Railways Bill (Second sitting)
Keir Mather ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Steve Montgomery: I agree with everything John and Maggie said. The challenge we see as a private sector operator is how you get anybody to invest in the industry with the lack of clarity in the Bill. As John alluded to, there is reference by the DFT in the memorandum of understanding on the Bill, but nothing in the Bill itself. That makes it very difficult to go to a board and say, “Look, we want to invest in these things.” What certainty do you have for the future?
An awful lot has been made of open access as we have gone through this process. It would take up 1% of overall capacity, but it is held out there, in the commentary, as one of the major plays in the Bill. We think that open access brings the opportunity for competition, which we seem to have lost with some of the wording in the Bill. How do we make sure that there are better services for customers? That is what we all want and what GBR is setting out to do, but how do we make sure that we all have a fair chance when bidding? We have talked about the access situation. GBR can decide not to give access, and the ORR has very limited powers to hear an appeal, so where is the confidence for the private sector investment that the industry continues to cry out for?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Q
Maggie Simpson: We have been very clear that we welcome those provisions. We are grateful to the Rail Minister and his team at the DFT, and to your own team, for their commitment to freight. That is really good but, with respect, I have been around a long time and I have seen circumstances in which Secretaries of State and Rail Ministers have not been as keen on freight, or perhaps have been more keen on road freight and less keen on rail freight. We have seen situations arise through different political times and economic circumstances.
When I am looking at the Bill, I am looking at whether it works today, with a Government who are supportive of and promoting freight, and at whether it would it work in the future, with a Government, of whatever colour, who have a different view. We have to look at it through that lens because we legislate for the long term. It is really difficult, because you are saying to people who are trying to help you, “Actually, I don’t like this.” That is an emotional tension—of course it is.
The duties and provisions in the Bill are great— I would not want to be going into GBR without them, and I think they will be powerful—but they are doing a lot of heavy lifting. We are going into a very different cultural environment. GBR will think about its own trains first; it has to for it to succeed—that is kind of the core. We are going into a very different access arrangement and a very different set of parameters, and it is entirely possible that they could go wrong and that we would need the recourse of the appeal function. They might not, but we need to know that it will work if they do. Having a strong appeal function will help it to work, because GBR will know that if things do go wrong we have that recourse in law.
Keir Mather
Q
It is important that we clarify that GBR has to set out what it means by “best use” before we get into questions of the capacity duty. It has to have due regard for freight in the network, open access in the network and the provision of passenger services before the capacity duty is triggered. That means that GBR has to deliver the services it has identified as being necessary to run the railway effectively, but the appeals process is enormously important. Do you think the fact that freight operators would be able to appeal GBR’s interpretation of “best use” in relation to its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of freight, provides a safeguard to ensure that freight is considered when GBR is deciding what constitutes best use of the railway overall?
Maggie Simpson: I think my children would use the phrase “gaslighting”. I have read the Bill many times, and I cannot see in law that the capacity duty is subservient to clause 60 on the infrastructure capacity plan. I understand that that is the intention—I have heard it from the Rail Minister, yourselves and Network Rail, and I get that; there is a lot of work to do on the access and use policy, and we are engaged on that and want it to work—but it is not what the Bill says, and therefore a future Minister or Secretary of State could interpret it very differently and say, “Look, GBR, we don’t like your infrastructure capacity plan, so we’re triggering clause 63—get those freight trains out my way.” I do not expect that from the current Administration, but we need to square off that hole in law, in my opinion. If that is the intention, let us say so.
On how that infrastructure evaluation—that capacity analysis—is taken forward, it is incredibly complex, and I appreciate that most of the detail will be in the access and use policy and not in the Bill. We do not have a problem with the way that clause 60 is worded. We will work with colleagues to try to make sure that that process is effective and those duties matter. Of course, those duties are not relevant in clause 63, because clause 18(4) turns them off. When looking at that capacity duty, a future Secretary of State would not have to have regard to freight, because the Bill explicitly turns it off. That would mean that if we went to an appeal, GBR would be in line with the law in not having thought about freight in using clause 63, because the law would not require it to. We would not be able to prove a judicial review threshold appeal, because the law would say that GBR was okay not to have thought about freight.
Keir Mather
Q
May I ask one final question to Mr Montgomery, as it relates to open access? We have an overall issue with capacity in this country. The Government’s view is that, by running a single, unified approach to the railways, GBR will be able to allocate capacity in a way that is more reasonable, makes more sense and balances those interests around best use. Can you set out briefly how that contrasts with the open access regime as we currently find it? How is capacity on the railways perhaps holding back competitive movements in the open access market as it stands?
Steve Montgomery: The situation with open access and capacity, under the Bill as it is written, is that GBR decides what capacity is available and what capacity it might hold back for future use or performance. As it stands, the railway is not funded in that way, so the opportunity for private sector investment gets lost because, given the way that the Bill is written, people can almost sit on their hands and say, “Well, we’re not going to do anything because we might do something in the future.”
It is for us, in making open access applications, to go and look at where we believe capacity is and then submit an application, as things stand via the regulator—hence our concerns for the future under GBR. If it can turn around and decide, “No, there’s no access” or “We may use that in the future,” why would any future open access application ever get through?
Keir Mather
We can set that out a little later, probably in the evidence that I give, but thank you all very much. I will let other Members ask questions.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Steve Montgomery: The system at the moment is independent. The regulator evaluates, takes all the different evidence from the applicant and from Network Rail on how much capacity is there. It takes all that evidence and does an abstraction test to make sure that an open access application is not abstracting revenue from the existing operators. That independence is there, and it allows the regulator to evaluate that and make its decision. In the last year, it has granted some applications and refused others.
The system works—maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but it does work and it is independent. Under GBR, it will be a huge public sector body with no real regulation. Looking at it at the moment, it is difficult to see where that independent regulation is, looking at the industry and holding GBR to account. Capacity is one of the areas we need to look at, and likewise access charges, where that comes into play.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I have in mind, for example, LNER currently being able to offer a full refund with one click on its website, and that service and facility not being made available to independent retailers even under the current system. Can you elaborate on quite how important that is for the independent sector? I would then like Catriona Meehan to come in with her views, too.
John Davies: When we talk about the need for the right kinds of protections for retailers, we are pointing at something that is not theoretical—these are risks that are with us today. You point at the example of delay repay, where independent retailers are prevented from supporting customers who have purchased their tickets through them by submitting their claims directly. It also occurs with things such as loyalty schemes, retailer inability to offer customers pay-as-you-go fares, and our ability to offer assisted travel. Independent retailers are not permitted to have access to a very significant amount of propositions around rail travel that are a very meaningful part of the market.
Catriona Meehan: I completely echo all of John’s points. For us, it is a concern that there would not be proper separation, which could lead to a degree of self-preferencing. You mentioned SNCF and the separation there, which is an example that we think works well. It is not perfect, of course; there are things that could be improved, but a colleague on the previous panel from ALLRAIL mentioned that EU markets are moving the other way: they are liberalising rather than nationalising.
It is interesting to look at why it has happened and why there is a need for it. FRAND principles were mentioned. We are also seeing that in other markets. Omio operates across 46 markets globally, so we have a lot of experience in other markets. Obviously, the UK is very important through our partnership with Uber trains, but we should also talk about the wider sector of independent rail retailers. Unless we have proper safeguards and assurances in place, we are not sure exactly how GBR will not self-preference. That is not exactly clear to us right now.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Yes, it would represent a streamlining of the system, but that is only true in so far as the GBR online retail function itself is subject to that code of practice equally. It is not clear to us that that is what is intended yet. That is something that we are working through with the Department and the ORR to set out exactly what that means. To the point that was made earlier about the parts of the customer proposition in the rail market that are not available to independent retailers currently, the surety of a code of practice would provide for what we characterise as parity of market access, which is not just fares— “Can we all sell the same fares?”—but features such as delay repay, services such as passenger assistance, and products such as loyalty. We should be able to have all those things on an equal basis across the industry: if they are good for one retailer to offer in support of rail travel, they should be good for everybody. In the work that we are contemplating on the code of practice, we aim to get to a place where no independent retailer or customer of an independent retailer is ever at a disadvantage in comparison with buying a ticket through what will be the future GBR online retail function.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: If we are dealing with the legal reality as the backstop to all this, there is a risk that somehow the reform process fails because if all that you are left with, in the way that a market is set up, structured and operates, is that the only protections that independent participants have—whether they are retailers, open access operators or freight operators—are legal ones, then that is ultimately unsatisfactory from a variety of perspectives, because the harm is done by the time you know that you have a potential claim against somebody.
An earlier question mentioned the European model. The German competition authorities found against Deutsche Bahn in 2022 about its conduct in relation to certain discriminatory practices. Tomorrow, there is a third appeal by the German railways against that finding, which was made four years ago. That end-to-end process of using legal tools to provide remedy against the impacts of a vertically integrated state monopolist is now the thick end of 10 years old. Would I say that there needs to be more in the reform process than merely restating legal assurances? Yes, I absolutely would.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Can I add that we would welcome the reassurance? I think that, in different forums at different times, Lord Peter Hendy talked about the assurance that has been provided to the freight sector. I can see, in some of the answers given today, that they do not always feel that assurance, but we would welcome the development of the code of practice as an opportunity to set out how the Government intend those kinds of protections to be provided for. That would be a useful and welcome step to give the kind of signals that the CMA has referred to.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Q
Catriona Meehan: You raise a really good point: having only one retailer offering certain things, such as accessibility information, is a problem. That is why we need several retailers, to have that competition and to work on those products and make better offerings. That is something we do in the third-party retail market.
John Davies: There is always more that can be done in this space, of course. Trainline has been in discussion with the Rail Delivery Group regarding access to its central system, which would enable us to offer passenger assistance to customers and to book the kind of assistance they need at stations or on board trains. That was what I was referring to earlier as one of the features that we have been unable to secure access to. Of course, giving the broadest possible access, in the right way, to customers with additional needs is an extremely important part of what we all do.
Keir Mather
Q
“the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 210.]
That is impressive, isn’t it? Do you have any reflections on how this process has been worked out in consultation with yourself and the Scottish Government and whether it might provide instructive lessons for how GBR might seek to engage on a four-nations basis once it is established?
Bill Reeve: It would be churlish of me to disagree with that quote, frankly. In all seriousness, the level of engagement both between officials, and between our Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister, has been, in my experience, the best I have ever known when it comes to inter-Government exchange. It has been a constructive discussion and a sometimes forthright debate, which is reflected in where we have come to agreement now.
You will be aware that it is the Scottish Government’s position to support the Bill as it goes through the legislative consent motion process in the Scottish Parliament—pending any amendments that might change that; I do not want to fetter the will of our parliamentarians. We have been encouraged by the level of constructive engagement.
Keir Mather
Q
My second question relates to the issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson about the publishing of documents, consultations and memorandums of understanding relating to this Bill. Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald, you are storeyed in your working on the railway and deal with these issues on a daily basis. What do you think the requisite trade-offs are when designing a railway fit to serve four nations and 67 million people through legislation that is hermetically sealed, as opposed to working in consultation to develop the documents over time, in an iterative process throughout the Bill's passage?
The Government have been in power for about 18 months now and are seeking to progress this work at pace. Is this usually how the process of engagement happens with railway stakeholders when you are trying to achieve macro change in a short amount of time?
Bill Reeve: If you will permit me to say this, without wanting to undermine any positivity it, of course, remains our preference that the railways in Scotland should be fully devolved. However, we understand and accept that that is not on the table at the minute. So we get to the complicated challenge of devising something that reflects the fact that in Scotland about 95% of all trains are run by Scottish Ministers—the services and passenger trains. We fund more than 90% of the costs of the infrastructure, but to date we have not had the level of accountability around that substantial expenditure in Scotland.
That takes us to the need to work out how to strike the right balance, in the absence of full devolution, that will allow us to run the railways in Scotland in accordance with our published strategies and with due accountability for the substantial funding we provide— while facilitating cross-border traffic, which is in the interests, of course, of all the nations.
