Cheadle Train Station

Keir Mather Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate, and everyone else, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their helpful interventions that stressed the fundamental importance of rail connectivity to communities in the north-west of England.

Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I want to say that I have noted the hon. Member for Cheadle’s point about the lack of response to his correspondence with the Rail Minister and the Department for Transport, and I will make sure that his correspondence receives a full response as quickly as possible.

I am grateful for the impassioned case the hon. Gentleman made for building the new station. He outlined how railways serve as a catalyst for economic growth, social connections and interconnectedness between different communities. A powerful case has been put forward on behalf of the people of Cheadle.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour.

Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment.

The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability.

In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services.

Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities.

The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops.

The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services.

The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals.

This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts.

I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Isles of Scilly: Transport

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this Adjournment debate. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing it and for speaking so passionately about transport provision for the Isles of Scilly? He speaks with his characteristic good nature on what are really severe and challenging issues facing his constituents and, at the first instance, I acknowledge that and his tireless work across many decades in Parliament where he has advocated on their behalf. I also thank him for his kind offer for us to work more closely together on this issue, which is certainly a commitment I would be glad to accept.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Isles of Scilly are unique, both in their beauty and their appeal to both residents and visitors, as we have so ably heard, but also that they have clear and pressing challenges in their transportation needs. Their location, 30 miles to the west of Cornwall, brings a set of unique transport challenges that the hon. Member has set out.

If he will allow me, first, I will briefly highlight some of the work that this Government are doing across transport, and notably in Cornwall, that will benefit the hon. Member’s constituents, before turning to the specific concerns that he has raised. We are providing record levels of investment to road, bus and active travel projects across the country to boost connectivity through simplified multi-year settlements. Although I appreciate that the Isles of Scilly are treated separately for funding purposes, Cornwall council, the local authority for much of the hon. Member’s constituency, will receive over £30 million of local authority bus grants during the spending review period, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. It will also receive over £4.5 million for active travel, up to £221 million for highways maintenance and £24 million in local transport grant funding over the next four years. However, I appreciate that the hon. Member has brought this debate today because he wants to speak about the specific concerns of islanders, and it is those matters that I will now turn to.

The Isles of Scilly are served by a ferry service for eight months of the year, provided by the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company and its vessel, the Scillonian III. I am pleased that the company has commissioned the building of a new passenger ferry, the Scillonian IV, which, as the hon. Member has outlined, is due to come into service next year. In addition, it has two new freight vessels coming into service this summer, and a further vessel is to be launched in 2027. These investments will help secure services between the isles and the mainland for the foreseeable future.

The hon. Member is right to point out the cost of living impact of the transport challenges that his constituents face. The cost of living is a key issue for this Government, and I recognise his and his constituents’ concerns regarding the unique challenges around the high cost of travel to, from and between the islands. I acknowledge the difficulties the island communities face, both in travelling to and from the mainland and in travelling between the islands, and my Department remains committed to delivering better, sustainable and more affordable transport provision. This will be reaffirmed in the integrated national transport strategy, which will soon be published.

Although the amount of transport funding that we are able to offer the Isles of Scilly through the legislative means that the hon. Member outlines is, in my view, limited, that does not mean that we do not wish to do all we can to improve the services there. I can confirm that we are providing the council with a total of £291,000 in highways maintenance incentive funding, up to and including 2029-30, to maintain and improve local roads. Alongside this, we have allocated £140,000 in active travel funding to support the development and construction of walking, wheeling and cycling facilities, and to support network planning and community engagement.

I would like to reassure the hon. Member that I am committed to continuing the engagement between the Government and the Isles of Scilly. It is of paramount importance to me and other Ministers that this continues. Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government visited the Isles of Scilly last year and spoke to residents to gain a greater understanding of the challenges that people face. This was followed by a visit in July from Baroness Taylor. These visits were valuable for our Departments, which have worked collaboratively to understand the challenges for people on the islands, including economic difficulties and transport-related issues. Both Departments remain in regular contact with the Isles of Scilly council, which is proactive in driving forward change.

I also recognise the impact of the increasing cost of fares and of transport operations on the people of the Isles of Scilly. It remains the case that all air and sea services to and from the islands are commercially operated, without public subsidy. As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, the threshold for Government intervention in such markets is extremely high, and there are no current plans to intervene, given that commercial services remain viable. I take his point about the provision for the Scottish islands and the legislative hangover from previous Governments’ time in office, but I would note that the situation in question was distinct, in that the services could not operate on a commercial basis. I reassure him that, through the Department’s public service obligations, a policy is in place that if any air transport routes were at risk of being lost, we would assess whether intervention was needed to ensure that the vital links between the islands and the mainland were maintained.

I also recognise that inter-island boat services are vital for the Isles of Scilly community. As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman, however, if a service is to be covered by the £3 national bus fare cap, it has to meet the necessary criteria, including being an open bus service that allows all members of the public to board. The English national concessionary travel scheme is a statutory bus-specific scheme, and it does not extend to maritime transport, but I understand his concerns about the limitations of that framework.

Local authorities have the discretion to offer concessions on other modes, and I am aware that the Isles of Scilly council already provides a health pass, as well as a discretionary concession pass. On ferry services, it is for the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company to decide whether to offer concessions, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s very reasonable point about the fiscal pressures faced by the council, and the concessionary offers that it is able to provide. That is certainly something that I will take away and reflect on as a result of our debate.

[Andrew George]

To a certain extent, the Minister has implied the answer to this, but of course he is well aware that a bus cannot drive between the off-islands and St Mary’s—though there might be some inventive way in which someone could do such a thing. He must accept that if one is looking for parity between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland, one must recognise that we cannot have an open bus service. There are boats and launches that go between the islands—and yes, anyone can use them. Surely there must be a way of finding a parallel for the Isles of Scilly.

[Keir Mather]

I take the point the hon. Member makes, and the point that he made earlier about the basic issue of equity for British citizens, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they live in. That being said, it is incumbent on me in my ministerial capacity to work within the framework of the regulations that have been set. Unfortunately, if they are too narrow to facilitate the interpretation that he advises us to make. I am afraid that that is the reality of the situation, but that is why it is all the more important that we find ways to engage together to solve these challenges. That is certainly what I want to do, following this debate.

Since last year, Artemis Technologies and other stakeholders have taken forward activity as a result of their successful bid to the Department’s clean maritime demonstration competition fund round 6. The Department provided £750,000 to enable a feasibility study to ascertain whether Artemis’s technology could provide a viable solution for an island route passenger service, particularly in the winter months, when residents have no regularly scheduled water crossing. We expect to hear the results very soon.

The UK emissions trading scheme will be extended to cover UK domestic voyages and all UK in port emissions for vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above from July 2026. I can assure the hon. Member that we have assessed that these criteria are not met for the Scillonian IV or the Scillonian III. Both remain outside the scope of the UK ETS, and the exemptions and threshold will be reviewed in 2028.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that clarification; I am sure that it will be music to the ears of the steamship company. Going back to the point about Artemis, which is exciting—I congratulate the Government for investing in it—is there any indication of the timescale for any roll-out that might benefit the Isles of Scilly?

[Keir Mather]

The Department, of course, wants to pursue these projects at pace. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will respond to him in writing with a more detailed timeline of when roll-out will begin.

To conclude, the Government are investing in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. Our multi-year transport investments help local authorities to drive economic growth and deliver on our plan for change. There are still challenges that we need to overcome, and I commit to working with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we tackle them for residents of the Isles of Scilly. I sincerely thank him for securing the debate, and for allowing me to address the House on these important issues, which I know are of paramount importance to both him and his constituents. I am sure that he will be able to cover this subject in more detail when he meets Lord Hendy, Lord Berkeley, Baroness Taylor and representatives from the Isles of Scilly council tomorrow morning. I look forward to working closely with him on delivering better transport provision and improved connectivity for everyone in his constituency and right across the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

General Lighthouse Authorities: Light Dues 2026

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

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

A safe, efficient and innovative maritime sector is fundamental to the United Kingdom’s economic strength and global competitiveness. The general lighthouse authorities are central to this ambition. Through their maintenance of essential aids to navigation and their rapid response to new wrecks and emerging hazards, the GLAs safeguard some of the busiest sea lanes in the world and enable the smooth and reliable movement of the goods that the UK’s economy depends upon.

This high standard of maritime safety is the result of the contribution of the shipping industry through the light dues system. Light dues ensure that the GLAs’ services are funded directly by those who benefit from them, without requiring support from the UK Exchequer. However, like many essential services, the GLAs are facing increasing operational costs and pressures. Without action, these pressures could compromise their ability to deliver the resilient and modern navigational infrastructure that maritime users rightly expect.

To support the high-quality service on which the maritime sector relies, I have decided to increase the light dues rate by one penny, to 46p per net registered tonne for 2026-27, and by a further penny, to 47p for 2027-28. These modest adjustments will provide the stability and certainty that the GLAs need to plan and deliver their critical programmes of work.

Light dues will continue to be reviewed annually. This ensures that the GLAs remain firmly focused on delivering an efficient, value-for-money service while upholding the safety and reliability that underpin the UK’s reputation as a world-leading maritime nation.

[HCWS1384]

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Keir Mather Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.

[Keir Mather]

I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today.

Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry.

Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?

[Keir Mather]

To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country.

Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport.

The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

A few of my colleagues have been offering jokes. I was not able to prepare detailed remarks, so I hope they will forgive me if I just wing it. [Laughter.]

Although we have discussed decarbonisation a number of times in this debate, it has not been said yet that the Bill is about addressing the climate crisis. That incredibly important and urgent piece of work demands the utmost urgency and ambition. For that reason, I naturally support it and what it is trying to achieve. Similar mechanisms have been incredibly successful in developing the thriving renewables industry that we now see in the UK, which provides a lot of our energy.

It is worth while recognising that the Bill is part of a much longer journey to decarbonising aviation. I declare an interest early in my remarks: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen. In a very long timeframe, we can potentially see aviation using cryogenic hydrogen as a fuel source, so we should keep that in view.

Similarly, SAF has various generations of development, with different feedstocks and mechanisms of production. The fuels also have different characteristics and ways of interacting with gas turbine technology. Therefore, the devil will absolutely be in the detail of the mechanisms that the Government are putting forward to build a market for the various generations of SAF. I hope we will see more detail about that strategic approach as this legislation goes forward.

It is important, as the amendments make clear, that the UK benefits from what we are doing in the Bill. I am passionate about seeing the whole UK low-carbon energy supply chain building and scaling rapidly. That includes electrons—the Government already have very ambitious goals around decarbonising electricity—as well as molecules and hydrogen. We are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. I recently spoke to the Minister about that, and I understand that it is close. It is incredibly important that we have an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for the development of the hydrogen economy in the UK that does not just serve a small number of industrial clusters but underpins our decarbonisation of electricity, provides dispatchable power and provides an opportunity for industrial renewal as we move forward.

Hydrogen is an important feedstock for producing SAF by any route. We need a hydrogen economy, and for that we need a price. For a price, we need storage and transmission. As we fulfil our desires for SAF to be ambitious, bold and effective in decarbonising, we must also do the work as a Government to build a hydrogen economy to establish that anchoring price, as well as demand and production, so that we can see a thriving, decarbonising aviation sector, the renewal and regeneration of the whole UK industrial sector, and an absolute renaissance underpinned by low-carbon energy—both electrons and molecules.

[Keir Mather]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to start by asking for the leave of the House to speak again, and then wish a very happy birthday to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I was so keen to wish him a happy birthday, I nearly put a foot wrong when it came to parliamentary protocol. I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday during consideration of the Railways Bill with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). May I say, it was raucous, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) will attest?

I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the Lords amendments and for his strong support for the principle of decarbonisation of aviation. I am starting to receive slightly mixed signals from the shadow Transport team as to how passionately they stand behind this prospect across different modes of transport. Perhaps that is one to be hashed out over a beer at his birthday celebrations. I am glad that the shadow Minister agrees with the Government amendments. He is right to point to the economic value of decarbonisation across the United Kingdom and the need to focus on value for money for taxpayers. We are committed to delivering that in the revenue certainty mechanism by controlling the scale and the number of contracts that are entered into, as well as the prices that are negotiated in each contract. I assure him that the cost of the scheme and the impact on passenger ticket prices will be kept under continual review. I do not just acknowledge his commitment to be vigilant on this issue; I actively welcome it, and I thank him for his contributions.

May I also acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)? I have already thanked him for his work on the Bill, but he was not in the Chamber, so I would like to take the opportunity to restate my thanks to him for getting this crucial legislation to where it needed to be.

I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). They were right to focus on and say that the benefits of SAF production must be felt in my home of Yorkshire as well as in Lincolnshire and across the United Kingdom. The point about Doncaster Sheffield airport is important, because the consumers who use our airports and seek to use aviation travel to connect themselves to the world also care that they can do so in a form of technology that the Government are doing their utmost to try to decarbonise. I am glad that they feel that that level of ambition is reflected both in these amendments and in the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) also pointed to that.

The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), was right to say that SAF is only one piece of the puzzle in aviation decarbonisation. Hydrogen flight, greenhouse gas removals and airspace modernisation all require focus. Those points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Worcester (Tom Collins).

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked me about the concerns about crop use in SAF. Currently, crop-based SAF will not be eligible for the SAF mandate, but a call for evidence on the subject is open and will close on 16 March. More broadly, he asked me a range of questions that were quite detailed, some of which lie outside the exact scope of the Lords amendments. I would therefore be grateful if he would write to me and set them out so that I can give him the full response that he requires.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his contribution. He is right to point to the skills benefit that the generation of a thriving UK SAF industry can bring to his constituents and to support the work in Stansted airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also raised the important point of ongoing questions surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. I reiterate, as he asked me to, that we are calling on investors to come forward and join us in the major opportunity to secure the long-term industrial future of Grangemouth as a hub for our clean energy future. With Government backing, we believe that now is the time for private sector partners to step forward and help shape the next chapter for Grangemouth. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to invest £200 million to support those new opportunities. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with us, and we are ready to engage with investors on that point.

Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026.

The draft order will assist in the replacement of the ageing and increasingly obsolete vessels belonging to the general lighthouse authorities by increasing the amount of borrowing they can access under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is the second of an anticipated series of 10 similar orders.

As arm’s-length bodies of the Department for Transport, the GLAs perform a vital role in meeting the UK’s obligations under the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The UK has some of the busiest and most dangerous waters in the world, and the potential for calamity is clear. With over 85% by volume of UK imports and exports transported by sea, the importance of the work of the GLAs cannot be overestimated. They have been doing this work for hundreds of years and are world-class experts, but expertise is not enough. It is equally vital that they have modern, efficient equipment to support them.

The GLAs work their vessels extremely hard. Their average economic service life is 25 years. Replacement on these timescales is therefore business as usual. I am delighted to note that the first of a new generation of GLA vessels, the Northern Lighthouse Board’s Pole Star, was delivered on Christmas Day 2025. This represents a sea change from her predecessor, as she is a significantly more capable, greener and more comfortable ship. That is a tangible demonstration of the Government’s continuing investment in the GLAs to ensure they continue to have the right tools to deliver their vital statutory duties.

