit. I know that might appal Opposition parties, but they should believe me that ordinary people in Britain will not ask why we are taking this bold step; they will be asking those who had the power to do so, “What took you so very long?”
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill. I recently had a productive meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place regarding my amendment to close loopholes that could allow private companies to creep back into operating GBR rail services. He kindly promised to take that on board, and I am pleased to see those issues addressed by Government amendments 92 and 106, as well as the commitment to bring in further changes regarding the Secretary of State having powers of designation to ensure that they cannot be used for back-door privatisation. May I invite the Minister to provide further commentary and reassurance to the House regarding the Government’s moves on that issue and the very welcome position they have taken?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope he sees that the Government have tabled amendments to ensure that Great British Railways cannot be privatised by the back door. Any changes would have to be made through an Act of Parliament, with full consultation with the House. I am sure that the people who have sent us here would look at any proposition to turn back the clock on the momentous decision we are taking—to go back to a railway that was fractured, in decline and confusing for passengers to use—and encourage every Member of Parliament not to do so. That is the importance of our amendments, and I am glad that my hon. Friends sees that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
GBR launched in my constituency when South Western Railway came back into public ownership. The engineers at the depot said that bringing rail and the railways together would improve customer experience. Will my hon. Friend expand on that?
Keir Mather
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.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend for moving at such pace on this. I am sure that many commuters around the country will be pleased to see the progress. On devolution and the integration with local transport schemes, I know the route, the process and the decision maker if we want to get a new Metrolink tram station in Greater Manchester. If I want to reopen the Middleton Junction train station in my constituency, what route do I go down?
Keir Mather
That is exactly why we are establishing GBR: to provide my hon. Friend with a consistent approach to making the case for the railway infrastructure improvements that he needs. Also, the devolution settlement enshrined in the Bill will ensure that GBR can work at the local level, with the ability for mayors to fund GBR directly to achieve specific local goals. It is our hope that through that devolved approach, with GBR able to work in lockstep with the mayors who are pioneering place-based politics across the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend can realise the changes to the rail system that he so desires.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Like others, I congratulate him on the speed at which he is moving this forward. He talks about the ability of Great British Railways to support local infrastructure. I have concerns about one of the railway stations in my constituency, Harlow Mill, and the number of suicides because of the lack of safety provision there. Will moving to Great British Railways mean that we can address some of those issues more easily?
Keir Mather
We certainly hope that it will. On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises, will he consider writing to either myself or the Rail Minister so that we can think about how we can better integrate those live concerns about people suffering from mental health crises and how we might better protect them on our railway? That is an incredibly important point. Just to conclude—
Wendy Morton
The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is right to say that I am well aware of the specific measure that she speaks to. Having the relationship between GBR, the mayors and political representatives in Westminster, such as herself, is critical, and it is part of the purpose of GBR to better facilitate those conversations. I am sure that, through its establishment, she can take forward the debate on this particular matter with her usual passion.
Keir Mather
I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.
The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.
This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.
Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.
Jerome Mayhew
I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.
We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?
Jerome Mayhew
I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.
As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes
“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—
putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—
“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.
As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.
Wendy Morton
Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.
Jerome Mayhew
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?
Jerome Mayhew
I stand to correct the hon. Gentleman: the most punctual is, I believe, Greater Anglia, which services my constituency, but the point he makes is a good one. The greater integration of track and train brings greater efficiencies and leads to greater punctuality. That is exactly why that was Conservative party policy going into the last general election. What we do not need is increased control by perhaps heavily unionised workforces being given extra political power through nationalisation, taking the focus off the customer and focusing on the organisation and its purposes instead.
We have the track and train being integrated, and this Bill should be giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver dynamic management. That is crucial for a big organisational change. It should be putting passengers first by giving GBR the power to sort out the worst of the union-imposed inefficient working practices. How can we seriously have a seven-day timetable staffed by a five-day working week, requiring voluntary overtime to staff just normal service? It is clearly ridiculous. This legislation should give GBR the power and, importantly, through this new clause, the political support it will need to fix that problem.
We need to enable drivers to operate train doors where that is not yet standard practice and to fix similar Spanish practices. I think that is very unfair on the Spanish, by the way, who surprisingly run a much more efficient railway in some respects. We need to increase flexible driver training and operation, and so much more. Under new clause 54, tabled in my name, a working practices and productivity modernisation framework would provide GBR with that direction and give it the political cover to act.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member will be aware that I have already addressed that question in answer to one of his colleagues, but if international companies, whether state-owned or private, make a tender that is more attractive than any other operator applying for that tender, the people who benefit most are the taxpayers and service users of the United Kingdom. That is what happens.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree with new clause 85, which would make the interests of disabled people a key performance indicator for Great British Railways? I have been contacted by Katrina, a constituent from Sproatley, who has an upper limb disability as a result of thalidomide and relies heavily on rail travel. There are many services on which she cannot pre-book a seat, which for many of us is a convenience but for her is essential, because she finds being jostled frightening. She needs to have her interests recognised by the railway. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be very useful for the Government to accept new clause 85?
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the needs of disabled passengers such as his constituent, whom he so ably represents, are very important. That is one performance indicator that the Government should impose on GBR, but is it not ridiculous that we have to have Government action to impose KPIs on a railway? We should not be doing it this way.
Instead of giving GBR a clear purpose and direction and then supporting it to deliver, the Government are imposing nationalisation, which will bring with it, as we see in the Bill, an inevitable explosion of bureaucracy, civil service plans, targets, long-term strategies and civil service rights to give guidance and direction, all in the name of the Secretary of State. What will be the impact of this on GBR over time? Will it lead to the dynamic management that this structural reorganisation must have if it is to have a hope of working? Let history be our guide. I cannot think of a single example of a nationalised industry in any country, either now or in the past, that is or was a byword for management dynamism. Members should try it themselves—we cannot think of one, can we? If GBR needs dynamic management, how can nationalisation possibly be the answer?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?
Jerome Mayhew
The Father of the House is nailing me down to a cast-iron assurance at the Dispatch Box. I am not in a position to do that, but I fully expect to be in this role in a future Government and look forward to the opportunity to encourage open access to provide the through train that the right hon. Gentleman needs or for GBR to do so.
If GBR needs the dynamic management that we say it does, the Government are imposing for political reasons—very popular ones among their Back Benchers, as we have heard—a management system that has never worked in the past, but somehow it will be different this time. They have made their choice and we need to make the best of it. At the very least, this founding legislation should identify core key performance indicators which will survive the test of time in legislation. New clause 53 and amendment 158 provide them. They are detailed, but in essence, they focus on reliability, safety, comfort and on-board experience, affordability and value for money, passenger and network growth, financial sustainability and freight growth.
Until covid, privatisation undeniably brought a focus on ridership that had been missing previously under nationalisation. I accept that private businesses are not trying to be nice; they work to increase ridership because it brings in fare income, which creates profit. They are not directed to do so; the natural incentives work to solve the problem. The innovation of privatisation, fought tooth and nail at the time by Labour and the unions, was supported by passengers, who voted with their feet. British Rail oversaw the long-term decline in ridership from about 1 billion in 1950, reducing in a straight line to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation immediately reversed that 40-year trend of decline, growing back ridership not just to 1 billion but to 1.7 billion in 2019.
Under the Bill, GBR does not even have a passenger growth target. New clause 14 in my name would rectify that by requiring the Secretary of State to set GBR a passenger growth target and to keep it under review. How can the Government be against that? They have agreed to put one in for rail freight growth, but for some reason passengers are not listed in the Bill. Instead of these sensible, pro-growth and pro-passenger measures, we have clause after clause of political control, micromanagement of a nationalised structure, and unfettered rights of guidance and direction by the Secretary of State—by which we mean Department for Transport officials—over GBR at any time and for any reason, under clauses 7 and 9. It is a recipe for corporate paralysis where decisions are second-guessed by civil servants.
Amendments 150 and 151 limit at least the giving of guidance by Department for Transport officials to issues where GBR fails to meet a key performance indicator, and the giving of mandatory directions to serious issues where GBR has missed KPIs and the chief executive has been removed in consequence. I fear that over time, as the corporate memory of the train operating companies fades and with it their focus on the customer experience, this focus will be replaced by other incentives.
Heavily unionised workers of a nationalised industry well understand that the Government will now be politically exposed to industrial action as never before. It will be entirely rational for them—I do not blame them for doing so—to use this new bargaining power to increase pay and improve conditions, which sounds good, does it not? Why would they not do so? It does, however, increase costs and reduce productivity. Who benefits? Not the passenger or the taxpayer. Labour will be too weak to stand up for the taxpayer and for fare-paying passengers. Services will become more expensive, worse, less frequent—or all three—and we will be back to the rationing of resources as we see in every nationalised sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway.
I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago.
Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments.
I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.
Helen Maguire
Research from the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that 58% of those with visual impairments reported that it was impossible to use ticket vending machines, and I have tabled new clause 38 to ensure a minimum number of accessible ticket machines. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to ensure that railways are accessible for everyone?
Ruth Cadbury
Yes, of course I do, and much of what I am saying stems from the work with did for our report published in February 2025. It is entitled, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about so much more than ramps and lifts, although those things are essential for many, and it must be embedded in the culture of the organisation.
Our amendments seek to embed that aspiration in the Bill, and they follow the work we did on the Bill and the report I just mentioned. Amendment 70 would place duties on Ministers and GBR, and amendment 71 would place duties on the passengers’ council to seek to secure “improvements” to accessibility, rather than just to “promote the…interests” of disabled people, as currently stated in the Bill. Amendment 71 would also require the passengers’ council
“to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.”
The Minister may well say that the Bill will already drive improvements, and that the details will be in the GBR’s business plan and the LTRS, but disabled people would like to see enforceable, statutory responsibilities that require progress, not just vague “having regard to” language, or non-statutory policy documents.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on this subject. Earlier I referred to Katrina, my constituent with thalidomide syndrome who struggles to reserve a seat and feel safe, and to use the railway as she wants to. Does the hon. Lady agree that those are the tests we need to see changed, so that people like Katrina can use the railway safely and see their needs recognised?
Ruth Cadbury
The right hon. Member’s description of Katrina’s needs speak not only for her needs but for those of so many people. He described Katrina’s specific physical needs and need to have a seat, but it is important to recognise that every disabled person’s needs are different. The rail system—indeed, the whole transport system—must be able to adapt and ensure that those needs are met.
