Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday.

Turning to the question at hand, I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is going to stop the ill-judged decision on CROs, but that does not let the MCA off the hook. At a meeting of MPs recently, the chief executive of the MCA claimed that 93% of coastguard rescue officers supported plans to make them unpaid volunteers. We know from a leaked internal survey that the MCA misrepresented the views of CROs both to Ministers and to Parliament. Up to half of them said that they would quit or reduce their hours if the Government forced through the plans to remove their pay. Given that the Minister has reversed the decision and that he has signally failed to express his support for the chief executive, can he now confirm whether or not he still has confidence in the chief executive of the MCA?

[Keir Mather]

May I start by extending my thanks to the shadow Minister? Anyone who can endure trading remarks with me on the Railways Bill for as long as we were in Committee together is an absolute stalwart and a credit to the House, so I thank him for working with me on that.

On the broader questions he raises about the MCA, the MCA and His Majesty’s Coastguard do vital work. Ministers have full confidence in the service, but when those on the ground raise concerns on the scale we have seen, and when the evidence base proves insufficient, it is absolutely right that we pause and engage again. That is exactly what the decision to not move ahead with the new model in September facilitates. It will ensure that we treat CROs with the dignity and respect they deserve and, most importantly, that we get this system right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

Railways Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.

The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.

This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.

Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.

We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.

As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes

“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—

putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—

“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.

As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.

[Wendy Morton]

Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand to correct the hon. Gentleman: the most punctual is, I believe, Greater Anglia, which services my constituency, but the point he makes is a good one. The greater integration of track and train brings greater efficiencies and leads to greater punctuality. That is exactly why that was Conservative party policy going into the last general election. What we do not need is increased control by perhaps heavily unionised workforces being given extra political power through nationalisation, taking the focus off the customer and focusing on the organisation and its purposes instead.

We have the track and train being integrated, and this Bill should be giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver dynamic management. That is crucial for a big organisational change. It should be putting passengers first by giving GBR the power to sort out the worst of the union-imposed inefficient working practices. How can we seriously have a seven-day timetable staffed by a five-day working week, requiring voluntary overtime to staff just normal service? It is clearly ridiculous. This legislation should give GBR the power and, importantly, through this new clause, the political support it will need to fix that problem.

We need to enable drivers to operate train doors where that is not yet standard practice and to fix similar Spanish practices. I think that is very unfair on the Spanish, by the way, who surprisingly run a much more efficient railway in some respects. We need to increase flexible driver training and operation, and so much more. Under new clause 54, tabled in my name, a working practices and productivity modernisation framework would provide GBR with that direction and give it the political cover to act.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member will be aware that I have already addressed that question in answer to one of his colleagues, but if international companies, whether state-owned or private, make a tender that is more attractive than any other operator applying for that tender, the people who benefit most are the taxpayers and service users of the United Kingdom. That is what happens.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree with new clause 85, which would make the interests of disabled people a key performance indicator for Great British Railways? I have been contacted by Katrina, a constituent from Sproatley, who has an upper limb disability as a result of thalidomide and relies heavily on rail travel. There are many services on which she cannot pre-book a seat, which for many of us is a convenience but for her is essential, because she finds being jostled frightening. She needs to have her interests recognised by the railway. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be very useful for the Government to accept new clause 85?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that the needs of disabled passengers such as his constituent, whom he so ably represents, are very important. That is one performance indicator that the Government should impose on GBR, but is it not ridiculous that we have to have Government action to impose KPIs on a railway? We should not be doing it this way.

Instead of giving GBR a clear purpose and direction and then supporting it to deliver, the Government are imposing nationalisation, which will bring with it, as we see in the Bill, an inevitable explosion of bureaucracy, civil service plans, targets, long-term strategies and civil service rights to give guidance and direction, all in the name of the Secretary of State. What will be the impact of this on GBR over time? Will it lead to the dynamic management that this structural reorganisation must have if it is to have a hope of working? Let history be our guide. I cannot think of a single example of a nationalised industry in any country, either now or in the past, that is or was a byword for management dynamism. Members should try it themselves—we cannot think of one, can we? If GBR needs dynamic management, how can nationalisation possibly be the answer?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Father of the House is nailing me down to a cast-iron assurance at the Dispatch Box. I am not in a position to do that, but I fully expect to be in this role in a future Government and look forward to the opportunity to encourage open access to provide the through train that the right hon. Gentleman needs or for GBR to do so.

If GBR needs the dynamic management that we say it does, the Government are imposing for political reasons—very popular ones among their Back Benchers, as we have heard—a management system that has never worked in the past, but somehow it will be different this time. They have made their choice and we need to make the best of it. At the very least, this founding legislation should identify core key performance indicators which will survive the test of time in legislation. New clause 53 and amendment 158 provide them. They are detailed, but in essence, they focus on reliability, safety, comfort and on-board experience, affordability and value for money, passenger and network growth, financial sustainability and freight growth.