The cost of new vessels is what brings the draft order to this Committee today. The GLAs are funded by light dues, which are an hypothecated tax paid by commercial and other shipping interests. The GLAs are not paid for by general taxation and make no call on the UK Exchequer to meet their day-to-day operational costs. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 recognised that GLAs would occasionally need additional borrowing to afford large capital purchases, but it also set a cumulative limit of £100 million on the amount that all three GLAs could borrow. That figure was first included in legislation in 1988. It was not changed until the first of these orders, approved by Parliament in 2024, increased the limit to £133 million. However, it did not recognise inflationary or other pressures, or changes in international financial reporting which resulted in other costs, such as fixed-price elements of contracts, being treated as “borrowing” in accounting terms. That figure also included all borrowing, regardless of source—commercial or Government.

In real terms, £100 million in 1988 is equivalent to £197 million today. The GLAs were able to keep comfortably within the original £100 million limit until the need to purchase new vessels meant that it is now insufficient to meet forecast borrowing requirements. However, the 1995 Act places restrictions on how and when the power to increase the limit can be used. First, increasing the limit requires advance approval from His Majesty’s Treasury. My colleagues accepted our case and have provided that approval. Secondly, the limit can be increased only by order, hence the statutory instrument before us today. Thirdly, the limit can only be increased by a maximum of £33 million at a time—that is, in a single order—as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments advised.

Given those legal constraints, we need to increase the limit by the maximum £33 million once again. Additional orders will be required for future increases to ensure that the limit aligns with forecast GLA borrowing. We will submit these orders for parliamentary approval in due course.

I must stress that increasing the borrowing limit does not represent a commitment to new funding. Every vessel replacement project will remain subject to the highest levels of scrutiny under Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury spend controls and approvals. However, these orders are essential to enable the GLAs to fund new vessels through borrowing when they need them. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will start where the Liberal Democrat spokesman left off and send everyone involved in the maintenance and continued use of Happisburgh lighthouse my sincere congratulations on keeping it going strong. I hope it continues to do so long into the future.

Responding to the points the shadow Minister made, I have met all the GLAs and remain confident in their capacity to manage this financial programme. I believe that they will make sure that when borrowing is undertaken, it is in a financially responsible way, and that they have the capacity to pay back borrowing in good time, owing to the close and thorough work Department for Transport officials have done with them on this programme. One vessel has already been brought to fruition in a cost-effective way, through a procurement process that I believe the authorities think worked well and served their interests, providing the vessel in a good timeframe. I have no concerns about the financial security of the GLAs, but if any arise, I will be sure to inform the shadow Minister, whom I thank for his general support.

We are an island nation, but I think we do not appreciate shipping’s importance to our economy and thus the importance of keeping seafarers safe. I hope you will indulge me, Sir Desmond, and allow me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all seafarers and the staff of the GLAs, who go above and beyond to ensure that our vital marine aids to navigation remain operational. With the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, our GLAs are recognised around the world for their world-class standards and expertise. The draft order and the others to come will support the purchase of vital new, modern vessels and other equipment they need to perform their statutory duties, and enable them to continue the work they have successfully done for hundreds of years of ensuring the safety of all mariners in UK waters.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Mather Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with stakeholders on improvements to the Calder Valley train line.

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker, and most importantly, I wish you a very happy start to the super league season.

Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the biggest transformation in travel in the north of England in a generation. Under NPR, officials will assess options to improve Bradford to Manchester connectivity, including consideration of the Calder Valley line. I know my hon. Friend has been a great advocate for electrification, and the Rail Minister will be keen to work with him on this issue.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Plans for a disabled access lift at Todmorden station were first announced in 2019, yet six years later we are still waiting, with no lifts, no date and no accountability. When I knocked on doors at the weekend, a disabled constituent said she can get in a lift to travel only in one direction, because the promised upgrade has not come. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene, and to help me and local councillors finally to get this project delivered, so that stations in Calder Valley work for all my constituents.

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on accessibility, and I would be glad to engage with him further on this matter. The project to which he refers was originally remitted to Northern Trains for delivery, but the contractor was stood down from works in August 2024 due to unsafe behaviours. Network Rail has taken over delivery of the project, the funding remains available, and it is currently undertaking survey works and option selection to provide an accessible route to and between platforms. I look forward to engaging with him further on this important issue.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

3. What steps she is taking with public transport providers to help improve the safety of commuters.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Sarah Green]

A parent has been in touch with me about the rising cost of rail travel for her daughter. Despite holding a railcard, the cost of her weekly travel to college increased overnight from £27.80 to over £40. She is worried that this will affect her daughter’s ability to attend college, as she may no longer be able to travel at peak times. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that increases in rail fares do not restrict access to education, and would he, for example, support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill, which would ensure that fare increases do not exceed inflation?

[Keir Mather]

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

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, I had a very productive meeting with representatives of Greater Anglia about my campaigns to improve connectivity at Roydon station and improve safety at Harlow Mill station. Does the Minister agree that the move to Great British Railways and renationalisation will mean a better-connected rail service that is safer and will bring prices down for commuters?

[Keir Mather]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who continues to be a determined advocate for his constituents in Harlow. GBR will allow us to rationalise the way the railway is run, think about it holistically and make sure that passenger services are run in the interests both of the passengers who use them and of the British taxpayer.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Keir Mather]

Better late than never, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister is becoming exercised about rail fares now, but fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2014 under his Government, and there was an £850 million strike cost to the taxpayer. For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares so that passengers can have money back in their pocket and continue to use the railway. If the shadow Minister wants to bring down costs for passengers in the long term, the only way is to get behind our move to create Great British Railways.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of the progress of upgrades to the energy coast train line.

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

My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I thank her for her efforts to push the project forward; the energy coast train line has great potential to boost the local economy. Cumberland council is rightly leading the development of proposals, and my Department will continue to work with it, and to facilitate engagement across Government.

[Michelle Scrogham]

People in Barrow-in-Furness have had to put up with an increasingly unreliable rail service, which is having a huge impact on lives and businesses locally. From our work together so far on the energy coast rail upgrade, the Minister is aware that we have cross-Government support, and that the technical case for the project is well advanced. Does he agree that the meeting that we have been working towards, bringing Ministers and Departments together with Cumbrian MPs, will be an important milestone as we progress this work?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend continues to be a determined champion both for the project and for the economic benefits that it could bring to her constituents. I agree that a meeting with the Rail Minister is the right way to progress the matter; I give her an assurance that that meeting will happen in short order.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the rail transport system supports economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

13. What steps she is taking to improve railway services for passengers.

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

Rail performance is improving following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. Those include timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Network Rail’s Wiltshire strategic study identifies a clear strategic and economic case for upgrading the railway through Melksham, with a new passing loop unlocking capacity for an hourly passenger service, increased freight movements and improved network resilience when other lines are closed. The study also highlights how the proposed gateway station would deliver economic growth for Devizes and boost connectivity for towns and villages along the Kennet valley. Does the Minister—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. The question is too long. I have all your colleagues to get in—they are going to be upset. I am sure the Minister has a good idea of what the question was.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am aware of both the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. While there are currently no specific plans to deliver on those aspirations, we would encourage both him and local stakeholders, including local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network Rail to continue to work together to develop those plans, including sourcing funding opportunities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play his part as they do so.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are overjoyed that this Government are investing in the midlands rail hub project, but they are eager for more. Will the departmental team look again at the south Staffordshire line, which would reconnect Lichfield to Burton via Alrewas, and the potential merits of a station to serve the National Memorial Arboretum?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

14. What recent progress her Department has made on Heathrow expansion.

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

The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.

[Munira Wilson]

The Environmental Audit Committee recently found

“that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.”

Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Hard-working men and women in the coastguard, such as Bembridge resident Martin Groom, do vital work securing our borders, including, in some cases, intercepting small boats. The coastguard treats them as volunteers, but the Court of Appeal has disagreed and said that they are workers. Will the Government do the right thing and afford them all the rights, protections and fair payment that their worker status entails? The security of our nation relies on them.

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

The Government are currently considering the judgment handed down in the Groom case and the next steps that we will take with His Majesty’s Coastguard. In the meantime, we are grateful for the contribution of volunteers across wider society. They are a crucial part of how this country comes together and delivers for the common good.

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

Last month, my Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley issued a press release stating that DFT data showed that it has the seventh best roads in England. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data shows that it has an amber rating and does not say that it has the seventh best roads in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister has referred to a local transport grant that is of course not available to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, because it is not deemed to be a local transport authority. Attending medical appointments for my constituents from off-islands on a day like today would cost them £120 return. The Secretary of State has said that she is meeting fellow Members from Cornwall. Will she ensure that that meeting is on a cross-party basis, so that I can raise the serious transport problems on the Isles of Scilly?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is right to raise the transportation issues on the Isles of Scilly and in his constituency more widely—I would be very grateful if he wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter. I understand that the Rail Minister will be meeting the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly to discuss further some of the issues that the hon. Member is campaigning on.

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 187 to 199.

Schedule 3.

Clause 88 stand part.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 200.

Clauses 90 to 93 stand part.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by thanking everyone personally for the way that they have conducted themselves and approached the Bill? As a relatively new Minister taking on my first major piece of legislation, I have appreciated enormously the constructive approach of Members across the Committee. I want to read into the record my personal thanks, in particular, to those on the Government Benches: my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and Penge, for Bexleyheath and Crayford, for South Dorset, for Truro and Falmouth, for Wrexham, for Derby South, for Hyndburn and for Birmingham Northfield, as well as the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South.

I extend my thanks to the shadow Minister, who has worked assiduously to bring forward a number of constructive proposals, which, by virtue of us having had the opportunity debate them at length, I think have teased out interesting questions about how the Bill will progress, provided an important buttress against pre-conceived notions and allowed us to explore some of the issues in depth. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has engaged in the process.

Although he is not in his place, I thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who approached the Committee in his good-natured way, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon, who made many valid and respected contributions. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage certainly kept me on my toes on all aspects of railway nerdery—buttressed by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset—and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East was characteristically forensic in his scrutiny of specific aspects of the Bill, and I thank him for his hard work.

May I also thank my Bill team, who have done an incredible amount of hard work over many months, predating my occupancy of this role, to make this piece of legislation possible? It is enormously appreciated. I thank all the Doorkeepers for facilitating our Divisions and keeping us safe; the Clerks for their assiduous work; and all the Chairs who have been in charge of our proceedings.

It falls to me finally to say that regardless of individual Members’ perspectives on the merits and demerits of certain aspects of the Bill, it is one of the most consequential pieces of railways legislation that have come before this House in the last century. I am very proud to have been a part of it, and I have enjoyed it very much because of the contributions of everyone in this room. Thank you, all.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir Alec. Before I speak to new clause 25, let me make a few comments about the Government and Conservative amendments. I see nothing to object to in the Government amendments, which seem to tidy up some aspects of the Bill surrounding interfaces relating to TfL; I await the Minister’s comments. We support the Conservative amendments, which would strengthen the role of devolved Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral authorities and TfL in relation to GBR’s decisions. That is the right principle because, as I shall argue, for too long decisions about our rail network have been focused on London and the south-east, sometimes to the detriment of regional development.

Our new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report at least once every five years on the long-term rail infrastructure changes needed at a local level. It would force the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and would ensure that those views are properly considered, reported and laid before Parliament. Local authorities understand where infrastructure is holding back growth, connectivity and reliability. Whether it is the need for additional passing loops—were my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset present I am sure that he would talk about the west of England line—station upgrades or better integration with local bus services, such issues are often well known locally but struggle to be given a proper voice under our current arrangements. The new clause would create a formal mechanism to surface those priorities and ensure that they are not overlooked.

The powers in the Bill are not just for this Government and this Parliament, so it is important that appropriate checks and balances are put in place. The new clause would restore balance by embedding local government and parliamentary scrutiny into long-term rail planning, while making sure that local people’s voices are heard by the Government on the changes that they want to see. By requiring reports to be shared with relevant Select Committees, new clause 25 would strengthen accountability and transparency. It would support joined-up, evidence-based planning and help to ensure that Great British Railways delivers the improvements that reflect local need.

To address the shadow Minister’s point, I understand where he is coming from, but were somebody to be punished by being required to tot up the reports that would have to be laid before Parliament under amendments that he and I have tabled, I think it is possible that he might win. In that context, we do not think that this is overly onerous, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the local authority voice can be strengthened.

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

Good morning, Sir Alec; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendments 103 to 106, which would require GBR to inform the relevant devolved Ministers and bodies before taking a decision that affected them, and the relevant Minister or body to decide whether consultation is necessary, if they deemed the decision to be significant. Each of the amendments does the same thing, for Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL respectively. They would reverse provisions in the Bill as drafted that require GBR to consult the relevant devolved Minister or body if it considers a decision significant.

The Committee has heard that GBR will be the directing mind of the railways. I fully recognise the need for Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and TfL to be suitably informed and consulted on decisions of GBR that relate to them. GBR is already required by the Bill to have regard to the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, statement of objectives, and directions and guidance; to the Welsh Ministers’ transport strategy; to the local transport plans of MCAs; and to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Furthermore, in the case of Scotland and Wales, the memorandums of understanding required by the Bill will ensure that any significant decision affecting Scotland or Wales is not made without the proper engagement of the relevant Government and transport body. In the case of mayoral combined authorities and TfL, there is a clear intention for GBR to work closely in partnership with mayoral authorities including TfL. An industry-developed practitioner guide on how GBR could work in partnership locally was published on 13 January, and GBR will be a proactive partner with all those bodies.

Clauses 80 to 82 already require consultation on significant decisions. Rather than improving the Bill, amendments 103 to 106 would fundamentally hamstring GBR’s decision-making powers by creating unnecessary additional requirements. Decision making would become inefficient and less responsive to passengers and freight. Consultation will ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers can share their views, perspectives and expertise on the economic impact of GBR’s decision making.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister asserts that the amendments would make the process inefficient. Will he please explain why giving mayoral combined authorities or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers the power to call in consultation would make the process less efficient?

[Keir Mather]

Enabling mayoral combined authorities to be consulted on GBR’s proposals creates a basis on which MCAs and GBR can engage with each other to explore challenges as could relate to economic impact. The issue with calling in consultation in every instance is that it might not always be appropriate to do so. Where a more iterative process is possible, and Scottish Government and Welsh Government colleagues, for example, are best able to feed in and solve problems through consultation, it is not necessary to layer more formal processes on top.

It is worth restating for the benefit of the Committee that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are pleased with the basis on which the devolved arrangements have proceeded in the creation of the Bill. Clauses 80 to 82 as drafted will ensure that GBR engages on issues of importance, and that it consults Scottish and Welsh Ministers, rather than drowning in irrelevant detail. I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw amendment 103 and not to move amendments 104 to 106.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report

“at least once every five years…assessing long term-changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure.”

Across this Parliament, the Government are making a record £120 billion capital investment in long-awaited infrastructure projects—including road, rail and green energy projects—that will generate the jobs of the future and drive growth. The Government also hugely support collaboration to encourage a more locally focused railway. Insights from local communities, who know their areas best, will play a significant part in achieving that.

The Bill requires GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and to have regard to their local transport plans. GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable effective collaboration and local influence. That will mark a change in approach in how the railway engages locally, providing single-point accountability and enabling GBR to better meet the needs of areas and wider communities. Furthermore, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward-facing and engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. Such engagement and partnerships will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities to be collaborative with GBR on their priorities and to consider proposals.