I welcome the sheer number of amendments tabled today that cover accessibility. New clause 39 makes a specific request:
“The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.”
and it requires that board to include at least two disabled people. The Government told us that legislating for that recommendation is not needed because the Transport Focus board already has such representation, and general duties under clause 18 will apply when the board is appointed. While I welcome the offer to confirm that intention, why is there resistance to putting such a measure into legislation so that it is secured in the future? To say that Transport Focus currently has such representation, and that therefore the passengers’ council board will too, relies on custom. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to
“promoting…the needs of disabled passengers”
but it relies on a specific interpretation of a general clause, so neither of those measures are secure. In conclusion, I commend the amendments to the House, but I will not push them to a vote as I anticipate that they will attract a fair bit of attention in the other place when the Bill arrives there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.
The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.
However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour.
The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.
Helen Maguire
On passenger experience, will my hon. Friend extend my thanks to the Minister and Lord Hendy—I have made them aware of my intention to mention this today—for taking forward new clause 36 via operational arrangements, which will permit a bereaved family member of the armed forces to a fare exemption on Remembrance Sunday?
Olly Glover
I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday.
New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today.
New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding.
Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour.
Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee.
Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said:
“It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.”
On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Melton Constable in my constituency has a proud railway heritage—the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway steam train adorns its village sign. New clause 5 would make provision for the exploration of the reinstatement of the orbital railway. Does my hon. Friend agree that being connected to the rail network could bring immense benefits to towns such as Holt? Government support for such a scheme being explored would be very welcome.
Olly Glover
The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity.
I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.
Helen Maguire
Post covid, the number of trains from Epsom and Ewell was halved. My new clause 37 would ensure that there is community consultation on the frequency of train services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sensible thing to do would be to consult the community?
Olly Glover
I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.
New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.
Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.
Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.
Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming.
I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes.
All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is really important that that scheme includes people who worked at British Rail Engineering Ltd, who were then privatised and lost their passes as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that BREL is also included in that meeting?
John McDonnell
I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together.
My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.
John McDonnell
Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.
Cat Eccles
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?
John McDonnell
I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates.
Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers represent 25% of the directly employed workforce of train operating companies, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that outsourcing creates systemic racism?
John McDonnell
There is significance evidence of low pay and the way that people are discriminated against consistently throughout the outsourcing mechanism. Given all the research that has been done, that is unchallengeable.
I want to concentrate on the issue of loss of skills. Under British Rail, when someone joined the railway, they could have the vision that if they were committed and stuck with the organisation, they could secure additional training and rise up the ladder. All the way up, they would be gaining additional skills, but under outsourcing there has been a lack of investment in skills. The precarious work means that we are failing to invest in the next generation and, as a result, we may not have the skills to operate an effective system.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Broxbourne is an important commuter area when travelling into London. Millions of journeys start and end at stations in my constituency every year, and more than double the national average number of people use the railway to get to work. The line that I and my constituents rely on—Greater Anglia—was one of the first to be taken over by the Government, and not a week goes by without some sort of incident causing long delays and cancellations. We have not seen any improvements from nationalisation. While I do not support nationalisation in principle, I agree that the railway needs to work better for passengers and the communities it serves and in which it operates. It is in that spirit that I will address a number of amendments.
I support new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It would place a duty on GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years. The rail network should be easily accessible for everyone, as most Members have said. There has been lots of progress in recent years on this issue, and I am pleased that most stations in my constituency are fully accessible, but that still leaves some stations that see hundreds of thousands of journeys each year out of reach for constituents with disabilities or using buggies.
Rye House is the only train station in Hoddesdon, a town of 20,000 people, but only one platform is step-free—the other is not. That means someone can have step-free access going into London, but not when they leave to go home. That means passengers in a wheelchair or with buggies having to get off at a different station, with longer journeys to get home.
It gets even worse at Theobalds Grove station, where the situation is even more difficult. No platform has step-free access, so there is no option for those with disabilities, such as those in a wheelchair, or families with buggies to use that station at all. Both stations would be ideal candidates for accessibility improvements, which should be a key priority for Great British Rail.
Since my election, I have campaigned hard on traffic delays and roadworks, and they do not occur in isolation from other modes of transport, particularly the rail network. I support new clause 29, which would direct Great British Rail to co-ordinate with transport authorities to minimise disruption. We need a joined-up and a common-sense approach. When works are planned on a line, we do not also need utility companies coming along to dig up the high street. It seems that once one element causes a bit of disruption, the other goes out of its way to create more disruption at the same time. We need organisations to have a joined-up and common-sense approach.
Level crossings can have massive knock-on effects for my constituents, particularly those who live in the villages. In my constituency, a track runs through the villages of Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets—right through the middle. If the crossing is down for too long or a defect causes it not to reopen, an entire village is cut off from basic services. The level-crossings strategy proposed in amendment 65 would enable us to look at the consequences of things going wrong in that way, which would hopefully reduce disruption for my constituents.
In the case of any public body, value for the taxpayer should be considered above all else, so I support the requirement for Great British Railways to take steps to keep costs as low as possible. Rail services should also respond to changing needs. We have seen thousands of homes built in the last few years, creating more strain on our rail services. Thousands have been built near Cheshunt, the busiest station in my constituency, and more passengers are using it now than before the pandemic.
New clause 40 would ensure that services respond to population changes. Within the national planning policy framework, the Government are trying to bulldoze our green belt and make it easier to obtain planning permission near stations. I fundamentally disagree with that, and it makes new clause 40 even more important. The Government should support it.
New clause 37 is intended to ensure that the trains on which local communities rely run more frequently. The standard of communication from the railway network, the rail companies and my nationalised local rail service is appalling. If people turn up at the station and there are problems on the line, there are no staff around to talk to. No one is communicating with the passengers. They are left at the station to wait for another service, if and when it turns up.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point about the importance of building near railway stations. My experience, and that of many other Members along the length of the Elizabeth line, is that it is generating a huge amount of economic growth, which is very significant in our communities. It is also reusing a great deal of brownfield land, and I hope that would also benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the hon. Member for supporting the point I was making. The Elizabeth line was a new line with new trains going along it, but currently, planning applications are submitted and the response is: “This development is next to a railway station. We will grant the planning permission.” There are no new services. There are no extra trains. The only consequences for the line are the thousands of houses that are built near it. If my constituency were served by HS2 or we were getting a new train, that would be a completely different matter, but when capacity is being added to existing services and when that planning process is taking place, there is nothing to say that there must be more trains and a more frequent service, and the trains have to be longer during the rush hour to deal with the extra housing.
We need to look at how communication with rail users can be improved and at how this nationalised rail service will work, because, as I have said, the service in my area was one of the first to be nationalised and my constituents have seen no benefit at all.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others.
Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry.
But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.
I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership.
Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.
John McDonnell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did over the years to develop the policies that this legislation is largely based on. On the issue of trade union negotiations, we have advocated for sectoral collective bargaining in this sector, as in others, for quite a while. Why? Because it gives a voice to the workers themselves and brings about stability on issues such as employment and long-term investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one of the building blocks for the new system we are creating?
Andy McDonald
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, and I fully acknowledge his point. That is exactly how we are going to build a sustainable railway that will serve our communities and be responsive to reasonable requests from its workforce.
I have tabled new clause 26 and amendment 64, on the transfer of employees to GBR. The original vision of reform was for a railway with a single directing mind, but there is a strong case for having a single employer too. The legislation should make it clear that employees transferring from Network Rail, DfT Operator operators and former franchises will move into a coherent organisation, with full TUPE protections and clear employment rights. I also encourage the Government to move towards a formal framework for sectoral collective bargaining across the rail industry. Public ownership should create the conditions for partnership, workforce voice and stable industrial relations.
I have also tabled new clause 27, on pension schemes. It is remarkable that legislation transferring the railway back into public ownership contains weaker statutory pension protections than the legislation used to privatise it. The Railways Act 1993 included detailed provisions protecting pension rights, and workers joining GBR deserve the same certainty. Every railway employee should have a statutory right to participate in the railway pension scheme on protected terms.
I also support amendments to preserve schedule 17. We all remember the overwhelming public opposition to the proposals to close ticket offices, and schedule 17 provides an important mechanism for consultation and accountability when significant service changes are proposed. Those protections should not be casually swept aside.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would secure GBR in the public sector for the future. I also support amendment 35, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the wider principle of insourcing. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill creates an opportunity for the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation. The railway should not rely on fragmented contracting models that create insecurity and limit progression. Bringing contracted workers directly into GBR would strengthen workforce planning, improve standards and help to fulfil Labour’s commitment to treat railway staff as an asset rather than a cost.
This Bill is a historic opportunity. Public ownership can deliver a better railway for passengers, but it must also deliver a better railway for the people who run it every day. By strengthening protections for employment, trade union recognition, pensions and insourcing, we can ensure that Great British Railways is built on the foundations of fairness as well as efficiency.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak as we embark on the Government’s back to the future nationalisation plan. I will be speaking to new clause 35 and amendments 68 and 69, tabled in my name. Together, they are designed to ensure that Ministers and Great British Railways treat Ely junction as the nationally significant bottleneck it is, and that they make the progress that passengers, freight operators and local communities are entitled to expect.
It is important to set out the context in which my amendments sit. Rail services to North West Norfolk are not good enough. There are too many late trains, cancellations and engineering weekend closures. Those unreliable rail services put people off travelling and have a damaging effect on the local economy, particularly the visitor economy. My constituents deserve better, and improvements to Ely Junction would help deliver that.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue.
Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation.
I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue.
I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20.
In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench.
Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue.
We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.
Olly Glover
Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.
Wendy Morton
The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.
Laurence Turner
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.
Andy McDonald
What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.
Laurence Turner
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is, I say respectfully, wrong on this issue. When the Labour party first committed to the reintegration of track and train, under the then shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), I wrote the announcement—so I do bring some bearing to that question.
It has been a privilege over these years to ride on the footplate of this reform journey. The Bill will end the national buck-passing game of “Whose Line is it Anyway?”. Most importantly, it will establish a rail network that is run by and for the nation. I look forward to voting against amendments that would undo that important journey of reform.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It was my pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who led on the legislation for the Liberal Democrats, and behind whose expertise I have gamely hidden throughout. I believe that the Bill should be about passengers, which is why I strongly support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would establish a passengers’ charter.