Peter McDonald: I have been part of a large number of intergovernmental processes. The work that is happening, which could only really have begun once the Bill was published, is at the more intensive end of the intergovernmental spectrum, as opposed to the slower end. You want to get this right, but I think the early March deadline is important for the Welsh Government to maintain momentum.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Lord Hendy mentioned in his testimony to the Transport Committee that upcoming elections in Scotland and at the Senedd in May will focus minds as those discussions progress. I also think that is a very healthy basis on which to drive the conversation forward on these really important matters of detail. For the moment, I have no further questions.
Keir Mather
Q
Duties for GBR also exist in the Bill. One of those duties is
“to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance”.
In a five-year business plan you may have fluctuations in spending to reflect fiscal reality, but would you say that through those building blocks, long-term certainty is offered to the industry, and GBR has to reflect industry needs and build a railway that is coherent in serving their interests over the long term?
Rob Morris: The short answer to that is yes, absolutely. The other elements that we have just discussed—on enhancements, and on rolling stock and the maintenance and funding thereof—are absolutely fundamental to that. I also think that the ambitions for the railway need to be included in that. Witnesses on previous panels have talked about freight and the target there. What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.
A good example of that is last week’s announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail, where rail and investment in it will create opportunity for increased productivity— I think £40 billion per annum was mentioned. It seems to me that there needs to be a connection in the Bill between what the Bill seeks to achieve, and generating that ambition, not just for freight growth, but for passenger growth.
Keir Mather
Q
Mr Brown, you point to those building blocks, which are really important. On the one hand, you have the obligation for the Government to provide industry with certainty, but on the other, there is the point about not being overly prescriptive or deterministic in driving the outcomes of the private competitive basis on which a lot of these services are procured. Do you think the Bill strikes the right balance between offering that certainty through the building blocks and not freezing in aspic any perceptions of the railway today that might be outdated in, say, 30 years’ time?
Malcolm Brown: It is very hard to comment on a building block that I have not seen, so forgive me for that. I can understand the concept of using these building blocks and I can see how it fits together. We keep referring to certainty in 30 years. If members of the panel can give me certainty in 30 years, I will take that bet. I do not think any of us can—that is a heck of an ask. What we are asking for is a vision or direction of travel—whichever buzzword you want to use—that says, to use Rob’s term, “This is our ambition for rail in 30 years, and setting out these stepping stones will get us to it.” That would give us the flex to deal with something like a pandemic, where we had to move and change.
There are new technologies and we are innovating all the time. As the private sector, we are always looking for what we can come up with that will actually improve things not just for the passengers but for the operation of the railway. I hate using the word “framework”, but if we have that framework, we can work within it as the private sector and develop ideas to bring to market. Some will work and some will not, but that is what we take on our shoulders. We can implement those for the greater good of the railway and the passengers.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: You had a lot of ifs in there, if you do not mind me saying—“if it aligns” or “if it does that.” Yes, if that were all to happen, I could understand that there is harmony there.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: My understanding is that the legal duty is to produce it, but not what is in it. I could have a legal duty to produce a strategy. I do not have a legal duty to say specifically what is in it. Forgive me for pointing that out. I understand your point that there are legal duties, which is good, but as yet, I do not know what is in that strategy.
Olly Glover
Q
Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.
This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.
Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.
The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.
Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.
Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.
Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: I cannot comment. I presume it is going to be in one of the building blocks. My concern is that we have a group of people who are trying to design trains for a hobby, when we have manufacturers such as Siemens in the UK, which have global platforms for trains. Yes, we adapt and customise them for the UK, but we get all the benefits of the manufacturing experience of a global manufacturer with the economies of scale that that provides as well. We do not need bespoke custom-built trains in the UK.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: To my mind, there is the potential there—there is no question of it—but without having visibility, at the risk of repeating my previous answers. You talk about consulting with the industry; there is a vast amount of experience in the UK rail industry. I am totally agnostic about whether that is in the private or public sector. I would compel GBR to use that experience to inform the decisions and the forward planning.
I have an organisation that is not as large as Siemens. It is about 170 people and I think about 60% of them are qualified engineers. We have more than 30 years’ experience of acquiring rolling stock and structuring it. I think we are reasonably good at it. I would say utilise the experience and expertise that is there. I am not saying private or public; I am saying use the experience that is there to, frankly, avoid reinventing the wheel.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: To add to that, there should be a duty on GBR to engage with the supply chain around its decisions and intentions, because essentially we will be more than 50% of the spend for GBR and it would be wholly inappropriate for decisions to be made that are outside the capability or the investment profiles of the supply chain. They need to work in harmony, rather than in silos.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: I think it needs to be explicit. The ultimate aim is to do the right thing by the passenger, the freight user and the taxpayer.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Thank you.
Darren Caplan: My final point, to wrap this up, is that the Competition and Markets Authority civil engineering market study was published just last month. It said:
“Funding settlements and infrastructure pipelines are often short-term and volatile, reducing the opportunities and incentives for public authorities and the supply chain to plan and invest.”
This is not public or private. For both GBR and our members to invest, we will need that longer-term certainty.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. Mr Caplan, if you would like to submit your props or diagrams, the Committee would be very grateful to receive them in written form.
Examination of Witnesses
Jason Prince, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin gave evidence.
The Chair
Thank you. The shadow Minister is whipping at present, so for the time being, until he rejoins us, I will move on to the Minister, Keir Mather.
Keir Mather
Q
I want to start with a more thematic question about the overall purpose of the Bill, and the DFT’s approach to transport more broadly. We unashamedly stand behind the view that our transport network is not just something to get people from A to B; it is an important catalyst for this Government’s missions, particularly around economic growth and delivering the housing that people need to live in dignity and flourish as individuals.
On that basis, the Railways Bill lets us take on lots of devolved work with mayoral strategic authorities, because we believe that is the right size of unit of devolved power and economic focus to drive those priorities. I know, Mayor Brabin and Mayor Burnham, that those priorities are also crucial to your local plans, so how do you feel they marry up, using this Bill as a catalyst to achieve some of those shared ambitions?
Tracy Brabin: I mentioned our local growth and local transport plans. The Bill is timely because of the changes that we see across the country through devolution. As the Prime Minister says, it is the devolution revolution. The opportunity with the statutory responsibilities for mayors to be at the heart of that decision making is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. I value this chance to feed back, because it is important that GBR is an agile body working closely with mayors who are seen as partners, not just stakeholders to be included when and where. We have skin in this game: I see myself as the passenger-in-chief for the public of West Yorkshire.
Like in Greater Manchester, with the work that has been led brilliantly by Andy on the Bee Network, in West Yorkshire the Weaver network will encompass bus, rail, tram, and electric bikes and active travel. We will not be able to deliver that potential for growth in our communities unless we have a meaningful relationship with GBR. It is not just about West Yorkshire, because we are a region at the heart of the UK. A lot of traffic goes through our region. It is not self-contained; we have opportunities—for example, Ilkley to Leeds or the five towns—would definitively be part of our Weaver network.
While we have ambitions to bring the network into the Weaver umbrella, it is also about integrated ticketing. That is important because while we have the MCard, one of the most sophisticated multimodal ticketing apps outside of London, we want the ability that I heard Mayor Burnham talking about when I arrived, to travel across the whole of Yorkshire—from Leeds to Sheffield and Leeds to York—with that integrated ticketing opportunity. Both mayors, and mayors across the country, share the ambitions of the Mayor of London. Frankly, if it is good for London, it is good for all of us.
Enabling mayors to have greater powers to support decision making around services is important. This is my final point. Let me bring it alive with an example: we want to build a station for Leeds Bradford airport. We want to invest and we have an appetite for risk, but if we do not get any revenue—or do not have some ability to get revenue as part of that agreement—what is the point? That is also true if we do not have any opportunity to help decide services. We can build a station, but if we have no responsibility or skin in the game for services, how can we make the economic case for jobs, growth and investment in our region?
Keir Mather
Q
Tracy Brabin: And what a great choice for them.
Keir Mather
Indeed, and many of them have similar aspirations around connectivity and growth. Mayor Burnham, was there anything you wanted to add before I hand back to Jerome?
Andy Burnham: A little, thank you. I echo everything that Tracy said. I strongly welcome this Government’s rail reform journey; it is going in a positive direction. Anything we say today is just making it that little bit better—or perfection. This is really positive from our point of view.
We are beginning to invest in rail from our own resources in Greater Manchester, with £210 million over the next four years. As rail comes into the Bee Network, we are going to be improving stations, working with the rail industry. Under the plans, there is the possibility that we may start putting local revenue into new rail services, with additional services where there is capacity to take them. We would both say that real partnership is what we want. It goes back to the shadow Minister’s point at the start. Making us more than consultees is what we are asking for.
In relation to wider investment, perhaps the Bill could require GBR to align rail investment with local transport plans, and to consider integrated transport all the time. How does somebody get off a train and easily on to a tram? There could be a joined-up approach to thinking about place-making, with wider housing investment. That is why the partnership matters. Railways serve places. With our councils, we are responsible for those places. The more that it is all thought through, the better the future for the railways, because they will be easier and more attractive to use, and housing regeneration will follow because the railway is in the right place, with the right levels of accessibility.
I think that the question of accessibility to the railway for all our residents is one that I ask the Committee to address. Some of the funding, as I have mentioned, is to be spent on making our stations step free in terms of access, and the idea that we are going to carry on with a railway that basically excludes our disabled and older residents is just not tenable. What we can do is accelerate that change, working through closer partnership. As we have been told at the Rail North Committee, which I chair, if things carry on at the same pace, we will have step-free access stations across the north by 2080. That, honestly, is not good enough, so let us get in closer partnership, accelerate those changes, and bring in investment to the railway from wider planning developments. That all points to a closer, deeper and more meaningful partnership between combined authorities and GBR.
Tracy Brabin: To bring Access for All alive, 65% of stations in West Yorkshire are not accessible, and we were allocated not a penny in the last round of Access for All, because there was an assumption that the TransPennine upgrade covered it. It does not. There are MPs across all of West Yorkshire who are desperate for that investment. I want to do it, but Access for All has to help us. If we do not have responsibility for that money, we are back to the begging-bowl culture that I know this Government want to move away from.
Keir Mather
Thank you both. I hope you feel that GBR having a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, especially those with disabilities, is a signal that we want accessibility to be hardwired into the Bill, and not something that comes after the operational decisions about the railway have been taken. I have more questions, but I am conscious that we should hand over to the shadow Minister.
The Chair
Before I bring the shadow Minister back in, I make colleagues aware that the session will run until 5.15 pm.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Andy Burnham: Yes, I think if you end up with a very top-down railway, it is a bit like the phrase I used to hear in the Department of Health: “You can hit the target and miss the point.” Is that not that the risk with the railways, if they become too much like monolithic structures? It has to be a bit of both. If you go back to the old British Rail days, I remember a thing called Regional Railways, which was very separate to InterCity, so that split has always been there in the railways.
What we are arguing for in front of the Committee today is to think of the railways in a more place-based context. Railways serve growth in local areas, and there are things that we can bring to the table to support the health and growth of the railways in the future. It points to a different partnership, but it is a partnership. We want the right to specify timetables, as it is legitimate for us to make those requests, and we want a stronger role over station access. Actually, we think there should be a presumption in favour of devolution. Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse, which presumes that it should be devolved, if that is possible, but there is still a callback if it cannot be devolved.
There is a relevant recent example: the Access for All funding. The Rail North Committee has asked the Department to devolve the Access for All funding, so we do not get the situation that Tracy described a moment ago. Currently, that is not being supported by the Department. We submit lists of stations to the Department as part of our Access for All bid on a regular basis, but we have often had the experience that it comes back with a different prioritisation to the one we sent in. This is really granular, local stuff, and it is mind-boggling to us that you have an infrastructure programme for the railways, and then an Access for All programme at the highest level that is dealing with very local schemes at stations. It is a meaningful partnership, and we are calling for a devolved role, where there can be one.