Government amendments 158 to 160, which are a continuation of the technical amendments that we debated when considering the group led by amendment 165 to clause 6, will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. They clarify the definition of a London passenger railway service to provide consistency in geographical scope with other duties and powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They expand the scope of the duty on GBR to consult with TfL so that it applies to passenger services to, from and within Greater London, and not just those within it.

In summary, clauses 80 to 82 introduce statutory duties on GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, MCAs and TfL before it makes a decision about services or infrastructure that would significantly affect the interests of their areas. The rationale for the clauses is compelling. They provide assurance to the relevant people and organisations that they will be properly engaged when GBR makes decisions that significantly impact their areas. By embedding such a broad duty in legislation for the first time, we ensure that engagement is not optional but a requirement. That will lead to better decision making, stronger relationships and outcomes that take account of the needs of communities across Great Britain.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister has heard my submissions. In the interest of time, I will not press my amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Duty to consult Transport for London

Amendments made: 158, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “a” insert “London”.

This amendment and amendments 159 and 160 provide for the duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London.

Amendment 159, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “service” insert—

“(within the meaning of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 158.

Amendment 160, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, leave out

“which is provided in Greater London”.—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 158.

Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Advice from relevant local government bodies

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 83, page 49, leave out line 11 and insert—

“(a) railways in the body’s area, or

(b) railway services—

(i) between places in the body’s area, or

(ii) between places in the body’s area and places outside that area.”

This amendment provides for advice to be given by local government bodies to GBR about railway services that operate to, from or within their areas.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 184, 162 and 163.

Clause 84 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

The Government are committed to a more locally focused railway under GBR, and provisions in the Bill, and ongoing engagement with local government partners, demonstrate the strength of that commitment. The amendments are primarily technical in nature, but will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. I will briefly summarise their purpose and effect.

Amendment 161 widens the scope of services about which relevant local government bodies may be required to provide advice to GBR under clause 83. This is achieved by including reference to services between places in the body’s area and those outside it, rather than only services operating exclusively within the body’s area. Amendment 162 has the same effect in relation to Greater London. All the amendments are consistent with the original policy intent of the Bill and simply clarify the drafting. Amendments 163 and 184 include important and relevant definitions from other primary legislation, namely the Railways Act 1993 and this Bill.

Clause 83 introduces statutory requirements on mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities and passenger transport executives to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This duty ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State can have access to advice from local authorities, which have detailed knowledge of their areas, including in relation to local transport. Ultimately, that will support GBR and the Secretary of State in obtaining relevant local insights.

Clause 84 replicates that approach for Transport for London by amending the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert a new section 176A after section 176. The new section introduces a statutory requirement on Transport for London to provide advice to the Secretary of State and GBR where they reasonably require it on matters connected with the exercise of their respective railway functions. This change ensures that GBR and the Secretary of State will have access to Transport for London’s expertise and its detailed knowledge of transport in the Greater London area.

[Jerome Mayhew]

These are two unremarkable clauses. We have no objections to either of them. As for the Government amendments, they are technical in nature and we also support them.

[Keir Mather]

While I reject the charge that the amendments are unremarkable, I thank the shadow Minister for his support.

Amendment 161 agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Advice from Transport for London

Amendments made: 184, in clause 84, page 49, line 30, after “function” insert

“(within the meaning of the Railways Act 2026)”.

This amendment defines GBR’s statutory functions in the new section 176A(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Amendment 162, in clause 84, page 49, line 31, leave out

“railways or railway services in”

and insert—

“(a) railways in Greater London, or

(b) railway services—

(i) between places in Greater London, or

(ii) between places in Greater London and places outside”

This amendment and amendment 163 provide for advice to be given by Transport for London to GBR about railway services that operate to, from or within Greater London.

Amendment 163, in clause 84, page 49, line 31, at end insert—

“(4) Expressions used in this section and in Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.”—(Keir Mather.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 162.

Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Licensing etc of train drivers

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 85, page 50, leave out line 3.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences certificates so that it remains the ORR.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 85 relates to the licensing of train drivers, and other matters relating to them. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 and related assimilated law through regulations. The Secretary of State, by interest, has also been empowered to appoint a person or a body to publish and maintain technical standards in a document separate from the regulations.

The regulations set out the requirements that ensure train drivers are competent, medically and psychologically fit, trained on the infrastructure, rolling stock and routes that they are to be deployed on, and generally able to drive trains safely. The power to amend that legislation is required to ensure that the train driver licensing regime can be updated to reflect technological, clinical and medical advancements. The ability to update the legislation on an enduring basis will help to modernise the framework and support health and safety outcomes for train drivers, as well as avoiding operational impacts such as train drivers being unable to be deployed on account of not passing outdated medical tests. The ability to designate a person or body, for example the Office of Rail and Road or GBR, to publish and maintain technical standards will allow the train driving regime to remain adaptable and effective. We are therefore support that.

Subsection (2)(b) does not confirm the ongoing role of the ORR to issue licences or certificates. That is much bigger. Through its omission, it opens the door to the removal of the ORR’s role on this important issue. Unions would clearly fall under the definition in subsection (6)(a), but the drafting effectively ringfences them as the primary consultees while shutting out operators, GBR, passenger groups and safety bodies from the mandatory list. There is a non-mandatory ability to consult, but it seems very odd to identify unions but not any of these other very important organisations as part of a mandatory consultation list. That creates an odd imbalance for regulations that directly affect service delivery and safety, giving one group a guaranteed seat at the table while everyone else is included only at the Secretary of State’s discretion.

Amendment 107 would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences and certificates, so that it remains the Office of Rail and Road, once again restoring power to the independent regulator with experience and expertise in this space. That is a small but important point. It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters that the ORR is not mentioned. If the intention is to remove that responsibility from the ORR, and that is the Government’s ambition as a result of the clause, perhaps the Minister could make that clear? If not, amendment 107 makes it clear that the ORR is the anticipated body.

Amendment 108 is not part of this group but would affect the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to consult passenger and freight service operators, groups representing passengers and railway rail safety organisations before making regulations about the licensing or certification of train drivers. That would mean that not just Labour’s union colleagues would be consulted. I mention the amendment in passing because it is relevant to the discussion of this clause, and I see the Minister nodding sagely.

I intend to seek a Division on amendment 107 if the Government are not minded to accept it.

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by attempting to assuage some of the shadow Minister’s concerns in this space as it relates to the ORR and licensing. There are no plans to transfer the train driving licensing and certification functions from the ORR, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to other bodies. However, while there are no plans to transfer functions at this stage, it is possible that changes may be needed or sought by future Governments to reflect wider changes to the structure, responsibilities and roles in the rail industry—as has happened before. For that reason, these powers are vital to ensure the regime for train driving can function as intended and with the appropriate bodies responsible for issuing licences and certificates.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and understand the importance of what he is driving at when it comes to the all-important issue of safety. His amendment would ensure that only the ORR may issue train driving licences. It would remove the ability to update the arrangements for issuing train driving licences and certificates in the future, for example, to reflect a change in the name of the issuing authority or a transfer of functions from one body to another. It is important that the licensing and certification regime can be adapted and changed if needed, including who issues that documentation, because it may be needed to reflect future changes to industry structures, roles and responsibilities.

The Government’s position is supported by the ORR, which is the current licensing authority. Removing the power to change the arrangements for issuing licences and certificates could undermine our ability to ensure driver licensing and certification arrangements stay fit for purpose as the industry, technology and ways of working evolve. If such proposals were brought forward, the clause as drafted would ensure that any changes are subject to a full public consultation followed by parliamentary scrutiny under the draft affirmative procedure before becoming law. That process affords multiple opportunities for stakeholders’ views to be considered. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 85 allows the Secretary of State to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 by means of secondary legislation. Those regulations establish the requirements for train drivers in Great Britain, which presently cannot be updated regularly without primary legislation, which is a lengthy and inefficient process. The powers in the clause are critical if the Government are to ensure that the framework for train driving remains robust, responsive and fit for purpose in the years ahead.

The Committee may be aware that legislation is due to be laid today to lower the minimum age for train drivers. However, that is being done using time-limited powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which will expire in June 2026. Without this clause, such changes to the law, which will help us to address the shortage in train drivers, will not be possible. The power will allow the regime to evolve in line with best practice, incorporating advances in technology, innovation, operations and safety knowledge, for instance by regularly revising eyesight and hearing requirements to reflect advances in corrective technologies, improved testing methods and emerging medical conditions. Without those powers, the industry will be less effective at integrating new technologies, scientific methods or innovations into the train driving regime as they emerge. I therefore commend clause 85 to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As I mentioned, we support the intention behind these clauses, but I stand firm in defending the need for the ORR to be the issuing body, so I will press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 201 and 202.

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 201 and 202 in my name will allow the Government to extend clause 86, on the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol to the convention as they relate to railway rolling stock, and part 4 of the Bill to the Isle of Man. We have consulted the Isle of Man and the other Crown dependencies on whether they would like us to extend this section of the Bill to them. The Isle of Man alone asked that we extend the protocol and these provisions to it. Given that the Government traditionally agree to such requests, we have tabled these amendments.

Extending this section of the Bill will grant the Isle of Man power to make regulations under clause 86. Alternatively, regulations made by the UK Government can be extended to apply to it with appropriate modifications. That would eliminate the need for the Isle of Man to legislate for itself, but it would still have the benefit of having the convention and protocol applying to it. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Clause 86 will allow the United Kingdom to implement and ratify the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg rail protocol, as they relate to railway rolling stock, via secondary legislation. The convention and the protocol aim to provide more security for creditors financing rolling stock by reducing the risk to those involved in such transactions and providing greater security over their interests.

The agreements establish an international legal framework for the creation and registration of international interests in rolling stock and make provision for legal remedies in the event of default or insolvency. Implementing the agreements will therefore make the UK a more attractive place for investors to hold financial interests in rolling stock with UK-based lenders, who will also be able to benefit from the protection of the protocol when they invest in overseas markets.

The UK signed the Luxembourg protocol in 2016. That power allows the UK to meet its international obligations, especially now that the protocol has come into force as a number of states have ratified it. These agreements are supported by the industry and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As we have just heard, the Luxembourg protocol is designed to provide access to cheaper rolling stock in the UK and overseas, as finance can be secured and/or rolling stock leased from non-UK sources, and UK rolling stock companies can lease abroad at lower risk.

I learned an interesting fact over the weekend. I thought that this proposal would affect only ROSCOs operating in this country, but it actually affects the Government too. I learned that the Government own the freehold of one train in the UK, which is on the Canvey Island miniature railway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was very keen to point out to me that the Government have skin in the game on this clause. I have read that into the record, so I hope she is pleased with that.

We have no objections to the clause. As for Government amendments 201 and 202, which deal with the Isle of Man, I was slightly surprised by them. I am sorry to say that I have never visited the Isle of Man, so I had to do some research on its rail infrastructure, and it turns out that it is entirely heritage in nature, with Victorian rolling stock including a horse-drawn tramway. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why Victorian rolling stock and horse-drawn tramways need the benefit of the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol. I am sure that he has that at his fingertips.

[Keir Mather]

Later in the Bill, we will turn to different forms of traction, but I doubt whether we will cover the horse-drawn variety, so I am glad that the shadow Minister found the opportunity to weave that into our debate. We support the aspiration for every single part of the United Kingdom and Crown dependencies to realise the full benefits of a reformed railway, with regulation that is fit for the future and that allows them to realise their aspirations, however they see fit, to make rail more accessible and more efficient for passengers. That extends to the Isle of Man, so we were pleased to table amendment 201, which will extend those powers to it. I hope that the Isle of Man can benefit in its own way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 23

Charging for removal etc of road vehicles

“(1) Costs incurred by the operator of a network or station in relation to removing or storing a road vehicle that has been parked or left—

(a) on land or other property comprised in the network or station, and

(b) in contravention of bye-laws having effect in relation to the land,

are recoverable by the operator from the person in charge of the road vehicle, where removal or storage is carried out in accordance with bye-laws having effect in relation to the land.

(2) In this section ‘road vehicle’ means a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause provides that, where road vehicles are causing an obstruction on railway land, charges may be imposed for the removal etc of those vehicles.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause will ensure that network or station operators can recover the costs of removing a road vehicle that is causing disruption or presenting a safety risk on the railway. It applies in situations where a car or bicycle must be removed from an access road, level crossing or any other location that is critical to the safe operation of the railway or the movement of passengers around the network. Any recovery of costs must reflect the actual expenses incurred by the railway operator in resolving the obstruction.

Passengers should be able to use the railway without disruption caused by obstruction on railway land. Network or station operators must be able to ensure that such obstructions are removed promptly, and the cost of doing so should rightly fall on the person in charge of the road vehicle involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have no objection in principle to the new clause, but, as we have learned to our cost as consumers in the similar approach taken to car parking charges and the removal of vehicles badly parked elsewhere, this will all come down to the operators contracted by GBR to undertake that function. It is merely asserted that the costs are related to those incurred in the removal, but we all know that such costs can be inflated by unscrupulous operators. Although we do not object to the new clause in principle, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that reputable companies will be used and that this measure will not be used as a secondary source of income for GBR or its contractors.

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister is right to champion the interests of users of the railway and to ensure that the people who enforce such charges are scrupulous. Network and station operators, including GBR, will be required to use their judgment to determine whether the person responsible for a vehicle should bear the cost of removing the obstruction from railway land in the first place. I am happy to commit that we will engage closely to ensure that is done in a proportionate way that protects the interests of passengers and users of railway services.

By including this provision in the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the proposals. As part of that process, the shadow Minister is welcome to hold my feet to the fire to make sure that the interests of consumers are protected.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 61

Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State

“(1) The Secretary of State may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Secretary of State, a government department or a company wholly owned by the Crown, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, or a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, to—

(i) the Secretary of State,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to—

(i) the Secretary of State,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Crown,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company jointly owned by two or more of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR to—

(i) another such company,

(ii) Great British Railways,

(iii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iv) a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR;

(e) from the Secretary of State or a government department to a company wholly owned by the Crown, or vice versa.

(2) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent—

(a) of the Scottish Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and one or more other persons, and

(b) of the Welsh Ministers before making a scheme that contains provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to or from a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and one or more other persons.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 62—Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers.

Government new clause 63—Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers.

Government new clause 64—Further provision about transfer schemes.

Government new clause 65—Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council.

Government new schedule 1—Transfer scheme.

Government amendment 263.

[Keir Mather]

All the provisions in this group relate to transfer schemes. New clause 61 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to make one or more transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities, including contracted employment between public entities. The new clause is important, as it will enable transfers to and from GBR. Transfer schemes are regularly used for highly complex transfers and can avoid undue delay and costs in getting the right assets into the right place at the right time.

Transfer schemes will provide a framework for the consistent treatment of workers, in line with Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) principles. GBR will bring together activities from more than 17 existing organisations, including Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, DfT Operator and 14 separate train operating companies, into a single organisation. It is therefore important that transfers be managed in the simplest, clearest and most efficient way possible to protect the staff involved and the taxpayers’ investment.

New schedule 1 provides further detail on transfer schemes. The schedule is important, as it sets out the scope of what may be included in a transfer scheme. This follows standard drafting practice and will prevent individual or piecemeal issues from slowing down the delivery of an integrated railway that better serves the public as a whole.

