Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Great British Railways will create a railway run by the people for the people, turning the tide on a decade of decline under the previous Government. Eighty per cent of the rail journeys that will ultimately be run by GBR are now being run by publicly owned operators, and we are already seeing more reliable services as a result.
Mike Reader
The Minister will be aware that freight services using East West Rail infrastructure already terminate at Northampton Gateway. Will the Minister work with me to ensure Northampton is included in East West Rail’s long-term vision for passenger services, ensuring connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on this issue. He will know that, as set out in the recent project consultation, East West Rail services are not currently planned to serve Northampton. However, current work does not preclude that, and East West Rail will provide important interchanges with major rail lines. I would be very keen to work with my hon. Friend as he seeks to take this campaigning issue further.
Jeff Smith
We in the north have waited a long time for the trans-Pennine route upgrade—it is very important to us in Manchester, and very welcome. What progress can we expect on improving journey times and reliability and reducing cancellations, and what more investment can we expect to improve facilities for passengers across the north?
Keir Mather
The Department is investing in multimillion-pound rail infrastructure improvements across the north, including in Manchester. The £11 billion investment in the trans-Pennine route upgrade will electrify the 76-mile route between Manchester and York, increasing capacity and improving reliability with faster, cleaner and more frequent trains.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I dare not think how many years of my constituents’ lives have been given over to points failures and signal failures, and the confusion that follows, on the line between Waterloo and the south coast. What can Ministers do about it?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for his tireless advocacy on this important matter on behalf of his constituents. We need a railway that gets people where they need to go, on time and in an efficient manner. If he writes to me in more detail about the points failures that are affecting his constituents, I would be glad to pick that issue up with the Rail Minister.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Safety concerns are blighting passenger rail services. Constituents working at Leicester train station have raised serious concerns about security gaps, particularly the near impossibility of reaching transport police during emergencies. With nearly 80,000 offences recorded on our railways in 2023 and 2024 and the RMT reporting staff being punched, threatened, spat at and abused simply for doing their jobs, what assessment have Ministers made of whether private security contractors at railway stations have the enforcement powers they need to keep both passengers and workers safe?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. The safety of staff and passengers on our railway is of the utmost importance to this Government, and we are committed to working with the British Transport police to make that a reality. Although in some regards the statistics are positive—theft at railway stations has reduced—the hon. Member is right that there is always work to do to ensure our staff can deliver the railway services we need without fear of being assaulted. I will certainly pick up his point about security staff at stations and share whatever assessment I can make in writing.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Last night, the Secretary of State claimed that the arrival of the class 701s at South Western Railway was an example of what a nationalised railway could do. As she well knows, those trains were ordered back in 2017 by a private company from a private company, using private finance. Her only involvement was some garish vinyl wrap and to turn up and claim the credit, all while ordering Avanti West Coast and, now, Govia Thameslink to cut services to the public. She told us that nationalisation would be
“more than a paint job”
and that passengers would come first. Why has she done the exact opposite?
Keir Mather
The trains that the shadow Minister references were sat in the sidings for years, underused, and have been brought into service by this Government. If he wants to improve the passenger experience and make sure that promoting the interests of passengers and future passengers on the railway is at the heart of how our system operates, he should have done the right thing and voted for the Railways Bill on Third Reading yesterday.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to yesterday’s vote. Last night, he and his Secretary of State ordered Labour Members to vote against the protection of rail discounts for veterans and their families. He told us that the Government have “no plans” to cancel veterans’ railcards. At the last general election, Labour had no plans for a family farm tax or to raise our taxes—in fact, they had no plan for how to govern the country. Surely that is all the more reason to protect veterans in the Railways Bill, so why will the Secretary of State and the Minister not stand up for our brave veterans?
Keir Mather
It is disappointing that the shadow Minister fails to recognise the fact that I confirmed at this Dispatch Box last night that none of the existing concessionary schemes for veterans are changing. More than that, we accepted a fantastic recommendation from a colleague on the other side of the House to increase the entitlements available for veterans and their families when attending Remembrance Sunday services. This Government are putting veterans and their families at the heart of our rail network.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Young people in Oxford, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes are sitting their exams, but they continue to not be able to use a train to get to school or for leisure, despite this phase of East West Rail opening 18 months ago. I have a little exam question for the Minister. What timescale will the Government commit to for the start of regular passenger services: Andy Burnham returning to the House of Commons, a change of Prime Minister, the formal creation of Great British Railways, or the next general election?
Keir Mather
I understand that Chiltern Railways is leading negotiations on this important issue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient about the need to get people where they need to go in his constituency. The Government are committed to trying to deliver at pace in collaboration with stakeholders, and I will ensure that he is kept abreast of any developments.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
While we bring passenger services into public ownership, we have frozen rail fares so that passengers can travel for less this summer—the first fares freeze in 30 years, saving passengers £600 million. Alongside that, our £3 bus fare cap and free bus travel for children in August will help families make the most of the holidays. For road users, we are also keeping costs down by continuing the freeze on fuel duty for the rest of this year.
John Milne
Train travel to the south coast increases significantly in the summer months, but Horsham sits on a line to the south that faces severe delays and cancellations. Govia Thameslink’s forecasts show demand continuing to rise sharply. Without a resolution to the notorious Croydon bottleneck, we risk undermining economic growth and confidence in public transport. Where does Croydon sit in the Government’s priorities, and will the Minister commit to finally advancing these long-promised, endlessly postponed works?
Keir Mather
I understand that some of these temporary changes reflect lower summer demand, which falls by around 6% overall and 15% in peak periods. Aligning services to that reduced usage enables a more cost-efficient timetable. It reduces taxpayer subsidy and it unlocks savings. The hon. Member is right to point to where that might be causing an impact for his constituents, so I would be glad to pick that up with him to see what more we can do to advance the pace of works that affect his constituency.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned about the reduction in Thameslink services serving Slade Green and Abbey Wood during the six weeks of the school summer holidays. Is it possible to review the decision? Given that both Southeastern and Thameslink are in public ownership, will the Minister outline how their timetables and services can be better integrated at Slade Green to improve punctuality and journey times for my constituents?