New clause 1 would establish clear expectations around value for money, quality of service and adequate seating. It would require targets for reliability and a timetable for improvements to the passenger experience. Importantly, it would address issues that passengers in West Dorset have repeatedly raised with me: reliable highspeed wi-fi; comfortable seat design; dependable mobile connectivity; power outlets; luggage and bicycle storage; accessibility and clean toilets; onboard food and drink provision on journeys lasting more than two hours. Those are basic expectations of a modern railway in a modern country.
New clause 1 would also strengthen accessibility and extend the principles behind delay and repay to failure of onboard amenities, while moving towards automatic digital compensation. Importantly, NC1 sends a simple message to all: passengers come first. The same principle underpins new clause 43, which would place a duty on Great British Railways to provide food and drink on rail services lasting over an hour. For many passengers, particularly those travelling long distances from rural areas, access to refreshments is a necessity. If we want people to choose rail over car, we must think about the entire journey experience, and not simply whether the train arrives at the destination.
Passenger-focused reform must also mean affordability, which is why new clause 6 is important. At a time when many households continue to face pressure with the cost of living, the new clause would require plans for fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. It would extend standardised discounts for young people, provide discounted fares for veterans, establish a national tap-in, tap-out system, guarantee that passengers received the best-value fare regardless of how they purchase their tickets, introduce a national railcard, and enable open source access to ticketing systems and fare databases. The new clause would also require collaboration with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing. In rural areas such as West Dorset, where passengers often rely on both rail and bus services, joined-up ticketing could make a huge difference.
Linked to affordability and passenger growth is new clause 2, which would require a report into the merits of the rail-miles programme. We already reward loyalty in supermarkets and airmiles, yet regular rail passengers receive little recognition for their continued use of the network. A rail-mile programme would encourage repeat journeys, support passenger growth, and provide greater flexibility for commuters, students and working families. It would also help encourage modal shift away from private car use and towards public transport.
For young people, passenger-focused rail reform must also mean access to opportunity. That is why I tabled new clause 47, which would provide free rail travel to 16 to 18-years-olds in education, training or apprenticeships. If a young person cannot physically reach a college, apprenticeship or job opportunity, then every other intervention becomes less effective. New clause 47 would help to remove that barrier and support social mobility, economic participation and fairness.
The needs of rural communities are also reflected in new clause 40, which would place a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to both permanent and seasonal population growth. Coastal communities face the double challenge of being underfunded for their permanent population while simultaneously accommodating huge seasonal increases in demand. This new clause would require consideration of rolling stock services and infrastructure investment to ensure that communities are not left behind simply because population increases occur seasonally rather than permanently.
New clause 42 would require an assessment of the benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the west of England line. This proposal is important not only to my constituents, but across the south-west.
Rachael Maskell
When we think about a nationalised rail service, we often debate the governance, which is vital. It was a real honour to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on putting together the blueprint that has set this train in motion. However, we must also remember the staff, and I therefore refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I raise a number of issues that could really impact their experience of working for our railways.
On 1 November last year, a horror unfolded on the east coast main line on a southbound LNER train. It was a chilling reminder of the incredible skills of rail staff in keeping us safe. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we keep the staff safe. My amendments 56 and 57 seek to do just that. Rail workers, whether on board, at stations or in our ticket offices, face an unacceptable level of violence and abuse. The industry recognises this, and how changes in working practices such as driver-only operation and lone working increase risk, and supports the changes I am proposing. Amendments 56 and 57 would extend GBR’s function to include an assurance for the safety of all rail workers, including from assaults. They would also secure safe staffing levels to achieve that aim.
Let me provide some examples. One rail worker was physically assaulted after trying to prevent a member of the public from climbing on to the train tracks, with trains due into the station imminently. Another rail worker had a hot drink thrown over them after charging an excess for an invalid ticket. Another was punched when they asked to see a ticket, resulting not only in him losing a tooth and requiring extensive dental treatment, but in the long tail of a mental health impact that ended in him leaving the service. Others have been threatened with knives. The level of violence is on the rise, with the British Transport police’s latest figures showing a 24% increase in violence against rail workers compared with the previous year. It is staggering.
I have raised this in Parliament many times. We need strong legal protections for public transport workers against assault at work, mirroring new provisions the Government have introduced for retail workers via the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and previously for emergency workers. Transport workers need equally strong protections.
This is a devolved matter, and I understand that the RMT has made significant progress in Scotland, with the Scottish Government committing to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker, not least as many have an enforceable element to their role. Once that legislation is enforced, it will create two tiers of legal protections where rail workers in Scotland, including those working on GBR cross-border services, are afforded strong legal protections, while those working on GBR services in England and Wales are not. It is really important that we move to a single system to protect staff from assault. The Minister has been very helpful in engaging with me on this, and I hope that we can make real progress so that the safety of our staff who serve us day and night is put first. I appreciate that we have CCTV, bodycams and the British Transport police, but we need safe staffing levels and consultation on any changes.
On the wider issue of safe staffing, it is really important that we strengthen passengers’ right to be consulted on changes to staffing levels. Amendment 58 seeks to achieve that. This issue is particularly important for disabled people too. The passenger watchdog has consistently shown that properly staffed trains and stations are not only important for passenger safety, security and accessibility, but safer for staff. Removing guards from trains and cutting staff from platforms, gatelines or ticket offices should be subject to consultation before any decisions are made.
Finally, I have tabled an amendment on open access operators. If they fold, we need to ensure that a process or mechanism is in place whereby staff can be TUPE-ed across—or the equivalent—into GBR, so that they are not left without a job. We need to retain their skills and experience and ensure that they continue to be employed on our national rail service as we move forward.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 17 and amendment 46, both of which stand in my name. I want to focus my remarks on a very simple principle. If Parliament is creating Great British Railways—we can argue away about any timeline—and we are concentrating more responsibility and decision making within a single national body, it is only right that there is appropriate accountability and local democratic oversight alongside it. As the Bill stands, it falls short in this regard.
New clause 17 does not seek to prevent decisions being made or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures that where decisions relating to railway services or infrastructure have a significant impact on local communities and economies, Members of this House—elected to represent those communities—are consulted. Surely that it was local democracy and accountability is all about.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion.
Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key.
Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support.
On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised.
Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic that the vast majority of residents—passengers—in the east of England are travelling on trains in public ownership. This is the next piece of the jigsaw.
I note that the amendment paper appears to be longer than the Bill, so as somebody who has contributed to that, I will turn to some of my amendments. New clause 20 is a simple amendment on promoting integration between trains and everything else—buses, coaches, trams, walking and cycling. I agree that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents that, but I feel there should be something to actively encourage it.
We will all have been at a station when the mainline train has been delayed and, helpfully, the connecting train has been held back for a little time. However, and interestingly, I recently asked somebody at the Transport Committee who ran a bus company whether he had ever come across a situation where the train had been held because his bus had been delayed, and the answer was absolutely not—and vice versa. In fact, there are lots of incentives to stop that happening within the transport system as a whole—after all, a bus company can get fined for having delayed buses. That is why we need something in the Bill that promotes active integration.
Amendments 39 to 42 are about devolution and consultation. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State and GBR will consult with Scottish and Welsh Ministers. By contrast, elsewhere they will consult with mayoral strategic authorities. The difference is that in one place they are consulting with a person, and in the other they are consulting with an organisation. I strongly believe that consultation should take place with the mayor as the person with that democratic mandate to enable us to have stronger, quicker decision making and ensure that what is happening is clear.
I turn to new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on the customer loyalty programme. I cannot say that I agree with the Secretary of State having to lay a report on that within a year—she probably has better things to do. However, the concept of a customer loyalty programme is something I have long called for, and I have had constructive discussions with the Minister on that. Encouraging passengers and would-be passengers to build a loyalty to our railways matters greatly. As has been said, that happens with air miles and with Tesco Clubcard. We could get all kinds of different benefits for passengers, and GBR could use such a programme to try to flex demand.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents.
I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe.
I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced.
Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action.
I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability.
Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound
“to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”.
We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers.
I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.
Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.
This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.
I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.
My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.
The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.
For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.
Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping us on time and on track—much better than some of the trains I have travelled on.
I will speak in favour of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). When the Government came into office with a promise to do something about the shocking state of our trains, people back in Yeovil all said, “Finally—it’s about time”, which happens also to be what they say if the train eventually shows up. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, but it needs to go further if we are to address the problems with rail travel in Somerset.
Luckily enough, us pesky Liberal Democrats have some ideas that the Government can support today. Our passenger charter and our amendments would provide a range of guarantees that would address the challenges that people in Yeovil face when trying to get a train. They would back up those guarantees with a framework for compensation for failures to comply with the charter, such as delay repay. Our charter’s guarantee about value for money would mean that apprentices such as Gregg would not be priced out of rail travel. He worked out that currently it would cost him £5,200 for an annual train ticket to Exeter—a quarter of his salary—instead of £1,750 if he lift-shares with a friend. We can see why people do not use the trains at the moment.
Our charter guarantee of proper seating for any single part of a rail journey longer than 30 minutes will mean that something finally has to be done about the overcrowding on trains from Yeovil junction, which makes travel for people like Colin a nightmare, even when they get off their train and try to get the next one. Only the other day, I was chatting to a disabled passenger on the overcrowded train to London, and she told me that if she wants a seat, she has to fork out lots more money for first-class tickets to have the peace of mind that she will not have to stand. Our charter calls for proper services, including good wi-fi, clean toilets, and catering—and a few plugs would help. It would also mean that long journeys should not be an uncomfortable nightmare.
The charter guarantee on the reliability of services, and amendment 55’s requirements for better links between rail travel and onward transport, such as buses or active travel, will mean that people like Janine will be able to use Yeovil junction more reliably. At the minute, a lack of bus services means that when trains are late, people miss the bus and are forced to wait ages to get home, or they have to fork out for a pricey taxi. Hopefully, we will also get a safe active travel route to Yeovil junction.
Finally, our charter’s guarantee relates to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, the areas around stations and replacement services. It will force more action to support disabled passengers in rural areas because this is a real issue in Yeovil. Staff shortages and a lack of proper training have seen both Jack, a wheelchair user, and Kathy, who is visually impaired, suffer accidents at Yeovil Pen Mill. As Kathy points out, at the moment things are only getting worse, with staff retiring after years of service and GWR not hiring replacements beforehand. Jack even described to me how she was made to feel responsible for her accident, because she needed to use a ramp. That is not good enough and not acceptable at all.
Our charter makes it clear as day that accessibility is the responsibility of Great British Railways, not passengers. I hope the Government will listen and take on board our ideas, because we need this Bill to succeed if we are to get the trains working for people in Yeovil again.