Until covid, privatisation undeniably brought a focus on ridership that had been missing previously under nationalisation. I accept that private businesses are not trying to be nice; they work to increase ridership because it brings in fare income, which creates profit. They are not directed to do so; the natural incentives work to solve the problem. The innovation of privatisation, fought tooth and nail at the time by Labour and the unions, was supported by passengers, who voted with their feet. British Rail oversaw the long-term decline in ridership from about 1 billion in 1950, reducing in a straight line to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation immediately reversed that 40-year trend of decline, growing back ridership not just to 1 billion but to 1.7 billion in 2019.

Under the Bill, GBR does not even have a passenger growth target. New clause 14 in my name would rectify that by requiring the Secretary of State to set GBR a passenger growth target and to keep it under review. How can the Government be against that? They have agreed to put one in for rail freight growth, but for some reason passengers are not listed in the Bill. Instead of these sensible, pro-growth and pro-passenger measures, we have clause after clause of political control, micromanagement of a nationalised structure, and unfettered rights of guidance and direction by the Secretary of State—by which we mean Department for Transport officials—over GBR at any time and for any reason, under clauses 7 and 9. It is a recipe for corporate paralysis where decisions are second-guessed by civil servants.

Amendments 150 and 151 limit at least the giving of guidance by Department for Transport officials to issues where GBR fails to meet a key performance indicator, and the giving of mandatory directions to serious issues where GBR has missed KPIs and the chief executive has been removed in consequence. I fear that over time, as the corporate memory of the train operating companies fades and with it their focus on the customer experience, this focus will be replaced by other incentives.

Heavily unionised workers of a nationalised industry well understand that the Government will now be politically exposed to industrial action as never before. It will be entirely rational for them—I do not blame them for doing so—to use this new bargaining power to increase pay and improve conditions, which sounds good, does it not? Why would they not do so? It does, however, increase costs and reduce productivity. Who benefits? Not the passenger or the taxpayer. Labour will be too weak to stand up for the taxpayer and for fare-paying passengers. Services will become more expensive, worse, less frequent—or all three—and we will be back to the rationing of resources as we see in every nationalised sector.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[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—

[Keir Mather]

Winter 2026.

[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.

High Speed 2 Reset

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Secretary of State’s comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons that action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2, but the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. It is true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns, with HS2 Ltd failing to maintain tight control of the budget and, frankly, the Department for Transport allowing it to get away with it. It was for that reason that the previous Government appointed Mark Wild OBE as the new chief executive of HS2 Ltd with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee the project. It is apparent from today’s statement that HS2’s leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try to achieve that.

Where there are actions that can reduce costs in the long run, the Opposition will clearly support them, but given concerns about trust in the project, I hope that the Government and HS2 Ltd will set out in detail how they believe these measures will save money and deliver even on this new extended timetable.

In addition, we have to acknowledge the deep-seated infrastructure challenges we face in this country. When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals, but they completely foundered when they came into contact with reality. That is why the Opposition propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red tape, both for business and large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a £100-million bat tunnel—does the Secretary of State?

This issue must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements. If she is angry, as she says she is, those statements must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that prevent cost overruns from occurring in future.

Turning to the specifics, I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector have indicated they want assurances. For example, what do the new project cost figures include? Do they include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is funding for Euston included in the new estimates, and do they include signalling? Do the Government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered under their new timetable? Can the Secretary of State also explain what steps the Government have taken to improve HS2 Ltd’s performance on settling claims with those impacted by construction, since she has highlighted separately that this is an area that requires improvement?

Of course, HS2 does not operate in a vacuum. On the same day that this statement is being made to the House, it has been announced that Government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one of Avanti West Coast’s routes following a Government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that services on the west coast will offer fewer services to passengers?

Ultimately, the Government are right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be rectified, and I am glad that the Government continue to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the shadow Rail Minister for his questions and the tone in which he presented his case. He was not quite as bombastic at the Dispatch Box as he normally is, so I can only assume that perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous Government left this project in. I did not hear one, but I accept the manner in which he made his points. I do question where the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), is today. This is not the first time that he has run scared from an oral statement, and I can only assume that it is because he is embarrassed by his party’s abject record on transport.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous Government. I gently say to him that it is a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for calling the fire brigade. Let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days after he started in his job:

“we are in a completely unacceptable position…we have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed in its mission to control costs.”