Keir Mather
There is always more to be done to unlock more benefits from a cost-efficient timetable, and I recognise the importance of good-quality rail services to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I will ask the Rail Minister to write to him to set out what is possible in this particular case.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The new timetable improves capacity and journey times along the east coast main line, delivering over 60,000 additional weekly seats. Overall connectivity at Berwick has been strengthened, with more frequent regional services and better connections to Newcastle. CrossCountry now provides an hourly service, and TransPennine Express has increased the number of services between Newcastle and Edinburgh from five to eight a day in each direction, with further improvements planned.
John Lamont
In a survey I conducted in the Borders about Network Rail’s new timetable changes, more than 70% of residents said they were now less likely to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station as a result. The timetable changes mean fewer direct services to London, with many passengers having to change trains. This is having a significant impact on elderly train users and disabled train users. Does the Minister agree that, if his plan for Great British Railways is to be a success, frequent and reliable services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London need to be reinstated?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for championing the needs of both elderly residents and people with disabilities, but also everybody who uses those direct services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London. I know that a small number of direct services have been cut, and I appreciate the fact that he has been doing community outreach on this important point. I suggest that he shares the results with LNER and Network Rail, which can use his findings to inform future planning, but I am very happy to work with him further on this important issue.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Decarbonising transport is vital for our energy security and to make the network fit for the future. We are turbocharging the roll-out of electric vehicles, overhauling public transport, supporting low carbon fuel uptake in aviation, and funding technology innovation for maritime through the multimillion-pound UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research programme.
Amanda Martin
Portsmouth international port has invested significantly in shore power infrastructure, supported by Government funding, to enable ships to connect to grid electricity while berthed, rather than run diesel engines. However, the high cost of electricity is threatening to render the entire investment worthless. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that shore power infrastructure at UK ports is economically viable, given that grid transmission standing charges make shore power significantly more expensive than marine diesel and transmission costs nearly doubled in April?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is an absolute champion for Portsmouth international port and I am sure that she will be thinking of its 50th anniversary celebrations next week, when it will be bringing its pioneering work with Britanny Ferries on this issue to fruition. I recognise, however, that high electricity prices can impact the economic viability of shore power in the short term. The Government are working to improve shore power connection times, and will continue to engage with the sector and across Government on mitigating high electricity costs. UK SHORE, our £448 million investment in decarbonising maritime, will allow applicants to include onsite energy generation and battery storage to help reduce costs.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?
Keir Mather
We believe that the benefits of having electric rolling stock for our train services actually allow us to improve efficiency on the railway, and I hope that those improvements can be realised for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Department has not made an assessment of the potential merits of providing UV index alerts on public information boards at transport hubs. UV guidance and forecasts are published by the UK Health Security Agency and the Met Office. They are included in TV and radio weather reporting and can be readily accessed on a range of weather apps.
Carolyn Harris
One of the key findings of the recent beauty, hair and wellbeing all-party parliamentary group UV safety report was that the public do not fully understand the UV index. With evidence showing that over 86% of skin cancer is entirely preventable, the report recommends that daily UV ratings be widely advertised across communities, including transport hubs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how that could help to educate and protect the public, and ultimately save lives?
Keir Mather
I know my hon. Friend is producing a report on this critical matter and I would be very glad to meet her to discuss its findings. We ought to take every opportunity to ensure that people understand the impact of UV on their skin health, so I look forward to meeting her to discuss those findings further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer and the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for bringing this issue forward. She always brings forward incredible issues for us all to be aware of. The figures for skin cancer in Northern Ireland are rising, and she has brought UV index alerts to the Minister’s attention. It is important that he takes action after discussing the matter with the hon. Lady, but after that meeting will he convey his thoughts to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that Ministers there do the same thing that the hon. Lady wants? If she wants it, then, in my opinion, we should support her.
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is right to say that skin cancer affects people across the United Kingdom and we need to work as one United Kingdom to deal with it. I will certainly take what I learn from my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East and reflect it through to colleagues in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Court of Appeal’s judgment made clear that the current arrangements could not continue, but we are committed to protecting volunteers who preserve a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Members across the House to ensure that we continue to have volunteers at the heart of our seafaring nation.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Keir Mather
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member, with whom I work productively on a number of issues in this space. He will be aware that the MCA is responding to a Court of Appeal judgment that made it clear that the current arrangement could not legally continue. We believe that protecting volunteering preserves one of the most valuable forms of public service, which he outlines. I look forward to working with him to support those volunteers.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Minister will know that I have been campaigning on the availability of driving tests, so I was pleased to see this week that our changes have released driving tests back into the system. Will he update me on how the demand for tests in my North West Leicestershire constituency will be matched with the supply of new driving tests?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. Coastguards in my constituency were told only last week that they are to lose their remuneration, and they are furious that their specialist skills and dedication are now being undervalued. I heard the Minister say earlier that he was prepared to meet colleagues from across the House. I hope that the offer is extended to all colleagues with coastguard stations, because the risk to recruitment and retention, as well as to the work of other emergency services, such as the police, needs to be clearly understood.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady’s question reflects the strength of feeling across the House about the volunteers who man the coastguard, as well as about the need to ensure that the consequences of the judgment are fully understood and volunteers get the support they need. I would be glad to meet her. I should also note that the chief executive of the MCA will be doing a drop-in with Members of Parliament; I will ensure that the details are shared with her.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Residents in Hertford and Stortford tell me that their bus services are too often irregular or delayed, causing unnecessary disruption and stress. I welcome the £19.5 million allocated to Hertfordshire county council through the local authority bus grant last year, but will the Minister say a bit more about how we will work with the Lib Dem administration to ensure that the money is used effectively, and about what this Labour Government are doing to improve bus services in semi-rural communities such as mine?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is Transport questions—there must be a link somewhere. Good luck, Minister.