Tracy Brabin: I totally agree with what Andy has said; it is about accountability. I do not think you could expect the Secretary of State to be accountable for the whole of the network. How on earth would they understand the challenges? At Denby Dale, all they need is a ramp, and those sorts of decisions should be made locally.
We are building three stations in the next year. Why are they so expensive? In Germany, I think it is £5 million a station, but here they are £50 million. In the ’80s, it was £500,000 a station in today’s money. Surely, if we are working together as a collective for the good of the nation, we could find a way that makes it easier—one where we are more agile in building stations, and where we are part of that conversation around services. Also, it is about where we get then get the revenue from, so that we have a circular pound—the one that goes into the washing machine and comes back out again on the other side—and can build more accessibility on more stations.
Keir Mather
No, mine did not either—it is important that we also get to hear your perspective, Jason. One of the things I want to hit on is accountability. One of the benefits of the Bill that Lord Hendy stressed in his evidence to the Transport Committee is that by having a unified, guiding mind for the railway, you will have hard-working people at GBR who will wake up every day and know that they are responsible for making sure that the railway runs in the interests of the British public, in partnership with people like yourselves. Could you take us through the current challenges in engaging with an array of different private sector operators and DFTO-managed train companies? What does it look like for the people you represent who are trying to navigate this bewildering system, and for you guys who are trying to drive high standards, passenger satisfaction and, ultimately, better economic opportunity for your local areas?
Tracy Brabin: It has been very difficult to navigate who is responsible for what. There is a lot of finger pointing with, “It’s them,” or “It’s them,” and trying to get a decision about who actually owns a project has been difficult. That is why I really welcome the leadership that Lord Hendy has shown in bringing together track and train and having that simplicity.
In West Yorkshire, the partnership piece of work was published last week. We have been seen as an exemplar in our strategic place partnership, where we brought together Network Rail, DFT, the TOCs, the shadow GBR, ourselves and all the partners to identify how we can cut through roadblocks. It has been incredibly effective. When the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire and I were working with David Blunkett on the White Rose rail plan, it was helpful to look together at how we could phase the delivery of the plan, how we could make it affordable and what was the structure of delivery. You can do that only when you are all in the room and all have skin in the game, and you are not blaming each other. I want to reflect on the relationship held locally by our organisations and myself. I think that is the way forward.
We also need resources, and I speak for other mayoral strategic authorities as well. I am blessed to have some very talented people—some of them are sat behind me—who help me with our rail plan, but not every MSA has that talent. Although people might be waking up to deliver better outcomes, they are not all sat in the regions. Having people with timetabling and infrastructure experience actually in the regions would also be a huge benefit.
Andy Burnham: The job of getting the railway to be more accountable has been the devil’s own job in my time as mayor. I am not talking so much about recent times, but certainly in the early days when we had the 2018 timetable collapse. It was only Transport for the North and the Rail North Committee that got underneath what was going on inside Northern and TransPennine. If we had not been there, I do not think the travelling public would have seen the change.
We were the ones who challenged Northern, when it was run by Arriva, to keep guards on the trains. We were the ones who fought to keep ticket offices open—the railway would have closed them if it had not heard our voice. We had to challenge Avanti West Coast when it was collapsing and cutting the timetable between Manchester and London—two major cities in this country—damaging our growth. It just took that decision without any reference to us. Recently, the Office of Rail and Road has done something relating to a ghost train. We constantly have to challenge these things. Without us, I do not think we would have a railway that has moved towards more public ownership and more accountability.
I think major culture change is needed. I come back to this point. My observation is that it is still not responsive enough to what local areas need. As people may know, I support Everton. I go to Everton’s new ground on a regular basis. So many more people are travelling there by train, but to the railways, it is like it has not happened. It is as though they are oblivious to it. They are not in the place with us, managing it and putting extra people on. The railway seems to be too dislocated from what happens on the ground. For example, Sunday services are not put on during the Manchester Christmas markets. That is the thing: you need a railway that is knitted in to supporting growth.
Finally, look at the evidence where we have more locally accountable railways. Transport for Wales is a strong operator, in my experience—it serves Greater Manchester as well. Merseyrail is accountable to the Mayor of Liverpool. It has higher levels of performance, I believe, although all railways have their issues. That is evidence that if you have more local accountability, you generally have a higher performing railway that is more responsive to what people are saying.
Tracy Brabin: Andy and the Rail North Committee have been holding operators’ feet to the fire not just for northern transport but also for the east coast main line where it goes through other mayoralties. So on accountability, I think coming from a mayoral strategic authority or a mayoral combined authority where all mayors across the country can hold rail to account—you are doing a brilliant job, Andy, but currently where else in the country is there that group that will hold operators to account? At the moment, it is only the Rail North Committee, but surely that has to be across the whole country.
Keir Mather
Q
Jason Prince: I will probably approach this session from more of a technical point of view than a thematic one. Fundamentally, the Bill is strong as it is written and I think we have to acknowledge that. The journey to GBR started under the last Government and it is good that we have got to a position where we are on the precipice of something where there is a once in a generation change.
On the accountability point, it is great to have the aspiration of accountability, but the only way you will embed it is if you build GBR on the back of strong mayoral partnerships. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening around how you ensure that GBR reflects what is happening at the local level. How do you ensure that rather than having regard to—which pulls on the shadow Minister’s point—you have a stronger recognition of what happens at a local level, which the mayors are responsible for in terms of local transport plans and local growth plans? It is one thing to say, “Accountability—the good people go into GBR every day and that will be their focus,” but for my members, who are transport authorities, thousands of people are going in every day to design transport networks that shine. In this Bill there is a once in a generation opportunity to make rail shine as part of a bigger place-based offer. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening so that accountability is built in through the legislation, rather than just accepting that GBR will act in such a way.
Keir Mather
Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.
Olly Glover
Q
Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.
From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: On the first point, yes, I recognise the concern. Secondly, personally I would look at clause 18(4) and ask whether we really need to have the capacity duty able to override other duties. As far as the appeals process is concerned, I can see why being able to look at a case on the merits rather than on a strictly legal basis would help enormously. If GBR believes that its access and use policy, its capacity planning and its final decisions constitute a good process, it should not fear that.
Keir Mather
Q
I was pleased to hear that you agree with the concept of a guiding mind for the railway—a unified body able to direct services in the interests of passengers. I want to point to the specific provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to passenger experience. One of GBR’s duties is to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, including those with disabilities, and clause 18(3) talks about having reliable services, and the avoidance and mitigation of passenger overcrowding. Does what is contained within the legally binding duties on GBR reflect the overall aspiration to have a unified railway with the passenger at its heart?
Richard Bowker: Yes, I think it does. There is a danger in being overly prescriptive about how you do those things, but the duties are fairly widely drafted, and they probably do do that. Much of this will depend not so much on what the Bill says GBR’s duties are; they are pretty clear and comprehensive. It is about how it is then structured to go on and do these things. Previous panel members talked about culture and behaviour, and those are really important. So, yes, I think the duties are broadly fine.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: No, I think there is a danger of being too prescriptive. Having a long-term rail strategy is an extremely good thing, but there is a danger, to take that as an example, of being too prescriptive. In terms of it being 10, 15 or 20 years, I was running the Strategic Rail Authority 20 years ago. We had no social media; it did not exist—I am jolly glad it did not, in terms of decision making—and AI was also not a concept. So there is a serious danger of being overly prescriptive in these things.
Setting out a clear strategy, and having clear policy and direction, is exactly what the railway needs more than anything else. It does not need to be tied down in too much of a straitjacket. What is absolutely crucial in all this is the relationship between the Department for Transport and GBR, and with mayoral combined authorities and local authorities as well, as we heard from previous panel members. That relationship between the DFT—between how Government sets their policy—and how GBR then delivers will be one of the most defining things in terms of whether these proposals will be a success. If we get it right, this could be transformational; if we get it wrong, it could be yet more micromanaging and meddling, which would be a disaster.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: I have two answers to that. First, I do not think we should judge what has happened in the last few years too harshly. So much of the way train companies have been able to behave has been highly prescribed by the national rail contracts they have with the DFT. Many, many rail leaders are looking forward to being liberated and empowered to serve customers better as a result of the end of that process. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that there has to be a balance, and I genuinely think the Bill has got it broadly right. If I were the chair of GBR, I would take very seriously a duty to have regard to a mayor’s transport plan. That is not a thing to be trifled with. You do not go, “I am just going to ignore that”—you do not. The problem we have, if you take the west coast main line in Manchester, is that the corridor between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport and then further south is used by an awful lot of freight operators, intercity services and west coast—all the services Mayor Burnham is keen to see grow. Capacity is constrained and limited, so in the end somebody has to be able to say, “I’ve listened to everybody. My duties are to take account of everything, weigh it all up and work in partnership,” which is crucial. It is important that somebody has to be able to make a decision.
Olly Glover
Q
Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.
I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.
Airport Drop-off Charges
Keir Mather Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate. As she so clearly and eloquently expressed, this issue affects many of her constituents, and indeed many airport users across the country, as other hon. Members have outlined. I commend her commitment to advocating for those impacted by what can sometimes be unfair and disproportionate airport drop-off charges, and I will engage closely with the points that she and hon. Members of all parties have raised.
Turning to the specifics of her speech, my hon. Friend clearly set out how airports are nodes of economic productivity. They are essential to UK growth, but they are underpinned by the lived experiences of people in the communities we serve as Members of Parliament. She spoke powerfully about the impact on people with disabilities, young families and those who need to be dropped off in the middle of the night, including on their ability to use airports, if parking charges are not set in a way that is fair and proportionate. I thank her for doing so.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and others subsequently spoke about the underpinning principle of fairness being required within the system. Whether through apps or websites, the rules must be clear and transparent, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), also spoke about. The rules must also be easy to navigate, regardless of when someone drops off a passenger or when they come to pay the charge.
I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). His point about the fairness of penalty charges for non-payment was well made. It is incredibly important that there be transparency about that aspect of the charging system, and airports must express it clearly to their consumers. That point was buttressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme, who used the specific example of a failure to pay a fee for staying an extra minute ending up in a £60 fine. That goes to the heart of the fact that there are people who serve the economies connected to our airports—particularly taxi drivers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) mentioned. It is really important that we make sure that those people are at the heart of designs for parking systems at our airports.
Important points were also raised about airport signage being clear, and I will take those away. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made valuable points about rural connectivity and access to airports. My hon. Friend noted that a dial-a-ride service can work very well in certain instances, but consumers cannot always trust a bus to show up when they need it to so that they can get to the airport on time, often at night. I understand the concern. We need to make sure that surface access across our airports, whether for people who live in rural or urban communities, is improved. That is a key priority for me as Aviation Minister.
Lee Pitcher
Does the Minister agree that there is an opportunity for franchising in certain areas? I am working with South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority at the moment, to put in place a Doncaster East super loop that includes the airport and improves services, so that our residents can get to the airport safely and quickly.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a virtuous circle of economic prosperity to be created through multimodal access to airports. Rail provides an incredibly important piece of that puzzle and it is hoped that increased powers in the Railways Bill, including more control of the provision of passenger services, will allow us to cluster economic focus to the areas that need it most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised issues to do with East Midlands airport. Although the airport uses a proportion of its car parking revenue to fund public transport, cycling and walking access options, including its local electric bus service, that does not negate his important point about fairness. He mentioned the penalty fee being incurred by midnight of the next day if someone fails to pay their fee on time. His point about transparency and consumers being able to know when that fee is approaching is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend also raised an incredibly important point about accessibility. For older residents or people who do not have the same digital literacy as others, navigating smartphone apps and websites to pay that charge can be very onerous indeed. I will certainly be taking that point away.