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I will answer them directly. He asks how reducing the speed to 320 kph will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, that will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We are making three scope changes in this announcement today: first, reducing the speed; secondly, reducing automatic train operation; and thirdly, ensuring that the signalling we put in on HS2 is aligned with the European train control system that is being rolled out on the trans-Pennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies; we are not taking a punt on world firsts. That is the way to reduce risk in the delivery of this programme and potentially reduce cost as well by up to £2.5 billion.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bat tunnels. I can tell him that we are building no more bat tunnels on HS2 and that this Government have changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which could mean a different approach to protected species in future. I gently ask him who was overseeing the project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the bat tunnel. It was not this Government; it was his Government, and we have taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas. I can confirm that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston, though we have also gone out to market to attract private investment, given that in the 10-year infrastructure strategy we set out our ambition to deliver the new HS2 station through a public-private partnership. The signalling costs are also included in those cost ranges.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked me what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance on settling claims on land and property. I know that there are very many hon. Members in this House whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in that regard. In the letter I recently wrote to the chair of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast has made recently to its summer timetable. It came to me with a proposition to better optimise its service pattern to meet the demand in the summer months. If we can save money because we are not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible Government I think it is reasonable for us to look at that. On the timetable introduced on Sunday, we have seen significant enhancements, including additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We are seeing the most regular Mid Cornwall Metro service in 60 years. Where his Government failed to invest in Britain’s rail network, this Government are doing exactly the opposite and ensuring that people across the country have the trains they need and deserve.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and on making a very important contribution, which has been supplemented by speech after speech right across the Chamber identifying a common theme around medical cases, as well as other issues. I will come on to those shortly.

The DVLA’s role in upholding the licensing system is essential for maintaining driver safety—that is a truism—and ensuring that the correct people are behind the wheel. We should not underestimate the scale of the task; it is a huge one. Last year, the agency collected £8.4 billion of vehicle excise duty for the Exchequer. It maintained 53 million driver records, as well as 47 million vehicle records, and it processed getting on for 100 million customer transactions. That is no mean feat. If we want to keep our country moving, it is vital that the DVLA processes its work efficiently, reaching the correct answers and doing so quickly.

The huge disruption caused by the covid pandemic saw the operation creak and exposed its weaknesses, with systems unable to cope with, among other things, staff distancing. Thanks to important work under the last Government, backlogs were brought down and longer-term efficiency improvements began to be implemented. Changes were made to streamline existing processes. For example, the law was altered to enable healthcare professionals other than doctors to respond to DVLA medical questionnaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), when he was a Minister in the Department—he is now the shadow Secretary of State for Transport—launched an independent examination of the DVLA in 2023 to establish what the Government could do to provide genuinely customer-focused services. We had hoped that that reform process would continue with the new Administration after the election in 2024, and some of it has, but as we have heard in the debate today, the data suggests that in many instances that reforming zeal has not continued.

The DVLA’s business plan tells us that the average waiting time for licensing decisions on medical cases will be within 50 days—a long time in its own right. However, the Government now admit that in October 2025 the waiting time was over 78 days. By November, the delay had increased further to over 80 days. That has real consequences. We have heard that from Member after Member, and I shall pick out one. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in a powerful speech, referred to a constituent who has stage 4 cancer and has been waiting nine months and counting for a decision. That is totally unacceptable. Across 2025-26 the overall average was over 56 days, missing the Government’s already slack target of 50 days. That is not acceptable, because it leaves drivers hanging, uncertain of what their fate will be. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could explain whether the position has improved since November last year—the last date for which figures are publicly available. Have the Government met, or are they closer to meeting, the target?

The DVLA has said that it is completing the migration of its digital driver licensing services from its old digital platform on to a new strategic cloud platform. While that is welcome progress, it does not appear to align with the scale of the reform programme set out by the Treasury in its 2025 departmental efficiency plans. The Department for Transport plan listed:

“AI initiatives to increase automation and self-service at its contact centre”,

“expanding the use of Robotic Process Automation software”,

“automating Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) refunds”,

and

“wider organisational and workforce restructure.”

It claimed that, taken together, those changes would secure net efficiencies of £39 million by 2028-29.

However, the actual business plan from the Department for 2025-26, published in March, makes no mention of AI initiatives to bring forward automation and self-service, or to automate refunds for customers. What happened to the plans? Has the Minister changed his mind? Has he told the Treasury? Will he tell us? Without that focus in the business plan, how can we ever expect to see improvements in efficiency and service for the customer?

Those are not the only reforms that the DVLA is struggling with. There are challenges around fee deficits. The Government have promised efficiency savings, but it is not clear how they plan to deliver them. The shadow Transport Secretary asked about the £2.50 fee charged for the release of vehicle keeper details. Unfortunately and ironically, the Department’s written answers were later acknowledged to be partially incorrect, as they included inaccurate information about the requirement for legislation. Will the Minister take this opportunity—I am sure he will—to explain whether he plans to change those fees and, crucially, whether he is confident that he can make those changes effectively, given that he was unable to provide accurate information on the process in the first place? When there are questions about efficiency savings, it appears that there is a gap between the rhetoric and the actual delivery.

Cloned number plates are another problem of increasing concern that must be tackled, as was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). The DVLA has to be supported in its work with the police to crack down on the issue. In her important speech, she referenced the example of a manufacturer who had been caught and received a £5,000 fine and a non-permanent ban—a five-year ban, from memory—from the registration list at the DVLA. That is madness and she is absolutely right to highlight the issue.