Keir Mather
While I think this is, in the main, an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Gentleman is right that coastal erosion can affect a variety of transport infrastructure, including our ports. The forthcoming national policy statement for ports will address the issue he raises.
Mr Speaker
I think it is his kayak—he cannot get it because of the erosion.
Railways Bill
Keir Mather ExcerptsWednesday 10th June 2026
(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
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.
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.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
Keir Mather Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-strained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports: the main five London airports as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester. The regulations are deemed necessary in the context of the ongoing conflict in the middle east, which continues to create disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector. The Government have therefore designed a slots hand-back measure for the summer and winter 2026 seasons that allows airlines to return a proportion of their slots without losing the right to the same slots the following year. The regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations.
The ongoing conflict in the middle east has created significant disruption to aviation. Airlines face longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and in some cases shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. Those developments remain unpredictable and continue to place pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are outside the control of airlines but nevertheless affect their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond effectively to known risks to their operations, and passengers could face last-minute cancellations and disruption at departure gates. The regulations respond directly to that uncertainty by providing limited, targeted flexibility while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The regulations allow airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the United Kingdom. Those are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times exceeds available capacity. Airlines will be able to hand back slots without losing their historical entitlement to those same slots in the following equivalent season.
The 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under the regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance: it provides airlines with flexibility to adjust schedules in response to the impacts of the conflict in the middle east, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is strictly time-limited.
The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland, and there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. It raised some comments that I will briefly address. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views were received. Although many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers therefore concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.
On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures. Where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or re-routing. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations, but this measure addresses that gap.
On the final points that were raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. The powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Replacement powers are being sought through the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill and any future use will depend on prevailing circumstances.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulation informally through the pre-laying scrutiny period. It will be considered by the Committee this Wednesday, and we are not expecting concerns to be raised.
The policy intent behind the measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. The regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights and remove the pressure to operate services purely to retain slots. They also help to protect connectivity, as airport slots underpin route networks built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historical rights despite temporary disruption ensures that those connections can be restored when conditions stabilise. Finally, they support the financial stability of airlines. Without these measures, airlines could be forced to operate loss-making flights or risk losing valuable slots, neither of which would be beneficial for the sector or for passengers. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what is essentially a pickle of the Government’s own making. We will not divide on the regulations because we recognise that there is a real problem that has to be solved. But rather than fiddling around with emergency statutory instruments to plug a gap, the real problem is the Government’s running down of the domestic energy sector and our ability to refine jet-grade oil and supply our airline industry.
We need to rejuvenate our energy sector, encouraging the investment and business conditions that will allow refineries to reopen. That is essential to manage the challenges posed by fuel shortages—I am thinking of Stanlow, Fawley, Pembroke and others. We have the ability to refine jet fuel in this country; we just need to expand it. The problem with the Government’s other policies on energy is that they are making it so expensive to operate energy-intensive businesses such as oil refining in this country that the industry has voted with its feet and left in a large percentage. We do not actually need less jet fuel than before the conflict in the middle east began. In fact, the spiralling cost of the carbon tax has meant that refineries are struggling to remain open. That will only increase our reliance on imports and make us vulnerable to geopolitical concerns around the strait of Hormuz.
If we want to support our oil refining sector, we must start by removing the additional costs, such as the carbon tax, while backing our North sea oil and gas industry to support the energy ecosystem that we rely on. That includes licences for new exploration and drilling. However, we have seen little evidence of that—in fact, quite the opposite in the case of the North sea, with the Government’s baffling legislative proposal on new licences.
Given the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling the fundamental issue, they have turned to these regulations, which have had the unfortunate consequence of dividing the opinions of airlines and airports. While airlines broadly support the proposals, we should acknowledge—as I hope the Minister will—the ongoing and significant concerns of airports. Those concerns have increased over the near two years of this Government’s rule, because of their mix of anti-business mandates and enormous increases to business rates, which have imposed significant costs on airports, even if they have managed to avoid the preposterous increases that were originally set out. The increases will create further challenges for regional airports, which face some of the steepest charges. We only have to look at Heathrow, which had an initial proposal of a 350% increase in its business rates.
The combination of measures has made airports wary, so it is unsurprising that they have concerns about the concept of an increased number of flights being cancelled under a new regime, with the cost of those empty slots being borne by the airports. I understand that this goes to the winter of 2027, though I think the Minister said June 2026. I may have misheard him, so perhaps he could clarify—
Jerome Mayhew
If we could have a bit more clarity on that, I would be grateful.
The director of the Airports Council International Europe went so far as to say:
“The UK Government is effectively handing airlines a carte blanche to cut services and not deliver their schedules, leaving passengers, communities and airports to bear the full brunt.”
Although I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, that is a strong argument and deserves a direct response from the Minister about how he will maintain the balance through these regulations.
We all appreciate the importance of airport slot alleviation, particularly if there are significant fuel shortages, so I will not oppose the regulations today. Nevertheless, the proposals have been introduced in such a way that I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a few of the issues. That includes whether there are sufficient protections for travellers under the 14-day window, and whether he is confident that the system will work as intended and we will not see people’s holidays more disrupted than necessary over the summer period. In addition, I would be interested in hearing his rationale for extending the period into the winter when the peak period for flights is during the summer. Would it have been feasible to make changes at a later date, particularly if the Government get around to passing their Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill in a more timely manner than they appear to be doing at the moment?