Jim McMahon
Part of the issue is that there is a starting principle that does not accept that taking a car to an airport is legitimate on the grounds that people should cycle or take the train, the tram or the bus. If that alternative is available, fine, but for most people the ability to see off loved ones safely and say goodbye is a very important part of the experience.
Keir Mather
That point is incredibly well made. Too often, when we discuss aviation policy in this place, we fail to recognise that the people who use our airports may well be making emotional journeys with their loved ones and dropping people off to travel around the world and explore new opportunities. They deserve to know that they can do so in a context where the airport is providing them with a good quality service.
I also want to reflect briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about our airports being a gateway to the United Kingdom. That is an incredibly important and useful lens through which we can view some of these policy considerations.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), pointed out that travel to Bristol airport is a real challenge from his Dorset constituency. I visited Bristol airport a couple of weeks ago, and I got to see the fantastic local bus service that they are pioneering there. He raised a very good point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton: if someone has to go a longer distance they will be taking a car and will therefore need to access that drop-off zone. We need to think realistically about the impact on the constituents he represents.
The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, raised the principle of fairness that lies behind the mechanism for payments of charges and how, in an opaque system where the rules are not clear, that can cause difficulty for people paying. Where is the fairness in that system? The point is well made. I will leave to him the legalistic determinations about how it relates to certain principles of contract law, but I am happy to explore the issue further with him.
My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for West Dorset made important points about accessibility. The CAA enforces the rules on accessibility at airport car parks, including through the Equality Act 2010. Passengers with a disability or reduced mobility are legally entitled to special assistance free of charge when they fly from UK airports. Many airports, including Manchester, offer exemptions from fees for blue badge holders. That is not to say that there is not still enormous work to do to make the system fairer and more transparent. I am always happy for hon. Members across the House to write to me with specific instances of where they feel the framework is not serving the needs of passengers with disabilities. I will happily look into that for them.
Finally, the hon. Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for West Dorset and for Broadland and Fakenham raised taxation. In the autumn Budget, His Majesty’s Treasury announced a redesigned transitional relief scheme worth £1.3 billion in support to airports over 2026-27 and 2028-29. That caps airport bill increases at just over double by 2028-29, compared with the larger increases that there would have been without support. The Labour party’s view is that airports do not exist completely separately from the public services on which their workers depend. People need to travel to airports on the strategic road network, and workers at airports need to be able to access the NHS. It is incredibly important that airports should play their part in contributing to the public finances, but we want to ensure that is done proportionately. I am always happy to have conversations about that with hon. Members.
Jim McMahon
Gatwick was given as an example, but it is worth bearing in mind that it paid out £600 million in shareholder dividends.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
In the time remaining, I want to turn to the actual operating model of these parking charges. Most UK airports are privately operated and have the commercial freedom to set their own fees for the services they provide, but the Government expect fees to be set in a way that is both fair and proportionate. Well-designed parking facilities help to manage traffic flows and improve accessibility and local air quality. At the same time, airports must encourage passengers to use public transport options where possible.
Although all that is being considered, I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber will be disappointed to hear that the Government do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure; the Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability.
We support the continued success of our world-leading aviation sector, but we must do so in a way that delivers a green, more sustainable future. Airports should use their surface access strategies to set clear targets for sustainable travel and offer positive and practical incentives so that people do not drive to airports, but instead to use public transportation. When airports develop those strategies, they must clearly set out their approaches to parking and drop-off charges, and they must use their airport transport forums to plan future transport options in consultation with local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip made that point powerfully.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, many airports, including Manchester, offer a range of parking options, including free drop-off zones for passengers and public transport, but it is important that everyone who needs to can access our airports. Some parking options and public transport alternatives may not always work for passengers with accessibility needs. Although airports such as Manchester offer exemptions for blue badge holders, I want to push that further.
More than anything, today’s debate has highlighted the importance of fairness and transparency. It is essential that passengers can easily find information about parking and drop-off options so that they can plan their journeys and make the right, informed choice. We expect airport parking and drop-off charges to be clear and accessible, both online and at the airport itself. Airports must also make it easy for their customers to pay the relevant fee in a timely manner before proceeding to issue penalty charges for failure to do so. I was disappointed to hear Members across the House give examples of where that has not been the case for their constituents. I undertake to remind airports, including Manchester airport, of their obligations.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the very good point that the notice of the charge was situated beyond the point at which someone could reverse out. Will the Minister undertake to remind Manchester airport that any notice of a charge has to be at a place where people can decide not to accept the charge?
Keir Mather
It should be incumbent on all airports, including Manchester airport, to provide transparency, clarity and ease of access to information about parking charges, so I will happily raise that when I next meet Manchester airport representatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden needs no support in being a champion for her constituents in this space.
Importantly, airport users are protected by consumer law. Most airports have contracts with private parking operators, which must belong to a trade association and follow the sector’s new code of practice and appeals procedure. If drivers feel that signage is inadequate or that they have been treated unfairly, they can appeal through those services.
More widely, we recognise concerns about poor practices among some private parking operators. That is why the Government have consulted on proposals to raise standards, in preparation for a new code of practice and compliance framework. Responses are now being analysed, and we will publish our response in due course. I am cognisant of the pressure that this creates on local communities, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned. He also mentioned ghost plates, which we are taking real action to tackle through the road safety strategy.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden on securing the debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. The debate has shone a light on drop-off and parking charges at airports, and reinforced the Government’s expectation that airports manage the arrangements with fairness and respect. We will continue to work to ensure that they do so, and I encourage Members across the House to join us in those efforts.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Yasmin Qureshi, you have two minutes to wind up.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Following a decade of decline, we are starting to see train reliability stabilise. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus, in order to return performance to acceptable levels. More broadly, we are nationalising the railways to put passengers first. Great British Railways will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making to improve performance, reliability and passenger experience.
Claire Young
The west of England growth strategy identifies the Severn estuary growth zone as having the potential to create more than 15,000 jobs. It is important that the half-hourly rail services on the Severn Beach line are maintained to support them. Similarly, the half-hourly trains serving Yate support both jobs and access to college, and will enable hourly services at the new Charfield station, when it opens. Will the Minister give an early commitment to extending those half-hourly rail services to support growth and remove uncertainty for students before the exam season?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to identify the importance of rail connectivity to economic growth in her part of the country. I reassure her that there are no plans to reduce the half-hourly service between Bristol and Gloucester, and I acknowledge the point she raises about Yate station, where performance has recently fallen behind Great Western Railway performance as a whole. I also reassure her that the Rail Minister is meeting with the managing directors of all train operators to address any instances of poor performance, so that we can level up the passenger experience, create economic opportunities and ensure that young people in her constituency can access the economic opportunities that they need.
Cameron Thomas
Good morning, Mr Speaker. In the early days after the election, I did not always cover myself in glory with the type of language I used to describe the state of GWR services between Paddington and Gloucestershire. Nevertheless, a year down the line, I still regularly have to stand in a corridor or aisle for hours on end, if I am able to board at all, and I know that my constituents have the same issues. Can the Minister tell me when we can expect things to get better?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is a champion for his constituents, and nobody should have to face the sort of conditions that he describes. That is why I am pleased to say that the Railways Bill, which is soon to enter Committee, will create an independent passenger watchdog that will ensure minimum consumer standards for passengers on the railway, so that their travel can be an affordable, reliable, pleasant experience that matches how we would like our Great British Railways system to run.
Dave Robertson
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are looking forward to seeing the number of trains from Lichfield city to Birmingham double as a result of the midlands rail hub project, which this Government are pressing ahead with, after it sat on a shelf under the previous lot for far too long. I am really eager to see those additional trains delivered as quickly as possible, including a later evening service to Lichfield, which we are currently missing. Can the Minister confirm that bringing the line back into public ownership under Great British Railways will help us to drive these changes faster?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to champion his constituents’ right to frequent and reliable public transport. Great British Railways will bring the fragmented rail responsibilities into a single body. It will provide clear leadership to plan and run the railway for the long term, simplifying journeys, reducing delays and improving timetables to deliver better value for passengers and taxpayers. We continue to work with partners on options to achieve the benefits of the midlands rail hub as soon as possible.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I met East Midlands Railways to give the new ticketless travel app it is trialling a go. It is exciting new tech that will ensure passengers always pay the best price for travel. EMR says that that system should save passengers money and, with capped prices, will mean cheaper fares. Does the Minister agree that alongside the freezing of rail fares, innovation such as this could make a real difference to passengers’ experience and to their pockets?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to champion the principle of innovation in the rail network to make the travelling experience better for the public. As she rightly notes, innovations such as digital pay-as-you-go mean that passengers can get the very best price for their journey. Innovation will be at the heart of Great British Railways as it works to deliver a better railway for all.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Rumours are swirling around the northern mayoralties that the Government are about to row back on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is this going to be another U-turn from the Government, or can the Minister take this opportunity to put those rumours to rest by saying from the Dispatch Box that the scope, funding and timeframe for Northern Powerhouse Rail are not going to be changed?
Keir Mather
I am perplexed at the Opposition’s new-found support for passengers on the rail network. Fares in our system rose by 60% from 2010 to 2014 under the last Government, including for residents in the north of England. This Government are committed to levelling up our railway across the United Kingdom, including in the north of England. We will put passenger experience and affordable fares for those passengers at the very heart of what Great British Railways seeks to do.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government know how important local rail links are in supporting work, leisure and aspiration, which is why we are overhauling the railways through the creation of Great British Railways. A scheme to improve performance at York station and across the local area remains under review following the spending review, and we are working closely with Network Rail and key stakeholders to understand how it can best be delivered in the future.
Tom Gordon
Constituents of mine who rely on the Leeds to York via Harrogate line face regular disruption, because part of the route is single track. Given the indefinite pause of the York area capacity scheme, which means that the Harrogate to York trains still have to go on to the fast east coast main line, we will continue to see delays. Will the Government think again about this pause, which is indefinite, and what alternative plans will they set out in the meantime to address capacity constraints and improve the reliability of services for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As a near neighbour of the hon. Member, I know the line that he describes. The Harrogate line interventions have not been funded in this spending review period, but that does not preclude doubling the single line between Knaresborough and York as part of a future local or national infrastructure pipeline. Platform extensions and electrification have previously been developed to a strategic outline business case level of maturity. Based on current and future demand forecasts, the work did not consider dualling the line, but I am happy to continue engaging with the hon. Member on this very important question.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I have travelled on that line and I know the challenges. The Friends of the Barton Line do incredible work to raise issues relating to passenger experience, and East Midlands Railway is working to improve train performance on this route. I will support my hon. Friend and the Friends of the Barton Line to improve the service further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of aviation noise. It is one of the reasons why the Department is pursuing an ambitious programme of airspace modernisation, which aims to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, both for passengers and communities such as the one she represents.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Keir Mather
I welcome the fact that CrossCountry has increased calls at Water Orton, although I know that many commuters find that there is still standing room only on those peak services. Some changes can be made to help; for example, the capacity for standard-class passengers was increased by removing a dedicated first-class area on CrossCountry’s Class 170 trains. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to advance the issue further.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State could update the House on the plans to connect Tonbridge to Gatwick through the rail network. As she knows, there have traditionally been links in that direction and it requires only a very minor change to the timetable to make it work. If she wanted, she could even connect it to the rest of the kingdom of Kent at the same time.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Government have given mayoral authorities greater devolved powers to develop local transport infrastructure projects. Will the Secretary of State ensure that such powers provide the opportunity to speed up joint planning and decision making so that much-needed transport infrastructure, such as the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, can be accelerated to meet the needs of communities and local economies?
Keir Mather
The Government fully support the Mayor of West Yorkshire’s ambition to deliver mass transit in the region. People in West Yorkshire have waited too long for better transport infrastructure and too many promises from the previous Government have been broken. We are determined to put that right.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The latest cost projection by Labour-run Bradford council for building a pedestrian bridge between Silsden and Steeton over a busy dual carriageway is now a whopping £24 million, and the proposed design looks like some bizarre Scalextric track. Will the Secretary of State meet me to get those ridiculous cost projections under control?
