Railways Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clauses 49 and 50.

New clause 1—Passengers’ Charter—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.

(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—

(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;

(b) targets for reliability of services;

(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—

(i) seat design,

(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,

(iii) provision of power outlets,

(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,

(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and

(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;

(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;

(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;

(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—

(i) are digital by default;

(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;

(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.

New clause 2—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—

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

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

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

New clause 3—Fund for future railway improvements—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a fund for the purpose of providing improvements to the railway in the long term, including investment in new or reopened railway lines and stations.

(2) The fund under this section is to be called the Tomorrow’s Railway Fund (‘the fund’).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for monies to be allocated to the fund for each funding period.

(4) Local and regional transport authorities may apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund, for the purpose of enabling construction of new railway stations and associated infrastructure.

(5) A purpose enabling construction under subsection (4) includes a feasibility study for any station or associated infrastructure.

(6) In this section ‘funding period’ has the meaning given in Paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 2 to this Act.”

This new clause would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid to central government for funding for feasibility studies on, or construction of, new stations, railways, or other enhancements.

New clause 4—Restoring Your Railway fund: review—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the Restoring Your Railway Fund.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the effect of the fund on the reopening of railway lines and stations.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous Government in February 2020.

New clause 5—Rails to Trails Programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—

(a) walkers,

(b) wheelers,

(c) cyclists, and

(d) horse riders.

(2) The programme must include—

(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),

(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;

(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.

(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the ‘Rails to Trails Programme’.”

This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.

New clause 6—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—

“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).

(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to—

(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,

(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,

(c) offer discounted fares for passengers who are UK armed forces veterans,

(d) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,

(e) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,

(f) introduce a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,

(g) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,

(h) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and

(i) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—

(i) multiple rail services, or

(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.

(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”

This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s and veterans’ discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.

New clause 7—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—

(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;

(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.

(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).

(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”

This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.

New clause 8—Great British Railways: environmental targets—

“(1) In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—

(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This new clause requires Great British Railways to take steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.

New clause 9—Great British Railways Board—

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

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

(a) Great British Railways,

(b) open access passenger operators,

(c) freight operators,

(d) The Office for Rail and Road,

(e) The Passengers’ Council, and

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

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

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

(5) Any—

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

(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 10—Devolution of rail to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended according to subsection (2).

(2) In section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.

(3) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the transfer of functions relating to rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers.

(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to—

(a) the management of rail infrastructure;

(b) the operation and funding of rail infrastructure;

(c) the planning, funding and management of maintenance, enhancement and renewal of rail infrastructure;

(d) the regulation of capacity, access, charging and performance arrangements of rail infrastructure; and

(e) the integration of passenger services with rail infrastructure.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) must come into force—

(a) on a date no later than three years after the passing of this Act, or

(b) on a date agreed between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers,

whichever is the earlier.

(6) Regulations under this section must make provision about funding for the Welsh Ministers relating to the functions transferred to them under subsection (4).

(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the level of funding to be provided under subsection (6).

(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause devolves rail in Wales to the Welsh Government and makes provision about the devolution of commensurate funding.

New clause 11—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—

“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.

(2) In this section ‘safe bicycle storage’ means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.

(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—

(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and

(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”

This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.

New clause 12—Welsh rail funding report and strategy—

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) an estimate of the cost of unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal need in Wales since 1 April 2000;

(b) a strategy to fulfil any need identified under paragraph (a).

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include a definition of “unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal”.”

This new clause requires a review of funding, including as needed to make up for rail infrastructure not developed since 2000.

New clause 13—Investment in rural areas in Wales—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy (‘the strategy’) to increase levels of investment in railway infrastructure enhancement in rural areas in Wales.

(2) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the strategy.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers when preparing the strategy.

(4) The Secretary of State must receive the consent of the Welsh Ministers before publishing, revising or replacing the strategy.”

This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on improving railway infrastructure enhancement investment in rural areas of Wales.

New clause 14—Passenger growth target—

“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State—

(a) must keep the target under review, and

(b) may revise or replace it.

(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.

(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—

(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and

(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.

New clause 15—Travel facilities for rail staff—

“(1) Great British Railways must, following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify, provide free and discounted travel to persons who are—

(a) employed by GBR;

(b) employed by a subsidiary of GBR;

(c) employed by a company owned by GBR;

(d) employed by a company contracted to provide a service to GBR;

(e) employed by a company licensed to operate railway services on GBR infrastructure;

(f) employed by a railway services company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority;

(g) employed by a company that is subcontracted to provide rail services to a rail company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority; or

(h) any other person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the creation of an industry wide concessionary travel scheme for rail staff, and a requirement for that scheme to be consulted with the trade unions.

New clause 16—Reopening of services to underserved areas—

“(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.

(2) In meeting its purpose, the department must consider—

(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and

(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.

(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.

(4) In subsection (3), relevant transport authorities means—

(a) Scottish Ministers;

(b) Welsh Ministers;

(c) in England—

(i) any—

(a) mayoral strategic authority,

(b) combined authority, or

(c) combined county authority

with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and

(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”

This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.

New clause 17—Duty to consult certain Members of Parliament—

“(1) Great British Railways must consult certain Members of Parliament before making a decision within subsection (2).

(2) A decision is within this subsection if—

(a) it relates to railway passenger services or railway infrastructure, and

(b) in the opinion of Great British Railways, making that decision would have a significant effect on the economy of any area or on persons living, working or travelling in that area.

(3) In this section ‘certain Members of Parliament’ means any Member of the House of Commons who represents a parliamentary constituency that includes any part of an area as described in subsection (2)(b).”