Ultimately, the Government are right to ensure that there is flexibility when there is a crisis, but we have been repeatedly told that there is not a jet fuel shortage. That is always liable to change, but those comments raise fair questions from the sector about the appropriateness of the regulations that the Government propose. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the concerns of airports, and, frankly, my concerns about the risk posed to the travelling public, so that there can be clarity about the necessity of these measures beyond the existing alleviation rules.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for their remarks. I will deal with each point they raised in turn.
First, on the question about timing asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I confirm that the slot alleviation measures will be extended to winter 2026. I find his link to broader questions on the refining sector admirably creative, but I am not sure that they have a direct bearing on the measures that we are considering. Our domestic refineries are still able to produce kerosene and jet fuel to a solid and viable extent. I remind him that we are not passing these measures directly in response to a shortage of jet fuel, but to pre-empt any future shortages that may arise, even though we believe that the supply is currently as it should be.
I also remind the hon. Member that we implemented a similar pre-emptive framework during the covid-19 pandemic to deal with similar disruption. This is a measured approach to be able to manage any potential fluctuations in supply as they occur.
The hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Sutton and Cheam are right to point to the concerns raised by airports through the consultation and to consumer protections for the travelling public. I will address both of those points together. We very much recognise airports’ concerns about the potential impacts. That is why these measures are strictly temporary, limited in scope and affect only a small proportion of slots—up to 10%.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed to the fact that a lot of airlines thought that the figure should be higher. The Government took a different view to make sure that the impact on the airports sector is contained.
Allowing these regulations to reallocate slots that are handed back ensures that airport capacity is not wasted. That provides flexibility for airlines while ensuring that we have efficient use of airport infrastructure. We believe that 10% strikes the right balance.
On passenger protections, airlines are required to provide passengers with at least 14 days’ notice of any flight cancellations, but that is not the intention of this policy. It is designed so that airlines have a longer lead-in time to be able to see where potential disruption might lie, and to be able to reallocate those slots efficiently to protect the travelling public and ultimately give them more security and better forewarning about disruption, where it may occur.
Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, passengers are entitled to a choice between a full refund or being re-routed under comparable transport conditions to their final destination at no extra cost.
The shadow Minister asked why winter, and why the measures do not extend just to the summer. There is an important point about using the retained EU law functions that we have now to ensure that we have a long-term approach to managing disruption across the rest of the year. As he pointed out, measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will provide us with greater flexibility on slot reform, which we can use going forward.
On the Lib Dem spokesperson’s points on JNUS—I have never said JNUS out loud before—the justified non-utilisation of slots is triggered when a fuel shortage is materially occurring. The regulations give us a forward look that allows us to build in contingencies well in advance, and not just when a fuel shortage reaches its bite point. That is why a longer-term approach is necessary, but he is right to hold my feet to the fire.
Luke Taylor
There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public.
The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument.
Question put.
CAA Annual Progress Report for 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Modernising our airspace is a priority for this Government, and the upgrades that have been made to date are already providing improved reliability to services and helping to deliver our climate and environmental obligations. The benefits of modernisation do not stop at conventional passenger aircraft—they will also enable the safe integration of emerging aviation technologies, future-proofing our skies for the next generation of aircraft and making meaningful contributions towards our net zero targets.
Modernisation has an important role in ensuring that the growth of UK aviation proceeds in a sustainable manner, minimising where possible noise impacts for communities and emissions through more efficient flightpaths.
As the programme enters its third year following the refresh of the airspace modernisation strategy, there continues to be considerable progress. Some of the most significant developments include:
The establishment of the UK airspace design service, which will deliver holistic and modernised airspace design for the complex London terminal airspace by taking forward airports’ airspace change proposals in a co-ordinated manner.
The creation of a new UK airspace support fund to cover relevant costs of the sponsors of eligible ACPs that are outside the scope of the UKADS.
Progress being made by the 18 airports advancing their ACPs as part of the terminal airspace redesign element, with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports conducting their consultations.
Work progressing well on enabling the full integration of UK airspace, including supporting the safe integration of new airspace users, like drones. The CAA consulted on beyond visual line of sight operations for unmanned aircraft systems and work has begun mandating the carriage of electronic conspicuity technology.
The funding of six new projects to support the development of integration and beyond visual line of sight operations.
The publication in August 2025 of the updated part 3 of the strategy, consisting of the deployment plan outlining the delivery milestones for projects in progress or due to commence over the next seven years.
The airspace modernisation annual progress report, prepared by the CAA, is required by the Secretary of State for Transport and provides details of the progress made within the programme, as well as the policy development work carried out by the CAA against each of the AMS’s elements. This report covers the period from January to December 2025.
It provides a clear overview of the progress that has been delivered across the nine delivery elements and the multiple projects within each one. It also illustrates areas of delay or concern and what mitigations and measures are in place to reduce them. The full report is available on the CAA website.
Since 2022, the Department for Transport has placed the annual progress report in both Libraries as a record of the workstreams initiated and work carried out. However, as the programme has matured and gained momentum, many aspects have become business as usual activities.
This written ministerial statement therefore represents the final time the CAA’s annual progress report will be placed in both Libraries. The CAA will continue to produce the report and publish it on its website with appropriate publicity.
[HCWS76]
Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
Keir Mather Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March 2026.
The United Kingdom was a founding signatory to the Paris memorandum of understanding in 1982 and a member of its predecessor since the late 1970s. The Paris MOU is a well-established international framework for inspecting foreign ships that call at member states’ ports, ensuring that international standards that reduce risks to health, safety and the environment are met. This is known as port state control. It formalises intelligence sharing on substandard ships and issues, and it adds weight to enforcement action taken by the United Kingdom by also impacting those vessels internationally.
The purpose of the draft regulations is to replace the existing 2011 regulations, which currently give effect to the Paris MOU requirements in UK law. The new regulations contain an expanded list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written. Those conventions have separate effect in UK law but are now referenced in the draft regulations in order to ensure that the legislative framework for undertaking port state control inspections is up to date.