Keir Mather
I know just how hard the hon. Member works to represent constituents on the Isle of Wight. He knows that the Government are committed to supporting a locally led solution to the challenge. Crucial to that is the appointment of a chair to the cross-Solent group, and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) will be pleased to know that I will have information on that announcement very shortly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier, Ministers talked about the benefits of bus services. In London we have been at the forefront of improved bus services, but unfortunately some aspects of that, such as low-traffic neighbourhoods, have had an impact on main routes, and now the No. 38 bus route is under threat of curtailment. Is the Department for Transport doing any strategic work on how we see those interactions, so that it can advise mayors and others in local areas on how to manage the interaction between different transport uses on our roads to ensure that buses run fast and deliver for the people who really rely on them?
Bletchley Railway Station: Eastern Entrance
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on securing this debate, providing us all with the opportunity to discuss the case for an eastern entrance at Bletchley station as part of the East West Rail project. From the contributions of other Members, it is clear that this is a matter of great significance to Members across the Government Benches, highlighting how this Labour Government understand that locals in Bletchley and people across the country deserve an affordable and regular public transport sector that they can rely on.
I recognise the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend and his constituents. The town of Bletchley forms a key part of the Government’s growth plans for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, as well as forming an important part of Britain’s national heritage, as home to the famous Bletchley Park. However, historically, Bletchley has been held back, missing out on the opportunities and investment experienced in other parts of the region, or in neighbouring cities such as Milton Keynes and Oxford. The Government are committed to addressing this and realising the potential of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. East West Rail is an essential part of this, and can have a transformative impact by enhancing connectivity between key centres across the region.
When it opens in full, East West Rail will be a game changer for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor as a whole. By 2050, it will add £6.7 billion a year to the regional economy, supporting tens of thousands of new jobs and up to 100,000 new homes. It will create opportunities for new, sustainable and connected communities. For my hon. Friend’s constituents, East West Rail will create direct rail journeys to Oxford, Cambridge and Bedford, provide more frequent rail services to Milton Keynes, and unlock better onward travel by rail to the rest of the country. It will provide the town with connections to these other key economic centres across the corridor; in turn, it will improve access into Bletchley for people coming there for work, education and leisure, unlocking opportunities for investment.
For all these reasons, the Government are pleased to have committed to the delivery of East West Rail in full, and £2.5 billion of funding was announced for the project at the spending review in June last year. The first phase of the project will provide services between Oxford and Milton Keynes via Bletchley, and when the first East West Rail services begin, Bletchley will form a key rail interchange in the region between East West Rail and the west coast main line, drastically reducing journey times and making rail travel across the region easier. The first freight train used this route in June last year, and a number of charter trains have also run along the line, marking a key milestone for the project. I understand that my hon. Friend’s constituents are now keen to see passenger services starting over the route, and I can assure them that the Department is working closely with both Chiltern Railways and other industry partners to begin passenger services over this section of route as soon as possible.
In November last year, the East West Railway Company published its “You Said, We Did” report, which set out its latest proposals for the line following consultation feedback, including at Bletchley station. These included proposals for more frequent passenger services to run along the line, providing better connectivity for local people, and for partial electrification of the route to provide faster and greener services using hybrid battery electric trains. The East West Railway Company also set out plans for new and re-sited stations to provide more capacity, and modern and accessible facilities for passengers, including a station at Stewartby, which will serve the new Universal Studios theme park and the local community.
Emily Darlington
I thank the Minister for his commitment to East West Rail, which the Labour-run city council in Milton Keynes and the three Labour MPs for the area have been fully behind. Can he clarify that, alongside the commitment to amalgamate Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill stations in my constituency is a commitment for the two bridges that are then needed to ensure continued access to housing and key industries, such as Red Bull Racing?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend highlights the significance of the fact that with hard-working Labour local government representatives and MPs working in concert, we can unlock a lot of economic opportunity that otherwise would not be realised. I will be happy to ask the Rail Minister to write to her with further detail on the specific points she raises, but I give her the reassurance that whether it is Red Bull Racing or the economic potential of Universal Studios, the Government are committed to facilitating the transport improvements required to make a success for this region in economic growth, jobs and prosperity for her constituents and people across the local area.
There will be further enhancements to Bletchley Station, making journeys easier and more accessible, including a new accessible footbridge at the southern end of the station with lifts and stairs to all platforms. The East West Railway Company has also set out plans for extended platforms and an expanded western ticket hall and gate line, along with upgrades to the station forecourt to make travelling to and from Bletchley more attractive.
In addition to those improvements, the company set out proposals in its autumn announcement for an eastern entrance at Bletchley, which it is now considering, subject to securing third-party funding contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley set out in his speech, an eastern entrance is a key aspiration locally to kick-start growth and improve connectivity in Bletchley. I am aware that many respondents proposed the construction of a new entrance at Bletchley at the last consultation on East West Rail. As the East West Railway Company stated in its “You Said, We Did” report, the potential benefits of an eastern entrance include better connectivity to the town centre, supporting wider regeneration plans and providing a gateway for destinations such as Bletchley Park and Stadium MK.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the entrance is not currently considered to be necessary to accommodate passenger demand from East West Rail. It is right, therefore, that the Government control the scope of the project to manage costs and that other sources of funding outside of the Department’s budget are considered for this additional investment. I understand that there have been positive discussions between the East West Railway Company and local partners about potential contributions towards an eastern entrance at Bletchley, although no formal agreements are in place.
As my hon. Friend will know, to help provide a more detailed assessment of the case for an eastern entrance, the Government have funded work on an outline business case to consider the benefits it could unlock in more detail. The Department looks forward to seeing the results of that when the work is complete. Given the potential benefits from a new eastern entrance and from securing third-party funding, the East West Railway Company will be consulting on these proposals as part of its consultation to be held later this year. I urge my hon. Friend’s constituents to engage with that and to share their views on more detailed proposals.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this important Adjournment debate.
Adam Jogee
We all look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) cutting the ribbon with his very big scissors when the entrance is finally open. Before the Minister winds up, will he help me to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the merits of a direct line between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport? He has touched on the importance of jobs, of opportunities and of unlocking investment, and that line would do wonders for my part of the world.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention coming in so close to the finish line. I would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the Rail Minister to discuss the rail connectivity proposals that he describes. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) has asked to facilitate a meeting on a Leeds to Lille international rail line, and Stoke to Manchester is far more nationally focused. I would be glad to facilitate that meeting.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley for initiating this important debate, and for his continued engagement with both my Department and the East West Railway Company. I urge him to proceed with his work in exploring funding avenues that may help to facilitate the delivery of an eastern entrance at Bletchley station. He remains a champion for his constituents’ right to frequent, affordable and accessible travel, and I look forward to working with him as he pursues those efforts further.
Question put and agreed to.
International Maritime Law Changes
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am making this statement to introduce updates to maritime legislation as a result of changes to international law, in order to fulfil a commitment to Parliament to make such a statement. The legislation comes into force from 1 January 2026.
Some domestic maritime secondary legislation includes provision for ambulatory reference to give direct effect in UK law to certain amendments to international maritime obligations. This means that where the legislation refers to a requirement of an international instrument, this reference will be ambulatory; in other words, it is a reference to the most up to date version of that requirement. This approach ensures so far as possible that the UK keeps up to date with its international maritime obligations.
Amendments have been made to international maritime instruments which will enter into force in the UK in 2026 by way of ambulatory reference provisions. The amendments are to the international convention for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS), and the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL) and to certain codes made under those conventions, as well as to the international convention on standards of training certification and watchkeeping (STCW). The UK is a signatory to SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW and the amendments have been agreed in the International Maritime Organisation, and all relate to enhancing maritime safety.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 introduce new safety requirements for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches. SOLAS II-1 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The relevant IMO resolution is MSC.532(107). The amendments introduce enhanced design, maintenance, operation and testing standards for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches with effect from 1 January 2026.
The international code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF code) was made mandatory internationally by chapter II-1 of SOLAS, which relates to the construction of ships. Chapter II-1 is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and, as such, the implementation includes the IGF code. Amendments have been made to chapter II-1, along with changes to the IGF code, that affect ships constructed on or after 1 January 2026. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.524(106), MSC.551(108).
Amendments to the qualification standards for inspectors of protective coatings are introduced by MSC.557(108) and MSC.558(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The amendments are textual updates to the qualification requirements for coating inspectors, replacing the reference to
“NACE Coating Inspector Level 2”
with
“AMPP Certified Coatings Inspector, FROSIO Inspector Level III or equivalent as verified by the Administration”,
reflecting the name change of the responsible professional body. This change ensures alignment with current certification standards and applies with effect from 1 January 2026.
Amendments to the international code on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers (ESP code) have been introduced via IMO resolution MSC.553(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments take effect by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and apply to part A, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 and part B, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 of the code. The changes are minor amendments to the text for clarity and take effect from 1 January 2026.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2 introduce new requirements for fire safety on ships including fire detection, fire suppression and containment of fire. SOLAS II-2 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 568). The relevant IMO resolutions are MSC.520(106), MSC.532(107), MSC.550(108) and MSC.555(108). The amendments come into force from 1 January 2026 and introduce new requirements for ensuring the flashpoint of fuel oils, prohibition of the use of firefighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), new requirements for fire detection on cargo ships, and significant new requirements for fire detection, fire containment and fire suppression on roll-on/roll-off passenger ships along with corresponding amendments to the fire safety systems code.
The amendments to the IMO high speed craft code (1994 and 2000 revisions) align the requirements with SOLAS chapter II-2 regarding the maritime ban on PFOS, which is a persistent organic pollutant, in aqueous film forming foams, which are used as a firefighting medium on some ships. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.536(107) and MSC.537(107). These will be enacted through the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1219).
Amendments relating to SOLAS chapter III and the lifesaving appliances (LSA) code have been introduced via IMO resolutions MSC.535(107), MSC.554(107) and MSC.559(108). These provisions fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 501) and are therefore subject to the ambulatory reference provision. Resolution MSC.535(107) introduces new requirements for totally enclosed lifeboats
“installed on or after 1 January 2029”,
mandating the provision of a ventilation system capable of achieving a defined airflow for 24 hours, with technical specifications for opening and closing mechanisms across lifeboat types. Resolution MSC.554(107) strengthens performance standards for lifejackets by requiring them to reliably turn an unconscious casualty into a safe orientation in the water, removing any tolerance for failure in testing. It also sets out design safeguards for lifeboat and rescue boat release hooks to prevent inadvertent activation, and defines safe maximum and minimum lowering speeds for launching appliances used with survival craft or rescue boats. Resolution MSC.559(108), while not amending SOLAS chapter III or the LSA code directly, introduces consequential changes to the annual thorough examination and operational testing of lifeboats following the adoption of MSC.535(107). It requires verification of the condition and operation of the ventilation system as part of routine lifeboat testing. As MSC.402(96) is mandatory under SOLAS chapter III, these consequential amendments are binding under SI 2020, No. 501 and the associated ambulatory reference provision. These amendments take effect from 1 January 2026.
SOLAS chapter V focuses on measures which improve safety of navigation and is implemented in UK law by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 673). To address the growing concern over container loss and bulk cargo damage caused by excessive vessel roll motions, the IMO has adopted a new requirement under resolution MSC.532(107). Effective from 1 January 2026, SOLAS regulation V/19.2.12 mandates the installation of electronic inclinometers on newly built container ships and bulk carriers of 3,000 gross tonnage and above to determine, display and record the ship’s roll motion. This regulatory advancement is expected to significantly enhance operational safety, reduce cargo-related incidents, and support more informed decision-making during adverse sea conditions.
The international grain code, which provides the mandatory standards for the safe stowage and shipment of grain in bulk, is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VI on the carriage of cargoes and oil fuels, and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). This code is amended by IMO resolution MSC.552(108) to improve safety by making provision for a new class of loading conditions for ships with specially suitable compartments. This amendment enters into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026.