New clauses 62 and 63 will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make one or more schemes for the transfers involved to enable GBR to run devolved services on their behalf. The provisions require the consent of the Secretary of State to protect their interests and the transfer of liabilities or assets in or out of GBR that they wholly own. The provisions also provide for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make transfers between companies that they themselves wholly own. That will enable a smooth transition between delivery models for devolved services by devolved Governments. Such transfers would not require the consent of the Secretary of State, as they only involve companies owned by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.

We have worked in partnership with the devolved Governments to ensure that they can share in the benefits of an integrated railway and, if they so choose, use GBR for the delivery of devolved railway services. These transfer scheme provisions reflect the approach that we have agreed with Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

New clause 65 will allow for the transfer of employment contracts from the ORR to the new passenger watchdog. The watchdog will take over most current ORR consumer roles, including the setting and oversight of standards. The new clause is important as it allows for the transfer of contracts of employment, provides protection for impacted ORR staff in line with TUPE principles, and will allow the watchdog to have the expertise that it needs to get up and running as soon as possible.

Finally, new clause 64 and amendment 263 make further provision for transfer schemes. New clause 64 introduces new schedule 1 and will allow transfers into GBR to begin before GBR is fully designated to allow for sensible operational preparation ahead of establishment. Amendment 263 is required to ensure consistency of terminology with other railways legislation and to ensure that the definitions of “wholly owned” and other similar wording are accurate and make sense in the context of previous Acts.

Taken together, the provisions are essential to ensure that GBR can be established quickly so that we can bring the benefits that we have promised to the public. They will allow the Government to minimise the cost of the transfer to the taxpayer and ensure that staff are protected. I commend them to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have nothing to add.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 61 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 62

Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers

“(1) The Scottish Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Scottish Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, a company wholly owned by a former GBR or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a former GBR, to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers to another company wholly owned by them;

(e) from the Scottish Ministers to a company wholly owned by them, or vice versa.

(2) The Scottish Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Scottish Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 63

Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers

“(1) The Welsh Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) from the Welsh Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, to—

(i) Great British Railways,

(ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR;

(b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways to—

(i) the Welsh Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers,

(iii) a proposed GBR,

(iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and a proposed GBR;

(c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to—

(i) the Welsh Ministers,

(ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers,

(iii) Great British Railways,

(iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or

(v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways;

(d) from a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers to another company wholly owned by them;

(e) from the Welsh Ministers to a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, or vice versa.

(2) The Welsh Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause allows the Welsh Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 64

Further provision about transfer schemes

“(1) Schedule (Transfer schemes) contains further provision about transfer schemes under sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers).

(2) In sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers) and Schedule (Transfer schemes)—

(a) ‘a former GBR’ means a body corporate formerly designated as Great British Railways under section 1;

(b) ‘a proposed GBR’ means a body corporate that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Railways under that section.”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause makes supplementary provision about transfer schemes under new clauses NC61, NC62 and NC63.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 65

Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council

“(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment in the civil service of the State become employees of the Passengers’ Council (but this is subject to any provision contained in the scheme that allows a person to object to becoming an employee of the Council).

(2) A scheme made under this section—

(a) may make provision for giving full effect to a person’s transfer into the employment of the Passengers’ Council as a result of the scheme, and

(b) may (in particular) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”—(Keir Mather.)

This new clause makes provision about transfers of staff from the civil service to the Passengers’ Council.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Purpose of Great British Railways

“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—

(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,

(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,

(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,

(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,

(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,

(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,

(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,

(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,

(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,

(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,

(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,

(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and

(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.

(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Before I go into the detail of new clause 10, let me say why we think it is important. Passenger safety on our railway is important not only in absolute terms—it is absolutely right that people who are paying to take the train be safe, have their safety taken seriously and feel safe—but because, as always, public transport is competing with the private motor car, which is often associated, rightly or wrongly, with safety. Many people feel that it is a safer option, particularly late at night.

Our new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to undertake, within six months of the Act’s passing, a comprehensive review of passenger safety, with a particular focus on the safety of female passengers and passengers with disabilities. It would need to look at staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly for services that run late at night or that could give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety, such as services around special events. Lighting is a key consideration, as are opening hours and accessibility of health points. CCTV coverage is already significant across our railway, but the processes in place to access it and obtain evidence promptly are not always there.

We want to look at the merits of ideas such as real-time reporting applications for incidents in which a passenger is harassed. There are such initiatives at the moment—I really ought to know the number by now, given the endless announcements: 61016, perhaps—but there is more that can be done. I have just made the point covered in our proposed subsection (3)(f): that public awareness of the methods to report concerns should be promoted. Perhaps they are working better than I thought.

There is a lot to be done on making sure that travel connections from the train for onward journeys are strong, particularly bus waiting points and points to pick up taxis. Staffing is also a key consideration that requires some thought. If the review were to recommend any action to improve safety, it would be down to GBR to make efforts to implement those actions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

New clause 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), would mandate some provisions on train guards. It has been tabled because, alas, the current general customer experience of the visibility of guards, conductors, train managers or whatever we want to call them, where they are present, is patchy at best—that is the most polite way I can put it. New clause 48 is a modest, practical proposal that puts passenger safety and accessibility at the heart of our railways.

Guards, train managers, conductors, senior conductors and all the other job titles—including on-board supervisors on Southern; I must not forget those—are uniquely placed to provide reassurance to passengers and to identify problems at an early stage, whether that is vulnerable passengers needing assistance, antisocial behaviour escalating or obstructions that compromise the safe operation of the train.

By placing a clear duty to patrol where practicable, at reasonable intervals, this new clause would support staff in doing what many already strive to do, while giving passengers reassurance that someone is present, visible and responsive. That visible presence offers peace of mind, particularly for those who may feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and helps to build confidence in the rail network as a public space. The benefit is a safer, more inclusive travelling environment, with early intervention preventing minor issues from becoming serious incidents and providing a safer, more welcoming environment.

New clause 57 would deal with antisocial noise. This is a very grave matter. Passengers are frequently plagued by the imposition of people’s often dubious taste in music or TikTok videos, which may sometimes include the soothing sound of cats miaowing but quite often takes the form of a great deal of other raucous things. It may seem disproportionate to suggest legislation to counter the problem, but sometimes our own human weaknesses let us down. That is why new clause 57 would require regulations to be made to

“prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.”

I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

New clause 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to undertake a review of passenger safety within six months of the Act passing and to make all reasonable efforts to implement any actions identified. I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause—passenger safety is of the utmost importance as we transition the railway into public ownership—but I do not think the new clause necessary, as the Government are taking action even before the Bill is passed.

As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will be aware, we already have a range of security measures and guidance in place across the railway and the wider transport network, addressing the issues raised. Those will be maintained under public ownership and are kept under continuous review to ensure that they meet the challenges of the day.

I highlight the recently reviewed and updated long-running public security campaign, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, which increases public awareness and makes clear how to report suspicious activity to the British Transport police via the 61016 text reporting service; I am not sure I need to remind Members of that, as it will probably be seared into every one of our minds from travelling on the railway. I am confident that in giving GBR strategic responsibility for rail workforce planning, we will create more resilient staffing and provide greater visibility and assurance to passengers, both on trains and at stations.

As part of the Government’s safer streets mission, we have already committed to reduce violence against women and girls by half over the next decade. That will be tracked by Government through the violence against women and girls strategy, recently published by the Home Office, which includes ambitious measures to enhance the safety of women and girls on the rail network. That includes improving live access to CCTV images by the British Transport Police, and establishing consistent personal safety criteria across the rail network.

We are also already working to improve Passenger Assist and to support staff with better tools and more consistent training across the network. The ORR also monitors and reports on Passenger Assist and releases statistics quarterly. Finally, the ORR already has general safety duties that include carrying out inspections to ensure that the train and freight operating companies and Network Rail manage passenger and occupational health and safety risks appropriately. Those remain unchanged by the Bill. Given that, a further review of safety requirements would only serve to drive attention and resource away from the action that is already being taken.

Similarly, I fully agree with the principle of new clause 48, which aims further to ensure that passengers experience journeys free from disruption, harassment and criminality. I pay tribute to the train managers and guards across the network who work tirelessly in the interests of passengers to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I know the friendly and reassuring faces of the train manager on my regular trips between Parliament and my constituency. However, as I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, changing the role of train managers and guards through a legal duty could be a change to the nature of individuals’ 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. It would be up to GBR to consider what is appropriate at the time. Consequently, I do not agree with the new clause.

Finally, new clause 57 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the use of electronic audio devices on rail services. I cannot begin to express the depths to which I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. The Government recognise the nuisance that irresponsibly used personal electronic devices can cause to other passengers, and I appreciate the importance of ensuring that passengers are not disturbed by excessive noise while travelling on the railways.

I am pleased, however, to confirm that the matter is already addressed under existing national railway byelaws. Railway byelaw 7 states that people “on the railway” shall not “to the annoyance of” others

“sing; or…use any instrument, article or equipment”

to produce sound without

“written permission from an Operator”.

Any person who breaches that byelaw commits an offence and may be liable to a penalty of up to £1,000.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to reassure us that the methods that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage wants to implement already exist, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tabled new clause 57 if those byelaws were being routinely implemented on trains, which is what he seeks. We have all been on trains where no one around is empowered, equipped or minded—because they are not confident enough, or are intimidated by the person—to act in that way. Can the Minister spell out a little more what the statistics are for that byelaw being used, and whether it is utilised to its fullness? Will he commit to see whether it is adequate? Ultimately, if train staff do not feel empowered, we can have all the byelaws in the world that we like—we have them on buses and in the streets, too—but they need people to feel empowered, able and confident to take action under them. I am not convinced that we have that at the moment.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that challenge. It is important that the byelaws are in place, but we have all experienced them being flagrantly disregarded on the railway network. I believe that the answer is to ensure that the byelaws that exist are regularly and robustly enforced. I do not believe that we need to add more to the statute book to solve the problem, because the principle of making enforcement work is the more important and operationally demanding one. That needs to be done in the shortest order. I am happy to take that away and to engage with officials about how we can more robustly enforce the byelaws.

GBR having a holistic responsibility for the network will grant it the opportunity to think in a more holistic way about how byelaws can be enforced across the piece, I am sure in close collaboration with the British Transport Police. The Government consider that the issue is more appropriately a matter for train operators to manage and enforce at an operational level, rather than through additional Government regulation. As such, it is better dealt with through the existing railway byelaws rather than through regulations.

[Rebecca Smith]

The point is that responsibility currently sits with train operators to enforce the byelaws. Just yesterday, I was sitting in a quiet carriage, and it did not say anywhere that making noise would break byelaws. If the Minister is suggesting that the operators will maintain that responsibility, I do not see how the status quo will change with the existence of Great British Railways.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to give the responsibility to Great British Railways rather than the transport operators, and to improve signage to ensure that people know that violence against women and girls or adverse noise will not be tolerated. We cannot just have posters; it has to be in places where people can see it and understand it. A simple “Please be quiet” does not seem to be doing the job at the moment.

[Keir Mather]

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

[Olly Glover]

I will press new clause 10 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success.

New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development.

That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements.

In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling the new clauses, which relate to enhancements on the rail network or the impacts of other projects on rail.

New clause 11 would establish a fund for future railway improvements. Local and regional transport authorities could then bid for funding from the pot for their local areas. I certainly share the support the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has for improving the railway across the whole country, and I believe that the railway can bring benefits to the places it serves. However, it should be for GBR, as the organisation run by experts and charged with running railways, to maintain close relationships with local and regional authorities, including the local commissioning of infrastructure projects where agreements can be reached.

The fund the hon. Member proposes risks removing GBR’s opportunity to organise, design and implement enhancements, which is a job that it is best placed to do, as the directing mind. Of course, GBR will engage closely with local and regional authorities when planning, and should invest where real benefits would be gained. Enhancements funding should continue to be set at the spending review; that is appropriate where projects are discretionary. GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery.

I also expect the publication of GBR’s integrated business plan to provide further transparency on the enhancements GBR plans to undertake, and the associated funding. That should help set the roadmap for the five-year funding period. I hope the hon. Member can agree that such decisions should be made by GBR, working with local authorities and with mind to the long-term rail strategy.

New clause 35 would establish a report on a long-term pipeline of infrastructure and rolling stock work, on a line-by-line or service-by-service basis, and with considerable detail on the specific timing, scope and sequencing of works over a 15-year period. I share the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to create transparency around GBR’s spending, and certainty for the railway supply chain. We are already working to develop a long-term strategy for rolling stock and supporting infrastructure, such as electrification, that will provide clear direction for the supply chain. As I am sure he already knows, the Bill contains a duty for GBR to consider certainty for railway service providers. However, I disagree that this needs to be in statute and that a pipeline containing the level of detail proposed in this amendment, over 15 years, would be a good way of achieving the goals of transparency and certainty for GBR.

GBR will have a five-year integrated business plan, backed by five years of funding for infrastructure operations, maintenance and renewals. That has been established as the appropriate balance between long-term planning and the realities of a changing operational environment. Forecasting specific infrastructure works beyond five years becomes increasingly unreliable, potentially leading to instability for the supply chain and for GBR—the exact thing this amendment is trying to avoid. Enhancements funding will continue to be set at the spending review, while GBR’s integrated business plan will ensure that enhancement projects align with operational delivery. That ensures that larger projects have longer term certainty. The current process has resulted in £2 billion being invested in the railway network every year, from 2019 to 2024. I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can understand that creating a stable long-term rail strategy and business planning environment will do more to achieve these aims.

Finally, I turn to new clause 71, which raises the importance of understanding rail impact when considering major infrastructure projects. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for raising this issue, but I do not agree with it primarily because the matters that the amendment seeks to mandate are already comprehensively addressed in the existing statutory framework. Under the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statements applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the transport, energy, waste and water sectors, the Secretary of State will consider requirements to mitigate adverse impacts on transport networks arising from any developments. For transport projects, promoters must provide detailed assessments of the impact of their proposals on transport networks, including rail capacity, demand and operational implications. These assessments are a routine and established part of the development consent order process, which the Secretary of State must consider. This amendment would introduce an entirely new statutory reporting step before an application could be examined, which would go against the Government's reforms to streamline the consenting regime following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which aims to make the system quicker and more efficient. Instead of adding value, this new requirement would instead risk adding delay in introducing uncertainty, which could hinder timely progress on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Having laid out the Government’s arguments to these amendments, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

[Olly Glover]

We would like to press new clause 11.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I had not planned to speak to the new clauses, but as they are pertinent to things going on in my constituency, I will make the most of the opportunity to have the floor.

In principle, new clause 12, on the restoring your railway fund, is a good idea. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was cynical about the scheme, but it has had some significant successes. It reallocated money that was being spent exclusively in the north of the country to other parts of the country, such as the south-west.

I believe the Minister will admit that the Dartmoor line has been hugely successful. The latest statistics show that 775,000 journeys were made between its opening and March 2025, so I assume we will have probably hit the magic million mark by now. The line goes from Exeter to Okehampton, which is slap bang in the middle of Dartmoor and not very easy to access by road, and has allowed people who live there to get to work, leisure and whatever else in Exeter.

The Dartmoor line is also why the reopening of Tavistock station was being looked into, as part of the restoring your railway fund, before the new Government scrapped it, with the money being put back into HS2 and the Manchester to Crewe line. The restoring your railway fund was a success, even if it was not as successful as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would have liked—but it only existed for a few years. Knowing what we do about the timescales for railway works, it was very good.