This new clause would require Great British Railways (GBR) to consult MPs whose constituencies include areas likely to be affected by decisions made by GBR relating to passenger services or railway infrastructure.

New clause 18—Railway services: safeguarding accreditation scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that all operators of passenger railway services participate in a recognised safeguarding accreditation scheme.

(2) Any scheme under subsection (1) must be recognised by—

(a) the British Transport Police, or

(b) any other authority determined as suitable by the Secretary of State.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires all rail service operators to engage with a nationally recognised safeguarding scheme.

New clause 19—Railway workforce: dispute resolution—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about railway workforce terms and conditions and dispute resolution.

(2) Regulations under this section may designate which terms and conditions for staff working on the railways require—

(a) consultation prior to agreement, or

(b) can be imposed without consultation.

(3) Any industrial disputes about arrangements under subsection (2) must be referred to a dispute resolution process.

(4) Any findings of a dispute resolution process under subsection (3) must be accepted and actioned in full including—

(a) any enforcement action to be taken;

(b) any award of the dispute resolution by all parties.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to define which railway workforce terms and conditions can be imposed, and which must be agreed, and for any that must be agreed, to refer disputes to binding dispute resolution.

New clause 20—Duty to integrate across modes of transport—

“In exercising any of their functions under this Act, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must seek to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—

(a) bus and coach services,

(b) tram and light rail, and

(c) micromobility.”

This new clause puts a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to promote the multimodal transport integration with rail.

New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR.

(2) Any scheme under this section must—

(a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);

(b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate.

(3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.”

This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.

New clause 22—Duty to provide step-free access—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State has a duty to approve such works as are necessary to enable step-free access to all platforms at qualifying stations served by any GBR passenger service.

(2) In this section, a station is a qualifying station if—

(a) in any given year, at least one million passengers—

(i) start a rail journey,

(ii) end a rail journey, or

(iii) transfer between passenger train services

at the station; and

(b) on the day on which this Act is passed, there is not step-free access to all platforms at the station.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to approve work on ensuring stations serving more than one million passengers a year are step-free.

New clause 23—Accessibility strategy for the railway network—

“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an accessibility strategy for the railway network (‘the strategy’).

(2) The purpose of the strategy is to describe how the railway will be made accessible for all passengers by the end of the period of ten years beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, having particular regard to disabled persons.

(3) The strategy must include—

(a) a timetable and programme of works for delivering permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms;

(b) measures for ensuring accessible rolling stock, interchange, and station facilities;

(c) an assessment of costs and funding requirements to meet the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b);

(d) a plan for monitoring progress against any goals set in the strategy, including through annual reporting to Parliament; and

(e) arrangements for consultation with such disabled persons’ organisations and other persons as the Secretary of State may designate.

(4) The strategy must not consider any reasonable adjustment for disabled persons as a substitute for the provision of permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms.

(5) Arrangements under paragraph (3)(e) must include consultation throughout the development, implementation, and review of the strategy, including involvement in design and delivery of any activity proposed by the strategy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a ten-year railway accessibility strategy, within one year of the passage of the Bill.

New clause 24—Regional railway services passenger organisations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a passenger organisation for each region in which Great British Railways operates (‘GBR regions’).

(2) Any user of railway services who is resident in, or who regularly uses services within, a region may join the regional passenger organisation established under subsection (1) for that region.

(3) The purpose of each regional passenger organisation is to represent passenger interests, including representation of passengers’ expertise to management boards of GBR regions.

(4) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of each regional passenger organisation, including that members of each organisation must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (4) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.

(6) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (5).

(7) No less than one-third of any regional board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise representatives of regional passenger organisations, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.

(8) Any representative to which subsection (7) applies—

(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the organisation, and

(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.

(9) Regulations under this section must create a disabled people’s committee as part of each regional passenger organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the regional passengers organisation and the GBR regions.

(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish regional passengers groups in each region in which GBR operates, with the purpose of representing passengers' interests and putting forward passengers' expertise.

New clause 25—National passengers group—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a national passengers group (‘the group’), comprising representatives of each regional passenger organisation under section [Regional railway services passenger organisations].

(2) The purposes of the group under subsection (1) are to—

(a) facilitate engagement with regional passenger organisations on national rail proposals,

(b) act as a body that the Secretary of State and GBR must consult on national rail proposals, and

(c) provide oversight and scrutiny to the regulatory work of the Passengers’ Council.

(3) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of the group, including that members of the group must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (3) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.

(5) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (4).

(6) Any national board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise at least one-third representatives of this national passenger organisation, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.

(7) Any representative of the group to which subsection (6) applies—

(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the group, and

(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.

(8) Regulations under this section must create a National Accessibility Panel as part of the national passengers’ organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the national passengers group and the national GBR board.

(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a new national passengers group made up of representatives of regional passenger organisations and requires that the group is represented on a GBR national board.

New clause 26—Transfer of employees to GBR—

“(1) For the purpose of meeting GBR’s function in section 3(1)(i) of this Act, the Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment for—

(a) Network Rail,

(b) any franchise operated by DfT Operated Ltd, or

(c) any franchise operated by a rail company under a contract with the Department for Transport,

become employees of GBR.

(2) A scheme made under this section must in particular include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”

This new clause is consequential on Amendment 64 and enables for the transfer of employees to GBR from Network Rail and DfT-operated franchises.