The international maritime solid bulk cargoes (IMSBC) code provides the international regulatory framework for the safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk cargoes other than grain and includes mandatory carriage requirements specific to each solid bulk cargo covered by the code. The IMSBC code is made mandatory by chapter VI of SOLAS and is implemented in the UK primarily by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). In order to ensure that the IMSBC code remains up to date and relevant to the cargoes being shipped, it is amended in the IMO every two years. The next edition of the IMSBC code will become mandatory on 1 January 2027 and can be used on a voluntary basis from 1 January 2026. Amendment 08-25 includes the addition of a number of new solid bulk cargoes in order to permit and facilitate their safe transport by sea, and amendments to some existing cargo schedules. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.575(110).
The international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (the IGC code) is the international standard for the safe transport in bulk by sea of liquefied gases. The code is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VII on the carriage of dangerous goods and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). Two amendments to the IGC code will enter into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026. These are the acceptance of high manganese austenitic steel as a material of construction for gas carriers, along with consequential amendments, as adopted in IMO resolution MSC.523(106), and amendments which enable the use of other liquefied gas cargoes, in addition to methane, as fuel onboard gas carriers, which will facilitate efforts to decarbonise global shipping and reduce emissions. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.566(109).
Protocol 1 of MARPOL sets out provisions concerning the mandatory reporting of incidents involving harmful substances. Protocol 1 is amended to reflect an amendment to SOLAS chapter V which makes it mandatory for ships to report the loss of freight containers, including containers containing harmful substances. The UK will implement these amendments through the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). This amendment to MARPOL protocol 1 will ensure that the amendment to SOLAS chapter V does not result in duplicated reporting requirements for industry. This amendment was adopted in the IMO by resolution MEPC.384(81).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008, No. 2924) implement the 1997 protocol to the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL 73/78). The 1997 protocol provides for the establishment of international regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships by adding annex VI to MARPOL 73/78. Annex VI includes a technical code on the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines (NOx technical code) and the amendments will update the procedures for controlling nitrogen oxide emissions from marine diesel engines. The code amendments will come into force on 1 September 2026 and can be found in MEPC.398(83).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (S.L 2008, No. 2924), transpose the energy efficiency design index (EEDI), energy efficiency existing ship index (EEXI), carbon intensity indicator (CH), and ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) regimes into UK law. These regulations implement the 1997 protocol to MARPOL 73/78, which established annex VI on the prevention of air pollution from ships. Annex VI includes regulation 26 of SEEMP. These amendments introduce clearer planning and reporting requirements to help ships reduce fuel use and emissions. SEEMP is now structured into three parts: part I covers operational energy efficiency measures; part II outlines fuel oil data collection procedures; and part III sets out a carbon intensity improvement plan linked to the ship’s carbon intensity indicator (CII) rating. Ships will be required to report fuel use by engine type, use of shore power, distance travelled with cargo, and any installed energy-saving technologies. Flag administrations must verify and approve SEEMP parts II and III, ensuring ships are actively working to improve their environmental performance. Amendments to SEEMP, adopted by IMO resolution MEPC.395(82) will come into force on 1 January 2026.
IMO resolution MSC.560(108) amends the mandatory standards of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities for seafarers in chapter VI of the STCW code to include mandatory training on prevention of and response to violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying and sexual assault. The amendment is to table A-VI/1 which specifies the minimum standard of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities (PSSR). This is implemented through the ambulatory reference provisions in the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1342). Guidance has been issued to all UK-approved training providers to incorporate these amendments into courses delivered from 1 January 2026. Therefore, all new seafarers undertaking basic training after that date will receive the updated PSSR content.
Further information and guidance on all amendments referred to in this statement has been published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1184]
Railways Bill
Keir Mather ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate? My response is centred on a strong belief that if somebody takes the time to say what they think about our railway, for whom it should be run and in whose interests, they should be listened to, because it is going to make clear whose side they are really on. This Government’s loyalties are clear. We are proud to be creating through this Bill a united Great British railway run for and by the British people. Our ambitions are clear for all to see. We want to end the miserable era of Tory disruption and delay and make travelling on our railway simpler and fairer.
What reactions have we produced? What passions have we stirred? Many colleagues across the Chamber have spoken in support of the Bill’s provisions but asked meaningful and searching questions that it is our responsibility to answer.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?
Keir Mather
I carefully noted what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I will come to accountability, and if she thinks that I do not cover her point, she is welcome to come in again.
I will start with accessibility, which 11 hon. Members across the House raised, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. The Bill sets out a passenger and accessibility duty, ensuring that GBR promotes the interests of passengers, including in particular the needs of disabled persons. I have heard the calls from colleagues across the House about the importance of the Access for All scheme. In our published accessibility road map, we commit to continuing that programme; work has already been completed to roll out step-free routes to 270 stations so far.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) raised the important matter of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand the passenger experience through its research and investigation functions as well as its access to complaints and performance data. It will use that to advocate for passengers, set tough consumer standards for the railway and advise the Government and GBR.
Many hon. Members pointed to the critical importance of freight to UK growth. The Government are committed to supporting rail freight growth across the United Kingdom. Freight operators will benefit from a legal duty for GBR to promote freight. The sector will also be championed within GBR by a representative on its board with responsibility for freight. There is also a requirement for the Government to set a rail freight growth target for GBR, so insinuations and accusations from the Conservatives that freight does not sit at the heart of what GBR is designed to do are flatly wrong.
With Christmas coming, I am afraid that I need to turn to my naughty list. The Conservatives have painted a dystopian picture this afternoon: they have told us to imagine a railway where the needs of the passenger come last; one that is plagued by disruption and poor management, strikes and shutdowns. My answer could not be clearer: the British public do not need to imagine a rail service on its knees, because for 14 years they have been living with one.
Let me turn to the points raised by Opposition Members. First, on cost, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked whether we need to reduce the subsidy. Absolutely we do; hon. Members will not hear me say anything else. The way to do that is to ensure that somebody is finally in charge of running our railways in a cohesive and united nature, saving the £150 million that the public pay to private operators every single year. The cost of establishing GBR will account for just 1% to 2% of the operating budget for a single year. That, alongside the Government’s other rail reforms, could unlock up to £1 billion in efficiencies by the end of the decade, alongside the £600 million in savings for passengers in the fare freeze that is being introduced next year for the first time in 30 years.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the important point of open access services, and a Back-Bench contribution noted that I get Hull Trains every single week to Selby. I know how important open access is, and I want to reassure the House that it will have a role as part of the establishment of GBR. The Government are not opposed to open access, and the idea that GBR is bad for open access is simply false. We believe that, under the right circumstances, GBR can in fact create more opportunity for all towns and all operators by reviewing the network holistically with a view to how it might work better under our new, reformed system with open access playing its part.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that Hull Trains will be grateful for the passionate way in which the Minister made its case. Would he be open to amendments to the Bill that would look again at that balance? As the Bill is currently drafted, it looks as if GBR can just squeeze out the open operators—it has all the power and they have none.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member and I have a philosophical difference on the question of track access. It is critical, if we are establishing Great British Railways to manage access, that it has the full ability to do so. It will be regulated by the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that its access decisions are fair, but the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to make sure that open access can continue and continues to provide incredibly important support to communities such as mine.
I turn back to the point about accountability, which is incredibly important, to set out some of the ORR’s functions and to tackle some of the disinformation coming from Opposition Members. The ORR will continue to be the sector regulator and the Bill will enhance its monitoring role. It provides independent advice to the Secretary of State, it will enforce GBR’s licence, its industry obligations and its minimum standards, and it will work with the passenger watchdog to make sure that passengers are once again at the heart of our railways. The ORR’s accountability function is hardwired into the Bill.
Wendy Morton
To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?
Keir Mather
I have no doubt whatsoever that the right hon. Lady is perfectly capable of holding her elected mayor to account on rail infrastructure within her constituency, but she will also be able to do so through the passenger watchdog.
Time is short and I must address the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. It claims the Bill does not grow rail freight when in fact it contains two specific duties that require GBR to do so. It fails to engage with the reality that the Bill places the ORR at the centre of GBR’s functioning and allows open access to continue to play a vital role on our railway. The amendment is, frankly, as intellectually stunted as it is ideologically blinkered, and I urge Members across the House to reject it.
I am disappointed to say that we have received the news throughout this debate that the Conservative party will vote against Great British Railways and say no to its only chance to right the wrongs that it has committed. Let me therefore spell out to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that if they decide not to vote for the Bill tonight, they will be working against the interests of passengers across the country and their right to have the railway that they deserve. The Conservatives and their former coalition partners will have to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they want to continue the insanity, bureaucracy and waste of 17 different organisations running our railway instead of one united service; why they want to deny passengers a one-stop-shop app with timetables, tickets and accessibility support literally in the palm of their hand; and why they want to waste the opportunity of changing ticketing to take advantage of the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years.
Siân Berry
To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?
Keir Mather
That is critical. GBR will be set up as an organisation to facilitate as many people as possible to use our railway. Wanting to grow passenger numbers is inherent in what we are doing, but we do not want to do that in a way that overly congests the railway and is not strategic. That is something we will work on. Parties will also have to explain why they want to waste the opportunity to take this reform forward.
In sum, I ask everyone in this House to support the Bill, to seize the opportunities and to show the public whose side they are really on. This Government know who the Bill is for and who we are for: we are for passengers and not profit; we are for the commuters, the football fans, the hen parties, the grandparents and the rail enthusiasts; we are for everyone who gives our great British railway its distinctly British personality. If Members across the Chamber want to join us in that mission, I look forward to seeing them in the Aye Lobby tonight. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seafarers’ Welfare
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Before I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), I pay tribute to Lord Prescott, whose unfortunate passing was just over a year ago. Beginning with his career as a trade union official in the National Union of Seamen, and then as Deputy Prime Minister and in his work on transport, he was a defiant champion of the rights of seafarers right across the country. He was—how shall I put it?—a salty sea dog to the end and passionately defended workers’ rights in a sector that he cared about so dearly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for bringing forward this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, seafarers and those who support them.
Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. The maritime sector not only powers that mission, but is critical in delivering the goods and materials that people across the UK rely on in their everyday lives. As we approach Christmas, I hope we can take the time to appreciate our maritime workforce—their skill and hard work will mean that our tables and our stockings have everything we need for a very merry Christmas—while also recognising that lots of merchant seafarers will not be home themselves this Christmas, and the toll that takes on their families and their mental health. My grandfather on my mother’s side served in the merchant navy for 50 years, so my family is extremely cognisant of that.
I am delighted to hear about the incredible work of the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury in supporting those men and women. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for supporting the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest and for highlighting its important work here in Parliament. The Seamen’s Rest has a long and fascinating history. It has always been there—for more than 180 years, I believe—to support seafarers and provide them with accommodation and welfare. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the centre at Tilbury, but I am aware of the work that the Seamen’s Rest has done through its centres to ensure that hard-working seafarers have well-deserved facilities and support when visiting ports across the UK.
Keir Mather
In the Christmas spirit that we are experiencing in Westminster Hall today, how could I refuse? It would be wonderful to visit. I look forward to continuing to learn about the work of the Seamen’s Rest, not only in Tilbury but at its centres in Immingham, Felixstowe, Bristol and other places.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for inviting those from the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest to join us in the Public Gallery, because it gives me an opportunity to place on the record my thanks and gratitude to its chief executive, Alexander Campbell, for all his hard work to pilot his organisation. I thank him for the enormous difference he will make to seafarers’ welfare across the UK, not only at this time of year, but year round.
The Government are undertaking wide-ranging work to enhance the support that we give to seafarers’ welfare charities. We have grants that provide a scheme called MiFi, which is about giving wi-fi access to seafarers in the United Kingdom. We have a vehicle replacement programme for the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to ensure that seafarers can get to where they need to receive support, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency sits on the board of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to provide a crucial link between these charities and Government.