The draft regulations also remove references to EU legislation and instead reference the Paris MOU directly. The 2011 regulations were made partly using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations are made using powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and, to the extent necessary, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers. The Paris MOU uses a risk-based scheme for targeting visiting ships for inspection and includes powers to exclude from ports ships that are persistently substandard. The UK’s participation in the port state control regime is an obligation of the UK under the Paris MOU, and it is also a valuable defence against substandard ships visiting UK ports.
Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI has noted the regulations but provided no further comments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
There remains little else to say, other than that I have set out the purpose and scope of the draft regulations, which revoke, replace and update the 2011 regulations. The draft regulations will continue to uphold the UK’s commitments to international standards. I commend them to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister both for his support for the measures and for his concern for my welfare over the last few weeks. To quote one of the five Prime Ministers who graced these halls during the 14 years of chaos and disarray under the Conservative party, he is right to say, in relation to the draft regulations, that “nothing has changed.” He is right to push me further on additional regulatory improvements that can ease doing business for UK shipping companies and seafarers. I am unashamedly ambitious to grow the UK flag to make this country a more attractive place for shipping firms to do business, and I am glad that he will be holding my feet to the fire as we attempt to do so.
The shadow Minister is also right that we must retain the UK’s fantastic reputation for safety and compliance with international obligations, without imposing onerous costs on businesses. He also points to the critical issue of the supply of marine fuel. I reassure him that it was a consistent theme during my week in Singapore for Maritime Week, in my engagement with shipping companies that have large interests in UK maritime and with other Government stakeholders. It is something that teams in the Department for Transport keep under constant review, in collaboration with industry, and we will keep a close watch on developments in the strait of Hormuz in relation to the critical issue of the bunkering of marine fuels.
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, for his comments on international co-operation. I am proud that the United Kingdom hosts the International Maritime Organisation, through which we continue to pursue innovative work towards achieving a net zero framework and ambitious measures on safety, innovation and business-supporting regulation. I am glad that he supports us in those efforts.
I also thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for consistently raising the critical issue of ferry connectivity for his constituents. I am happy to engage with him further on the ETS and the impact that it may or may not have, especially with regard to the tonnage implications of new hybridised ferries procured on the Isle of Wight. I know he is concerned about that, and I am happy to take those conversations forward.
I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. I hope I have fully answered all the points raised, and that they agree with me that the objective of the draft regulations—to update merchant shipping legislation to ensure it is operable and effective going forward—is highly desirable.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
Keir Mather Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Members in attendance, in particular the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build-up to and following the publication of the draft amended ANPS.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?
Keir Mather
I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He will know, because I have pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, regardless of whether there is a third runway. Heathrow has committed to looking at both a western rail link and, importantly for my constituents in Bracknell, a southern rail link. Would he like to see those plans go ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to deliver better rail access for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review.
Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.
Dr Spencer
Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.
Keir Mather
Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!
The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.
Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.
Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.
As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.
It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.
To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.
I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.
Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.
It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.
On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.
On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.
The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.
Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.
Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.
To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.
Peter Swallow
I want to push the Minister on mitigations around surface access. This is an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but to massively improve those arrangements. He will be aware that across a large swathe of the south of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. Through this process we have an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns, but to boost and upgrade public transport networks to get to Heathrow airport.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.
Dr Ben Spencer
I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.
Keir Mather
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency.
As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come.
I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Rail Prices: Contactless Payments
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing it, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their important contributions as we consider contactless payment roll-out at railway stations and its impact on ticket prices.
I want to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Reigate that I listened carefully to the concerns she raised. I also want to thank her for the spirit of practicality and openness with which she has approached the implementation of contactless roll-out. Of course, the Department for Transport needs to take on board the concerns of constituents in Reigate and the other areas where contactless ticketing has been rolled out, to ensure that it does what the scheme is intended to do: provide a more seamless, integrated and easy-to-use ticketing experience for passengers. I have taken on board some of her specific points, especially on what can be done for her constituents in Reigate, and the concerns she raised about off-peak and the types of people who take those services, whether they are families visiting London or people relying on the social connections that the railway can bring.
The DFT keeps implementation continuously under review. I will ensure that anomalies in the system such as those that the hon. Lady raised are passed through to the Rail Minister. Her point about guidance and communication is especially important. We want people to benefit from contactless roll-out, which means that they need to be fully informed about the implications of these changes. I thank her for raising those points in a spirit of practicality and openness.
More broadly, I know that the hon. Lady is a determined advocate for her constituents. Like the Department for Transport, she understands that our railways are catalysts for cultural connection and economic growth, and I believe that her constituents in Reigate should be able to benefit from them to the same extent as those in every other part of the United Kingdom. She has mentioned the challenges people face due to limited transport connectivity, and I welcome the opportunity to respond in more detail to those concerns today.
On the matter of expanding pay-as-you-go with contactless ticketing at Reigate station specifically, I appreciate how important flexible ticketing and payment options are for passengers and want to provide some information on the progress being made on the points that the hon. Lady raised. On 7 December last year, we introduced changes to paper fare pricing at 50 stations across the south-east in preparation for the launch of the pay-as-you-go ticketing system. A week later, on 14 December, pay-as-you-go was launched at 30 stations, including Reigate, enabling passengers to benefit from simpler, easier and more flexible ticketing.
The introduction of new, simplified single-leg priced fares, like those already successfully implemented in London, means there is now just one peak and off-peak fare, with consistent restrictions across those services. Prices were adjusted so that a single ticket is around half the price of a return ticket, although I am cognisant of the anomalies that that has created, which the hon. Lady pointed out.
The move to single-leg pricing unfortunately means that some passengers may pay more, and that is something that I will reflect to the Rail Minister, but it is important to note that, in return, it unlocks more flexibility, and other passengers may see a reduction in their ticket price. These changes apply not only to pay-as-you-go, but to paper ticket prices.