New clause 27—Pension schemes—

“(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to active members of the Railway Pension Scheme who joined the scheme after 4 November 1993.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide that any person who—

(i) is an active Member of the Railway Pension Scheme,

(ii) joined that section of the Railways Pension Scheme after 4 November 1993, and

(iii) becomes an employee of GBR through arrangements made under this Act,

remains a member of the Railway Pension Scheme under terms and benefits that are no less favourable than those terms and benefits received by the person prior to the passing of this Act;

(b) provide that persons employed by GBR are eligible to join either—

(i) the Railway Pension Scheme, or

(ii) any other scheme, provided that the terms and benefits of that scheme are equivalent to the Railway Pension Scheme.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would provide that employees of GBR, or those transferred into GBR, can continue to access the Railways Pension Scheme or a pension scheme providing equivalent benefit.

New clause 28—Season ticket discount—

“(1) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are—

(a) under the age of 25, and

(b) enrolled in full-time education at a recognised educational institution

to access a discounted season ticket for travel on railway passenger services provided by participants in the scheme.

(2) A discounted season ticket under this section—

(a) must cost no less than a third of the price of the full-price season ticket provided by Great British Railways, and

(b) may be limited to allow travel only between the holder of the season ticket’s residence and recognised educational institution.

(3) ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”

New clause 29—Duty to co-operate—

“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—

(a) reduce transport disruption, and

(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.

(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).

(3) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—

(i) maintenance;

(ii) construction;

(iii) any other work;

related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.

(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.

New clause 30—Accessible rail strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.

(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.

(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—

(a) percentage of stations with step free access,

(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,

(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.

(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.

(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.

New clause 31—Service changes: consultation—

“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—

(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—

(i) its functions under Section 1;

(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;

(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;

(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;

(d) consult—

(i) local stakeholders,

(ii) passenger groups, and

(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements

about those changes.

(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it includes changes to rail—

(a) timetables;

(b) routes;

(c) service capacity.

(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.

New clause 32—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—

“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) capacity of the rail network,

(b) the potential need for new lines or services,

(c) level crossings, and

(d) the accessibility of the rail network.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.

(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.

New clause 33—Rail devolution: Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.

(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.

(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—

(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;

(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;

(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;

(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and

(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.

(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.

(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.

(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”

New clause 34—Mutual and co-operative structures—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual and co-operative corporate structures.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.

(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”

This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider mutual and cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.

New clause 35—Duty to consider capacity at Ely Junction—

“(1) In exercising functions under section 17 (rail freight target) and section 15 (rail strategy), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase capacity at Ely Junction.

(2) The rail strategy prepared under section 15 must—

(a) identify Ely Junction as a capacity constraint of national strategic importance for freight and passenger services, and

(b) set out how the Secretary of State will work with Great British Railways and other relevant bodies to address that constraint.

(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress towards resolving capacity constraints at Ely Junction.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely Junction as a nationally significant capacity constraint and to report to Parliament on progress in addressing it.

New clause 36—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.

(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—

(a) is a member of the armed forces;

(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or

(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.

(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.

(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.

New clause 37—Train frequency duty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must—

(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;

(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.

(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).

(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—

(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;

(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.

(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.

New clause 38—Accessible ticket machines—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.

(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.

(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—

(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;

(b) have the same user interface;

(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and

(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.

New clause 39—Passengers’ Council Board—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.

(2) The persons appointed to the board by the Secretary of State must include a minimum of two disabled persons.”

This new clause would ensure representation of disabled people on the Board of the Passengers’ Council.

New clause 40—Population change: railway services—

“(1) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State have a duty to provide railway services for an area or at a station proportionate to any increase in population of the area served by that station.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a population increase includes any change in residency of an area that is either—

(a) permanent, or

(b) seasonal.

(3) In this section ‘seasonal’ means any period, or periods, of at least seven days where in the opinion of Great British Railways it is reasonably predictable that the population of an area will increase relative to the population during any time that is not the period in question.

(4) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State must consider provision of—

(a) infrastructure,

(b) rolling stock

(c) services, and

(d) any further investment necessary

for the purpose of meeting the duty under this section.”

This new clause would put a duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to any permanent or seasonal increases in population in areas.

New clause 41—Contribution of rail to environmental targets: report—

“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and before the end of each period of twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Report on the contribution of rail and rail travel in the UK to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with—

(a) meeting the UK carbon account target for 2050, as provided for in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.

(2) A report under this section must include recommendations to Great British Railways for any actions to increase the contribution of rail to the goals in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the contribution of UK rail to net zero and climate change goals.

New clause 42—Assessment of passing loop at Tisbury—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the West of England line.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits to—

(a) reliability of services on, and

(b) capacity of

West of England line railway services that pass through Tisbury.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing an assessment under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a new passing loop at Tisbury.

New clause 43—Provision of food and drink—

“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to provide food and drink on all qualifying GBR services.

(2) A GBR service is a qualifying service if it has a journey time of at least one hour from the station from which the service first departs to the station at which it terminates.

(3) In meeting the duty under this section, Great British Railways may provide food and drink through such means as it considers appropriate.”

New clause 44—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—

“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).

(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—

(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,

(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and

(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—

(i) WiFi access,

(ii) digital ticketing,

(iii) real time information systems, and

(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.

(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”

This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.

New clause 45—Great British Railways Governance—

“(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) works for, or

(b) has a financial interest in

a private company involved in the railway sector.

(2) A person under subsection (1) is ineligible for appointment to positions within the governance structures of Great British Railways, including—

(a) any Board of GBR,

(b) any regional Boards that oversee GBR at a regional level,

(c) Passengers’ Council, and

(d) Office of Rail and Road.”

This new clause requires that people who work for private companies involved in the railway sector or who hold a financial interest in the railway sector are ineligible for participation in the governance of GBR, including on the board of national GBR and in regional GBR boards.