Whether we call it restoring your railway or not, I call on the Minister to ensure that we continue to look at branch lines, particularly for Tavistock, which would link Plymouth dockyard, and all the defence work going on there, to the wider population, and enable cars to come off the road. Yesterday, the A386 in my constituency was closed for the majority of the day because of a car that flipped, meaning that commuters, schoolchildren and people going about their daily business were trapped and could not get in or out of Plymouth, which is the 15th or 16th largest city in the country. I do not think that is acceptable. All we need is an additional railway station.

Let me turn to the rails to trails programme, which I did not think would be relevant but unfortunately has become so. Plymouth city council is eager to install a cycle path in my constituency, but because it will use an old railway track, the road will have to be closed for 14 months. I was unable to attend a public meeting in my constituency last night at which more than 50 constituents turned up to say how unimaginative the council is being about the diversion required.

In principle, rails to trails is a good idea, but let us not be naive about the impact on communities where we seek to turn old infrastructure into a path suitable for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse riders. There is always a cost to taxpayers and a physical impact on their daily life. Although I am not against rails to trails—indeed, there are similar successful schemes in my constituency—such projects can be deeply inconvenient to develop. I wanted to be able to tell my constituents that I raised that with the Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to the new clauses. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the restoring your railway fund, which was set up by the previous Government and wound up in July 2024. Unfortunately, I do not believe it would be a good use of time for the Secretary of State to publish reports about the previous Government’s policies instead of getting on with the business of reforming the railway.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Will the Minister gently give way on that point?

[Keir Mather]

Gently? Yes.

[Edward Argar]

I gently take the Minister to task on that. Were not some of the first actions of Secretaries of State of this Government, when they came into office, to publish reports in which they—one can question how accurately—sought to look backwards over what the previous Government had done?

[Keir Mather]

Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.

[Olly Glover]

If the Minister’s Wikipedia profile is correct, he studied history and politics. As an historian, does he not agree that to get the future right, we must learn from the past, and that we should therefore review the activities of past Governments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come.

GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true. We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators.

New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield. The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments.

I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land.

The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration.

New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations. The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund.

With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

I enjoyed the debate with the Minister, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).

(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 19 would make sure that the Bill takes account of our requirements for decarbonisation and rail climate resilience. It would require the publication of a framework that showed how GBR would manage objectives to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to identify sections of the network that are most vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, flooding, heat, cold or soil moisture deficit, and how to manage that. That is more than enough from me; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer.

In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types. In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy.

New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network.

As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made. Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty.

When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.

[Olly Glover]

I am content to not to press new clause 14—we will save that battle for another day—but I will move new clause 19 formally when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Access for All programme: review

“(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the Access for All programme.

(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must identify the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.

(3) Accessibility improvements as set out in subsection (2) include ensuring step-free access to all—

(a) platforms;

(b) entrances to stations;

(c) exits from stations.

(4) The review must identify all stations with fewer than 1,000,000 entries and exits a year, as recorded by the estimates of station usage published by the Office for Rail and Road, that do not have step-free access as set out in subsection (3).

(5) The review must set out an explanation for spending decisions on the Access for All programme between the period 25 October 2022 and 24 May 2024.

(6) The review must set out recommendations with the objective of facilitating the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would mandate a review of the Access for All programme. The review would seek to ensure that step-free access at railway stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain spending decisions on the programme under the previous Government and set out recommendations for future spending.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which would require GBR to produce annual reports and technical studies relating to road crossings, with the aim of easing congestion. It is our view that the new clause would add highly disproportionate administrative and reporting burdens on to Great British Railways that we do not believe are necessary to manage level crossings and mitigate any of the impacts on communities that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage so powerfully described.

The new clause would require GBR to undertake an annual review of every public road level crossing in Britain, assessing the social and economic effects on each area, and would mandate feasibility and engineering studies for any site judged to have high levels of congestion. That would create a substantial and ongoing workload that would divert time, staff and funding away from the core functions of managing the railway, including by requiring GBR to develop proposals for engineering solutions even when there is no clear business case for intervention. That would increase costs, reduce flexibility and limit GBR’s ability to prioritise investment where it delivers the greatest benefits.

Network Rail has a statutory duty to minimise risks to the public and keep level crossings safe. I reassure the hon. Member that GBR will continue to be bound by those duties, while also taking full account of the wider economic and social impacts that level crossing down time can have on local communities. In support of that, as is the case now, GBR will be expected to keep level crossing operations under review, support continuous improvements in safety, and reduce unnecessary disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.

GBR will remain directly accountable to the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road, the independent rail safety regulator on this work. As is the case now, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that decisions are well informed and responsive to local needs. Through that approach, GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local priorities and is firmly grounded in evidence. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Great British Railways Board

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (“the Board”).

(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—

(a) Great British Railways,

(b) open access passenger operators,

(c) freight operators,

(d) The Office for Rail and Road,

(e) The Passengers’ Council, and

(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.

(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.

(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.

(5) Any—

(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or

(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to,

Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.

(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.

(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—

(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;

(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.

(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Leagrave Station: Step-free Access

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.)

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

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on the potential merits of step-free upgrades at Leagrave railway station. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing it, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents on this very important matter. I know well how deeply she cares about her community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport and safer, more accessible stations.

For many residents, Leagrave station is not simply a station. It is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers, or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility that they expect. She is also right to say that the travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive for all. That sits at the heart of this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network.

Many stations across Britain were constructed long before modern equality and accessibility standards existed. While around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is just not enough. I may be one of the younger Members of Parliament, but I doubt that even I will see the full realisation if we carry on at the rate that was expressed by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). There is a lot more hard work to do, and that is why we remain committed to improving accessibility through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map, and through long-term reform of the railways as we move towards the establishment of Great British Railways.

In May 2024, the previous Government published a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work as part of the Access for All programme. As my hon. Friend will know, that included a nomination for Leagrave station. However, those feasibility studies were announced without clarity on how projects would ultimately be funded and significantly raised stakeholder expectations in a way that was not fair. This Government have taken a more rigorous and disciplined approach, ensuring that only affordable and deliverable commitments are taken forward. Our approach seeks to ensure that the maximum number of Access for All schemes can be delivered, and the risk of schemes overrunning on cost or encountering unforeseen engineering challenges is greatly reduced.

With that wider national picture in mind, I would like to speak directly about Leagrave station. I regret that it does not currently offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and those travelling with luggage, this remains a real challenge and a deeply frustrating reality. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point to the human experience of dealing with a lack of accessibility. It is something we experienced at Selby station when our lifts were out of order and only had a barrow crossing. If there was no member of staff available to take people across it, they would have to get the train to Leeds to then come back towards Hull. It is not a dignified way to travel, and it does need to change.

We have been clear, though, that the commitments we make must be affordable and represent value for money for passengers and taxpayers. As my hon. Friend knows, we have unfortunately decided that accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station will not progress at this stage. In reaching that decision, we assessed nominations against a clear set of criteria, including the number of passengers who would benefit, the need for a good geographical spread across Wales, Scotland and different parts of England, the extent to which schemes could build on existing technical developments, and the availability of third-party funding. Stations that performed most strongly against those criteria are the ones that are now progressing to delivery or design.

As we know, Leagrave station meets some of the criteria, including being a busy station and contributing to geographical balance. Indeed, my hon. Friend correctly highlights that Leagrave station sees over 1 million users a year, and other stations in better connected areas and with fewer passengers were chosen to progress; however, footfall was only one of the criteria used in assessing Access for All nominations. In the case of Leagrave, there was little prior technical development work in place.

My hon. Friend is also right that no third-party funding contribution was identified. I would like to make it clear to the House that the absence of that third-party funding was a key factor in the decision not to take the scheme forward at this time. Indeed, this was the case in relation to 22 other projects nationally for which no third-party funding contributions were identified, none of which, unfortunately, are progressing at this point. As we look ahead, local third-party funding contributions will remain an important consideration in future Access for All funding rounds. That reflects both the limited public funding available to the Access for All programme and the substantial economic, social and accessibility benefits that these schemes deliver beyond the rail network itself.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Specifically on third-party funding, does the Minister agree that when it comes to infrastructure projects such as airport expansion, noting Heathrow’s proximity to my constituency, airports really should be a key target in terms of further funding, in order to improve accessibility on our railways?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member pre-empts me, as I will turn to how this particular issue to do with the rail service intersects with the needs of the aviation sector. He is of course right to point to the fact that surface access must play a really important role in the considerations around how we grow our aviation sector in a way that is sustainable but meets the accessibility requirements of which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North spoke so powerfully.

It is reasonable that organisations and developments that benefit directly from improved step-free access—such as local authorities, major employers, developers and transport hubs, including Luton airport—should play a role in contributing to their delivery. Even partial local funding would significantly strengthen a future case for accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station and demonstrate shared local commitment to the scheme.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for noting how important Luton airport is to our wider community. Would he be open to facilitating greater collaboration between the Department, Luton airport and our railways to ensure that we see greater surface travel through public transport and our railways?

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. The Government want to realise the benefits of the aviation sector—its economic potential, but also, as my hon. Friend pointed to so powerfully as it pertains to rail, the human benefit of being able to be connected to loved ones and to access new places. The two things need to work in tandem. I would be glad to engage in those conversations further.

Local partners are also encouraged to develop a local funding package, drawing on opportunities such as section 106 developer contributions and city region sustainable transport settlements. These can be used to match-fund Access for All projects and are another way to bring forward accessibility projects. Further detail on this matter is set out in the written ministerial statement published on 15 January 2026.

I recognise that this decision will be disappointing to my hon. Friend and her constituents; however, funding for future rounds of Access for All may be available as part of the next spending review. That could provide an opportunity to fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station. Positive accessibility work is already under way in the neighbouring constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire. At Luton station, an Access for All project is currently under construction, which will provide step-free access across the station and make a tangible difference for passengers. Nearby Luton Airport Parkway also provides full step-free access to all platforms, less than a 20-minute drive from Leagrave station.

[Sarah Owen]

rose—

[Keir Mather]

However, we have heard powerfully from my hon. Friend about how dealing with Luton traffic is a key barrier to people accessing those accessibility benefits. I will give way to her to add some further context.

[Sarah Owen]

If anybody can get from the north of Leagrave to Luton Airport Parkway in 20 minutes, they must be travelling in some vehicle that I have never travelled in, because it will take at least half an hour to 45 minutes in bad traffic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is really pleased, as are many of us in the town, to finally see work taking place in Luton South, but it has been over 10 years in the making. Please can the Minister tell me that it will not be over 10 years until Leagrave sees the same?

[Keir Mather]

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

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister knows this is coming. He has just mentioned the Railways Bill, so would he care to comment on my new clause 69, which would require the setting out of an accessible rail strategy, not only on step-free access but on lift downtime? I feel a bit guilty in a sense, because we have lifts in Weybridge in my constituency, but one of the biggest problems is that they are not functional a lot of the time, so people who are travelling play a sort of Russian roulette as to whether the lifts are going to be available, with all the disruption that follows. Could the Minister please comment on the strategy that I am proposing?

[Keir Mather]

I appreciate and respect the sentiment that lies behind the new clause that the hon. Member has tabled to the Railways Bill. I would say to him that, through clause 18 of the Bill, we give Great British Railways a specific legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, particularly passengers with disabilities. We also have a tough new passenger watchdog to enforce consumer standards and to put accessibility at the heart of the railways. This intersects with the long-term rail strategy. That should provide him with the assurance he needs that accessibility is at the heart of the future railway under GBR.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also shared her concerns about the current state of the footbridge at Leagrave station. Let me reassure her that Network Rail carefully monitors the condition of its assets and that whenever the rail industry installs, replaces or renews station infrastructure, the work must comply with current accessibility standards. I would be happy to talk with her further if she feels that those standards are not being met.

My hon. Friend also noted that the plan for Luton airport expansion was likely to increase overall demand on local transport networks, including rail. That point was very well made. At this stage we have limited evidence to confirm the scale or certainty of the impact, but, as I have mentioned, a future round of Access for All might be funded as part of the next spending review, and this could provide an opportunity to fully or partly fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station.

Let me close by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thanking her for her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. I am aware that the Rail Minister will meet her on 16 March to explain the decisions made in relation to accessibility at Leagrave, and I look forward to continuing to work with her, with Govia Thameslink Railway and with Network Rail to ensure that Leagrave station is well placed to serve its community now and into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is not much to say, except that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage raised a question about our amendments and what he called phantom paths. I think he may have been referring to ghost trains, as opposed to phantom trains—if you google “phantom trains”, all sorts of weird films come up, and they are far too scary for me to watch. He is not here to disagree with me, but I think he was alluding to the issue of trains running entirely empty through stations where people would have quite liked to get on them.

The point I think we are making with our amendments is more about where issues that it is within Great British Railways’ responsibility to fix mean that services cannot run, and about not believing that the operators, which have no responsibility for the infrastructure, should still be expected to pay a fee if they are not able to run their services. I think we would have been alluding to that, rather than where they are running empty trains. There may well be empty trains as well, but I think we were talking specifically about where GBR had the responsibility—

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to piggyback on her response to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I want merely to say that, from the Government’s perspective, having one centralised body accountable for access to and use of the railway and for determining best use is a good way to avoid the phantom train scenarios she describes, such as the 7 o’clock service from Manchester Piccadilly to London. I am grateful that she has given me the opportunity to row in behind her on this point.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the Minister for that. Yes, absolutely; I believe our amendments are much more about the infrastructure that GBR has responsibility for and about operators not having to pay if they are un able to operate their services. A natural disaster is probably a bit too extreme, but if, for example, a train is running through to Dawlish and the line gets closed, I think it is fair to suggest that the operator should not have to pay the fees for that train. We will press some of these amendments to a vote for that reason, but I just wanted to clarify that point. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert

“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”—(Rebecca Smith.)

This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It will escape no one that, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I have been left with my hand on the wheel. I do not think trains have a wheel, but I am not entirely sure how they work—[Interruption.] They have a stick, yes. However, given that both amendments are in his name and relate to the freight target, I can only assume that they are eminently sensible and that the Government should accept them. If not, we would apparently like to press them to a Division.

[Keir Mather]

It is, once again, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendment 254 would require GBR, when charging above the cost directly incurred—in other words, when charging mark-ups—to consider its target to increase the use of freight. I can reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset immediately that GBR will not be able to raise charges in a way that is not compatible with its statutory duties or targets.

In practice, that means that when developing its own test of affordability, GBR is expected to establish bespoke criteria for divergent market segments operating on the railway, including freight, as Network Rail set out in its discussion document on charging. That allows GBR to design a test that can support its duties, including those under clause 18, and the targets to increase freight under clause 17.

We intend that the provision will operate in a way similar to the “market can bear” test today. GBR will develop its own test of affordability in consultation with the sector, including the Office of Rail and Road, before publishing it. However, as we move away from European law, in which the “market can bear” test is established, and to the Bill, which carries over the same principles, we must ensure that the language in the drafting is fit for purpose for UK statute. That is why the Bill stipulates that GBR will be able to levy mark-ups only if it is affordable to efficient operators. The Bill preserves that fundamental safeguard for operators, but in a form that can be applied more clearly in the UK context.