I will go into more detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I want to acknowledge that we have more progress to make in the space of levies being paid when ships make port in the United Kingdom to contribute towards seafarers’ welfare. It is extremely encouraging to see how many ports have adopted that on a voluntary basis, but we always want to push to go further. She made an important point about international co-operation, and I was pleased—as I am sure was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—to meet Nautilus and the RMT only yesterday to discuss some of the obligations through the International Labour Organisation. I will come to that in greater detail in a moment.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke of the tragedies that have affected his constituency and reminded us of our obligation and duty to improve the welfare and safety of our seafarers—that is a duty for every generation lucky enough to have the privilege to serve in government. Being a native son of Hull, it would be remiss of me not to mention that we approach the anniversary, in January and February, of the triple trawler tragedy in 1968, when we lost three Hull trawlers, the St Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland, with an enormous loss of life. That started a campaign in Hull for improved safety at sea, with dedicated radio equipment on every ship, which was pioneered by Lillian Bilocca, a pioneer in seafarers’ rights. She pushed Harold Wilson’s Labour Government to make those important changes for seafarers’ welfare, and we carry that legacy forward today.
Turning to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, as I said, it was a pleasure to meet the RMT yesterday. We have an urgent need to protect life at sea, and I join him in sending condolences to James Elliott’s family. I thank everyone in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; they work so hard to keep our nation safe. I will be certain to pass on to the relevant Minister my right hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Ministry of Defence.
My right hon. Friend also made an important point about nationality-based pay. In June 2025, the Government published a post-implementation review that recommended an amendment to the regulations, which currently allow nationality-based differential pay. Officials are progressing this work and aim to publish a consultation in spring next year, and we look forward to the RMT’s contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) pointed to the incredible work of the RNLI, and I too will take the opportunity to champion its work. I also place on the record my thanks to the Port of London Authority for the work it does to encourage safety on the River Thames in the areas where it has a footprint. Robin Mortimer and Jonson Cox do a lot of work in that space. When I visited, they made important points about pilot safety and about minimising the health impacts of the strain on pilots as they go out to make sure the largest ships can dock in our country.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), despite having the second most landlocked constituency in the country—I think Selby might be somewhere on that list as well—raised some very important points. He spoke about having a competitive tax regime to encourage foreign direct investment and to encourage shipping operators to use the United Kingdom. The tonnage tax regime that we have in the United Kingdom is seen as competitive in attracting that investment.
I am glad that the shadow Minister recognised the wrongs that were committed during the P&O saga, but he also highlighted the positive work that there is to do in relation to people and skills. I believe that enshrining in the Employment Rights Bill the rest and fatigue management provisions he spoke of is integral. I hope that his passion for maritime allows him to overcome some of his other doubts and to support the Bill as it makes further progress through Parliament.
I now turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act through the Employment Rights Bill, which will include additional powers to regulate safety, including through roster patterns, fatigue management and training, as well as remuneration beyond just pay in UK waters. That will deliver on our promise to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter. We will be consulting on the use of those powers in 2026. In the light of the hon. Lady’s remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am certain not to be remiss in ensuring that the consultation is as robust as possible and that our trade union colleagues are able to play their full part in it.
The Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest is one of the many charities that support seafarers both domestically and internationally, but that work is spearheaded by the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Raising the standards of seafarer welfare is a priority for the Government. That is why earlier this year the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched The Seafarers’ Charities Forum, which aims to boost welfare through the exchange of information between the MCA and seafarers’ charities. We hope that will enhance mutual understanding of current initiatives, regulatory developments and welfare programmes, as well as identify opportunities for strategic alignment and joint action to improve seafarers’ living and working conditions. I commend all who are involved in that important initiative.
The Government are committed to growth, but none of the growth opportunities that we have will be realised without high standards of welfare for seafarers, in the UK and internationally, which is why we are ambitious about strengthening their rights. As I said, the Employment Rights Bill will improve employment protections for seafarers with a close connection to the UK, and protect the pay and working conditions of those working on services calling frequently at UK ports. That will build on the voluntary seafarers’ charter that was launched in 2023, under the previous Government, and we are working with a number of major operators to roll it out across their services. That will really help to raise standards, but it is voluntary, which is why we want to seek powers in the Employment Rights Bill to have a mandatory charter.
On international engagements, we are proud to have supported the amendments to the maritime labour convention that were agreed in April, but there is more work to be done in that space, and we can do it.
I want to pause at this point to record the thanks of the House and, more importantly, of seafarers around the country and far beyond for an organisation whose work is pivotal to the welfare of seafarers: the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The MAIB continues to provide an essential service to seafarers. Its reports, which are of the highest quality, have saved countless lives over the years and ensure that the sector learns the lessons of the regrettable incidents that do still occur.
The MAIB is a vital component in the constellation of organisations that support the sector and one to which I am proud to put my name, but I am equally proud of the other ways that my Department supports the sector. One example, which I have alluded to, is our continued support for the MiFi project, which enables seafarers visiting UK ports to connect to the internet so that they can remain in contact with friends and family in their home countries. I am also pleased that we continue to fund the Merchant Navy Welfare Board’s vehicle replacement programme to make sure that seafarers can get to where they need to go.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other colleagues for drawing the House’s attention to the important but oft-neglected issue of seafarer welfare. Since becoming maritime Minister, I have been struck by the dedication and skill of those who work in the sector, and I believe that, working together with parliamentarians, colleagues across Government, industry partners and our wider social partners, we can make a positive impact on the lives of those who serve at sea. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this debate.
Grove Park Railway Station
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this important debate. She has made a powerful case for accessibility improvements at Grove Park railway station. Before I turn to those improvements in detail, I will briefly pick up on two things she mentioned that I think are worthy of due consideration.
First, my hon. Friend made a point about the station not being aesthetically what her constituents deserve. This is not something we often get the opportunity to speak about in the House, but building beauty into our railways is incredibly important to me. It should factor to a greater extent in our thinking about how the travelling public can engage with our railways and enjoy the process.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign. It was exciting to hear about the array of small businesses and community organisations that made her petition possible. It speaks to the fact that our railway stations sit at the heart of the local communities they serve—a point that was reflected powerfully in her speech. I know how deeply my hon. Friend cares about her local community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport that is safer and more accessible for everyone in it.
This debate, and indeed the petition that my hon. Friend presented to Parliament on 20 October, underline the very real concerns of passengers who rely on Grove Park station every day. For many residents, Grove Park is not simply a station; it is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, though, 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 and, most importantly, the dignity that they expect. She is right to say that the public’s travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive. That is central to this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network for all.
Across Britain, many stations were constructed long before modern accessibility standards existed. Although around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is not enough. Everyone must have dignity as they travel across the United Kingdom. Accessibility is not an optional extra; it is a basic expectation of modern public transport. That is why we remain committed to delivering improvements through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map and through our long-term reforms to create Great British Railways.
The rail accessibility road map sets out clear actions that will improve disabled passengers’ experience, from better-maintained lifts and clearer information to the quality of assistance provided at stations for every journey. These are an essential element to providing dignity and inclusion to all rail passengers. I regret that Grove Park station does not offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and a hugely regrettable reality in 2025—a reality that I know my hon. Friend is working tirelessly to correct for the better on behalf of her constituents.
Lee Pitcher
I have Althorpe station in my constituency. We are trying to get more trains, which will mean more passengers using those trains. This is massively important to reduce carbon, and to get people to work and hospital appointments and so on. Access is really important, and there is no step-free access there. Does the Minister agree that improving access will increase the number of passengers who use our trains, and that it will benefit the environment too?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for improved rail services for all in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. He makes an incredibly important point: if more people can access our railways and thereby the opportunities that access provides them—social lives, employment and the ability to give back to their local communities—good will create good. Improving accessibility for all is a virtuous circle.
In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received from train operators, strategic transport bodies and Transport for London stations. This did not include a nomination for Grove Park station. I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration with the process that we inherited from the previous Government. The current limitations of the station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which she set out clearly today, are exactly the sort of factors that I would expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding. When assessing potential projects, we look closely at station footfall, weighted by incidence of disability in the area, industry priorities, and the availability of third-party funding. Local factors—for example, proximity to hospitals or especially high numbers of interchange passengers—are also taken into consideration. I know that these factors are very important to my hon. Friend’s case as to why Grove Park station needs extra support.
I would like to highlight the significant investment we are putting in to make rail more accessible within my hon. Friend’s constituency to show where we are making progress. As she knows, significant upgrades to the nearby Hither Green station, which she has also campaigned on in her work to improve rail in her local area, are well into delivery and are progressing well. Those upgrades are due to come into passenger use in 2027, at which point Hither Green will provide a fully accessible rail hub for her constituents and the wider south-east London community.
I turn to other issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted in relation to Grove Park station. I reassure her that my Department takes the safety and security of passengers and rail staff incredibly seriously. British Transport police, which is responsible for policing the railway, works closely with train operating companies including Southeastern to create a safer network. I am pleased to say that Grove Park will benefit from an LED lighting update to the overbridge and platforms. The upgrade will improve lighting levels, security perception and CCTV-recorded images.
We have recently announced £17 million of funding to improve British Transport police’s access to railway CCTV. The Department expects that train operating companies will implement crime prevention methods where required, including by improving lighting and CCTV where necessary. The BTP’s designing out crime unit provides advice on crime prevention, including the type of CCTV technology to use and suitable placement at stations. I therefore reassure my hon. Friend that the safety and security of those who use our railways is a core priority for the Government.
Shelters and seating at train stations play a vital role in ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of passengers. The Department for Transport expects train operating companies to manage station amenities to ensure that they are safe, clean and fit for purpose. We monitor those standards through the service quality regime, which includes regular inspections of the condition and availability of assets such as seating and shelters to ensure compliance and to identify areas for improvement.
Southeastern is driving forward a multimillion pound station improvement programme, which has delivered benefits to over 100 stations since March 2024. This ambitious initiative includes deep cleaning, repairs, and enhancements that will refresh and modernise station amenities across the network. I am pleased to say that Southeastern has recently completed a deep clean at Grove Park, helping to improve the overall customer experience, but I am aware from my hon. Friend’s comments that there is much further to go.
Daniel Francis
Southeastern serves the stations in my constituency, like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, and those enhancements include a number of Changing Places toilets for people with disabilities who require them. I therefore reaffirm the point I made to my hon. Friend. The Changing Places consortium has a map that shows its toilets around the country, and Transport for London has an accessibility app that shows where lifts are working and which stations are accessible. Can the Minister look at how we can bring those two together in the Railways Bill so that stations can be truly accessible, with real-time information for passengers?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents about improving accessibility for all in his constituency. Through the Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways and the passenger watchdog, rail provision will need to have due regard to improving accessibility. Through the accessibility road map, the Government are also setting out the actions we are taking in the round to deliver a more accessible railway in the run-up to GBR becoming a reality. They will include a range of actions that I hope my hon. Friend will find productive, which will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, their access to journey information, and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and—as he so importantly mentioned—facilities such as toilets.
Let me close by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and congratulating her on securing this important debate and on her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. Upgrading Grove Park station is not just about infrastructure; it is about fairness, dignity and ensuring that every individual in Lewisham East can travel safely, independently and confidently. The concerns raised tonight of accessibility, safety, lighting, toilets, CCTV, seating and platform shelters are all fundamental to a modern and inclusive railway. This Government remain committed to improving accessibility across the network, supported by major investments in crime prevention, infrastructure upgrades and industry reform through the creation of Great British Railways. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue working with Southeastern, Network Rail, Transport for London and the British Transport police to ensure that Grove Park station is equipped to serve its community now and for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
In March, we published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which provides the sector with the certainty that it needs to decarbonise. We support the Port of Dover’s plan to electrify short straits crossings, which I know the hon. Member discussed with the Secretary of State in September. Our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working on reform that will help to reduce grid connection delays.