We are already seeking to roll out this improved flexibility in pricing and ticketing beyond London and the south-east; we are now firmly in the delivery phase of launching pay-as-you-go to more than 90 stations in Greater Manchester and the west midlands. However, I take the point made by the hon. Members for Reigate and for Woking about the need to ensure that we learn the lessons of the roll-out as we bring it to more places, so that we can fully secure the benefits of a contactless system.
Greater Manchester is already benefiting from new, simpler fares in advance of pay-as-you-go ticketing, and the west midlands will have full, integrated multimodal fares and ticketing from day one. Alongside that, we are testing other ticketing innovations through digital pay-as-you-go trials, three of which have gone live across the north and the midlands since September last year. They will help us to understand how best to deliver this new, innovative ticketing option, to meet the needs of passengers.
The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about consistency of communications and a seamless experience for passengers. As we move towards delivering Great British Railways, our priority is to strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and taxpayers, to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal but also to run the railway in a more holistic way so that passengers get a consistent experience wherever they travel. GBR will enable more consistent ticketing practice across the network, ensuring that wherever people travel they can be confident that they are buying the right ticket and getting the best fare for their journey.
We must also acknowledge the very real cost of living pressures that are facing many households, including in Reigate. Transport costs form a significant part of that mix, and we must balance the need to fund the railway through passenger revenue with the need to reduce the burden on taxpayers. For too long, passengers have endured relentless fare increases. Between 2010 and 2024, fares rose by around 60%, placing real pressure on hard-working families and commuters. This Government are committed to turning the page and in March we took the significant step of freezing regulated fares for the first time in 30 years. We are taking immediate action to ease the burden on passengers and to begin building, longer-term, a more affordable railway.
Monica Harding
Of course it is really important that we bring fares down, but we also need to make sure that the trains actually work. In February, 5.82% of all South West Railway services were cancelled on the main line that runs through my constituency. I wonder whether the Minister thinks those figures are accurate, but they are very poor figures for a commuter line, where anything over 3% is considered poor. Will he comment on that?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise disruption of commuter services on behalf of her constituents. It links back to the point that our railways are meant to be catalysts for economic growth, which should be the case in Esher and Walton, as in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I will make two separate points. First, if the hon. Lady writes to me specifically about the disruption being experienced in her constituency, I will ensure that she receives a full response about what the Department for Transport intends to do, working with the operator, to achieve changes. Secondly, if she feels that the ministerial correspondence that she received on ticketing, which she mentioned in her intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, did not go quite far enough in giving her the information she needs, I will ensure that she receives a fuller response to that point, too. I thank her for raising that important point.
Thanks to this Government, the price of travelcards will be frozen until March 2027, meaning that weekly and daily caps will remain unchanged from 2026. That will make a real difference for people who rely on pay-as-you-go travel in places such as Reigate, allowing them to reach their caps sooner and ensuring that the cost of their journeys does not rise significantly throughout the year. These decisions will put more money back into the pockets of working people and form part of our wider plans to bring the railway into public ownership, in order to create a simpler and more reliable network that delivers for passengers.
The hon. Member for Reigate also highlighted the challenges that constituents face with transport connectivity more broadly. On securing reliable rail and bus connectivity, we recognise the concerns that exist and have a clear plan to address them by equipping major city regions with the tools they need to roll out locally ticketing that reflects local travel patterns. This will include a shared technology solution allowing for integrated pay-as-you-go with contactless across different transport modes. We will set out further details in due course, while of course taking into account the specific challenges that the hon. Lady raised.
I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are firmly committed to improving the travel experience for her constituents and for passengers across the network. That means simplifying fares, making them more flexible to meet the needs of passengers, and delivering innovative solutions that fully realise the benefits of a truly modern transport network. I assure her that I have taken on board her specific points about the roll-out and will ensure that they are reflected through to the Rail Minister. I thank her for her contribution on this incredibly important topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 February. The instrument has two objectives. First, it amends article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority the flexibility to grant exemptions. Secondly, it removes an unused criminal sanction to allow twin-engine aircraft to operate over longer distances, in line with international best practice.
Currently, the CAA may grant an exemption from the basic regulation implementing rules only under two scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances and urgent operational needs. That requirement limits the CAA’s ability to support innovation and to allow exemptions that would enhance safety at regular and foreseeable events such as festivals.
I am aware of the concern raised by the Transport Committee that this amendment to article 71 of the basic regulation represents a reduction in regulatory protection, but I can assure its members that the CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk-assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and granted only where no other regulatory alternative exists and safety is assured. Just because a request has been granted once, that will not set a precedent for future exemptions. The criteria for exemption are deliberately strict, maintaining existing requirements on aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, as well as ensuring that decisions do not create unreasonable or unsafe working conditions.
That approach will enhance safety. For example, to facilitate the safe arrival and departure of large numbers of helicopters at events such as Royal Ascot and Formula 1 at Silverstone, the CAA currently recommends that a temporary air traffic control service is set up. However, full compliance with the existing legislation would be disproportionate to the service provision and the period of the event, as that legislation was developed with a permanent service in mind. Currently, because such an event is foreseeable, the CAA cannot grant exemptions, even though that would clearly enhance safety by enabling safer management of helicopter operations.
The amendment will also support innovation. Currently, technological developments such as beyond visual line of sight drone flights in non-segregated airspace are hard to test, as they are considered neither urgent nor unforeseeable under existing regulations.
The second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for innovation, and especially things such as vertical take-off and unmanned flights. However, given that Biggin Hill airport is in my constituency, can the Minister say what provisions there are to ensure that local communities in smaller aerodrome areas are communicated with?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about community consultation, and the CAA’s design of noise policy takes it incredibly seriously. These exemptions are designed to be used only when other regulatory avenues are not available, but we expect all operators to take noise considerations into account. I know how important that is to his constituents, and it will be part of this work going forward.