New clause 46—Review of passenger safety—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of passenger safety.

(2) A review under this section must in particular have regard to the safety of women and disabled people.

(3) The review must consider—

(a) staffing levels at railway stations and on board trains, including for late-night services and other services which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety;

(b) lighting in waiting areas;

(c) opening hours and accessibility of help points;

(d) CCTV coverage at stations and on trains;

(e) the potential merits of introducing real-time reporting applications for incidents where a passenger is harassed or otherwise is unsafe, and an associated rapid response protocol following a notification being made to an appropriate authority via such an application;

(f) public awareness of methods to report concerns about safety, including the British Transport Police text facility;

(g) the potential merits of providing a dedicated phone number that allows passengers to directly contact the next station on the line to report incidents or safety concerns;

(h) coordination of travel connections from stations at night, including between rail operators, local public transport and licensed taxi services;

(i) the potential merits of increasing, where it is practicable, patrols of trains and stations by train managers, guards or other appropriate persons for the purposes of identifying incidents, supporting accessibility, and promoting passenger safety.

(4) Where the review recommends any action to improve passenger safety, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must make all reasonable efforts to implement that action.

(5) In this section, ‘appropriate persons’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that it may have different meanings for different purposes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review ways to improve passenger safety. It sets out the content of such a review, and requires the Secretary of State and GBR to take reasonable steps to implement the review’s recommendations.

New clause 47—Free train travel for 16 to 18-year olds in education or training—

“(1) Great British Railways must provide for a scheme enabling persons who are—

(a) aged 16, 17 or 18, and

(b) either—

(i) enrolled in full-time education or training at a recognised educational institution, or

(ii) undertaking an apprenticeship

to travel for free on railway passenger services subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition is that the travel undertaken must be between a person’s residence and either—

(a) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(i), the recognised educational institution at which the person is enrolled, or

(b) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(ii), any place at which the person is employed, or undertakes any training relating to that employment.

(3) In this section ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”

New clause 51—Long-term freight access agreements—

“(1) Great British Railways may enter into long-term access agreements with—

(a) Freight operating companies, and

(b) Persons developing, owning or operating rail-connected logistics facilities.

(2) An agreement under this section may be granted for a period exceeding 5 years where the ORR is satisfied that the agreement—

(a) Supports the rail freight target set under section 17, and

(b) Does not unduly restrict network capacity for other users.”

This amendment would allow GBR to enter into long-term access arrangements for freight.

New clause 52—Purpose of Great British Railways—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.

New clause 53—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).

(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—

(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,

(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,

(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,

(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,

(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,

(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and

(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.

(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.

New clause 54—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (‘the Framework’).

(2) The Framework must include measures to—

(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;

(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;

(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;

(d) end practices including—

(i) short-notice holiday approvals;

(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;

(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;

(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;

(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;

(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;

(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;

(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;

(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—

(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or

(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.

(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.

(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.

(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.

(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—

(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;

(b) data on—

(i) workforce productivity,

(ii) cost savings,

(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and

(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).

(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”

This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.

New clause 56—Anti-social noise—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.

(2) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.

New clause 57—Ticketing and Settlement Agreement—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (‘the agreement’).

(2) The agreement must set out the—

(a) opening hours, and

(b) range of products sold,

at any ticket office operated by Great British Railways or the Department for Transport Operator.

(3) The agreement must include all measures set out in Schedule 17 of any Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in place on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Changes may only be made to the agreement regarding opening hours or the range of products sold if—

(a) an equality impact assessment, and

(b) consultation process

has been undertaken by the relevant passenger body.

(5) Regulations under this section must establish a process for challenging any changes proposed under subsection (4).

(6) The Secretary of State must decide on any challenge made under subsection (5).”

New clause 58—Metroisation—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a rail metroisation strategy.

(2) The purposes of a strategy under this section must include increasing the proportion and number of passenger journeys under 10 kilometres undertaken using metropolitan rail services.

(3) The strategy under this section must—

(a) include proposals—

(i) for cooperation between Great British Rail, the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and mayors for the purpose of developing and delivering metropolitan rail services;

(ii) for the funding of those services;

(iii) for the development of local metroisation area plans by local planning authorities and mayoral authorities;

(iv) for provision of multimodal ticketing across transport within the area served by any metropolitan rail services;

(b) specify the governance arrangements for metropolitan rail services provided for by a corporation under subparagraph (a)(i).

(4) For the purpose of this section—

‘local metroisation area plan’ means a plan for the delivery of rail services and ancillary services to an area served by metropolitan rail provision, including—

(a) the intended outcome of the provision of such services;

(b) station access and interchange arrangements;

(c) the funding model for those services;

(d) a projection of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre travelled using the relevant metropolitan rail provision;

‘mayoral authorities’ means—

(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning given by section 107A(8) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(b) a mayoral combined county authority within the meaning given by section 27(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

‘metropolitan rail services’ means rail services that start and end within an area with a radius of 25 km from a designated point within a local authority or mayoral authority area.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for rail metroisation, including cooperation with mayoral authorities to deliver that metroisation.

New clause 59—GBR contribution to town growth—

“Great British Railways may enter into a joint venture or partnership vehicle with a mayoral development corporation for the purpose of delivering rail infrastructure and services to town growth zones, station investment zones, or new green towns promoted by, or otherwise connected with, that mayoral development corporation.”

This new clause would enable GBR to enter into agreements with mayoral development corporations to deliver rail to areas of new local growth.

Government amendments 92 and 93.

Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert

“on an equal basis via any means of sale, including online and at station ticket offices,”.