We have to tackle the supply and use of cloned plates. Current legislation does not properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Conservative party is proposing new legislation so that manufacturers and online retailers of cloned plates would face a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. On top of that, any driver caught using a plate that does not match their vehicle’s registered data would incur a driving ban of up to two years, up to a year in prison and a £5,000 fine. These are not accidental infringements of driving laws; it is express criminal activity, often to facilitate other crimes, and it should be treated as such.

Ultimately, we need to have laws in place that clamp down on criminality. It is an oddity that it is much harder to scrap a car than it is to buy one. To scrap a car, people need ID, a vehicle licence and a UK bank account, whereas to buy one they can just turn up and pay in cash. That is a gateway for thousands of uninsured vehicles to be used for criminal purposes. The different approaches make no sense. Why do we not tighten up the rules, so that if a person wants to buy a car, at the very least they have to record their driving licence? Will the Government consider working with the DVLA to support our proposal to tighten up that method of removing uninsured vehicles from the road?

The DVLA is ripe for further reform. Its services our ideal for use of AI to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Instead of being paralysed by the Mandelson affair, the Government need to focus on driving through reforms to serve the driving public and clamp down on vehicle-related crime. I am concerned that the current data appears to be going in the wrong direction, but there is still time for the Government to turn this around. We have a plan for improvements and I look forward to hearing that the Government have one too.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on the reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee facilitating it.

The DVLA touches almost every household in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most advanced and large-scale digital organisations in Government, handling billions of interactions each year. Over 84% of transactions are now completed online and the system works well for most drivers. A standard non-medical driving licence application is typically processed in just two to three days, which demonstrates what a modern public service can achieve at scale. However, I want to focus on where the service has not worked well enough—in drivers’ medical services—and explain what it is being done to put that right.

Drivers’ medical services have been a source of significant concern for Members across the House and, more importantly, for our constituents. For many people, the ability to drive is essential. It supports independence, employment, caring responsibilities and access to healthcare. When a licence is delayed because of a medical investigation, the impact is immediate and personal. People can face lost income, isolation, missed appointments and prolonged uncertainty.

The Government are clear that the service levels in the drivers’ medical services have fallen below expectations for far too many drivers who are waiting for a licensing decision, often, as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate, after doing everything they have been asked to do. I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and make excuses or point at the previous Administration for the mess that we inherited, but I am going to say that I am sorry. I am sorry to all those who have been impacted by the delays. We are going to put things right—we are putting things right. Peoples’ frustration is justified, and it deserves both explanation and action.

It is important to understand the scale and complexity of the challenge. Demand for medical licensing decisions has risen sharply and consistently. In 2024 to 2025 alone, the DVLA made more than 830,000 medical licensing decisions, the vast majority of which did not involve MPs, and nor should they have to. Demand continues to rise, driven in part by an ageing population who quite rightfully wish to remain mobile and independent for longer.

As has been pointed out, not all medical cases are the same. Many straightforward cases such as those notified online for well controlled diabetes can be resolved quickly—sometimes within days—but an increasing proportion are complex and require detailed clinical evidence from NHS professionals or specialist reports and examinations, all of which, I will add, should be paid for by the DVLA. Those decisions cannot be rushed. The DVLA’s overriding duty is to protect road safety, and every decision must be based on sound medical advice.

That evidence is informed by six independent medical advisory panels covering key conditions that affect safe driving, including cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric and visual disorders. The expert panels ensure that decisions reflect modern clinical practice and support the introduction of new treatments. A good example is the recent change allowing drivers with diabetes to use continuous glucose monitoring, removing a significant burden for drivers while improving efficiency.

Despite the dedication of DVLA staff, at times demand has exceeded capacity. That pressure was compounded by the need to replace a legacy IT system. Introducing a modern casework system was essential, but it required investment, experienced staff input and training. In the short term, that has contributed to longer decision times, which rose to 71 working days, alongside increased complaints, call volumes and, of course, correspondence from hon. Members. What matters now is progress, and progress is being made.

Since September 2025, all new and renewed medical cases have been processed through a single modern digital casework system. Legacy cases have also been migrated, meaning that all driver medical teams are now working in one digital environment.

On 31 March, the DVLA launched its new digital medical services platform, which allows far more drivers to notify conditions, apply for new licences and renew licences online. It reduces errors, improves accuracy and enables staff to focus on the most complex cases. Initial case actions can now be taken within 24 hours. Staff are supported by decision-tree logic, and customers can be contacted by email, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that communication is flowing. On the email point, some sections of the law stipulate that communication must still be done in writing. The system will continue to be developed. Further automation of letters and medical questionnaires is planned, and more customers will be brought on to the platform over time, driving further efficiency.

Alongside digital reform, the DVLA has also increased staffing capacity. An additional 43 medical caseworkers are already in training, with a further 22 joining shortly. The steps that we are taking are already delivering results. So far in April, the average time to make a licensing decision in medical cases is 56.6 working days, which is a significant reduction from 71.4 days in February.