As I said, the second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016. That will enable the introduction of internationally standardised extended diversion time operations later this year in the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. Those rules cannot be introduced while the criminal sanction remains attached, as the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 that we would need to use expire in June this year. The CAA has never used this sanction and has other regulatory tools to ensure compliance, including revoking approvals or limiting air operator certificates. On the wider powers gap in relation to criminal sanctions, the Department is aware of the issue, and we are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill that gap. We are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.
I hope I have adequately reassured Members that these provisions are proportionate, incentivise innovation and defend our robust record on aviation safety. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Keir Mather
First, I thank the shadow Minister for his response, and I apologise for being accidentally pointed in the references I made to the equestrian and automotive activities that take place in his fantastic constituency.
To respond to points the hon. Gentleman made, may I first thank him for his continued support for proportionate deregulatory measures that do not compromise aviation safety? Although we can trade differing points of view on political ideology in this House, aviation safety is something we are united on and committed to enhancing, irrespective of party.
I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately.
The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by “exceptional”. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward. To give some examples, I refer him to the CAA’s draft policy framework, which sets out that exemptions will be granted only when the desired objective cannot be achieved by other means, and the CAA will not grant exemptions solely for cost. The policy contemplates granting exemptions in situations where, for example, a high standard of safety can be maintained and where there is an urgent need for the exemption to be granted. I can therefore assure hon. Members that this is a limited, specifically delineated exemption, and we believe that the CAA has the right resources to institute it effectively.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for this Government and across the House. The DFT is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe, and these regulations represent a further step in achieving that. I therefore commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport Accessibility for Disabled People
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address.
The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister.
Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone.
I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.
Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity.
The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change.
I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements.
However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway.
Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.
The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.
On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core.
I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way.
Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published.
I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities.
I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up very quickly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are investing nearly £280 million to improve accessibility at stations through the Access for All programme. In January, 31 further stations were moved into delivery or design. I am very happy to say that, thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, Dalston Kingsland station in her constituency is among those progressing as part of the national programme.
Dame Meg Hillier
You know that you are making your mark when Ministers name your station before you do—or one does, I should say. I am delighted that it has got to the next stage. I invite the Minister or the Secretary of State to visit Dalston Kingsland to see the impact of not having a lift at this station when, along the rest of the Mildmay line, stations are accessible. It is a key station for the world-famous Ridley Road market in my constituency. Will a visit be possible?
Keir Mather
On the subject of step-free access, I know that Network Rail is engaging with stakeholders to progress designs. I am happy to facilitate a discussion between my hon. Friend and Network Rail on plans to improve accessibility. I have also heard that the Secretary of State is keen to attend the visit that my hon. Friend outlines.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You have elevated me to heights I did not even know I could reach, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for that answer to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Not a week passes without some of us getting complaints about accessibility, yet equality law is clear. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is accessibility at all train stations for all disabled people that meets equality legislation? Quite clearly, at this moment in time it does not.
Keir Mather
In the Government’s published accessibility road map, we have pledged to continue the Access for All programme. That is alongside the fact that step-free routes, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, have already been rolled out to 270 stations so far. The Railways Bill, which is still making its way through this place, contains a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities so that accessibility can be at the heart of our railway.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
To improve the unreliable services that plagued the rail network under the previous Government, and to improve the experience of using the railway, this Government are bringing services into public ownership and creating Great British Railways. This generational reform is already improving passengers’ experience of rail services, as cancellations are starting to fall after years of decline.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Inter-city rail fares in England remain eye-watering. London to Birmingham costs £72 on the day, London to Manchester £172 and London to Liverpool £179, but flying the same route can cost as little as £80. In Spain, rail reform drove up passenger numbers by 107% on comparable routes, with tickets as low as €12. The rail fare freeze is welcome, but fares remain unaffordable for many people. The Railways Bill promises powers to regulate fares, so how will the “reasonable” criteria be defined and enforced?
Keir Mather
Operational questions relating to how GBR designates fares will be a matter to consider once it has been created, but passenger affordability is a top priority for the Government. That is why, this year, we have taken the historic step of freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years. Had we not taken that historic decision, regulated rail fares would have increased by 5.8% from March.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In Fylde, we are blessed to have nationally and internationally significant events. The women’s open returns to Royal Lytham and St Annes this year, and the Lytham festival is going from strength to strength. Our Sunday rail services are important for these events, but they are often cancelled because of a lack of conductors at Northern Rail, which was nationalised back in 2020, as well as the inability to get staff to do overtime. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and representatives from Fylde to discuss how we can get extra and more reliable Sunday services to support our important tourism industry?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is correct to point out that rail services can serve as a catalyst for economic growth and as a way to connect more people to the culture that communities like Fylde have to offer. I will ensure that his request for a meeting with the Minister for Rail and representatives from his local council is passed on.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In January, I was delighted to get confirmation that Ruabon station had progressed to the next stage of the Access for All programme. It is an absolute disgrace that disabled people and young mothers with prams can access the northbound platform only by climbing the steps and crossing the footbridge at the second busiest of Wrexham’s five stations. Will the Minister provide an update on progress in delivering a ramp at the station?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right in his ambition to ensure that accessibility is there for everyone right across our United Kingdom, including in Wrexham. I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with an update in writing on when the ramp is likely to be delivered.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Further to the pleading of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the train service—[Hon. Members: “On your knees!”] That makes two of us pleading with Ministers for that service, and I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) would happily kneel as well. I remind the Minister that LNER has been in state ownership for a number of years, yet it still cannot provide that service. There is an open access application from Grand Central Rail for a service to Grimsby, so will the Minister assure me that, given all our pleading, the Government will at least look sympathetically on that application?