This amendment would give GBR a statutory function to ensure that passenger fares must be sold at ticket offices on the same basis as online.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Amendment 56, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) ensuring the safety, including safety from assault, of all GBR and non-GBR employees that facilitate railway services, and

(i) ensuring that there are safe staffing levels to facilitate railway services.”

Amendment 64, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(h) acting as the single employer of all persons currently employed by—

(i) Network Rail,

(ii) franchises operated by DfT Operator Limited,

(iii) franchises operated by rail companies under contracts for passenger rail services between those companies and the Department for Transport, and

(iv) such other companies operating or facilitating rail services as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that any such specification is made following consultation with and with the agreement of relevant trade unions.”

This amendment would add to GBR’s statutory functions a duty to act as a single employer for all rail workers transferring into it from Network Rail and DfT franchises, and for persons employed by rail companies wholly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers to be transferred into GBR subject to the agreement of those ministers.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”

This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.

(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”

This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.

Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(a) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal under Section 67 a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary.”

Amendment 166, page 4, line 15, at end insert—

“(d) a regional railway undertaking that is nominated by any other body that is a relevant local government body for the purposes of this subsection.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘regional railway undertaking’ means a company that is—

(a) wholly owned by a relevant local government body, or

(b) limited by guarantee.”

This amendment would ensure that a devolution agreement could be reached with a devolved railway body whose geographic coverage may vary from current mayoral area boundaries.

Government amendments 94 and 95.

Amendment 150, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”

This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.

Amendment 46, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of a direction, variation or revocation published in accordance with subsection (5) to the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons.

(5B) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”

This amendment would require that any published direction, or variation or revocation of a direction, issued to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State is provided to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.

Amendment 151, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.

Amendment 152, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may only give guidance under this section if—

(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and

(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”

This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.

Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 7, line 27, at end insert

“, including the levying of charges on providers of railway rolling stock.”

This amendment ensures that the charges GBR may impose include possible levies on rolling stock companies.

Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after “publish” insert “lay before Parliament”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the Rail Strategy before Parliament.

Amendment 4, page 8, line 23, at end insert

“for the next 30 years for”.

This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.

Amendment 55, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) the expansion of the railway network to rural population settlements that are currently not served by the railway, and

(d) co-operation between GBR and relevant local and regional transport authorities, for the purpose of integrating railways with bus services and active travel options including cycling routes and walking routes.”

This amendment would require that the rail strategy to include measures to support rail travel in rural areas, and measures to better integrate rail travel with other travel options, including active travel.

Amendment 68, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) resolving key capacity constraints of national strategic importance, including Ely Junction.”

This amendment is related to NC35. It would require that the Rail Strategy includes consideration of key capacity constraints, and include Ely Junction as such a constraint.

Amendment 72, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(c) the provision of rail services to areas experiencing permanent or seasonal population change within the meaning of section (Population change: railway services).”

Amendment 65, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”).

(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”

Amendment 66, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—

(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and

(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.

(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”

Amendment 85, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(2A) The rail strategy must include Key Performance Indicators for GBR, including—

(a) for operating a safe railway,

(b) for promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,

(c) for promoting the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods,

(d) for increasing the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport,

(e) for promoting high levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers Council,

(f) for minimising the number of services delayed or cancelled,

(g) for delivering value for money, taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,

(h) for improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.

(2B) The rail strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 38, page 8, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) When the strategy is revised or replaced [in accordance with subsection (4)(b)], the Secretary must lay before Parliament the revised or replaced strategy, subject to subsection (4B).

(4B) The duty under subsection (4A) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that all revisions made to the strategy are non-substantive.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any replacement, or substantively revised, rail strategy.

Amendment 86, page 8, line 34, leave out

“the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement strategy”

and insert

“the revised or replacement strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 170, page 8, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) When preparing the rail strategy, the Secretary of State must ensure that it aligns with the ten-year strategy for UK Infrastructure, CP 1344.”

This amendment would require the rail strategy to align with the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.

Amendment 90, page 9, line 2, after “Ministers” insert

“, Scottish Ministers, the Mayor of London, Mayors of Mayoral Combined Authorities or Mayoral Combined County Authorities,”.

Amendment 171, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, at end insert—

“(d) the ten-year strategy for UK infrastructure, CP 1344.”

This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to have regard to the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.

Amendment 87, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(4) Great British Railways must prepare an annual report to be laid before Parliament detailing its performance in meeting, and its forward plan to meet, its statutory duties.”

Amendment 67, in clause 17, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Railways about how they intend to meet the target under this section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”

Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (a) and insert—

“(a) so as to protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”

This amendment replaces the requirement to consider the interests of users of the railway and needs of disabled users of the railway with a requirement to protect and promote the rights of those persons.

Amendment 70, page 10, line 17, after “particular,” insert

“in the manner best calculated to make improvements for”.

This amendment would require the duty-holders to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network rather than only promoting the interests of disabled persons.

Amendment 53, page 10, line 26, at end insert

“including the value of public investments”.

This amendment adds a requirement to consider the value of public investments as part of the general duty on cost-efficiency in relation to public funds.

Amendment 30, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) so as to maximise, so far as practicable within the resources available, the social and economic benefits resulting from the operation of the railway network in Great Britain,

(h) having regard to the effect the provision of railway services has on the environment,

(i) so as to increase the use of railways relative to other modes of transport,

(j) so as to achieve targets towards the full accessibility of the rail network,

(k) so as to secure the affordability of fares,

(l) so as to improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.”

This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to maximise social and economic benefits, achieve targets for modal shift and accessibility, secure the affordability of fares and improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.