The DVLA will continue to prioritise cases where drivers need their licence for work or other urgent purposes. Hon. Members may also be aware that in many cases drivers are legally able to continue to drive while applications are being processed—when it is safe for them to do so—under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as has been mentioned. While the delays in the return of those licences, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), should not be happening, drivers should be covered by that section 88 ability. However, I am happy to pick up specific cases for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber.

Some delays remain unavoidable, particularly when information from healthcare professionals is outstanding. The DVLA issues automated reminders, but safe licensing decisions depend on adequate medical input. That is why the DVLA is also working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through the CustomerFirst programme, which is exploring further reforms to the drivers’ medical processes, including secure digital links with the NHS.

Those changes sit within a wider transformation of the DVLA. The new driver and vehicles account allows motorists to manage their details digitally and to self-serve more easily. By 2030, the DVLA intends to operate as an even more digital insight-led organisation that is faster, fairer and more consistent, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable drivers. No one underestimates the impact that the delays have had, but it is right to acknowledge that real action is under way and that real progress is now being delivered.

Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy. Younger drivers are disproportionately involved in serious road collisions. Drivers aged 17 to 24 make up just 6% of licence holders, yet they are involved in nearly a quarter of all fatal and serious collisions. Those figures are stark and demand action. That is why the Government’s road safety strategy includes a consultation on minimum learning periods before a learner driver can take their practical test, which would allow learners greater exposure to various conditions, such as driving in poor weather, at night or in heavier traffic, helping them to develop essential skills and judgment while preserving the freedoms that come with passing a test. We are also consulting on lowering the drink-drive limit for newly qualified drivers, alongside continued investment in the THINK! campaign, which targets those most at risk—particularly young men—by focusing on speeding and drink-driving.

Road safety is not only about young drivers, though; everyone deserves to feel safe on our roads, including older drivers and families. Around 24% of the drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or over. Although many older people drive safely well into later life, it is right to address risks linked to eyesight and cognitive change. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye testing for drivers aged 70 and over, and developing options for cognitive testing, recognising that fitness to drive is about capability, not age. I encourage Members to ensure that their constituents engage with the consultation that is under way.

I will pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) made about optometrists. They are able to inform the DVLA of a medical condition, including eyesight issues, if a patient cannot or will not do so. It is important to point that out.

I turn to the growing concern around ghost plates and other non-compliant number plates, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) mentioned and which undermine road safety and enforcement. Let me be clear: it is already illegal to sell or display ghost or non-compliant number plates. Only DVLA-approved registered number plate suppliers may supply plates, and they must meet strict standards and keep records. Drivers who use illegal plates can face fines of up to £1,000.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will address that point in a moment.

Enforcement at the roadside is a matter for the police. Supported by the DVLA, enforcement officers are working closely with trading standards to tackle illegal supply, so the Government are not standing still. We are working with policing partners to strengthen enforcement, including by funding the roads policing innovation programme. We are reviewing the registered number plate supplier scheme, considering a new British standard for plates and exploring how technology can identify illegal plates more effectively. We also understand the importance of accurate records. Although the vast majority of vehicle records held by the DVLA have up-to-date and traceable registered keepers, we are always looking at ways to improve their accuracy.

Drivers deserve timely and safe decisions, staff deserve modern systems that support their professional judgment, and the public deserve to have confidence that safety and fairness remain at the heart of our licensing system. Acknowledging where services have fallen short matters, but so does recognising the progress that has been made. I commend these efforts to the House.

Local Transport: Planning Developments

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Epsom and Ewell has the highest accommodation costs in England. That pressure is being addressed by building new housing, but the challenge is that in one development in my constituency, residents had to wait nearly a decade after moving into their new homes to get a bus route and new school, with additional pressure on train services. Although housing and some development is essential, does the hon. Member agree it should reflect community needs and the capacity of local transport services?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention.

In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.

We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.

In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.

The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.

Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.

Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.

Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.

Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.

That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.

In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:

“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”

It highlighted that that could

“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”

Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.

Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.

In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.

The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

When these Ministers came to power, they promised that they would act to reduce the waiting time for a driving test, and not just by a little bit; they said they would get it down to seven weeks. A year later, the waiting time is now 21.9 weeks. In fact, it has gone up by three weeks since they came into power. That is not really a sign of competence, is it?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have to say, the shadow Minister has some brass neck in criticising our Government on this issue. The National Audit Office, in its December report into driving test waiting times, was very clear:

“DFT had limited involvement in helping DVSA tackle driving test waiting times up to mid-2024. Prior to 2024, DFT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.