Matt Rodda
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to address some of the issues raised by new clause 22 and other new clauses in relation to disabled people. If I could just make it clear for the sake of the record, I did not mean to sign new clause 22 and, in fact, I have asked the office to remove my name from that clause, although it will not appear in the paperwork until tomorrow.
I want to offer my wholehearted support for the Bill and to thank the Minister and, indeed, his predecessor as shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who I had the pleasure of working with in opposition. This important Bill will bring track and train together and deliver enormous benefits for local residents, not least in constituencies such as Reading Central, where we have a significant number of commuters, but also a lot of economic growth generated by rail investment. It is a shame that I was not able to discuss that further with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) after his slight misunderstanding of my point on this matter. It is important to consider the benefits of rail in terms of economic growth to the country. While the Elizabeth line cost about £18 billion, in the first three years it operated—it has now operated for several years—£42 billion of economic growth was generated by that wise investment. It was backed by both main parties and, I would hope, other smaller parties as well. I hope that we can all come together to support that.
I should declare a bit of an interest in that not only do I represent a town that has seen huge growth thanks to rail investment, but I was involved in the Paddington rail crash and was lucky to survive it. I am a regular commuter, and I also thank the RMT and ASLEF for supporting my general election campaigns in the past.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name.
My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics.
I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency.
A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies.
New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time.
New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?
Dr Spencer
I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced.
New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens.
New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport.
That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
As I made clear on Second Reading, this crucial Bill is about undoing the immeasurable damage done to our rail network, to passenger confidence and to economic prosperity after decades of privatisation and woeful mismanagement.
I will focus on rail devolution. I commend the Transport Committee on its incisive report on the topic, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for the amendments drafted in her name and her clear desire for us to get the most out of this legislation. I know how much is riding on the Bill for our regional mayors, strategic authorities and, most importantly, the passengers they serve. My appeal today is to ensure that the Bill supports the Government’s devolution journey.
Transport planning is a crucial competence of our elected mayors, and where mayoral strategic authorities are truly emboldened, entire city regions, local transport networks and whole communities are strengthened as a result. We must do as much as possible to support connections that improve economic density and therefore boost growth. Our achievements in Greater Manchester are a testament to that, and the absorption of rail into the Bee Network is the critical next step in delivering on the priorities of local people.
I welcome Government amendment 136, which will enable local bodies to enter into certain arrangements with the Secretary of State, but concerns remain that it may not reflect the full capabilities of our mayoral authorities. I would welcome any assurances from the Minister that this provision will not be narrower than existing provisions set out in the Railways Act 2005. Essentially, can the Minister confirm that the amendment supports meaningful partnership with our elected combined authority mayors? As the Bill stands, engagement between Great British Rail and our mayoral authorities could be predicated on good will among officials negotiating on their behalf, with little codified in the way of a formal, statutory partnership between the two.
Mayoral strategic authorities and mayors themselves are now integral to the delivery of housing policy, urban planning and regional economic development. For them to do that role without much of a stake in local rail networks is to proceed with one arm tied behind their backs. Authorities need to be sufficiently empowered in relation to Great British Railways to get on and demonstrate that they deserve greater scope to plan transport alongside other policy areas—for example, by strategically aligning rail corridors and house building. Great British Rail cannot inhibit this kind of common-sense approach in the way that Network Rail sometimes has in the past. Great British Rail and our local rail networks must work in lockstep with spatial plans and the changes we see across our communities. That is the only way we can ensure benefits for peripheral towns as much as for the hearts of our city centres.
We also need to think about the future. We can never say with certainty how committed a future Government may be to devolution, so the Bill must enshrine a robust partnership duty to ensure that mayoral authorities have a decisive role in commissioning services, shaping specifications and influencing fares and performance outcomes. We cannot simply rely on a duty to consult.
Local transport plans are critical, too. As the Bill stands, Great British Rail should “have regard to” local transport plans—forward-looking, multi-year plans developed by local transport authorities, each with a statutory basis, that promote safe, integrated, reliable and sustainable local transport policy. Simply having regard to them could lead to rail policy being delivered entirely by Great British Rail in a silo and in isolation from wider place-based policy.
I appreciate that we are planning a national rail network, but that work must not run roughshod over local economic and transport priorities. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to consider revising the language in clause 16 from “have regard to” to “act in accordance with”. I know that, in their response to the Transport Committee’s report on this matter, the Government were clear in their view that the current language is sufficient, but I am keen to stress that this Bill is about not just the next few years but the next few decades. We need to set an irreversible course for sustained devolution, and doing so means GBR not just regarding the plans, but fully aligning with them. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that.
I offer my full support to this crucial legislation, and I thank the Government for their continued engagement. Our regional leaders have an invaluable contribution to make in engaging with GBR; for that to be realised, we need to move beyond notions of consultation and towards equal and productive partnerships between mayoral strategic authorities and our rail network’s new guiding mind. That means making train travel and other forms of public transport better for passengers across the country, irrespective of where that may be, and ultimately driving economic growth. This ambition must be what guides us going forward, and that is how passengers nationwide will come to judge what we are doing here today.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clauses 10, 12 and 13, tabled in my name. Before I start, may I sincerely thank the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago? The dialogue was constructive and welcomed, and I really hope that other Ministers take a leaf out of his book and reach across the Floor to have dialogue when moving forward with legislation.
New clause 10 would devolve rail powers in Wales to the Welsh Government and, crucially, devolve the funding that goes along with them. The current system in which one Government control trains and another Government control the track simply does not work for Wales. It prevents Wales from creating its own integrated network and planning and delivering the rail system it needs. If we are serious about improving rail for the people of Wales, we must address this fundamental issue through the full devolution of rail infrastructure, which the people of Wales support. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government were elected on a commitment to devolve rail, as is already the case in Scotland. Devolution would finally unlock the investment Wales has been denied and end the injustice of Welsh taxpayers funding England-only projects such as HS2, Oxford-Cambridge—which is nowhere near Wales—and Northern Powerhouse Rail, which again is nowhere near Wales. HS2 alone deprives Wales of nearly £6 billion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
To ensure I get all colleagues in, I am introducing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Navendu Mishra
I thank all railway staff at stations across Stockport, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies. I also declare an interest—trade unions have made donations to my constituency Labour party.
The British Transport Police recorded a 5% increase in crime in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, including a rise in violence and sexual offences, leading to claims of an “epidemic of violence”. It is facing a funding shortfall of £8.5 million this financial year, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we in this House have a duty to keep passengers and staff safe. As such, I urge the Government to ensure that proper, adequate funding is allocated to the BTP.
I also echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about outsourcing. Outsourcing is embedding systemic racism in parts of the railway network where outsourced workers are disproportionately from ethnic minority backgrounds. As I said earlier in an intervention, ethnic minority workers represent 25% of the directly employed train operating company workforce, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers.
The outsourcing model is driven by employers taking on workers on precarious contracts and on poor terms and conditions, such as inadequate sick pay and pensions when compared with directly employed workers. Outsourced workers typically have no travel facilities, but many in the House will be aware that a chief executive of a private train company has excellent terms and conditions, benefits and travel facilities. GBR should tackle these outsourced contracts and the poor terms and conditions that people are on. Everyone deserves fair pay and treatment, as well as dignity at work.
Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.
Reddish South train station in my constituency has one train a week. That is not a joke. It is absolutely ridiculous. Proper passenger services must be restored at Reddish South train station. I pay tribute to the Friends of Reddish South Station, who do such important work in my patch. In the last reporting period, only 102 passengers used that train station in an entire year. We need to ensure that as we move on with modernising our railway system, Reddish South is not left behind and train stations have proper services.
I did support new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). It has now been withdrawn, but it would have required GBR to establish a department to look at options to increase services to underserved places. I invite the Minister to visit Reddish South. Lord Hendy made a visit to my constituency last year, but it was at short notice and he did not have a chance to go to Reddish South. I invite the Minister and Lord Hendy to come to my constituency specifically to meet the Friends of Reddish South.
I will make a quick point on disabled access. The Access for All scheme is a good scheme, but it is far too slow. Nathaniel Yates, a constituent of mine, has done so much work over the years to improve disabled access for all, but accessibility at train stations in the north is poor, with fewer than half of all stations having step-free access. We need to ensure that more people are not excluded from our railways, such as those with mobility issues, underlying health conditions or heavy luggage. I support amendments 29 and 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would protect and promote the rights of disabled passengers.
I end on the point that since privatisation, rolling stock companies have been rinsing the taxpayer. Those companies should be brought in house, and Great British Railways should create its own rolling stock procurement team to stop taxpayers being taken advantage of.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When I was growing up, the state of the railways, alongside the weather, was a general complaint that united most people. Thankfully, the days of the cardboard British Rail sandwich are long gone, but I regret to say that general dissatisfaction with the railway experience in my part of the world remains. That is why I welcomed the Railways Bill and the creation of Great British Railways, and I was optimistic about the renationalisation of South Western Railway, which covers my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I regret that the reliability of that service and the experience of my constituents is, if anything, worse than a year ago. I now no longer tell my family to collect me at the scheduled arrival time, but call ahead, so regular are the delays.
James, a constituent who has travelled from Wareham to London for 50 years, told me that the service has never been so poor and is not a pleasant experience. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), which would create a passenger charter. It should not be too much to ask for wi-fi that works, access to a drink or snack on a long journey, clean toilets and a guaranteed seat. Those with disabilities, bikes and prams should be able to get on and off a train and be able to put their luggage or equipment on board.
I also support new clause 6 and in particular its provision relating to fares for children. That issue was raised by students of Purbeck school when I visited last year. More than half do not stay on for sixth form, accessing colleges in Poole, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Brockenhurst. We all consider children to be children until they are 18, but not the rail companies, to whom childhood stops at 15. I presume that dates back to when we left school at 16, but we are more civilised now, and it is outrageous that a 16-year-old is considered an adult. Regardless of what happens to the new clause, please will the Government fix that?
My new clause 11 is about reducing bike thefts linked to the railways. Until February this year, bike thefts were not investigated where the bike had been left for more than two hours. That is a ridiculous position, bearing in mind that most people are going to school, out for the day or to work, and so staying away for more than two hours. The change that now allows bike thefts caught on CCTV to be investigated is great, but small rural stations such as mine at Holton Heath do not have any CCTV, so we should be preventing the bike thefts in the first place. More than 4,000 bikes were stolen from railway stations in 2024, so a modest requirement for secure cycle storage alongside car parking, or on platforms of smaller stations, seems only reasonable. I asked South Western Railway to do that voluntarily, but it refused, so my only option was to put my name to a new clause that would give passengers security and peace of mind but also reduce the need for people to drive to stations, thus supporting the railway’s role in carbon reduction.