Amendment 35, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to promote the transfer into direct employment by GBR of non-GBR employees who facilitate railway services.”

This amendment ensures that Great British Railways performs its duties in a way that ensures the maximum possible insourcing and integration of the rail workforce.

Amendment 48, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) acting in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner,”.

This amendment would place a requirement on Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR to exercise their functions in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

Amendment 49, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers—

(i) by rail,

(ii) by rail relative to private car use and domestic flights, and

(iii) resulting from the integration of rail services with active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry and any other public transport services.”

Amendment 157, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway,

(h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth,

(i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services,

(j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways,

(k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and

(l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.”

This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.

Amendment 59, page 10, line 28, at end insert—

“provided that they must not favour the conditions of paragraph (f) over the conditions of paragraph (a) to the extent that any station may not have step-free access as a result of balancing the requirements.”

Amendment 36, page 10, line 32, at end insert—

“‘non-GBR employees’ means—

(a) employees of a company or body contracted to provide services to GBR to facilitate railway services, including cleaning;

(b) employees of companies granted a licence to operate services on GBR infrastructure;

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Amendment 158, page 10, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,

(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance,

(c) passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,

(d) affordability and value for money, including levels of fares, the availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money,

(e) passenger growth and network expansion, including growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”

This amendment defines standards of railway performance for the purposes of Great British Railways functions.

Amendment 167, page 10, line 41, at end insert—

“‘rights’ of passengers and disabled passengers includes rights under the Equality Act 2010, data protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and consumer protection legislation (including the Consumer Rights Act 2015), and other legal rights to non-discrimination, accessibility, privacy, fair treatment, information and redress.”

This amendment is consequential upon amendment 29.

Amendment 57, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) In meeting the duty under subsection (2), they must—

(a) take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce incidents of assault against persons working on the railways, and

(b) ensure levels of staffing sufficient to meet the duty.”

This amendment would ensure GBR will have a duty to reduce staff assaults and protect safe staffing levels.

Amendment 159, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment requires the ORR to promote competition in its appeals role.

Amendment 160, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.

Amendment 31, page 11, line 28, at end insert—

“(h) its functions as the enforcement body for rail passenger rights and obligations, consumer protection and accessibility, including passenger related licence conditions.”

This amendment means that the ORR’s duty to promote competition does not apply when it conflicts with its passenger rights enforcement duties.

Amendment 54, page 11, line 31, insert—

“provided that such exercise does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration or unreasonably increase the cost to public funds of providing railway services.”

This amendment means that ORR must exercise its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds.

Amendment 91, in clause 25, page 14, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not designate a service currently commissioned by—

(a) a local government body as defined in Section 5, or

(b) Transport for London

without obtaining consent from the relevant body.”

Amendment 75, page 14, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may not vary or revoke a designation so as to permit the operation of railway passenger services by any person other than a public sector company.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing any designation of services in such a way that allows operation by a company other than a public sector company.

Amendment 76, in clause 28, page 16, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) Regulations under this section must not provide that railway passenger services are exempt from designation unless those services are to be provided by a public sector company.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from exempting any passenger service from designation unless it is provided by the public sector.

Amendment 77, in clause 31, page 16, line 31, leave out from “contract” to end of line 37 and insert “to—

(a) Great British Railways, or

(b) one or more GBR companies that are public sector companies.”

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of passenger rail services is performed using public sector companies exclusively.

Amendment 88, page 16, line 32, at end insert—

“(a) Great British Railways or a GBR Company may sub-contract a direct award under this section to a private train operating company.”

Amendment 78, page 17, line 5, leave out from “companies” to end of line 6.

This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Scottish Ministers.

Amendment 79, page 17, line 11, leave out from “companies” to end of line 12.

This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 80, page 17, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) In this section “direct award” means the award of a public service contract without any competitive tendering procedure.”

Amendment 143, in clause 34, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 144 to 147 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, or young people aged 26 to 30.

Amendment 32, page 18, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are British residents to travel at discounted fares for an annual fee on railway passenger services provided by all licensed rail operators.”

Amendment 144, page 18, line 30, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 145, page 18, line 33, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 146, page 18, line 37, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 147, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert—

“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.

Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—

“(a) Great British Railways, being a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State,

(b) a GBR company, that is, a company wholly owned (directly or through one or more wholly owned subsidiaries) by Great British Railways,

(c) a company that is wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers,

(d) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers, or

(e) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;”.

This amendment defines GBR and GBR companies in such a way as to ensure that they are always public sector companies.

Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) must protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”

This amendment adds the requirement to protect and promote passenger rights and the rights of disabled persons to the duties of the Passengers’ Council.

Amendment 71, page 19, line 35, leave out

“must have particular regard to”

and insert—

“must take all reasonable steps to promote improvements in meeting”

This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.

Amendment 60, page 20, line 2, at end insert—

“(2) In taking into account costs under subsection (1)(b), and having regard to its duty under paragraph (1)(a), the Council must not treat the cost of providing step-free access as sufficient reason for preferment of other reasonable adjustments to meet the interests and needs of disabled persons.”

Amendment 47, in clause 42, page 23, line 12, leave out from “must” to the end of line 18, and insert—

“take such action, from the range of enforcement actions open to them, as is necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention, unless there is a legal impediment to so doing or the issue has satisfactorily been remedied.

(4) The ORR must take such enforcement action as required by this section within one month of the matter being referred by the Passengers’ Council.”

This amendment would require the ORR to take enforcement action within one month of an issue being referred to it by the Passengers’ Council.

Amendment 61, in clause 46, page 24, line 29, at end insert—

“including provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.