Wera Hobhouse
UK ports are clear that large-scale electrification is essential for maritime decarbonisation, but the required grid capacity is severely lacking. The Transport Committee has urged the Government to provide planning authorities with clear guidance to facilitate grid and substation upgrades. Will the Department prioritise enabling ports to build up their grid infrastructure before they fall behind international competition, so that we can continue to lead on maritime decarbonisation?
Keir Mather
I agree with the hon. Lady on her ambition to decarbonise maritime. That is why, in my first week as maritime Minister, I announced funding of £448 million to decarbonise UK maritime. She is right to note that electrification and grid capacity are enormous issues. Department for Transport officials continue to work across the ports sector to ensure that we can improve the grid connection process, and DESNZ is working on reform of that process to free up 500 GW of capacity for crucial sectors such as ports.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The port of Falmouth has benefited from Government money for plug-in power, but it has been held back by the grid. The port is also trying to redevelop and expand, so that it can service the floating offshore wind sector, and bring in freight on the freight line that we lost 15 years ago. Will the Minister support the port of Falmouth in those aims, and will he visit?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for the port of Falmouth. I applaud the work that it is doing to achieve decarbonisation. It is incumbent on me to work with Ofgem and my departmental colleagues in DESNZ to ensure that we speed up the improvement of port capacity and connection to the national grid. I would be very happy to visit that port in the future to explore its fantastic work.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are starting to see train reliability stabilise, 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. These include timetable resilience, staffing, and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events. Rail usage is up month on month: some 451 million journeys were made on Britain’s railways last quarter, which is a 7% increase on the same period last year.
Dame Nia Griffith
I declare my interest in rail travel, as I travel by train weekly between London and my constituency of Llanelli. Far too often, Great Western Railway trains between Paddington and south Wales are delayed or cancelled at short notice, causing significant inconvenience and distress to passengers, including those from my constituency. The cause is often cited to be problems in the London-to-Reading area. What more can the Minister do to ensure that GWR and Network Rail make a lot more effort to significantly reduce delays and avoid cancellations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for her constituents and their right to get to where they need to. We are pressing Network Rail and Great Western Railway to improve reliability, which has at times fallen below expectations in recent periods, partly due to recent flooding issues. We expect Network Rail and Great Western Railway to work together to resolve these issues on this most critical route.
Jeff Smith
My constituents in Manchester are left constantly frustrated by delays and cancellations, not just on the west coast main line, which you know all about, Mr Speaker, but on our east-west routes, and on services all around Manchester. What are the Government doing, alongside partners, to drive improvements in services to our Manchester stations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is championing the right of his constituents to use the train to get to where they need to. Alongside local stakeholders, the DFT created the Manchester taskforce in 2020 to identify solutions to performance problems throughout the city. The December 2023 timetable has delivered improvements in reliability of around 30%, and new infrastructure may enable more services to be introduced. My hon. Friend is fighting hard for his constituents on this issue, and I hope that my answer reassures him that we are moving in the right direction, but if he has any remaining questions or concerns, I encourage him to write to me.
Alison Bennett
My Mid Sussex constituents are frustrated by the number of cancellations, particularly on Thameslink services. One of the reasons for those cancellations is driver shortages; in particular, sickness rates are running at 15% to 20%. The operator has told me that it is now paying private healthcare providers, because NHS waiting lists are so long. Does the Minister think that is good use of my rail users’ fares, and will he make representations to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, to make them aware that this is happening?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for her important question about the reliability of train services in her constituency. We recognise that the number of cancellations is completely unacceptable, and that train crew availability issues have been driving many of those incidents. The Department has commissioned work to understand in detail the impact of train crew availability on performance. Issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and sickness have an enormous impact, and I reassure her that we are working with officials in the Department for Transport and inter-departmentally with DHSC to make progress on this important issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
After leading a town-wide campaign to reinstate the direct Eastbourne to London Bridge service, I am delighted to say that it will return on 15 December. However, many passengers and staff on those trains, including Louise and Rhiannon, on-board supervisors whom I have met, are concerned about the amount of antisocial behaviour, and Southern rail’s lack of support for on-board supervisors in tackling it. What steps will be taken to keep passengers and staff safe from crime and antisocial behaviour on our train services?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that
“the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”
That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?
Keir Mather
On no subject is the hypocrisy of the Conservative party laid out more clearly than that of rail. We did not have a competitive rail system when the Conservatives were in charge; we had a fragmented and broken rail service that did not offer passengers the service that they deserved. By having Great British Railways, we can integrate track and rail services together to ensure that these services are run in the interests of passengers. Competition can of course continue through open access, but we want to centralise the service being provided in the interests of passengers right across the United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman should know that, through the Railways Bill, we are building a system that will ensure that passenger accountability sits at the very heart of how this railway operates. I would be grateful if he could illuminate to me how constituents of his and constituents across the country are served by the previous system, under which people could not get a train where they needed to go, were plagued by strikes and had ticketing systems that did not work. We are setting up, through Great British Railways, a tough passenger watchdog that can have minimum standards and statutory advice for the Secretary of State and put passengers back at the heart of our railways.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Passengers will be at the heart of Great British Railways, and it will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making. GBR will also be required to consult the passenger watchdog when developing its integrated business plan and key policies and procedures that significantly impact on passenger experience.
Chris Vince
May I welcome the extension of contactless payment to Harlow Town, Harlow Mill and Roydon railway stations in my constituency? That is making travel simpler and ensuring the best value for passengers. How will the Minister ensure that GB Railways continues to ensure that passengers are at the heart of decision making? Will he personally join me in my campaign to ensure that there are less cancellations of trains to Roydon station in my constituency?
Keir Mather
I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting from contactless payment, but he is right to urge us to go further in ensuring that GBR improves passenger experience and delivers on the priorities of the travelling public. We are committed to improving ticketing further through expanding pay-as-you-go beyond the stations at which it is already in use. Through the long-term rail strategy and its general duties, GBR will be incentivised to support innovation and deliver for passengers right across the country, including in Harlow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I use the railways every Monday, Thursday and on other days in the week. The things that passengers look for, as well as those I talk to who come over here from Northern Ireland, are price, punctuality, space and comfort. Can the Minister assure us that those things are central to the Government’s obligation to the passenger? Let me add another factor. When it comes to safety, sometimes pedestrians stray on to the tracks, thereby holding up the trains. What is being done to ensure that security is taken into account?
Mr Speaker
I think that is slightly off the question. Minister, do you want to have a go at it?
Keir Mather
I will have a crack at it, Mr Speaker—thank you. The hon. Member is right to raise a number of issues that affect the experience of passengers on the railway. That experience is exactly what the passenger watchdog, which will be created through Great British Railways, is designed to protect. It will set minimum consumer standards that GBR and operators must meet as part of their licence conditions, but most importantly, that accountability will be public. The watchdog will publish reports and data on passenger experience and will be a statutory adviser to the Office of Rail and Road, which will carry out enforcement.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the hon. Member for his continued advocacy for this issue on behalf of his constituents. Soon the Department will publish its integrated national transport strategy, setting the long-term vision for domestic transport in England. It will focus on creating a transport network that works well for people so that they can get on in life and make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live.
Joe Robertson
Does the Minister accept—and, indeed, do the Government accept—that public transport will never be truly integrated for the Isle of Wight while it continues to rely on unregulated, unlicensed ferry services that are owned by private equity groups making bumper profits? He would not accept that for any other community in the UK; why should the Isle of Wight be left in a different situation?
Keir Mather
Again, the hon. Member makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents—it is right to be frustrated by the affordability and reliability of ferry services to the Isle of Wight. I agree that urgent action needs to be taken to resolve the issues that he and his parliamentary colleagues are campaigning on. That is why it is incredibly important that we get a cross-Solent chair in place quickly, so that they can grip this issue. Fundamentally, though, we must work together to get the data necessary to create a single version of the truth, so that we can assess how to deal with these problems in the round on behalf of the hon. Member’s constituents.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are committed to supporting aviation. [Interruption.] We are advancing airport planning decisions, modernising airspace and reviewing the airports national policy statement on Heathrow expansion. [Interruption.] To make sure that this growth is sustainable we have introduced a sustainable aviation fuel mandate and supported production through the advanced fuels fund, and are legislating for revenue certainty.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, you have had your question. You might want to go for a walk if you are going to carry on.
Lee Pitcher
As the work to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport takes off, the focus now turns to ensuring that it succeeds in the long run. A key part of that is building the next generation of pilots and aviation professionals. I am already working with training providers and we will hopefully launch “Pitcher’s pilot programme” for our young people. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department is taking, working across Government, to ensure that the next generation of aviation professionals is ready to take to the skies?
Keir Mather
I applaud my hon. Friend’s ambition to train the next generation of aviators. Government changes to the apprenticeship regulations now mean that aviation employers have greater flexibility, which recently enabled the launch of the Tui cabin crew apprenticeship, with more under development. Through our aviation industry skills board, the Department for Transport works with industry and across Government to address barriers to access. We also fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s outreach programme to attract the next generation into aviation careers. I reassure my hon. Friend that making sure more young people have access to careers that they are passionate about is a subject in which I have a keen personal interest.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The electric car grant is designed to ensure that consumers have confidence in their ability to buy an electric vehicle over the long term, benefiting from £3,750 off the cost of some models. Importantly, we are undertaking work to increase the number of electric charge points across the country, with an extra 100,000 on top of the over 80,000 that are already in use.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Keir Mather
I would be delighted to encourage local people to give it a try. I am delighted with the announced expansion of pay-as-you-go to 50 additional stations, including Aylesbury station, next month, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will offer her residents greater flexibility, convenience and the best price for their journey for on-the-day travel.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 21 October 2025, set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems, including drones and model aircraft. The regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UASs remain subject to appropriate penalties when they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.
I will start by providing some background information about the regulations. The Department for Transport commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UASs. The CAA carried out a public consultation for this purpose on proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for the users of UASs, improve safety and security, and provide options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with Government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations. Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 21 October 2025, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations and support a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the UK.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.
The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of uncrewed aircraft, as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft. That implementing regulation was directly applicable in the UK prior to EU exit. Following EU exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and was subsequently amended further. It now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.
The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UASs, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UASs to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. This framework includes three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations, “specific”, which carry a greater level of risk than the open category, and “certified”, which are the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation includes requirements for registration and competency testing; it also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.
The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the 2016 order. Owing to the amendments made by the 2025 regulations, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the 2016 order and remaking them in this instrument.
The regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircraft are safer and clearer for current and future use, and for that reason I commend them to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their comments. I also commend the work of businesses in Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the draft regulations.
I have taken into account both the points raised on regulatory equivalence, and we have heard a diverse range of ideological perspectives on alignment with the European Union. In most cases, the draft regulations offer alignment with the European Union; that is incredibly important for regulatory alignment that facilitates international trade and the export of drones produced in the United Kingdom, which is an important piece of the puzzle. That being said, there are areas where we may want to carve out a competitive advantage for the United Kingdom by going further, faster—particularly with hybrid remote IDs. It is important to learn lessons from the aviation regulations of others across the world, and we intend to do that. We will go further, faster if we can, but it is good to have regulatory alignment where possible to facilitate trade where it is needed.
On the transition period and people being adequately trained, the CAA is taking on a lot of work to make sure that people are in the right place. It has emailed all registered drone users—some 500,000 operators—and promoted the changes via Google Ads and promotional messages on social media to reach specific audiences. The CAA also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September, ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test.
The CAA is well resourced to engage with operating companies and has done so through the consultation. It will very much continue to do that, as we make sure that these regulations suit and reflect the lived experience of drone users, while avoiding some of the inadvertent slip-ups that occur when they use regulated airspace and so on. This is an iterative process in which the CAA will have to work hard to make sure that it is answering the concerns of drone users, but I have every confidence that it has the resources and capability to do so. I finish by thanking both Opposition spokesmen for their considered contributions to this debate, and I hope the Committee will support the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.