There is an opportunity to take the railway to more people, which is why I support amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) but has, I believe, now been withdrawn. In Dorset we have a huge opportunity to revolutionise rail use through Dorset Metro, which could increase train frequency across the local area from Wareham to Christchurch and create potential new stations or halts to take the strain from the heavily congested roads. In areas where railways cannot be restored because of housing developments, the “rails to trails” programme proposed in new clause 5 provides a great opportunity. The fantastic Castleman Trailway runs through the heart of my constituency, but at Corfe Mullen it stops abruptly as it reaches the A31, and there is a missed opportunity to connect those on both sides of the community.
If we are going to let the train take the strain, it must be reliable, affordable and safe. My constituent Adam says that as things stand, he is considering moving elsewhere because travel is such a problem. While the Bill constitutes a good step, I am not sure that we can currently call this the “Great” British Railway, and I hope that the Minister will do better and accept more of the amendments to allow it to be great again.
Cat Eccles
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.
Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of railway accessibility. I wish to put on record, as I have been advised to by the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, that my name has been mistakenly added to new clauses 22, 59, 60, 61 and 62, but has correctly been added to new clause 23, which concerns that issue of railway accessibility.
Cat Eccles
The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded.
Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail.
The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed.
I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
We in this place all recognise the transformative role that railways can play in creating better-connected places and driving the economic growth that our communities and country need, yet that potential remains largely unrealised in some counties. Wiltshire has an extensive network of existing railway lines, but they remain primarily geared towards ferrying passengers and freight across the county, rather than providing a service on which residents can rely for local commuting, business and leisure travel.
Thanks to tireless local campaigning, Melksham saw a significant uplift in its rail service back in 2013, but with an average of just one train every two hours, the service remains too intermittent to meet the needs of a town experiencing rapid population growth. Meanwhile, a 20-mile station-less stretch of line runs between Westbury and Pewsey. It passes within three miles of Devizes, but there is no railway access for over 30,000 people living in the heart of Wiltshire, which is holding back the area’s economy. The Bill acknowledges the importance of local and regional rail, and requires GBR to align decisions with local transport strategies, but making mayoral strategic authorities the sole vehicle for this new co-operation leaves some 60% of England’s population not yet covered and without the tools to harness rail’s potential.
If the Government are committed to sustainable housing growth, town centre regeneration, access to jobs, education and decarbonisation, the Bill must go much further in enabling local rail. Metroisation of our railways is not just for large cities; counties such as Cornwall and Northumberland are already demonstrating how more frequent and reliable rail can transform rural economies. The Government need to ensure that market towns such as Melksham and Devizes are not left behind in economic development and can benefit from the rail network.
The creation of GBR must also be accompanied by a brand-new passenger charter. If we want more passengers to choose rail over road, we must tackle issues such as overpriced tickets and overcrowded carriages with poor wi-fi and little or no catering. I urge the Government to accept new clauses 1 and 58, and set a new bar for value for money, accessibility and passenger comfort in our new Great British Railways.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Ministers both here and in the other place for their hard work and engagement on this important Bill. I will focus my comments in favour of new clause 16.
Great British Railways cannot come soon enough for my constituency of Shrewsbury. Under privatisation, our geography has penalised us, as we sit on the edge of everyone’s maps between regional operators serving either Wales or Birmingham, leaving us under-invested and underserved. As Members may recall—I have mentioned it quite a few times—Shropshire remains the only county without a direct train to London. The value of such a direct service is not just the obvious economic boost for jobs, education and tourism, or the improved accessibility of avoiding step-heavy connections, but the important investment in infrastructure that inter-city services could unlock at our station. We need more frequent and reliable regional services, with much more capacity to cope with the vast demand for services for a county town of 70,000 residents. For example, our local university campus closed last year, and students now have to travel beyond Shrewsbury to access education, training and employment.
For these reasons, I am pleased to put my name in support of five amendments, including new clause 16, which calls for the reopening of services to underserved areas. This new clause calls for GBR to establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services, and to assess passenger and community needs for adding services, routes or stations where they are missing. It is crucial that the full opportunities of this new integrated, nationalised railway are felt across the whole country by improving service levels in underserved and often rural areas such as Shropshire, not just adding increased frequency for already well-served cities. Just last month, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I stood in this very place to present a petition signed by over 10,000 fare-paying passengers asking this Government to recognise the demand for a direct train service at Shrewsbury and to approve extra routes to London.
As we stand together on the cusp of nationalising our rail system, we must ensure that the mantra of “people before profit” becomes a reality in places such as Shrewsbury. Where investment has been lacking, let us take this opportunity to rebuild; where services have withered away, let us deliver for our communities; and where towns have been left behind, let us reconnect them. In short, let us show in deeds, not words, how Great British Railways will deliver more services for more places such as Shrewsbury.
Monica Harding
I rise in support of new clause 1, on the passengers’ charter, new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and my own new clause 60, which addresses reliability, accessibility and refurbishment.
All seven of my railway stations in Esher and Walton are under the stewardship of South Western Railway, making our constituency one of the first to experience the transition to public ownership, and there are significant reliability challenges. The latest performance figures show that, in March, 3% of all services were cancelled and only 65% of services arrived on time, meaning more than one in three trains fail to arrive when passengers expected them to.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?
Monica Harding
They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1.
It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network.
That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe.
There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need.
All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Bill is a necessary and long-overdue step towards bringing our railways back into public ownership. Great British Railways represents a real opportunity to build a railway that works in the interests of passengers and staff, rather than profiteering companies and distant shareholders.
For railway workers, the transition to GBR must be an opportunity to strengthen good, secure and unionised jobs across the sector. Rail staff are the backbone of the network. Whether they work on trains, in stations, or on signalling, engineering or maintenance, they keep this country moving every single day.
I also want to commend the work of campaign groups such as We Own It, alongside the rails unions the RMT, the TSSA and ASLEF, for their long-standing commitment to the renationalisation of our railways. Working constructively with the trade unions will be vital if GBR is to succeed. A publicly owned railway must also be a railway built on a partnership with its workforce.
The transport unions have raised a number of concerns that the Government should address. Tens of thousands of rail workers still do not know exactly who their future employer will be under GBR, nor do they know what pension arrangements will apply. There are also real fears about potential job losses linked to the transition. Around 870 Network Rail staff are reportedly at risk of redundancy and are concerned at de-recognition of trade unions during the TUPE transfer from Network Rail into its wholly owned public subsidiary, Platform4. A fundamental principle of the transition from private to public ownership should be that every workplace within GBR recognises trade unions.
My now-withdrawn new clause largely spoke to Beeching. The Beeching cuts, now widely recognised as a significant failure, saw the closure of up to 2,363 stations and approximately 5,000 miles of track. It severed vital links for many communities, causing lasting damage to local economies. That is felt all too acutely in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, where we have a huge gap between Caersws and Machynlleth—the longest stretch of line without a station in the whole of Wales.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving an impassioned speech about areas that are underserved by rail connections. My constituency is one such areas—it does not have a single mainline station, despite being the largest constituency by land in Cornwall. Unfortunately, the North Cornwall railway was a victim of the Beeching cuts. Will the hon. Member ask the Minister how the Bill will help such areas to bring back vital rail links? There are initiatives such as Kernow Connect, which has the potential to connect my constituency at Launceston, but does the hon. Member agree that the Bill does not go far enough in that regard?
Steve Witherden
The hon. Member serves a similarly large and rural constituency to mine. Getting stations open in such areas is incredibly important, and I urge him to work closely with community groups, as I am sure he is already doing, so that what I am trying to do in mid and north Wales might also be done in Cornwall.
Great British Railways presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our railways and create a service that works for the public good rather than for private profit. Workers must not be sidelined; jobs, pensions and trade union rights must be protected; and passengers must see genuine improvements in affordability and reliability.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
This Bill represents a once-in-a-generation chance to create a simpler, more effective and more accountable railway. I am pleased that c2c, which serves my constituents in Thurrock, was one of the first operators to come under public ownership. I look forward to the reversal of 30 years of privatisation, which have seen fragmentation, outsourcing and a dangerous lack of investment in infrastructure. Nationalisation and the establishment of Great British Railways will allow us to protect the long-term future of our railways, putting passengers first, not profit.
When we commit to putting passengers first, however, that must mean all passengers. That is why I strongly support amendments 70 and 71, proposed by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Last year, the Transport Committee released a worrying report on access to public transport by disabled people. The Committee estimated that more than one third of disabled people were regularly avoiding travel because they believed it would be too complicated, too unsafe, or things would be too likely to go wrong.
The amendments would require a commitment from Great British Railways and a proposed passenger council not simply to consider the interests of disabled users, but to carry out their responsibilities in a way that actively promotes their interests. Accessibility must not be viewed through the same lens as customer service, where minor delays or engineering faults are considered irritating but, unfortunately, normal. Accessibility failures should be incredible rare, and failures to meet standards should be regarded as a serious infraction of people’s rights.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend is making some important points about railway accessibility, which is also an issue for my constituents, particularly at the railway stations in Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn. That is why I added my name to new clause 23, which would have introduced a strategy to ensure full railway accessibility across the country within the next 10 years. We have been waiting far too long for our railways to be accessible. We need action now.
Jen Craft
I completely agree. We have waited since the inception of the railways for them to be accessible. As anyone who, like me, is a bit of a rail geek and enjoys a trip on a stream train of a weekend will know, railways in the past were not designed with access for all in mind, and we can and must do better.
If a train station lift breaks overnight, wheelchair users who travel regularly on the train might find themselves in a position where they are unable to travel to work or school, visit family or get to their local hospital. That is not inconvenient; it is unacceptable. The lifts are currently out of service at Tilbury in my constituency, and the solution that is being offered is for people to travel on to the next stop, change trains, go round and come back. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. This sentiment is not reflected in the way we currently talk or think about service provision for disabled people. We urgently need a change of mindset, recognising that accessibility is a non-negotiable matter—it is the bare minimum.
At my local station in Grays, we have been waiting for operational lifts for years. Although c2c received a grant under the Access for All scheme, the lifts have been a categorical failure. As the fourth most used station in the east of England and a busy transport hub, it should have the proper infrastructure. The lifts were initially promised for late 2024, but they were not delivered until August 2025. They did not work—in fact, they have never worked. They frequently break down. Now, due to quite a lot of persistence from me, they are finally being torn out and replaced.