The hon. Gentleman does not have a leg to stand on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Government claim to be simplifying rail fares, but we are beginning to see what they mean by that. London North Eastern Railway is scrapping off-peak and super-off-peak tickets, doubling the price of some journeys; it says that that is in the name of simplification. c2c has cut a 40% off-peak discount, straight after nationalisation. Elsewhere, analysis by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that rail passengers are now spending 40% more on some journeys than before the general election. Does the Minister accept that removing the cheapest fares in pursuit of a political slogan is not always in the best interests of the travelling public?

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Clause 87 points towards schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments arising from the Bill. The Bill has broadened its scope, and much of the related previous legislation will need altering slightly. These minor and consequential amendments allow for the necessary changes and updates to be made, and will help propel the Bill forward. I therefore commend the clause and schedule 3 to the Committee.

Amendments 188, 191 to 193 and 196 to 199 in my name are consequential amendments to the Railways Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that reflect the removal of franchising. The new provisions about railway passenger services and the creation of GBR. For example, it was necessary to make some amendments to the closures regime in the 2005 Act as it was aligned with the franchising system in the 1993 Act, whereas we now need it to align with the Bill. Importantly, there is no change to the outcome to the closures process, and the role of the ORR and Ministers is not changing.

Amendment 190 ensures that documents sent in accordance with the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill can be sent electronically. It is a common and standard amendment to reflect technological developments. Amendments 187, 189, 194 and 195 remove provisions that are no longer necessary.

The last thing I will address in this group is clause 88, which I commend to the Committee. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make amendments that are consequential to the Bill. That will ensure that the statute book is tidy and appropriately reflects the changes the Bill makes. I stress that this power cannot be used to make policy changes and is intended only to ensure that the outcomes of the Bill are not hindered or confused by existing legislation that should have been consequentially amended.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert—

“7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).”

This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary.

Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

“8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’.

8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.”

This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill.

Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert—

22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’.

(3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or

(b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.”

This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill.

Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.”

This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary.

Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert—

“24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’,

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and

(c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’.

(3) After that subsection insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’

(4) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’

(5) At the end of subsection (5) insert—

‘“working day” means any day other than—

(a) a Saturday or a Sunday,

(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

(c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’”

This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill.

Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert—

“25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit paragraph 1(aa).

(3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’.

25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.”

This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes.

Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert—

“27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4A)—

(a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’.

(3) In subsection (8)—

(a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.”

This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR.

Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert

“for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”.

This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2).

Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.”

This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements.

Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert—

“32A Omit sections 3 and 4.”

This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill.

Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert—

“33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8).

33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8).

(3) In subsection (2) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.

33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11).

(3) In subsection (4) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.”

This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system.

Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert—

“34A Omit section 16.

34B Omit section 18.

34C Omit section 20.

34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (10).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (8).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’.

(3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’.

(4) For subsection (9) substitute—

‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’

(5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’.

34G In section 32(12)—

(a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’;

(b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’;

(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’.

34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34J For section 36(7) substitute—

‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’

34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’.

(3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’.

34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3).

34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows.

(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—

‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is—

(a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State;

(b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers;

(c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers,

and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’

34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’.

(3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’.

34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) at the appropriate place, insert—

‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’

(b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert—

‘(da) a mayoral combined authority;

(db) a mayoral combined county authority;’;

(c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a).

(3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert—

“35A For section 48(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means—

(a) a Scotland-only service;

(b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’

35B For section 48A(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means—

(a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert—

“36A Omit Schedule 4.

36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority;

(eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them.

Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on.

Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities. However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it.

I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026.

For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Before I respond to that, Mr Western, is this my last opportunity to speak in the Committee?

[The Chair]

No.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In that case, these are all straightforward ancillary parts to the Bill, and I have no comments to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 90

General interpretation

Amendments made: 200, in clause 90, page 53, line 12, at end insert—

“‘Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area’ means a body which is the Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;”

This amendment defines Passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 263, in clause 90, page 53, line 31, at end insert

“, except in relation to the expression ‘wholly owned by the Crown’ (as to which see section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993)”.—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment provides for the meaning in the Bill of “wholly owned by the Crown” to be that given by section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993.

Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Extent

Amendments made: 201, in clause 91, page 53, line 32, at end insert—

“(A1) This Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only, subject to subsections (A2) to (1).

(A2) Section 86 and this Part extend also to Northern Ireland.

(A3) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of section 86 and this Part, or any regulations under that section (whether made before or after the making of the Order in Council), to extend with or without modifications to the Isle of Man.

(A4) The power under subsection (A3), so far as relating to regulations, includes power to provide for the regulations as amended from time to time to extend as mentioned in that subsection.”

This amendment allows clause 86 and regulations under it to be extended to the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Amendment 202, in clause 91, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 201.

Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him.

I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning. That must make me a very slow learner.

Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole.

With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, in what could well be our final session, unfortunately, on this big and beautiful Bill, as somebody across the pond might say.

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for new clause 31. The previous Government introduced minimum service levels legislation akin to that proposed in the new clause, which this Government repealed under the Employment Rights Act 2025 as it did not support a positive and productive relationship between employers, employees and their trade unions. Indeed, it served only to exacerbate the national rail disputes under the previous Government, who saw two years of widespread strikes and disruption to millions of passengers.