The test will be published with clear routes of appeal, as a further layer of protection for any operators, including freight, that are subject to charges when using GBR infrastructure. When hearing appeals, the ORR will consider the extent to which GBR has appropriately considered all factors before levying a mark-up. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for West Dorset that amendment 254 is unnecessary, as the Bill already achieves its intended effect.

Amendment 255 would give the ORR an explicit power, following an appeal against the content of a charging scheme, to direct Great British Railways to revise the scheme in cases where it considers GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. The Bill already provides clear and robust rights of appeal to the ORR in relation to the content of a charging scheme. Those rights are supported by strong and effective remedies where an appeal against GBR is successful, as set out in clause 68.

In the system set out in the Bill, where the ORR upholds an appeal on the content of a charging scheme, it has the power to remit all or part of the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration. That means that the ORR can require GBR to make changes to the charging scheme if it was identified during the appeal process that GBR had acted in a discriminatory manner, inconsistently with its statutory duties or in a way deemed procedurally unfair.

The ORR can also give legally binding directions to GBR, which could include setting out what it failed to take account of in the original decision and what it must do to ensure that those matters are properly assessed when reconsidering it. The amendment would therefore introduce powers that are already provided for in clause 68. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press amendments 254 and 255 to a vote.

[Rebecca Smith]

Amendment 254 is good in so far as it goes in relation to rail freight, but other rail operators also provide public benefit and should receive a similar level of protection. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment, but we do not think it goes nearly far enough.

Amendment 255 would give the ORR the power to order GBR to revise a charging scheme if it found, on appeal, that GBR had not dealt fairly with the appellant. With the current constraint on appeals, the amendment would make no practical difference. The Government need to go much further by providing a genuine appeals process to assess appeals on their merits, with an independent body, not a direct competitor, taking the key charging decisions.

[Keir Mather]

I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed all the points on these amendments, and I have nothing further to add at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Keir Mather]

How can I top that? I am not going to try.

This group of amendments concerns performance schemes, which, as hon. Members are aware, are designed to improve the performance of the railway network by incentivising operators and infrastructure managers to enhance punctuality, reliability and overall service quality, underpinned by compensation, bonuses and penalties. For example, performance schemes can require operators to pay penalties if their services cause unplanned disruption, or can offer bonuses for better-than-planned performance.

The performance scheme provided for by clause 65 will apply to GBR itself, both in its capacity as a service operator and as the body responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. The clause supports one of the overall goals of the Bill: to dramatically improve service performance for passengers and freight operators, and to make a railway that really works.

I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which I will speak to in turn. Amendment 85 seeks to remove the provision that protects GBR for liability for performance scheme payments or penalties where the disruption is not its fault. To be clear, that provision is not designed to prevent GBR from ever paying penalties or compensation. Clause 65(2) clearly provides for GBR to pay penalties, compensation and bonuses. Where it is at fault for disruption, there is no question but that it must compensate other operators.

GBR will have the flexibility to design a bespoke performance scheme for its network. The Bill is intentionally broad, including at clause 65(3)(b), which does not define what constitutes disruption outside GBR’s control. Instead, GBR will consult the industry on its policy on the extent to which disruption after an unplanned event has occurred, and whether it is or is not outside GBR’s control. It will consider any legal requirements before publishing all agreed terms for transparency.

[Edward Argar]

The Minister says that GBR will be able to design a bespoke performance regime, but does that not go to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon highlighted, which is essentially that it will be designing a performance regime against which its own performance will be managed? It gets to set the rules, determine what the parameters are, and then decide whether it meets those criteria. Subsection (7) says:

“A person aggrieved by provision contained in a scheme…may appeal to the ORR.”

Will the ORR have binding powers to make an adjudication, and will GBR be compelled to follow it?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts my later comments about the role of the ORR in this process.

On the principle of whether GBR should be able to design a performance scheme for its own network, that is completely in keeping with the aspiration of the Bill to create a single uniting mind for the railway. We are cognisant of the fact that GBR has a threefold obligation in this process. First, it must create a scheme that it can use to deliver the efficiencies and operational realities of the railway in a way that suits the interests of the travelling public. Secondly, operators that use the service need to be able to ensure that they can have fair service under it. That is why consulting with the industry is so important.

Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, GBR must protect taxpayers’ interests where it is reasonable to do so. A scheme is being created that directs GBR to run the railway in a purposeful way but with robust consultation and enforcement mechanisms, which I will come to in a moment, embedded within it. I believe that strikes the right balance. We are giving GBR control over the system but not allowing it to mark its own homework in every way, as the Opposition might see it. I will go into that in more detail in a moment.

[Rebecca Smith]

To build on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made, clause 65(3)(b) says that compensation may not be paid by Great British Railways

“in relation to any disruption that is outside its control.”

It strikes me that that relates to what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said happens already: people have to decide what constitutes significant disruption, and what is inside its control. If I were an outside operator looking at this, I would be thinking, “Hang on a minute. Where’s the definition of what is inside GBR’s control?” There is a whole long list of options that I will not even begin to bore the Committee with for what could be said to be outside its control, but where is that conversation? It strikes me that it might be like trying to claim for a bag that was stolen on holiday on insurance—you have to literally prove that you were mugged to get reimbursed. I would be interested in a bit more information on how “outside its control” will be defined.

[Keir Mather]

That is why the point about designing the scheme in close consultation with industry partners is so important. The hon. Member has read my mind, as I am about to turn to specific instances or potential demarcations with respect to what does or does not constitute being within or outwith GBR’s control.

It is probably important to briefly explain what happens if an unforeseen situation arises and operators believe it is GBR’s fault but GBR disagrees, and the role of the ORR in that process. That brings us back to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The Bill will include in the future scheme a clear route to appeal, to protect all parties in instances that are disputed, but the risks will be mitigated by requirements for GBR to clearly publish the details of the performance scheme, including criteria for when GBR would be liable to pay compensation. That goes back to the public law point about transparency and fairness. The ORR, as the independent appeals body, will have a legal obligation to review the situation impartially and advise on appropriate action where necessary. In addition to the ORR, to further mitigate the risk, operators will be able to seek other means of resolution though the Access Disputes Committee where matters relate to a contractual dispute.

We believe that the clause is important, as there is a need to balance rightly protecting operators whose services have been disrupted with protecting taxpayer interest where it is reasonable to do so. For example, in instances of trespassing, we would not expect the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) to apply, as the disruption that it causes should be within GBR’s gift to mitigate through investment in defences, and GBR would have significant opportunity to influence how quickly services are restored. In such an instance, therefore, we expect that compensation would be payable. However, where disruption follows events in extremis that are clearly not within GBR’s ability to mitigate against or control—for example, an act of terror—we envisage that the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) might apply.

I reiterate that formulating the scheme in consultation with industry will allow us to flesh out in far greater detail the demarcations, and make sure that private sector operators and rail freight have the surety they need that the scheme has been designed in the right way. The ORR will play a key role in the process in ensuring fairness, acting as the independent appeals body if GBR does not act in line with its duties.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that third party operators do not face penalties for disruption outside their control. The Bill stipulates that only GBR is protected from paying penalties or compensation for disruption outside its control, because GBR is the only party that bears responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of its network. There is no responsibility for that placed on third party operators, including freight.

On that basis, we do not see how the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon that a freight operator could face penalties for, say, infrastructure failures or planned engineering works would arise in practice, other than in extremely unusual circumstances —perhaps where an operator’s faulty train had caused damage to the infrastructure. Such events could only be the responsibility of GBR, as today they are not the responsibility of the infrastructure manager or the operator, so it is GBR that would pay the penalties for such issues.

It is right, therefore, that the Bill pursues a policy that protects the rights of third parties to reasonable compensation when disruption occurs as a result of another party’s actions or inactions, while also mitigating the risk of unjustified costs to the taxpayer when disruption is not reasonably in GBR’s gift to avoid or resolve. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, as we believe the Bill already achieves the intended effect.

Amendment 86 would prevent the performance scheme set out in clause 65 from becoming operational until it has been laid before Parliament. Such provisions for parliamentary scrutiny are a well-trodden path at this stage of the Committee’s proceedings, and we again believe that the amendment would add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy to what is effectively a technical industry process. In reality, the expertise about what specific incentives should be set for different operators on different routes is within the rail industry, and those experts are the ones who need to review and help GBR to develop the performance scheme.

That is why the Bill includes requirements for GBR to consult on its performance scheme and requirements for what GBR must include and consider as part of its design, with clear rights to appeal to the ORR in the event of disputes. The amendment would add little practical value. It would delay the new access regime and the benefits it will bring to passengers.

Clause 65 requires GBR to provide for and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise it, its subsidiaries and other train operators to minimise disruption to other train services and to the network itself. The scheme may include provisions for GBR and other operators to be required to pay penalties for causing disruption, receive compensation for disruption caused and receive bonuses that reward better-than-planned performance. The scheme may not provide for penalties or compensation when one train service causes disruption to another but they are both operated by the same person. The clause also prevents GBR from having to pay penalties or compensation in relation to disruption outside its control.

The clause gives GBR the power to require operators to provide information necessary for the scheme to function and offers no right to compensation or bonuses for parties that do not comply with those rules. The clause allows any person aggrieved by a provision in the scheme or any replacement or revision to it to appeal to the ORR. The clause is vital to create an efficient and reliable railway. It equips GBR to design a scheme that safeguards operators, forces accountability across the network and promotes continuous improvement. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Clause 67 provides a route of appeal to the ORR for a person aggrieved by a GBR decision about access, capacity allocation and charging, including decisions made under those schemes. Clause 68 then sets out the principles for how appeals to the ORR will operate and empowers the ORR to issue a document setting out the detailed practice and procedure to be followed. Together the clauses establish the ORR’s reformed and independent appeals role, providing a clear, credible and accessible route of redress against GBR’s access and charging decisions.

Opposition Members have consistently raised the view that basing the appeals role on judicial review principles is not strong enough. However, the rationale for the ORR deciding appeals based on judicial review principles is simple: we do not want the ORR to opine on best use. That is GBR’s job and if the ORR could simply disagree with GBR because it had a different opinion, we would be leaving the system as it is today, with parallel decision makers and unclear accountability. We would not gain the benefits of a body that is truly in charge of rail. That is precisely how we ended up with mistakes like the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. The ORR admitted it did not have the adequate information or resource needed to make an informed decision on the operation of that service. That is exactly why we need a consolidated directing mind for the industry that can take decisions confidently and with passengers and freight users at its heart.

Basing the appeals system on judicial review principles ensures that appeals are considered independently and on a recognised basis of fairness, legality and rationality, and without the fragmentation of decision making that plagues the current system. The appeals process will provide a robust accountability framework to ensure the railway delivers for passengers and freight customers. It is not judicial review principles that are weak; perhaps the hon. Member for South West Devon would suggest it is the powers available to the ORR to act on any wrongdoing that are flawed. I will turn to that next.

[Edward Argar]

Does the Minister not see the challenge that if GBR is the single directing mind, we need to ask how it is held to account for individual decisions that it makes? Where is its accountability to the public, be it through this place or others? Secondly, the Minister talks about judicial review principles. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know just how high that judicial review bar is when people wish to challenge a planning decision, or something else. It cannot consider the individual merits of the decision, merely how it has been reached and whether due process has been followed. It is also incredibly costly. Is the Minister not concerned that in setting these principles, he is setting that bar at an unattainably high level, rather than striking the appropriate balance between being able to appeal and challenge something, but not unduly burdening the day-to-day decision making of the railways?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for that contribution, because he gets to the nub of the principles. GBR will be held accountable through compliance with its duties as set out in legislation, which ensures that it has to have regard to passengers, including passengers with disabilities, and regard to the need to promote rail freight. It also has public law accountability built into it, through its legal obligation to act in a manner that is transparent and fair. The right hon. Member asks a broader question about whether the JR principles threshold is too high. We would argue it is not too high, precisely because of what it unlocks if we get to the stage where an appeal is upheld.

The ORR will have strong powers to dismiss the appeal or remit the decision to GBR for reconsideration, with legally binding directions that GBR cannot ignore. It is right and it is the stated principle both of the policy and of the overall notion of nationalisation that GBR can be a directing mind for the railway and have the power to do so, but there is a strong buttress against it if it is found that it has acted incorrectly as a matter of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I will respond first to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The point about confusion does not pertain to confusion created through arbitration in the courts on the principles of access decisions as a matter of law. I think that that is fundamental to making sure that GBR works within the boundaries of the legislative framework we have created, as well as, via public law principles, operating in a way that is both fair and transparent. The point about confusion is having two decision-making bodies on what constitutes best use of the network and access to the network. That is where we want to avoid confusion, because that is the system we have inherited, and it does not work for passengers.

The shadow Minister raised a point about fees, and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned costs. Any appeals will be made against JR principles and not processes. It is not that each case will be brought before the courts, with the associated costs that that would bring, so I am confident that the costs of appeal would not be a significant factor under the new system as opposed to the old one.

On the matter of European systems, the shadow Minister tests the boundaries of my knowledge of the operation of rail systems overseas. There are systems in Europe in which a body similar to the ORR has too dominant a role in having charge over access and decision making in relation to it. That is not working in the existing system, and that is what we are trying to change through the Bill.

Amendments 88 and 89 seek to remove the requirement that appeals be made on judicial review principles and replace this with a requirement that appeals are determined

“on the facts and the law.”

As I set out in my opening speech, judicial review principles will ensure that the ORR focuses on the legality and fairness of GBR’s decision making, not on retaking the decision. Replacing this with a requirement to determine appeals on the facts and the law instead would convert this to a merits-based system, which would require the ORR to rerun strategic judgments and exercises on best use of the network. That is not the role we intend for the ORR. The framework is designed to provide strong, independent oversight while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.

We have discussed repeatedly in Committee that what is wrong with the railway today is the fact that there is no one decision maker. There has to be just one, or the railway will continue to stagnate. GBR is the body with the expertise to be that decision maker, and the ORR is the body that should check that it has acted fairly and proportionately. Judicial review principles strike the right balance between accountability and effective decision making.

Amendments 90 and 91 would extend the ORR’s powers to substitute its own decision for one of GBR’s. As I have mentioned, the Bill deliberately distinguishes between types of appeals and the powers available to the ORR in each circumstance. For appeals concerning provisions within GBR’s strategic documents, such as the access and use policy, infrastructure capacity plans or its charging and performance schemes, the ORR may remit the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, and may do so with binding directions, but may not substitute its own decision. That is because these are not yes or no decisions—they are not simple decisions—but rather complex and comprehensive policies that govern the railway. It is not appropriate for the ORR to rewrite strategic policy documents, and that is not what regulators are meant to do. The ORR should be checking that GBR has acted consistently with its procedures and policies, not substituting them with its own.

However, for operational decisions, for example about charges for operators or about whether someone should be included in the timetable, the ORR has stronger powers. The ORR may quash all or part of the decision and may substitute its own decision in cases where there has been an error of law and, without the error, there would have been only one decision that Great British Railways could have reached. The amendments would remove these carefully drawn distinctions, potentially allowing the ORR to step beyond its oversight role and into decision making on best use of the network. We cannot have that. The amendments would allow the ORR to make decisions on best use without decisions going back to GBR to correct, removing GBR’s ability to learn from and correct its mistakes, and adding duplication between two decision-making bodies. The Bill already provides robust remedies where an appeal is upheld, including the power to remit with binding directions, even when substitution is not available, which ensures effective redress while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.