This has had a significant impact on my disabled constituents. One woman told me that she was trapped in a lift for 35 minutes and had to be removed by firefighters, while another told me that her husband is reluctant to use the station because he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and struggles with stairs. It is just such a shame that these brand-new lifts, which were promised under an access scheme, are out of order so very often.
I am very pleased that the Bill will bring Network Rail, which is responsible for providing, servicing and now replacing these lifts, into Great British Railways. It is absolutely right that the organisation becomes part of a unified, publicly owned body that is accountable to all the passengers who rely on it. I am hopeful that this added accountability will help to foster genuine progress on accessibility.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I wonder whether I could give the hon. Lady an update from my own constituency. A year on from South Western Railway’s nationalisation, its performance metrics continue to fall. My constituents commuting to Portsmouth or Fareham can expect that one in every three journeys will be late. It is not a good sign for the Government’s nationalisation plans, especially as GBR is now marking its own homework. The trains are dirty and overcrowded, and passengers are lucky if they can find wi-fi that works. That is the lesson we have learned from the Government’s nationalisation so far.
Jen Craft
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I find that quite unusual, as, having travelled on privatised trains for a number of years, I am very familiar with dirty, unreliable trains, and GBR will finally unite rail and the networks to enable them to turn those things around, ensuring a rail network that delivers for all who use it and puts people over profit, which is absolutely fantastic.
It is absolutely crucial that there is added accountability in a rail service. If amendments 70 and 71 are given proper consideration, we could really see a turning point in how disabled people who regularly use the rail network are viewed. We have to consistently get the basics right. We need lifts that work, ramps with railings and staff on hand to help people on and off the trains. We also need these things to be reliably available.
With Great British Railways, we also have the potential to use the power of procurement to ensure that trains are fully designed to meet the needs of all passengers, instead of being designed around one bloke with a briefcase travelling to and from the office, as they were in the past. In the modern world, so many different people use the train, and we have an opportunity to have a rail network that services all who use it.
With Great British Railways, we have the opportunity to go further still by being more innovative and forward thinking in our efforts to support disabled passengers. I would like to shout out Railscape, a business operating locally to me, which has been developing an interactive model that allows neurodiverse people in particular to look around the station ahead of time. When neurodiverse people are looking at getting into the workforce and travelling to work, a huge barrier is anxiety over how to navigate a rail station—where the ticket barriers are, where to buy a ticket and so on—and this model allows them to plan ahead of their visit and see where they are going. I hope that this is the sort of work that Great British Railways will encourage and incorporate, as it is a fantastic example of how important it is to actively promote the interests of disabled people.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I would like to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
For decades, my constituents have been dealing with the consequences of the failed experiment of the privatisation of our railways. This Bill begins to put that right. At its heart is the creation of Great British Railways—a single, publicly owned body focused not on shareholders, but on the people who use the railways day in, day out. Government amendment 92 will ensure that the benefits of nationalisation are felt by passengers for decades to come. It prevents future Ministers from undoing this progress and dragging our railways back into the chaos and fragmentation of the past.
My gramps was a train driver, and my amazing auntie Michelle—Michelle Nolan McSweeny—has dedicated her career to the railways, so for me this Bill is personal. I know the pride that hard-working railway workers take in what they do. They want to deliver a quality service for their passengers, but they have been failed by a system that puts profit above people. For too long, our railways have been broken up into pieces—pieces of track, trains and operation—all working under different initiatives. That fragmentation has made it harder to plan properly, invest and deliver the railways that passengers deserve.
A railway works best when it is treated as one. We need the people who run the trains, manage the infrastructure and make investment decisions all to be working together, not pulling in different directions. Every pound generated by our railways should be focused on improving our railway network and supporting development here in the UK. It should not flow out to private interests or be used to support railways elsewhere.
Under privatisation, some of the companies operating our rail services have been owned by overseas interests, including state-linked rail companies from other countries. That means that money from UK passengers has at times helped to support transport systems and priorities outside our own country. Our railways should be an asset that strengthens the UK economy. The fares that passengers pay and the value created by our network should help to fund better services, infrastructure and connections for communities in Britain.
We can see from across Europe that a more co-ordinated approach can deliver better infrastructure. Strong infrastructure is not just about trains; it is about jobs, housing, businesses and opportunity. We are beginning to see what a different approach can achieve. Last year, South Western Railway became the first railway company under public ownership. At the end of last month, Southern Rail followed. Public ownership operators are performing better on average on punctuality and cancellations compared with those still in private ownership. Avanti, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), has cut services and remains owned by the private companies FirstGroup and Trenitalia, which are owned by the Italian state railway.
Under public ownership, South Western Railway has accelerated its plans for new trains and improved driver training, increased capacity and more space on routes into London. It will also provide information and connections to local bus, ferry and transport services to join up the systems locally. Southern Rail’s new publicly owned operator has committed to practical improvements too, including giving passengers direct access. That is welcome, but we must make sure that those promises are properly challenged and scrutinised. Passengers need improvements that they can feel every day, including value-for-money tickets, reliable information, better customer service and better access. People also expect the basics, such as decent wi-fi and connectivity on their journey.
Those improvements matter locally. In Portsmouth North, for passengers using stations such as Hilsea and Cosham, the railway is not abstract; it is a part of everyday life. It is about getting to work, getting kids to school and college, and staying connected with communities. I look forward to working with Great British Railways to ensure that those stations have full accessibility, full safety and extended facilities.
The Bill is about bringing the railways back together and simplifying a system that has become too complex, fragmented and difficult to navigate. Amendment 92 secures this system into the future. I am proud to support the Government’s mission to keep Great British Railways in public ownership and ensure that the mistakes of privatisation are not repeated.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Railways are critical for many of my constituents, and I am pleased to speak to the Government’s amendments, particularly the measures that will ensure that nationalisation fully proceeds with no scope for future partial privatisation through the back door.
I welcome this Government’s focus on the railways, as frustratingly only part of my constituency is served by rail. The major towns of Renfrew, Erskine and Inchinnan are railway deserts right now, meaning that residents have to rely on the road network. Since privatisation in 1997, railway connections have felt more fragmented. As a regular traveller southward, I understand how important it is that the Bill will enable the system to work together, as integrated transportation is currently lacking.
The strategic planning that underlines this legislation means integrated track ownership infrastructure, and better management, service and procurement, so Great British Railways will increasingly pay off. I welcome the provisions to allow Scottish Ministers to contribute to the broader strategic planning of the railway system, and the new technical amendments for the transfer of staff under TUPE, which is essential for a smooth transition.
I am encouraged by the inclusion of rail freight in the Bill. In my constituency, Russell’s, a family-run business with a massive distribution depot in Hillington Park, already makes significant use of rail for freight distribution, and it is looking to recommission the existing railway track from Hillington and get it operational once again. I am keen to explore how I can support its aim to transport freight by rail all the way from Hillington to the centre of Europe.
Keir Mather
With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice.
I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution.
GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR.
On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned.
New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency.
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region.
On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.
I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors.
New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station.
On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for meeting me and Olivia from my office to try to find a way to implement the new clause. I also thank Simon Watkins, who is vice-chair of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who has repeatedly raised the new clause’s objective with me. The Minister said earlier that GBR will be “owned by the British people and run in their interests”; does he agree that when we talk about the British people we mean all the British people and that, when the Bill proceeds to the Lords, our representative there, the Rail Minister, would be wise to—
Keir Mather
I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue.
On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute.
Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality.
On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.
New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train.
The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend will have heard representations for ensuring that, under clause 5, devolution agreements must not be unduly limited, either by the Bill or its implementation. Is he able to offer any reassurances to Transport for West Midlands and other bodies that they will continue to be part of the conversation about how the Bill is implemented?
Keir Mather
Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.
As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.
James Wild
The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.
Keir Mather
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.
Wendy Morton
I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that accountability and transparency should be at the heart of this. I think we have pointed to a bit of a discrepancy between the views of the major parties on how that should take place. It would be an interesting argument to say that, on the one hand, we did not want to micromanage the railway but then to put on the face of the Bill lots of key performance indicators that would allow us to do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the sentiment that accountability needs to run to the heart of GBR. That is what the passenger watchdog is there for: to enforce consumer standards on the railway as licence conditions for all operators. I thank her for raising that important point.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause 56, on antisocial noise. That is a debate that I certainly want to take forward, and he knows how passionate I was on that matter in Committee. I thank Members once again for their contributions and for getting the Railways Bill on track for what I am sure will be a pleasant journey through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 49
Modification of licence conditions
“For section 12 of the Railways Act 1993 substitute—
“12 Modification of licence conditions by the Office of Rail and Road
(1) The Office of Rail and Road may modify the conditions of a licence under section 8.
(2) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice—
(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications,
(b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect,
(c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made,
and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given—
(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on—
(i) each licence holder whose licence conditions are affected,
(ii) the Secretary of State,
(iii) the Scottish Ministers,
(iv) the Welsh Ministers, and
(v) the Passengers’ Council.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with subsections (2) and (3), the Office of Rail and Road decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any licence under this section.
(5) The Office of Rail and Road must—
(a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,
(b) state the effect of the modifications,
(c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and
(d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(b).
(6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the Office of Rail and Road in relation to that modification.
(7) The date specified by virtue of subsection (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this section.””—(Keir Mather.)
This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify rail operator licences, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to start my remarks with a short story. This time two years ago, like many colleagues on the Government Benches today, I was not a sitting MP. I was a parliamentary candidate standing for the first time to represent my home town of Swindon, a place with a proud railway heritage, with its people unashamedly ambitious for the future. When I stood in that election, I stood on a promise of renationalising our railways.
There were some who doubted whether we would ever do it, but as this Bill heads off to the other place for its next stage of parliamentary scrutiny, I say to the doubters that this is what change looks like: a Government doing what they said they would do in their manifesto; a Government delivering for the ordinary men and women who use our railways, the businesses that depend on our railways, and the staff who work on them; a Government replacing a privatised system, which was corroding in a state of perpetual decline, with one where there is now new hope.