The previous Government’s inability to solve the industrial dispute is estimated to have cost £850 million in lost revenue—a debilitating amount for industry and the taxpayer. In agreeing pay deals last year, we have more than halved the proportion of rail services lost due to cancellations and national strikes since the height of industrial action under the previous Government, and we have begun the critical job of making the railway work for the passenger once again. Further, although many rail employers had the opportunity to use minimum service levels regulations, none chose to do so as they deemed them either unworkable or unnecessary. For those reasons, we do not agree with the principle behind the new clause, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

On new clause 32, the hon. Gentleman’s proposed working practices and productivity modernisation framework under Great British Railways covers various areas, with the aspiration, which the Government share, of delivering a modernised railway that fully meets the needs of passengers. I am grateful to him for his considered suggestions for a framework. It covers some matters that we are already taking steps to address, such as the extension of rest day working agreements to improve the reliability of train services seven days a week. As I confirmed to the hon. Gentleman last week, some train operators already have Sunday in their working week, and we are very serious about improving performance everywhere. We want a railway that works on all seven days of the week, which is why we have instructed train operators to set out detailed resourcing plans, including on recruiting sufficient drivers and crew. However, the suggested framework also proposes some changes that could breach an individual’s contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. They need to be negotiated and updated as part of staff contracts, and that is not appropriate for legislation.

Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. On the proposal to require GBR to establish a train driving school with streamlined training methods to increase driver availability, I assure him that steps have already been taken to address the driver shortage. In May 2025, we announced a reduction in the minimum age to become a train driver from 20 to 18 to allow train operating companies and, in future, Great British Railways to create career pathways for school leavers and broaden the pool of people they can recruit from to address shortages.

On training in general and the need for training to reduce unnecessary delays in deploying rolling stock and other areas, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that comprehensive and targeted training is essential to the proper running of the railway. GBR will implement best practice across the railway to ensure its staff have everything they need to succeed.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his desire to end short-notice holiday approval, the dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave and the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails. As I have said, we want a railway that works seven days a week. It is our view that the privatised railway caused this issue, with a fragmented set of employee terms and conditions that has resulted in differing approaches to the workforce. In bringing together train operators, GBR can start to tackle some of those issues, which are rooted in the privatised system. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that must not come at the expense of safety or workers’ rights.

On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the Secretary of State should be prevented from awarding general pay rises to workers when train performance has fallen, may I suggest that performance is something that GBR can improve in a lot of ways, including by bringing track and train together and by sensibly co-ordinating the timetable? Those are both lacking today and create many performance problems.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Minister has inadvertently misunderstood that paragraph of the new clause; it does not refer to performance but to productivity.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that important clarification and I happily correct my remarks to reflect that. However, I do not believe that it changes the substance of my point: improvement of performance and productivity can be achieved through myriad factors that do not include preventing the Secretary of State from awarding pay rises to workers when the level of train performance has fallen. There is a point about fairness and equity there, as productivity is outwith the control of some people who work on the railways. The amendment would, in effect, punish people for factors that could be beyond their control.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting point. If the productivity of a private business falls, it becomes less profitable and cannot afford pay rises. Should the same attitude not be directed to public sector bodies? Where productivity falls, the people who suffer are the taxpayers. As the Secretary of State and GBR stand in the shoes of the taxpayer, should they not apply the same approach that the private sector has to live with?

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point about the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to ensure productivity as part of GBR’s processes. We differ on the mechanism by which those efficiencies are achieved. GBR will be incentivised to improve performance via its performance duty and, in extremis, GBR and the Government will work with unions as partners to achieve necessary changes. We have discussed at length, when considering the Bill, the myriad forms of accountability and enforcement of consumer standards and the need to drive competition where it drives performance in some areas of the railways. However, our approach to union relations has been different from that of the previous Government: it has been to get around the table to address matters and avoid the need for industrial action. That in itself is a driver of productivity on the railway, which is in stark contrast to more of a scorched earth approach from the last Government, which resulted in strike after strike, often costing the taxpayer in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister raises interesting arguments, but I wish new clauses 31 and 32 to be put to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Clause 87 points towards schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments arising from the Bill. The Bill has broadened its scope, and much of the related previous legislation will need altering slightly. These minor and consequential amendments allow for the necessary changes and updates to be made, and will help propel the Bill forward. I therefore commend the clause and schedule 3 to the Committee.

Amendments 188, 191 to 193 and 196 to 199 in my name are consequential amendments to the Railways Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that reflect the removal of franchising. The new provisions about railway passenger services and the creation of GBR. For example, it was necessary to make some amendments to the closures regime in the 2005 Act as it was aligned with the franchising system in the 1993 Act, whereas we now need it to align with the Bill. Importantly, there is no change to the outcome to the closures process, and the role of the ORR and Ministers is not changing.