Amendments 92 and 93 would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing either regulations or practice and procedures for appeals under this chapter. The Bill already sets out a clear and proportionate consultation requirement, and the current formulation is deliberate to provide flexibility for the ORR to engage industry and stakeholders, including open access operators, without creating an inflexible statutory list. It may also be helpful to emphasise that the ORR’s appeals role exists precisely to ensure fairness, transparency and lawful decision making for operators, including open access operators.

The ORR has already begun engagement on its approach to developing its appeals process and has published a discussion document setting out its emerging thinking, which is publicly available and open to comment and views from industry and other stakeholders, including open access operators. The work is intended to inform its final appeals process, and there will be a formal consultation once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Open access operators will therefore be able to provide views as part of the consultation without the need for an explicit mention in the Bill. The process already provides a clear and appropriate route for open access operators to have their views heard.

I also note that the Secretary of State regulations relate to process matters only, such as steps that must be taken before an appeal is brought, time limits, and fees. They do not determine access rights or decision making on capacity allocation or charging. It is therefore appropriate that the statutory consultation requirement focuses on bodies with system-wide responsibilities and oversight roles, rather than individual categories of operator.

As with other consultation provisions in the Bill, singling out one category of operator will create a precedent for others to request to be added to the statutory list, and we will risk making the framework overly prescriptive. The current drafting already achieves the right balance, ensuring engagement and maintaining flexibility. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South West Devon not to press the amendments, and commend clauses 67 and 68 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Appeal procedure

Amendment proposed: 88, in clause 68, page 38, line 11, leave out subsection (1).—(Rebecca Smith.)

This amendment removes the requirement that appeals may only be made under Judicial Review principles.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 203 to 205 seek to do two things: to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations relating to the appeals process; and to remove the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers as statutory consultees on the ORR’s appeals procedure. I support the ambition to ensure that the appeals framework works independently and commands confidence across the industry. However, the amendments are not necessary or appropriate to achieve that aim.

The ORR will establish its own appeals process and engage with industry on its development. In fact, it has already published a discussion document seeking views from interested parties on its policy choices. That was published on 3 December and can be found on the ORR’s website. The Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers are intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that the appeals framework operates effectively, and are not expected to play a routine role. The powers may be used only for matters of process—for example, the setting of legally binding time limits for bringing appeals and, if appropriate, providing for the charging of fees.

The powers cannot be used to interfere with the ORR’s independence in deciding and assessing individual appeals, or used to dictate the outcome of any appeal. Other procedural arrangements will be set by the ORR as it develops its appeals process. The power ensures that the framework can be set and adjusted, if required, to maintain effective operation over time while fully preserving the ORR’s independence in determining appeals. The Secretary of State will, of course, be required to consult the ORR, GBR, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making any regulations under the power.

In a similar vein, when the ORR issues, revises or replaces its appeals practice and procedure, it is important that it must consult GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons it considers appropriate. That ensures coherence across the railway network, particularly where services cross borders. Removing these provisions would reduce flexibility and resilience in the appeals framework without materially strengthening the independence of the ORR’s appeals role. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw the amendment, and not to move amendments 204 and 205.

--- Later in debate ---

Access agreements

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 69, page 39, line 25, leave out “17(1)” and insert “17”.

This amendment and amendment 176 restrict the power of the Office of Rail and Road to give directions to Great British Railways so that it will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 176 to 183.

Clause stand part.

Clause 70 stand part.

Amendment 146, in clause 71, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment prevents regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements.

Clause 71 stand part.

Government amendment 186.

New clause 67—Abolition of open access rights—

“Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to—

(a) prevent the granting or renewal of licences for open access passenger services;

(b) where such services cease to operate as a result of paragraph (a), require Great British Railways to operate equivalent services following their cessation.”

[Keir Mather]

Amendments 175 to 183 and 186 will ensure that GBR can enter into connection contracts with adjacent infrastructure managers and facility owners. A connection contract is a formal agreement that focuses on the physical interface and upkeep of the connection between two rail networks. Connection contracts are important in enabling the smooth passage of trains from GBR’s network to others, such as the Core Valley Lines in Wales. They also allow GBR’s network to be connected to privately owned depots or ports, which will be of importance to freight operators. These technical amendments retain the existing arrangements, enabling GBR and other parties to enter into connection contracts. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.

[Edward Morello]

I wish to speak in support of amendment 146 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements. We believe that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for train operators and passengers. Access agreements are detailed, regulated contracts that set out service patterns, responsibilities and costs. They are overseen by the ORR and published on its public register. Amendment 146 would remove ministerial powers to terminate those agreements early, limiting the ability of the Secretary of State to micro- manage GBR.

While I risk sounding like a broken record, as I have said before, these are powers that apply to both the current Government and future one. While I understand the desire for the Secretary of State to have the power to terminate agreements, those powers sit better with the ORR and GBR. If we want stability, investment and reliable services, we need to signal to the market that there will not be political intervention that undermines long-term planning. I hope that the Government will see the sense of this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We will therefore vote against clause 71 in order to prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts. The implications of the clause are of great concern for freight operators, and, as they have been informed, if it is not the DFT’s intention to change the terms of existing contracts, why does it need the clause at all? Briefly, amendment 146 tabled by the Liberal Democrats would prevent regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements, which we support.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister and others for their contributions. It is a small point, but the shadow Minister raised international obligations and treaties, and I want to reassure her that infrastructure managed and operated by parties other than GBR, including High Speed 1, will continue to be governed by the existing access and management regulation. There will therefore be no impact on international obligations and treaties. Hopefully, that will instil confidence throughout the rail supply chain as to how seriously we take those obligations.

I will speak first to clauses 69 and 70, before turning to the amendments. Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to exempt GBR from the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. In short, the clause prevents the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. Amendment of the existing provisions is vital to allow the Government to fulfil their commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind responsible and accountable for making best use of the railway. Retaining the role of the ORR as the decision maker on access is not the answer.

Under the current ORR system, decisions on the timetable are plagued by delays and disagreements between ORR and Network Rail, and require ministerial intervention for timetables to be finalised. As the regulator, the ORR does not have the ability to review the system holistically, create more routes and optimise the overall use of the network—it can only respond to the specific applications that are submitted to it.

If we keep the current system, we will continue to see disruption and delays caused by timetabling problems, and inefficient use of the network that is no one’s best interests. We will continue to see problems, such as trains running without passengers on them, purely because of the systematic issues that govern access and timetabling decisions. Retaining the ORR as the access decision maker would not lead to better performance, and would not benefit passengers. The only way to achieve the high-performing and high-quality railway that this country needs is to put one body—GBR—in charge of the railway and of granting access to it. It is only GBR—not Ministers or the ORR—that will have the level of expertise and the detailed knowledge of the whole railway system that is needed to make the right decisions for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Clause 70 makes technical changes to the body of law that currently governs access, to exempt GBR and make some other consequential changes, so that the existing access and management regulations will no longer apply to GBR in relation to its infrastructure. The technical amendments in the clause are necessary to enable GBR to become the single decision maker and directing mind for its infrastructure. The existing regulations will continue to apply for adjacent infrastructure managers, such as Transport for London and Core Valley Lines in south Wales.

Clause 71 provides the Secretary of State with a time-limited power to ensure that contracts can continue to operate effectively, following the establishment of Great British Railways. The Government have made the commitment that, following its establishment, the existing access rights held by operators, known as schedule 5 rights, will be honoured, as will the charges set by the ORR for the remainder of the current control period. The clause does not change those commitments. However, the power is needed to prevent contracts from becoming inoperable because they are reliant on the previous legislative framework in the Railways Act 1993, which will not be applicable once the Bill is enacted.

In a similar way to how the ORR provides notices for contracts today, the Secretary of State will, if necessary, and only as a last resort, use the power to make technical changes to existing contracts, simply to ensure smooth transition to the new access and charging regime under GBR—for example, to account for the establishment of GBR and address the changed roles of the ORR and GBR, so that contracts still operate as they should.

Without those changes, operators with access rights would potentially not be able to provide the services that they have contracts and rights to run, because the contracts will become inoperable. However, recognising the need for reassurance, and to offer certainty for third parties, the Government have also committed publicly to ensuring that operators with existing contracts in scope of needing that power will be engaged with and consulted, to identify inoperable clauses and agree on replacement wording.

Amendment 146 would take away the ability to amend or terminate contracts. However, it is necessary for the clause to be drafted widely, including with reference to termination, in case the best way to effect the technical changes to the contract is to terminate and immediately replace the contract with one that is aligned to the new legislative framework, rather than making numerous technical amendments throughout that would otherwise render the contract unusable or unwieldy. As stated earlier, that will not affect any operators’ schedule 5 rights, nor will it impede the existing charging determination set by the ORR until its natural expiry in April 2029, which the Government have confirmed both publicly and in writing. Not including that provision would be a risk to the smooth transition to the new regime, which the Government are not prepared to risk.

Given all that I have discussed, I urge hon. Members not to press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendments made: 176, in clause 69, page 39, line 26, leave out from “after” to end of line and insert—

“subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Where the facility owner is Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road may give directions under subsection (1) only for the purpose specified in subsection (2)(e).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 175.

Amendment 177, in clause 69, page 39, line 32, leave out—

“to which this section applies”

and insert—

“of the description specified in subsection (2)(e) unless one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is satisfied; and any such contract is void unless one of those conditions is satisfied.”

This amendment replaces the general restriction on Great British Railways entering into access contracts with one that will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.

Amendment 178, in clause 69, page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (4)(c).

This amendment removes the restriction on Great British Railways as a facility owner entering into installation access contracts.

Amendment 179, in clause 69, page 40, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) In section 21 (model clauses for access contracts), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(6) The powers of the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (5) may not be exercised in relation to an access contract where the facility owner is Great British Railways unless the access contract is of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”

This amendment provides for the ORR’s model clauses powers to be exercisable in relation to access contracts entered into by GBR only where the access contract is a “facility to facility” access contract.

Amendment 180, in clause 69, page 40, line 6, leave out “if” and insert “where”.

This amendment and amendment 181 provide for ORR approval to be required for amendment of “facility to facility” access contracts entered into by Great British Railways.

Amendment 181, in clause 69, page 40, line 7, at end insert—

“unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 180.

Amendment 182, in clause 69, page 40, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—

“(5A) Directions may not be given under this section in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).”

This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.

Amendment 183, in clause 69, page 40, line 12, at end insert—

“(7) In section 22C (amendment: supplementary), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Directions may not be given under subsection (1) in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22C of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement Great British Railways in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.

[The Chair]

I propose that we suspend the meeting for 10 minutes so that everybody can have a comfort break.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I think he probably would have said it, to be perfectly honest.

Clause 73 marks the end of a very significant chapter in the Bill, with many poorly drafted or simply ill thought through clauses. I am sure the drafting has been done with the greatest attention to detail; it is just the “thought-through-ness” that we are struggling with. But we end on a positive note, with no objections to clause 73.

[Keir Mather]

I am pleased to speak to this group of provisions, which concludes the scrutiny on the access chapters of the Bill.

Clause 72 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to amend the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 via the affirmative procedure. The access and management regulations are the existing body of secondary legislation that sets out the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers, train operators and the role of the ORR in relation to access, capacity allocation, access charges and performance. At present, those regulations can be amended only using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, but those powers will expire on 23 June 2026, which means that, after that date, there will be no means other than an Act of Parliament by which those detailed and technical regulations can be amended.

Great British Railways infrastructure will not be subject to the regulations, as the Bill establishes a new access framework to enable GBR to be the directing mind, which we have discussed over the last few groups. However, alongside Great British Railways there will be a number of rail networks, such as Transport for London, London St Pancras Highspeed and the Core Valley Lines in Wales, that will continue to be subject to the access and management regulations. Those “adjacent infrastructure managers” will therefore not be part of GBR’s access regime. The purpose of the power in clause 72 is to ensure that the legislative framework governing the other infrastructure managers can be updated to address any inconsistencies between networks—to “keep pace” between the two different regulatory regimes. Without this power there may be disruption to the smooth passage of train services across different networks—which the Government have a duty to protect.

For example, the power might be used to secure alignment on the date when a new working timetable must come into effect. The access and management regulations currently stipulate a date in December, but given the risk of weather-related events, staff absences during the Christmas season and the engineering works that usually take place between Christmas and the new year, GBR will likely want to move away from that. If it did, it is not unreasonable to think that other infrastructure managers might want to follow suit to avoid being affected by the same risks and to ensure consistency in the timetable change date. To achieve that, it would be necessary to amend the regulations for the other infrastructure managers who wish to align with the date that GBR chooses in the future. The regulation-making power would enable that simple change to be made without needing an Act of Parliament.

There may also be opportunities for adjacent infrastructure managers to seek further simplifications to the current regulations in a way that meets our ambitions to reduce regulatory burden and support growth, while maintaining a sustainable and predictable framework so that businesses have confidence to plan and invest. The Government consider regulations, rather than primary legislation, as a better way in which to achieve that.

Regulations made under the clause must be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Before exercising the power, the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties, ensuring full transparency, that industry has the chance to comment and that Parliament approves the regulations before any changes can be made. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 all seek to narrow that power in some way.

Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings and terminals; amendment 231 would similarly exclude freight-only facilities. Those amendments are unnecessary, as the purpose of the power is to ensure alignment and remove inconsistencies in the regulatory regimes that will apply to GBR and non-GBR infrastructure and to enable simplifications where they align with the objectives of adjacent infrastructure managers.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Minister just said that the amendments are completely unnecessary, because the stated concerns are not real, effectively. That does not answer the very real concerns put forward time and again in the Transport Select Committee and in this Committee’s evidence session—the written and oral evidence—by businesses that are experts in the field. They are not reassured by the Bill as it stands. How can the Minister go back and say, “No, we’re right and you’re wrong,” to those experts in the industry?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not arguing that stakeholders are not valid in raising concerns about the issues: they are. I am seeking to ameliorate their concerns by outlining what provisions are in the legislation to offer sufficient scrutiny and ensure that the way in which the process happens offers robust safeguards.

Constraints are built into clause 72 to ensure sufficient oversight, with the Secretary of State consulting persons considered appropriate and making changes in secondary legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that legislation will be subject to full public consultation and subsequently debated in both Houses, which reflects the importance of the regulations in providing certainty for business.

I have already said that the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties to ensure that there is full transparency and industry comment. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 would all narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings, and amendment 231 would exclude freight-only facilities. I have already spoken on why some of the principles that lie behind those amendments are unnecessary.

Let us take my example of GBR changing the date when its new working timetable is to take effect. On the basis of the amendments, other infrastructure managers would forever be misaligned with that new timetable change date, even if they wished to align. The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the owners or operators of private freight facilities on operational matters.

I am happy to reassure the Committee that the power cannot be used to bring other infrastructure managers or operators of privately funded facilities into public ownership, as I know how exercised Opposition Committee members have been about that principle. In the consultation, industry broadly supported the ability to make necessary amendments, although it is of course right to raise concerns when they arise. Most sector bodies agree that it will be important to ensure that there are no regulatory barriers to passenger and freight operators crossing between different networks, and that is what the clause seeks to achieve.