When I stood at London Bridge station last December, as we unveiled the new Great British Railways branding and train livery, I saw hope in the eyes of the passengers I spoke to—hope for a better, more reliable railway; hope for an end to waiting for trains that never arrive; hope for the basics of working toilets, enough seats and simple fares—because if we are honest, hope has been in short supply on the railways for far too long. For years, the industry delivered poorer performance for higher prices. As a nation, we spent billions on upgrading infrastructure, but a fragmented system could not translate that into passenger benefits. We have had 30 reviews since 2006, all diagnosing the same problem—re-diagnosing it time and again—yet the previous Government were not able and were not willing to do the hard work to create solutions. Today, we make that change.
Thanks to this Bill, we will deliver the biggest reform to our railways in 30 years. Where there is fragmentation, we will bring integration; where decisions used to be made for private profit, they will now be made for the public good; and where passengers were forced to navigate multiple companies and unclear accountabilities, they will soon deal with one railway and one team with one mission, which is to deliver better services for the travelling public.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) and I have a hope, which is that parking at Worcestershire Parkway station can expand. We have been told by Great Western Railway that it can no longer do that, because it is now the responsibility of Great British Railways. Can the Secretary of State reassure my hon. Friend and me that the wonderful entity she is creating through this legislation will expand the parking, so that my constituents can hope for a parking place at Worcestershire Parkway?
Heidi Alexander
People obviously need to be able to get to the railway station. This Bill gives me the power to establish Great British Railways. I will talk to Great Western Railway about the issue the hon. Member raises—the company is still in private ownership—and I will write back to her with further detail.
I would like to summarise the main features of the Bill and remind Members what we have already achieved. Over half of operators are already under public control, thanks to legislation we introduced weeks after entering office. The benefits are starting to be felt: around 40 new Arterio trains on South Western, rolling stock that was sat for years in the sidings under privatisation, now released into service; performance among operators under public control now outstripping those still in private hands; pay-as-you-go ticketing being rolled out to more stations across the south-east; easier to understand fares in Greater Manchester; and passengers keeping more of their hard-earned cash thanks to the first rail fares freeze in 30 years.
This Bill will be the most significant step yet. For decades, the industry has been crying out for coherent direction and leadership. With Great British Railways that is what it will get: a single national leader co-ordinating track and train, setting timetables and fares.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new powers in the Bill, particularly on timetabling. To give an example from my patch of how the new powers could be used to improve passengers’ experience without having to build any new railway infrastructure, hundreds of people have told me that they want a faster service from Hastings to London that does not stop at every single station along the way. That could shave a long time off people’s morning commute. On the other line I represent, passengers in Rye constantly miss their connection at Ashford because of the late-arriving Marshlink service, and face either missing their train or an extremely dangerous dash through Ashford station, where people fall over. If we could better co-ordinate between Southeastern and Southern Railway, that could be alleviated.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a dogged campaigner on the railways for her constituents in Hastings and Rye. I believe her proposals are worthy of consideration by Southeastern, a company in public ownership. I would be happy to pursue that further on her behalf.
GBR will sweep away decades of inefficiency and waste. We will finally bear down on spiralling costs. We will wave goodbye to a system riddled with perverse incentives, in which armies of lawyers argue over whose fault a delay is. Instead, GBR will be a publicly owned and commercially agile company run by industry experts, not politicians. We will turn a web of competing interests into one railway that makes decisions in customers’ interest and their interest alone.
Graham Stuart
I speak to the staff on Hull Trains, which are used by the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleagues—to her left, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and to her right, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather). I speak to the customers of Hull Trains and I see the huge economic benefit that Hull Trains, an open access operator, has brought to our region and all the other areas it serves down to London. They are fearful of the perverse incentives of a GBR that does not necessarily have any regard for open access operators. What is there in the Bill to protect Hull Trains when it seeks access to rail track in future?
Heidi Alexander
I have always been clear that there is a role for open access operators on our network where they provide value for money.
If I may now turn to passengers, I am not ashamed of the fact that GBR will be obsessed with delivering for its customers. In fact, it will have a statutory duty to promote their interests. That starts with ticketing, which is currently a mind-bendingly complex system. I have said it before and I will say it again: buying a ticket should be effortless. Fares should be simple and consistent, and passengers should know they are always getting the best value—and under GBR, they will.
A new ticketing app and website will give passengers the ability to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all from the palm of their hands—no booking fees, no navigating lots of websites; just a 21st-century way of paying for a service. If passengers are let down, if accessibility falls short or if performance is not up to scratch, they will have a powerful champion fighting their corner: a strengthened passenger watchdog.
Heidi Alexander
I will not give way.
GBR will also manage access decisions in relation to track capacity, enabling us to unlock the full potential of the whole network. That also means unleashing the huge economic and environmental potential of freight. Rail remains the best way to send bulky goods long distance, which is why GBR will have a legal duty to promote rail freight in line with our 2050 target.
GBR represents a simpler, more transparent railway to do business with. No longer will suppliers need to make their case to multiple parts of the network. GBR will be the single decision maker, able to take a long-term view, giving the private sector the confidence and certainty it needs.
I finish by thanking all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill so far—particularly those on the Transport Committee for their diligent approach.
Heidi Alexander
No. I am conscious of giving time to the shadow Secretary of State.
I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee for completing the painstaking task of line-by-line scrutiny. I also thank Members on the Front Bench, as well as those sat on the Back Benches, for their vital perspectives. I particularly thank the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation for handling the passage of the Bill so dutifully and ably. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Rail Minister, and give a huge thanks to all the officials in my Department who have worked so hard to get the Bill to this stage.
This Government promised to fix what was broken in our economy and reform what does not work. That is why the Bill matters. We will fix our broken railways. While I cannot promise it will be achieved overnight, I say this: will GBR put the needs of passengers and freight users above all else? Yes, absolutely. Will passengers soon see the difference in ticketing and reliability in a railway that is easier to use? Most definitely. Will GBR help to unlock economic growth, house building and opportunity across the country? Undoubtedly. The Bill draws a line under the decline and dysfunction of the past. Today, we are bringing hope back to our railways. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out.
We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters.
Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government.
That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong.
Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.
Wendy Morton
The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point.
If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control.
Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off.
We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire.
When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway.
The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Royal Lime Trees in Walton-le-Dale
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I am delighted to present this petition on behalf of Walton-le-Dale residents in my constituency regarding the potential felling of the 18 royal lime trees that have stood for 112 years. In this petition, and in a similar, separate e-petition with almost 8,000 signatures, the petitioners believe that the Environment Agency has not sufficiently factored in local heritage in its preferred flooding solutions.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley,
Declares that the Royal Lime Trees on Victoria Road, Walton-le-Dale, Preston, which have stood for over 112 years and serve as a living memorial to the coronation of King George V and Queen Mary, form part of the community’s identity and landscape but the Environment Agency’s current plans within the Preston Flood Alleviation Scheme would see 18 trees cut down; further declares that specific modelling has not been carried out and appropriate steps not taken to gather sufficient structural or geotechnical evidence for these plans; and further declares that the current plans are intrusive on the community and natural landscape, while less disruptive alternatives have not been adequately explored.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to direct the Environment Agency to commit to an independent review of the Victoria Road design in the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme, and to provide flood defences that are environmentally responsible, respect local heritage and reduce community disruption.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003206]
National Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a privilege to lead this evening’s Adjournment debate on improving national resilience. I am also glad that the Security Minister is responding. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As we have both served in what is now the Special Forces Strike Group, albeit at different times, I know he is one of the few people in this House who has seen the sharp end of national insecurity at first hand.
It has sadly become commonplace to say that we are living through unprecedented times. The international system we have all lived under has fractured, war has broken out across multiple continents and technological upheaval and a warming planet compound to create an increasingly volatile world.
We hear repeatedly across this House that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. It is repeated so often that it risks becoming a platitude, but here is the hard question: are we actually living up to that duty here in the UK in 2026? This evening, I will set out why I believe we are falling short and, more importantly, what we might do about it and how we might build a country and citizenship resilient enough to meet the growing and interconnected number of threats to our homeland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member. Resilience is about not just defence but health. To cast the mind of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House back to the national emergency of covid-19, the report of the UK covid inquiry mentioned “fatal strategic flaws”. The NHS did not collapse, although it came close and patients often did not receive the standard of care that they were due, and that led to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Does the hon. Member not agree that serious concerns about the lack of the health service’s effective surge capacity need to be addressed in anticipation of another national health emergency and to secure national resilience in the face of medical uncertainty?
David Reed
The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally.
The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services.
Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun.
One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places.
We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well:
“You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.”
As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. Clearly, the UK faces malign threats from Russia, from China and especially from Iran, as recent examples have shown. I commend the Government for bringing forward the tackling state threats Bill—reportedly next Wednesday, but we will see the business statement tomorrow—that will allow us to deal with the threats, but the public do not necessarily know just how severe they are. Does he agree that, as well as dealing with the threats, we need to educate the public on just how threatening these state actors are and why we need to deal with them now?
David Reed
There must have been a leak, because I am going to come on to that paragraph straight away.
Beyond the issue of funding, the obvious question that flows from this is who in Government should take the lead in having that conversation with the public about the panoply of threats that we face. That leads to the central argument of this debate: is the British state structured to deal effectively with them? I accept that the machinery of government is a surefire way to send those in this Chamber to sleep, but it is central to the direction of travel we must take.
I was waiting with bated breath to see who the Government would send to respond to the debate this evening, because logic would dictate that the Minister responding should come from the Department that the Prime Minister has charged with leading the national conversation on resilience. Here lies the first problem. The Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. His portfolio is broad, but it clearly does not cover anywhere near the full range of threats set out in the Government’s own definition of national resilience.
The Cabinet Office has a resilience directorate, which does important work co-ordinating civil contingency planning, crisis management and emergency response across national and local levels. I would not diminish the work that it does for a moment, but let us consider its design: a directorate for preparedness and a Cobra unit for crisis response. Risk and response. Notice what is missing. There is machinery to assess the threat and machinery to manage the emergency, but nowhere is anyone charged with turning to the public and saying, “Here is the threat we face, here is your part in it, and here is what is being done in your name.” The national conversation that we need therefore finds no natural home. It does not emanate from the directorates whose remit is risk and response; nor has the Ministry of Defence acted on the strategic defence review’s own call for a national conversation on defence and resilience.
The result is a system in which responsibility is spread so thinly that no single Minister owns the problem. The danger of that is not merely administrative tidiness but that when a crisis strikes, command and control will fracture at precisely the moment it must hold. For example, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—which hands the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping new powers to direct critical entities—illustrates the trend rather than reversing it. Individual Departments are accruing resilience powers of their own, with each cooking up policies to support their own patch. A whistle must be blown on this approach, because we risk spreading responsibility through legislation so thinly that no one truly understands where it lies.