Amendment 161, in clause 47, page 25, line 24, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert—

“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”

This amendment gives the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.

Amendment 39, in clause 48, page 26, line 3, before “a mayoral strategic authority” insert “the mayor of”.

This amendment clarifies that statutory duties to consult apply to the mayor of a mayoral combined authority.

Amendment 51, in clause 49, page 26, line 29, at end insert—

“(fa) any proposed—

(i) closure,

(ii) reduction in provision of, or

(iii) amendment to the operating hours of,

ticket offices,”

This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council on closure of, reduction in provision of, or any changes to opening hours of, ticket offices.

Amendment 58, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(h) any proposed changes to staffing levels at stations or on trains.

(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsections (2)(a) and 2(h).”

This amendment would require any changes to staffing at stations or on trains to be subject to consultation with the Passengers’ Council, and require the Passengers’ Council to consult the public on such changes as well as on changes under subsection (2)(a).

Amendment 62, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(h) provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”

Amendment 52, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

“(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsection (2)(fa).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51 and requires the Passengers’ Council to consult the public about proposals from GBR to close, or change the opening hours of, ticket offices.

Amendment 63, in clause 53, page 28, line 12, after “persons” insert

“including but not limited to provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.

Government amendment 96.

Amendment 69, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In performing the duty under subsection (1), Great British Railways must have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for both freight and passenger services.”

This amendment would require Great British Railways, in performing its capacity duty, to have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for the benefit of both freight and passenger services.

Amendment 162, page 36, line 1, leave out from “to” the end of line 4 and insert—

“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—

(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.

This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.

Amendment 8, page 36, line 4, at end insert—

“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.

This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.

Amendment 9, page 36, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—

(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;

(b) consult—

(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and

(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.

(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.

(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.

(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”

This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.

Amendment 163, in clause 64, page 36, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.

Amendment 148, in clause 68, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”

This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.

Amendment 26, page 38, line 16, leave out from “must” to the end of line 20 and insert—

“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”

This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.

Amendment 27, page 38, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—

“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or

(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”

This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.

Government amendments 97 to 106

Amendment 73, in clause 70, page 40, line 36, at end insert—

“a GBR company, or other public sector company,”.

This amendment would change the definition of an infrastructure manager in the relevant 2016 regulations so as to exclude GBR companies and other public sector companies, alongside GBR.

Amendment 74, page 41, line 4, at end insert—

“(4) In regulation 14 (establishing, determining and collecting charges) after paragraph (9) insert—

‘(9A) Paragraph (9) does not apply to GBR.’

(5) In regulation 19 (capacity allocation), after paragraph (4) insert—

‘(4A) Paragraph (4) does not apply to GBR.’”

This amendment exempts GBR from the requirement on infrastructure managers to operate separate accounts for separate functions.

Amendment 164, page 41, line 5, leave out clause 71.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts.

Government amendment 107.

Amendment 149, in clause 72, page 42, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) Non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this clause.”

This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under clause 72, clarifying that privately funded sidings and terminals are not brought into scope.

Amendment 165, page 42, line 27, at end insert—

“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”

This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.

Government amendments 108 and 109.

Amendment 41, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 40, page 48, line 6, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 42, page 49, line 4, after “must consult" insert “the mayor of”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Government amendments 110 to 117.

Amendment 44, page 55, line 38, leave out clause 92.

Amendment 45, in clause 92, page 56, line 24, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for the public ownership of rolling stock by Great British Railways;

(b) make provision for Great British Railways to buy and own future passenger rolling stock as—

(i) current rolling stock contracts end, and

(ii) old rolling stock are taken out of commission.”

Government amendments 118 and 119.

Amendment 82, in clause 96, page 58, line 5, after “company” insert “wholly and”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Scottish Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.

Amendment 83, page 58, line 7, after “company” insert “wholly and”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Welsh Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.

Amendment 84, page 58, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) In this Act, a company is ‘wholly and jointly owned’ by the Secretary of State, Great British Railways, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers if every member of the company is—

(a) one or more of those persons, or

(b) a company that is itself wholly owned by one or more of those persons.”

This amendment defines the terms “wholly and jointly owned” in such a way as to ensure that companies that are wholly or jointly owned by GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, are always fully public sector companies.

Amendment 3, page 59, line 15, at end insert—

“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”

This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.

Government amendments 120 to 123.

Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 63, line 6, at end insert—

“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”

This aims to ensure that the Code of Practice explicitly includes a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.

Government amendments 168 and 169.

Government amendment 124.

Amendment 154, in schedule 2, page 65, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) The date specified in sub-paragraph 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.

Amendment 7, page 65, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.

(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—

(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);

(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);

(c) fares;

(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;

(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”

This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.

Amendment 43, page 66, line 19, at end insert “mayor”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.

Amendment 155, page 67, line 9, at end insert—

“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”

This amendment requires GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.

Amendment 156, page 67, line 22, at end insert—

“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”

This amendment requires the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.

Government amendment 125.

Amendment 6, page 74, line 27, at end insert “including passenger services”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 7, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.

Government amendments 126 to 140.

Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 92, line 20, at end insert—

“, and any person exercising functions of a public nature on its behalf in connection with rail systems or services for which Great British Railways is responsible.”

This amendment makes any person exercising functions of a public nature on behalf of Great British Railways subject to the public sector equality duty.

Government amendments 141 and 142.

[Keir Mather]

It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts.

On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face.

The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill.

Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Has the hon. Member sought all the appropriate permissions?

[Munira Wilson]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Munira Wilson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.

[Keir Mather]

Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!

The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.

Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.

Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.

As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.

In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.