Amendment 221 would make the ORR and affected facility owners statutory consultees to the power. That is unnecessary as before exercising the power to make regulations, the Secretary of State is already required to consult all persons they consider appropriate, which would include the ORR and any affected facility owners. If the Secretary of State did not consult such persons, there would be strong grounds to challenge the regulations.

Clause 73 will ensure clarity in how key terms are applied throughout the access chapter of the Bill. It defines “GBR infrastructure”, “GBR passenger service” and “working timetable”—fundamental terms to the operation of GBR. The definition of GBR infrastructure ensures that the new access arrangements developed by GBR apply only where intended. The clause also includes a power to amend the definition, which is necessary to ensure that, as GBR’s network evolves over time, it remains clear to GBR and other infrastructure managers which parts of infrastructure are GBR’s responsibility. The clause is therefore critical to provide clarity and transparency.

Given what I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments. I commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee.

[Edward Morello]

I have nothing further to add, but we would like to press amendment 256 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Me too, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for placing such confidence in me; we will see in due course if it is justified.

I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to amendment 222, which would require the ORR to monitor KPIs. My response will be brief, to avoid repeating myself, as the amendment is heavily linked to new clause 2, which we have already debated.

We expect GBR to have KPIs, as I have said before, but the right place for them is in GBR’s integrated business plan, alongside the detail of the activity that GBR will carry out over the five-year funding period. No sensible business would ever set its KPIs in stone, potentially for generations to come.

It is important that the ORR, in its role scrutinising GBR’s proposed business plans and monitoring its delivery of them, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious and realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR will have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s KPIs. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is already ensured by legislation.

Amendment 97 would require the ORR to monitor whether GBR is implementing safety recommendations and standards set by industry bodies. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. Britain’s railways remain some of the safest in the world, which is why we are maintaining the roles of the statutory bodies in this area—the ORR and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch —and preserving the legal duty on all public bodies, including GBR, to give due regard to the investigation branch safety recommendations addressed to them.

Existing safety legislation already gives the ORR broad powers to monitor GBR’s safety management, including its implementation of investigation branch recommendations, and to take enforcement action if it finds that GBR is not managing safety effectively. The amendment risks confusing or duplicating well-understood roles and responsibilities in relation to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety best practice. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member that this suggestion is already covered.

Amendments 99 to 101 would require the ORR to audit GBR’s statutory functions when undertaking its monitoring role. That is unnecessary, and would distort the clear and distinct roles set out in the Bill for both GBR and the ORR. The Bill retains the ORR’s important role as sector regulator and creates an enhanced monitoring function through which it will monitor GBR’s statutory functions and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State.

The ORR’s role as sector regulator is rightly separate to the role of an approved auditor. The annual accounts of GBR will be audited by the National Audit Office in the usual way. We do not propose to change that effective system, and cannot agree to an amendment that would layer it with unwarranted and inappropriate duplication, given that the ORR will already be monitoring GBR’s delivery of the KPIs within its business plan and GBR’s consideration of its duties when doing this.

Oversight of GBR will be proportionate, risk-based and focused on the outcomes that matter most to users of the railway, taxpayers and the wider public. The ORR will have a crucial part to play in providing this oversight, including by undertaking its enhanced monitoring role in the way it, as the independent regulator, considers appropriate. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member not to press those amendments.

I commend clause 74 to the Committee. It will provide the ORR with enhanced monitoring powers, in line with its new role in the reformed sector. It will ensure that the ORR can effectively scrutinise GBR and provide independent expert advice for the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on its performance. As set out in the Bill, GBR will be required to produce an integrated business plan that demonstrates how it will deliver its priorities across the breadth of its statutory functions, including passenger services and the management of the GBR network.

Although GBR will report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of the plan, the ORR will be required to monitor the performance of GBR and independently advise the Secretary of State. The clause sets out that the ORR will monitor how GBR exercises its functions, including whether the commitments in GBR’s business plan are being met, how costs and income compare with estimates in that plan, and the extent to which GBR is ensuring safety on the railway. On an ongoing basis, the ORR will be able to escalate concerns to Ministers as it considers necessary, enabling the Secretary of State to make informed decisions in line with her responsibilities as funder of GBR. Given that the Secretary of State is democratically responsible for the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy invested in the railway, it is right that she has the final say on how it is used, with proper, comprehensive advice from an expert independent regulator to support her.

To fulfil its new role, the ORR must have the ability to gather information, conduct investigations, and assess whether GBR is fulfilling its statutory functions and business plan commitments. Clause 74 provides that statutory basis. It will allow the ORR, where it deems appropriate, to publish any information or advice it provides to the Secretary of State in connection with this monitoring function. That will ensure that the public can see how GBR is being held to account for its performance and how it is delivering in the interest of its customers, taxpayers and the public.

The policy rationale is clear: the Government are committed to preserving an independent expert adviser within the rail system and are providing the necessary tools for that body to operate and scrutinise GBR effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Rebecca Smith]

I have indicated that we want to press amendment 99 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Miscellaneous functions of ORR

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 271, in clause 75, page 43, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 55 (orders for securing compliance), after subsection (7C) insert—

‘(7D) The Office of Rail and Road may not, by a final or provisional order, require the payment of a sum by Great British Railways.’”

This amendment would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 212, in clause 75, page 43, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment removes the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches.

Clause stand part.

[Keir Mather]

I will first speak to Government amendment 271 and clause 75 as drafted, which is essential to ensure that the accountability arrangements for GBR reflect its status as a publicly owned body, as well as enshrining the strategic role of Ministers.

The clause will make two changes to functions of the ORR that would otherwise apply to GBR. The first is to prevent the ORR from issuing specific directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities, such as stations or depots. However, we expect that the GBR licence will include a condition relating to long-term asset management to ensure that the ORR retains oversight of infrastructure in the new system. As Members are aware, GBR’s licence will be subject to formal consultation.

The direction power was originally included to ensure that improvements were made when it is was clearly in the interests of the railway generally, but a railway operator might have no commercial incentive to make them. In the new system, GBR will be incentivised to improve its own infrastructure, and the change in legislation recognises that it is for Ministers, as funders, and GBR itself—not the regulator—to set the strategic direction for GBR.

GBR should then make decisions and improvements as part of its business planning, and the ORR should be able to monitor against the agreed business plan, supported by a licence condition that ensures that it can enforce long-term asset management in case anything goes wrong. If the ORR identifies a failing that constitutes a breach of that condition, and dialogue or early intervention have not proved effective, it will be able to escalate issues to the GBR board, require GBR to create and publish improvement plans and issue an enforcement order, which is a legal instruction that would require GBR to take action to meet its responsibilities.

The second change is to remove the ORR’s power to fine GBR. Imposing financial penalties on a public body would not align with the aims of maximising the benefits of public ownership. It would simply mean recycling public funds between two public bodies, continuing the money-go-round that is pervasive in today’s system. It would also add an administrative burden with only a limited effect on incentivising the right behaviours.

Amendment 271 is a technical amendment to ensure that when the Bill removes the ORR’s power to fine, it refers to all the correct parts of the law, including section 55 of the Railways Act 1993, to achieve that aim. The ORR will retain the ability to issue fines for breaches of licence conditions by non-GBR licence holders where that is an effective tool because those organisations will not be wholly funded by Government money. GBR can still be subject to a financial penalty if it violates health and safety or competition laws, as we are not changing the safety regime that will apply to the railways, and competition law will still apply in full to GBR. I look forward to hearing from hon. Members about amendment 212.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Clause 75 prevents the ORR from issuing directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities. It also prevents the ORR from imposing a fine on GBR for licence breaches. We think those are both terrible ideas.

The Transport Committee asked Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group:

“What is your view on the ORR’s downgraded power merely to ‘advise’ the Secretary of State on GBR’s performance, rather than having actual powers of enforcement?”

She said:

“I am quite worried about this.”

To the same question, Steve Montgomery from First Rail said:

“Following on from that, the independence element of it—marking your own homework—is a big concern for us. How do we ensure that we do not see a perverse behaviour where GBR looks after its own operations to the detriment of others?”

Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:

“I can only echo that. With GBR writing the rules, controlling capacity and being linked to the main operator in the country, there is a structural conflict of interest, unless there is a clear duty of fairness and non-discrimination. I do not know of other European countries that do not have a strong independent rail regulator, across the EU and beyond. To be the judge and the jury at the same time is somewhat worrying.”

Emma Vogelmann, the co-chief executive of Transport for All, told the Transport Committee:

“Our recommendation on the role of the ORR is to retain its independent authority. We are definitely interested to see how that transition of powers, as Ben mentioned, plays out, and how enforceability plays into that.”

For once, the Government need to stop and listen. The sector is speaking with one voice and telling them that this is the wrong approach. The clause needs to be removed in its entirety. It is common for regulators to be able to issue financial penalties to private utility companies that are in breach of their statutory duties. Why should that consumer protection not also be applied to a public body like GBR? Removing clause 75 would restore the ORR as a strong, independent economic regulator.

Government amendment 271

“would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.”

The Conservatives are against the whole clause, but, to save time, we will not seek a Division specifically on this amendment—I am sure that everybody will be pleased to hear that. However, as somebody who serves on the Transport Committee and sat through a lot of those evidence sessions, one of the key things that concerned me and some other members of the Committee was the breakdown of the relationship between the ORR and GBR and the weakening of the ORR’s powers. When I heard that evidence, I certainly felt that it was a compelling argument.

Liberal Democrat amendment 212 would remove the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. That is okay as far as it goes, and we will support the amendment, but we think that it does not quite go far enough. As I am sure Members expect on the basis of what I have just said, we will vote against clause 75 as a whole.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would retain the ORR’s power to fine GBR in the event of a licence breach. He will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I made in my opening remarks. However, as I suspect he knows, I cannot accept his amendment, because in creating the ability for the ORR to fine GBR, it would simply lead to the recycling of public funds, which he so ably outlined as being an issue.

On the subject of licence breaches, the ORR can issue an enforcement order to direct a different outcome from GBR. There is also a point to be made about accountability for GBR’s executives. That kind of relates to the penalties for Network Rail today: the ORR already recognises its public sector status and scales penalties accordingly. The chair and board of GBR will be responsible for ensuring that the CEO has in place robust performance management for senior staff, inherent to which will be not defying the ORR when it has issued legally binding directions. There will be a clear expectation that any significant failures will have a material impact on performance-related pay, and where the failure is sufficient to demand it, an individual should be at risk of dismissal. Put simply, removing the ORR’s power to fine will not cause the executive of GBR to be remiss in their duties.

Although the hon. Member asks me to speculate on potentially extreme cases where GBR could defy the ORR, I believe that, in the round, sufficient safeguards remain in place, with the ORR retaining its existing ability to issue mandatory and legally binding enforcement orders to GBR on matters within the licence; it is only the monetary aspect that is targeted here.

Amendment 271 agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 77 to 79 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 76 updates the Office of Rail and Road’s information duties by inserting a new section into the Railways Act 1993 under which the ORR must proactively publish documents and information about key regulatory matters, including licences, access contracts, closures and railway administration orders, in whatever manner and form it considers appropriate. At the same time, the clause removes the ORR’s duty to maintain a formal statutory register under section 72 of the 1993 Act and repurposes that section so that it better reflects modern expectations of transparency, while retaining strong safeguards so that information that would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals, businesses or the wider public interest is not disclosed. The clause is not retrospective: it does not compel the ORR to publish historical material, but it allows it to publish information already held on the existing register where that is appropriate.

The main purpose of clause 77 is to replace the Secretary of State’s duty to keep a statutory register under section 73 of the 1993 Act with a focused duty to publish information, in keeping with the Government’s commitment to ensure appropriate levels of transparency on the railways. Clauses 78 and 79 do the same but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

These clauses retain strong protections for individuals, businesses and the wider public interest, making it clear that material that would seriously and prejudicially affect those interests must not be published. They allow Ministers to publish material currently held on the existing register, so that there is no gap in transparency during transition. The clauses deliver a modern, proportionate and more accessible publication regime, in keeping with the Government’s ambitions for a reformed railway.

[Rebecca Smith]

Clauses 76 to 79 change the current duties on the ORR, the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to maintain a register, in sections 72 to 73B of the Railways Act 1993, and put them under duties to publish certain information. The ORR must publish documentation relating to licences; access agreements; access contracts, other than those using GBR infrastructure, for which GBR will be responsible; experimental passenger services; closures; and railway administration orders, except where that would affect individual public or commercial interests. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers must publish determinations that a closure is a minor modification, and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. Each clause contains restrictions about publishing information that would affect individual, public or commercial interests. Each clause also allows for the publication of documentation that was previously contained in the registers.

Clause 77, which is very similar to clause 76 and, indeed, clauses 78 and 79 on the devolved Ministers, amends section 73 of the 1993 Act, on the publication of a register by the Secretary of State, so that they are under duties to publish information—in particular, determinations that a closure is a minor modification and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. However, proposed new section 73(5) of the 1993 Act is interesting. It states:

“The Secretary of State may not publish particular information or documents under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State that publication of that information or those documents would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of any person.”

Can the Minister outline under what circumstances not being transparent is not in the public interest? What determines public interest? I would be grateful to hear the methodology in this instance. Further, the only person with commercial interests in the railway will be the guiding hand of the Secretary of State herself, as it is all public money.

I am sure that proposed new subsection (5) is standard practice in statute, but it raises an interesting point about transparency that I ask the Government to spend some time thinking about. Public trust is low—perhaps it is even lower today than it was when my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham wrote this speech—and any part of any Bill that allows the Secretary of State to get away with not publishing information under a perceived public good would look most suspicious indeed. I do think that, in the light of yesterday’s events, my hon. Friend will see the irony in the words that he wrote there.

Clause 77(2) allows publication of anything that was in the register before the Bill’s commencement. What is the timeline for publication, and will the Minister commit to publication? Those queries aside, Members will be pleased to hear that we have tabled no amendments at this time.

Clause 78, which relates to publication of information by Scottish Ministers, mirrors clause 77. As I mentioned, it amends the 1993 Act, and aside from my query about the ability that it provides to not publish information against a perceived public good, we have no objections to the clause—unless it falls outside the devolution settlement, but presumably the Minister can reassure the Committee that it does not.

Clause 79 relates to the powers of Welsh Ministers, which are similar to those enjoyed by Scottish Ministers. The rationale behind allowing Ministers to not publish information over a perceived public good remains interesting to me, but I see no need to revise the clause.

[Keir Mather]

The intention of these changes is not to reduce transparency, but to modernise what is published and how. The new duty focuses on determinations under the Railways Act 2005 and the exercise of key enforcement and closure powers, which are among the most significant decisions the Secretary of State takes in relation to the railway. Other publication requirements—for example, on designations, directions and guidance, and the long-term rail strategy—are dealt with in other clauses, so the transparency framework should be viewed as a whole, not just through the lens of these changes to the 1993 Act.

The shadow Minister raised an important point about how commercial and public interest protections interact with freedom of information and scrutiny. The clauses preserve a carefully balanced approach that has long existed under the 1993 Act. This is not a wholesale change in how that process works. The Secretary of State must not publish material where it would be against the public interest or commercial interests, or where it would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals or particular bodies. Those protections sit alongside and do not displace the wider legal framework, including freedom of information legislation and parliamentary scrutiny, which of course continues to apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan.)