When I speak to civil servants—all of whom want to see a stronger and safer country—I notice that the word “resilience” has itself become something of a buzzword, a phrase to attach to a business case to secure a bigger departmental budget. That is a sign of a system without a clear centre of gravity, not of one that is working. That led me to research in depth how our near neighbours have approached this problem—countries with national stories like our own and populations whose memories of insecurity have faded, just as ours have.
The clearest exemplar I found is Denmark. The Danes have grasped something that we have not yet acted upon: in an age of interconnected threats—where cyber-attacks become supply shocks become public-safety emergencies—danger no longer respects departmental boundaries. For decades they had run, as we still do, on a principle of sectoral responsibility—each Department minding risk in its own lane. They concluded that a system in which everyone is responsible is one in which, in practice, no one is.
In August 2024, the Danes acted, creating a dedicated ministry of resilience and preparedness, the first of its kind in the region, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. Within months, they established a resilience agency beneath it, drawing scattered functions into one organisation—one ministry, one Cabinet Minister, one clear line of accountability.
If truth be told, it is too early to say with certainty whether the model delivers the better outcomes that the Danes expect. The real test will come in the next crisis, not the last reorganisation. But the logic is sound because the alternative—broadly what we have—is a system where resilience is everyone’s second priority and nobody’s first. As someone who wants to see a smaller and sharper state, the answer is not a new layer of governance, but collapsing many duplicated ones into a single, accountable home. It is an idea that the Government should actively investigate.
I have also been struck by how our Danish and Dutch friends have begun to share the responsibility for resilience with their citizens, reinforcing civic duty in a far more deliberate way than we do here in the UK. Both have started speaking plainly to their people about preparedness and, strikingly, they tell them much the same thing: “Be ready to look after yourself for three days, or 72 hours.” The Dutch Government now tell every household to hold enough to manage for 72 hours in the event of war, a cyber-attack or a major disaster—things such as water, food, medication, a battery radio, some cash and key documents. They did not merely issue advice; they delivered a printed survival guide to every door and published it online in dozens of languages. Its message was carefully chosen, and the aim, Ministers said, is not to frighten people but to prepare them, because those who think through the first 72 hours of a crisis feel safer, not more fearful. The campaign’s slogan is simple: “Think Ahead”.
Denmark’s advice is almost identical, and the reasoning is the same: if ordinary people can get through the first three days, the authorities can concentrate on those who cannot. Denmark sent that guidance to every adult through its secure Government messaging system and placed 300,000 printed copies in libraries and public offices. It does not shy away from naming why, either. Its Defence Minister told Danes plainly that they and their allies face hybrid war and that each of us should prepare to be without power, water or shops for a short while. In both countries, the principle is the same: resilience is not something the state can simply hand to its people; it is a habit that the public must share in.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this debate and in particular for his focus on the need for cross-Government action and to address the range of threats we face. Does he agree that as part of the resilience planning, addressing the risks attached to climate breakdown and nature collapse are absolutely central? On his point about transparency, does he agree that the two suppressed reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ futures team need to be made available if the Government and Members across parties are to work clearly to address these issues and inform the public?
David Reed
The hon. Member raises an important point. For anyone who understands the science and sees the effects globally, climate change is happening, the planet is warming up, and we will all feel the effects of a heating planet. What that does to our critical national infrastructure, to businesses and how they operate, and to our energy systems will be profound, and it is something that I do not think we talk about enough. We talked about it a great deal a few years ago, but it sort of slid off the agenda. However, I also understand the challenges that the Government are facing at the moment: there are international threats, which seem to be conjoining, and climate change seems to be a further away problem. I understand the issues, and I hope the Minister can draw that subject in to show the interconnection of threats and how we will deal with them.
The uncomfortable part is that in terms of national messaging Britain has said and tried to do the same thing, but we say the words without a plan behind them, the public get alarmed, the moment passes, and nothing changes. Denmark and the Netherlands said those words and built them into the life of the nation, and that, in a sentence, is the difference between talking about resilience and doing it.
Let me close with three concrete asks of the Government. First, will the Minister confirm whether any Department or Minister has been formally charged with delivering the national conversation on resilience called for by the strategic defence review? If not, that gap must be filled—I think we would all agree on that. Secondly, will the Government commission a review, led from the centre, into whether the current dispersal of resilience responsibilities across Whitehall is fit for purpose, with the Danish and Dutch models considered explicitly? Thirdly, will the Government speak plainly to the British public about the threats we face, and back those words with a sustained public preparedness campaign, not a single statement that fades within a week, but a message built into the life of the nation?
I return to the statement that is made repeatedly in this House, which is that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. Meeting that duty requires a state that is structured to lead, and a public who are prepared to follow. We are not yet that country, but I have faith we can be.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I begin by paying tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for his previous service, including in the special forces support group. I also thank him for bringing this vital matter to the House, as this debate is central to our national security and our duty to the public. He made a number of helpful and important points. I completely understand why he mentioned the importance of the national conversation, and he can expect to hear much more about that shortly. He was also right to draw a comparison with other countries, and I am proud that many of the UK’s resilience structures and capabilities serve as examples of best practice. For example, the National Situation Centre, established under the previous Government, is highly regarded internationally, and the UK Resilience Academy, which I visited just the other day, is an important part of the skills and engagement offer.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Crystal Palace transmitting station in my constituency is such an iconic feature of our south London skyline that people often refer to it as Crystal Paris. It is also vital communications infrastructure. Will the Minister join me in recognising it not only for its everyday role in broadcasting television and radio to millions across our capital and beyond, but also for the contribution that such infrastructure makes to our national resilience in times of crisis and emergency, when trusted, reliable communications matter more than ever? Will he also join me in thanking the engineers, technicians, operators and all the staff who maintain and run that critical national infrastructure, often behind the scenes, ensuring that the public stay informed, connected and safe?
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work done at the Crystal Palace transmitting station. As he knows better than I, it is an iconic feature of south London, so I am happy to take the opportunity to thank all those involved for their work ensuring that the public stay informed, connected and safe. While I am on that subject, let me also thank all those who work at Emley Moor in West Yorkshire who do similar work. I was privileged to meet them just the other day.
Let me return to the remarks by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East about international comparisons. There are many similarities with our international partners, but as he will acknowledge, each nation’s approach is influenced by its history, geography, and societal approach to resilience.
Building on the good work of the previous Government, we have set out our strategic vision on resilience. Take for example our work following the covid-19 inquiry: we considered the findings and made deliberate updates to our resilience plans, including strengthening our relationships with the devolved Governments through the four nations ministerial group.
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise, successive Governments have for more than 20 years anchored the national security risk assessment as the foundation of their approach to the complex resilience landscape. That landscape continues to evolve and the risks that we face today are volatile, varied and interconnected. They include cyber-attacks, threats to energy security, global supply chain pressures and, of course, armed conflict. I am pleased to be able to talk about the Government’s approach to those areas, but first let me say something in response to the hon. Gentleman about accountability.
Under the lead Department model, each risk is owned by a single Department, ensuring those with the relevant expertise are responsible for the work to keep us protected against that particular risk. To support that, the Government will publish a refreshed expectation set for lead Departments. That will clarify how they are expected to deliver their responsibilities, as well as the role of other Departments in supporting them.
The Government have also taken steps to clarify accountability and enhance our readiness for the highest impact whole-of-system crises. We have explicitly embedded the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book, and we have strengthened governance on risk planning and mapped key cascading impacts of catastrophic risk to ensure a true whole-of-Government response, so if a catastrophe should happen, no Department can be in any doubt about its role.
Let us take a national power outage as an example. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero remains the lead Department across the whole risk cycle, from assessment to recovery, and continues to lead on the Government’s relationship with the energy sector. The role of the Cabinet Office is to step in to help lead the response, given the significant cross-cutting impacts that a national power outage would bring. That central co-ordination function allows all responding Departments to respond to their impacted areas, with the Cabinet Office providing situational reporting of the whole-system impacts of the risk. That way, the Government collectively understands and is prepared for the risks that the UK faces.
The Cabinet Office also leads on the overall response to severe weather. This is underpinned by the severe weather resilience network, where crucial inputs from the Met Office, which I know the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, are shared with individual Departments that lead on the response planning and resilience of the sectors that they represent. That ensures that when the weather turns, our response is unified, rapid and robust.
Our work is not just about how we plan for responding to emergencies; we have informed our understanding of their impact as well. We know that emergencies impact people unequally, and to address that we have developed the risk vulnerability tool and provided further guidance to local resilience forums, so that they can better identify and support those who are most vulnerable.
The UK Government are proud to be a part of an international community in which we can both learn from others and share our learnings, but I would not want anyone listening to think that planning and response is all down to Departments. Local resilience forums are a critical part of our resilience system. In fact, the stronger LRF trailblazers programme moves beyond legacy structures to build a local network that is agile, accountable and capable of protecting citizens at the neighbourhood level. The resilience action plan envisages a whole-of-society approach, redefining national resilience as a shared mission where citizens, communities, civil society, businesses and the public sector all play a vital and active role.
Finally, building a truly resilient society requires a fundamental cultural shift in the way that emergency preparedness is thought about. That includes being clear about the risks that we face and the actions that we can all take to improve our collective resilience.
Adrian Ramsay
On the point about transparency, the Joint Intelligence Committee’s national security assessment was partially released in January—it was a redacted version—only after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. That report highlighted that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are a threat to national security. What action is being taken following that report? In particular, when will the full version of the report be made available to Members of this House?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Let me give an undertaking to come back with the technical detail about the report that he has raised, but I hope he can be assured of the seriousness that the Government attach to such matters. All of us in this place, I hope, understand the nature of the climate crisis and the impact it is having now and will have in the future, and we in Government have an absolute responsibility to ensure that we are properly prepared for that.
The Government’s Prepare website provides guidance on the actions recommended for individuals, households and communities to increase their own preparedness and resilience. This debate highlights something fundamental: resilience is not an abstract policy objective, but, I hope, a shared national endeavour. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has spoken powerfully about the importance of strengthening national resilience in the face of evolving risks. We share his determination, and I would be very happy to continue the conversation with him about these matters.
Let me give the hon. Member some further assurance. Next month, the Government will make their annual statement to Parliament on resilience, which will provide a detailed update on the progress we have been making to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months or so. I hope that will go some way further to address the points that he has made, but, regardless, I give him and the House an assurance that we will continue to learn, adapt and build a robust future for the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.