Amendment 190 ensures that documents sent in accordance with the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill can be sent electronically. It is a common and standard amendment to reflect technological developments. Amendments 187, 189, 194 and 195 remove provisions that are no longer necessary.

The last thing I will address in this group is clause 88, which I commend to the Committee. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make amendments that are consequential to the Bill. That will ensure that the statute book is tidy and appropriately reflects the changes the Bill makes. I stress that this power cannot be used to make policy changes and is intended only to ensure that the outcomes of the Bill are not hindered or confused by existing legislation that should have been consequentially amended.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert—

“7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).”

This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary.

Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert—

“8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’.

8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.”

This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill.

Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert—

22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’.

(3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or

(b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.”

This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill.

Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.”

This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary.

Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert—

“24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’,

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and

(c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’.

(3) After that subsection insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’

(4) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’

(5) At the end of subsection (5) insert—

‘“working day” means any day other than—

(a) a Saturday or a Sunday,

(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

(c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’”

This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill.

Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert—

“25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit paragraph 1(aa).

(3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’.

25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.”

This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes.

Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert—

“27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4A)—

(a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’.

(3) In subsection (8)—

(a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’;

(b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.”

This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR.

Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert

“for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”.

This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2).

Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.”

This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements.

Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert—

“32A Omit sections 3 and 4.”

This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill.

Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert—

“33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8).

33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8).

(3) In subsection (2) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.

33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11).

(3) In subsection (4) omit—

(a) ‘also’; and

(b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’.

(4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’.

(5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.”

This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system.

Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert—

“34A Omit section 16.

34B Omit section 18.

34C Omit section 20.

34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (10).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’.

(3) Omit subsection (8).

(4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’.

34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’.

(3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’.

(4) For subsection (9) substitute—

‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’

(5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’.

34G In section 32(12)—

(a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’;

(b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’;

(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’.

34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34J For section 36(7) substitute—

‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’

34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’.

(3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’.

34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3).

34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows.

(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—

‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is—

(a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State;

(b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers;

(c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers,

and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’

34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’.

(3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’.

34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) at the appropriate place, insert—

‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’

(b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert—

‘(da) a mayoral combined authority;

(db) a mayoral combined county authority;’;

(c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a).

(3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.

(4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert—

“35A For section 48(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means—

(a) a Scotland-only service;

(b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’

35B For section 48A(4) substitute—

‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means—

(a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or

(b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.

Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert—

“36A Omit Schedule 4.

36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority;

(eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them.

Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on.

Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities. However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it.

I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026.

For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Before I respond to that, Mr Western, is this my last opportunity to speak in the Committee?

[The Chair]

No.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In that case, these are all straightforward ancillary parts to the Bill, and I have no comments to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 90

General interpretation

Amendments made: 200, in clause 90, page 53, line 12, at end insert—

“‘Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area’ means a body which is the Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;”

This amendment defines Passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 263, in clause 90, page 53, line 31, at end insert

“, except in relation to the expression ‘wholly owned by the Crown’ (as to which see section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993)”. —(Keir Mather.)

This amendment provides for the meaning in the Bill of “wholly owned by the Crown” to be that given by section 151(2) of the Railways Act 1993.

Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Extent

Amendments made: 201, in clause 91, page 53, line 32, at end insert—

“(A1) This Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only, subject to subsections (A2) to (1).

(A2) Section 86 and this Part extend also to Northern Ireland.

(A3) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of section 86 and this Part, or any regulations under that section (whether made before or after the making of the Order in Council), to extend with or without modifications to the Isle of Man.

(A4) The power under subsection (A3), so far as relating to regulations, includes power to provide for the regulations as amended from time to time to extend as mentioned in that subsection.”

This amendment allows clause 86 and regulations under it to be extended to the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Amendment 202, in clause 91, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 201.

Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not going to suggest that we do not progress the Bill to its next stage, because I am not sure I would win that vote, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing the various amendments and new clauses that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I hope I can speak for them, too—have tabled. I am surprised that he did not adopt a single one of them, but he dealt with them in an unfailingly courteous and thoughtful manner, and I am very grateful to him.

I am also grateful to the Chairs—including you, Mr Western—for agreeing to hold the ring, and to the Clerks, who have done an excellent job helping us to navigate a process that, for me, anyway, is just as complex and confusing at the end of the Committee’s proceedings as it was at the beginning. That must make me a very slow learner.

Finally, I am grateful to all the Committee members, particularly those on the Government Benches. Having sat there myself for what felt like years, I know that it is deeply frustrating to be told by the Whips not even to intervene, let alone make a speech, while the shadow Minister expands at length. There are reasons why we do it, and I hope that those Government Members who have been on this side of Committees will remember them, but I am very grateful for the patience that they have shown me and for the work that they have done with the Committee as a whole.

With that, I am happy for the Bill to progress to the next stage.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.