Keir Mather
Although I might not have too much more to add on the question of LNER services, the hon. Member will know that open access decisions are a matter for the operationally independent Office of Rail and Road.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We still do not know how or what the Government want to achieve with state control of the railways. They say that there will be simpler fares, but the public are seeing simply more expensive fares. They say that passenger growth is necessary, but there is no target for that growth in the Railways Bill. They say they want to reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but in written answer after written answer, the Minister refuses to say how they hope to achieve that. Is this lack of a plan why the Secretary of State has been reduced to trying to claim credit for the work of others? She has been left red-faced and community noted after posting on X about the phasing out of the old class 455 trains on South Western Railway. She said it was down to the
“progress...on your publicly owned railway”,
when it was actually delivered under a Conservative Government and by a private company.
Keir Mather
I encourage the shadow Secretary of State actually to read the Railways Bill, which his party has consistently voted against, where the reason we are pursuing nationalisation is laid out in black and white. It is for one thing and one thing only: to deliver better services for passengers, to ensure that the railway is run in the public interest and not for profit, and to leave behind the decades of misery and delay under the privatised system, which did not serve any of the travelling public across the United Kingdom.
Mr Holden
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to agree with the Secretary of State, so I ask him whether he agrees with himself. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on 23 March, he said that
“public ownership is expected to save taxpayers up to...£110-150 million every year...This is several orders of magnitude less than the costs of scaling up DfTO staffing in anticipation of establishing GBR”.
Keir Mather
The shadow Secretary of State talks about value for money for the British taxpayer. The national rail strikes under the last Government cost the taxpayer £850 million in lost revenue between June 2022 and August 2024. I ask him how that compares with the operational savings that will be achieved by the nationalised railways. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the cost of establishing Great British Railways, which unlocks all these benefits for the travelling public.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My Department continues to engage with a range of aviation stakeholders, including the Civil Aviation Authority, to better understand the impacts of the loss of access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service. This includes the practicalities, costs and benefits for industry and the taxpayer if we were to rejoin.
Mr Carmichael
I think I can speed things up there, because I can tell the Minister exactly what the impact has been. Since we lost access to EGNOS, the number of cancellations to island communities has trebled, which in turn has put up the cost of tickets, and occasionally air ambulance flights are unable to get in. That has been the cost of coming out of EGNOS, and it is about time we found our way back into it. Will the Minister meet me, and perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), to find a way of progressing this without any further delay?
Keir Mather
I would be very glad to meet the right hon. Member and our colleague. I understand the important role that EGNOS played in ensuring that we had those vital connectivity links to the Scottish highlands. That is why we intend to review the role that technologies such as EGNOS can play, to ensure that our airspace is resilient and fit for purpose, especially for remote airports that are more susceptible to adverse weather conditions. I am very happy to take that conversation forward with the right hon. Member.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Some 40% of flight diversions from Stornoway, Benbecula and Barra airports in my constituency could have been avoided if we were part of EGNOS, which was shamefully abandoned during Brexit by the Conservatives. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, this has huge social and financial implications —schedules are cut, and people are considering not just their travel arrangements but their living arrangements, because without 21st-century connectivity we cannot live 21st-century lives. I urge the Minister to consider the costs and benefits of rejoining EGNOS, and by all means to meet me and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as some Cornish MPs who have raised this issue.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his repeated and consistent advocacy on this issue. I am cognisant of the fact that air connectivity in the Scottish highlands is not a “nice to have” but an absolute necessity. As well as meeting the two Members, my officials would be keen to engage with a variety of stakeholders as part of the review, to obtain evidence on the benefits of the EGNOS solution. That evidence will be critical to ensuring that the Government work out their future position carefully and that any future decision delivers value for money to the taxpayer.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are clear that open access will continue to play an important role on the reformed railway under Great British Railways, which will oversee a network designed to deliver better outcomes for passengers. Existing open access operators, such as Hull Trains, will be able to continue running under their current access agreements, serving communities including Beverley and Holderness.
Graham Stuart
As the Minister knows, before Hull Trains, Hull and east Yorkshire were a forgotten part of the rail network. Hull Trains put that right, connecting the great port city of Hull, and indeed Beverley, directly to London. It is also one of the most popular train services in the whole country. I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said, so will he meet me—and perhaps colleagues—to discuss the future of open access and Hull Trains, to ensure that it is safeguarded into the 2030s and beyond, as I know he wants?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his request for a meeting, which I will make sure is reflected to the Rail Minister. I understand the importance of the contribution that Hull Trains makes, both to the east riding of Yorkshire and across the country. Under the Railways Bill, it is absolutely right for GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, to ensure that we can make best use of the network, but we are also very clear that where open access represents best use, those trains will get on the network. Hull Trains has a very important part to play in rail connectivity in the United Kingdom.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
At the Budget last November, the Government announced a comprehensive review of public charging costs, which will examine what is driving higher prices and potential measures to make public charging affordable for all users. The review is set to report this autumn.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests showing that, last summer, Hull Trains paid for 32 teenagers to travel to London to attend my parliamentary summer school.
This time last year, I was advocating for more connectivity for my constituents by backing the application from Hull Trains for a service between Sheffield and London King’s Cross via Worksop and Retford. Despite my disappointment at the refusal, I am keen that companies such as Hull Trains continue to make open access bids. How will Great British Railways ensure independent oversight, and what resources will the Office of Rail and Road be given to guarantee transparency and independence in the decision-making process?
Keir Mather
GBR will have responsibility for ensuring that it has the capacity to run services that are paid for by the British taxpayer and that it is tasked to operate. Outside that, it will decide on the best use of the network. Open access can play a vibrant role in that system, which could include services from my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Nawaz has been in touch with me with real concerns about the financial impact that roadworks are having on his small business. He may be entitled to compensation if the roadworks are caused by gas or water companies, but not if they are works by telecoms or electricity companies. The impact on local businesses and constituents is the same whether roadworks are for cables or for pipes, so could the Department look at that discrepancy?