It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1

Direction to offer revenue certainty contract

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.

When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.

From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.

My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.

What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.

Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.

There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.

Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.

The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.

With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Follow that, Lee Pitcher.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) a very happy birthday. I am sure the rest of the Conservative Members are waiting for him at the party—I know they like those. How was that, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Current events in the middle east have once again demonstrated the volatility and vulnerability of global fuel supplies. A cleaner aviation sector should also be a more resilient one. Producing sustainable aviation fuel at home reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks, while giving airlines and passengers greater long-term certainty. It is for that reason that I believe the Lords amendments are vital. This is about our home and our circular economy.

Before Parliament, I worked in the water industry for 30 years. One of the projects I led was working with farmers on practical measures to prevent flooding, including planting winter cover crops in between pea harvests to protect soil and reduce run-off. Those same winter cover crops, or similar ones, can also play a role as a feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel. That is why I see a real opportunity here to line up environmental improvement and the economic benefits that come from SAF. Better soil structure and less erosion mean better outcomes for our local waterways and a healthier local environment, while farmers and rural communities can gain an additional income stream from doing the right thing for their land.

Since coming to Parliament, one of my biggest goals has been the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport, which is essential to local jobs, growth and prosperity. But I want to go further still: I want Doncaster Sheffield airport to become a beacon of cleaner, greener aviation, and sustainable aviation fuel is a huge part of that transition.

[Lee Pitcher]

I certainly do agree. In the business case for Doncaster Sheffield airport, the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority says that around 5,000 jobs will be created directly, with the creation of many more jobs indirectly. When I visit schools, as my hon. Friend does, I see our future pilots, engineers, manufacturers and aircrew. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I want people to live in Doncaster, work in Doncaster, have their careers in Doncaster, spend their leisure time in Doncaster and basically have the passion for the place that I do. I know that my hon. Friend does, too.

DSA is ideally placed to lead on how we become a cleaner, greener aviation economy locally. It is surrounded by agricultural land and is close to the Humber, the UK’s leading hub for green energy and fuel. A domestic SAF industry means more UK manufacturing, more skilled work and more investment in the kind of modern facilities that can power regional growth. We know how important that is right now.

Taken together, the benefits are absolutely clear: for our countryside, we can improve soil and water outcomes, support more resilient farming and restore nature; for our rural communities, we can open up new opportunities, diversify incomes and improve productivity; for industry, we can build manufacturing capability and secure supply chains here at home; and for aviation, we can reduce dependence on volatile foreign oil and give the sector a credible route by which to decarbonise. Globally, we can reduce the carbon impact of air travel, which is exactly what we need to do if we are to meet our climate goals in a way that supports jobs and prosperity and secures the planet for our children and future generations. This is the right approach for an industrial strategy that is serious about delivery and an environmental strategy that is serious about our future.

If we are asking the public to help to de-risk and scale up a strategic fuel, the jobs, investment, apprenticeships and manufacturing capacity should be created right here, right now in the UK. These amendments keep the value chain onshore, strengthen British supply chains and ensure that decarbonisation supports growth in our communities, not just demand somewhere else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.

I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering.

The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation.

The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF.

What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future?

Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets?

The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it.

Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Marvellous. I call Chris Vince.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken me by surprise by not picking me last.

I thank the Minister for opening this debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for his comments and wish him a very happy birthday. Without wanting to get into any party political back and forth, I would like to say that we had a really productive Bill Committee, in which Members from all parts of the House came together collaboratively because we all wanted this to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who saw the Bill through Committee, was a huge driving force in ensuring that it will get on the statute book and that we will see the benefit of it.

I am being a little bit naughty, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is rare for me, but I particularly wanted to speak in this debate today because I was a member of the Bill Committee—one of my first in this place—and I saw the legislation through all its stages, from First Reading to Committee, only to miss Third Reading due to being on paternity leave. I think that on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I did get my priorities right.

However, as the Bill returns to this Chamber for the consideration of Lords amendments, I want to say how genuinely excited I have been to be part of this process. I believe that the Bill will make a difference not only to the aviation industry, which is hugely important to my constituency of Harlow, but also to Harlow itself. As I have mentioned previously in this place, my constituency starts at the end of Stansted airport’s runway. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was in his place today, he would point out that Stansted airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, so I am doing him a service by mentioning that.

This Bill will make a huge difference to people in my constituency. Hundreds of people are employed at Stansted airport, but Stansted airport college also has huge links with Harlow college. An earlier speaker mentioned how, when he goes into schools, he sees the younger people as the cabin crew, the pilot and the ground staff of the future. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stansted college—I did let the Leader of the Opposition know that I was visiting her constituency—to see the huge difference that that made to young people. We are not just talking about jobs; we are talking about careers and high-level occupations. I am really pleased that we will see 4,100 more jobs at Stansted airport because of its expansion. I am not expecting all of those 4,000 people to come from Harlow—although I have put in a request to the Manchester Airports Group—but that would be nice to see. We also know the difference that this Bill will make to the environment.

Naysayers will say that the increase of SAF production is not the answer, and that we need to decrease the number of people who fly, but we must be realistic about that. As I have said before, the expansion of Stansted airport will mean an additional 4,000 jobs for my area of the country. Aviation supports business travel and freight for millions, but SAF will also help to deliver on the green, clean energy and growth that has been so important to this Government. We know that, over its lifetime of usage, the use of SAF will reduce greenhouse gases by 70%, which is something that we can all get behind.

I know that I am expected to speak about the amendments, so I will briefly touch on Lords amendment 6. I am confident that the Secretary of State and the Minister will continue to consult those they consider appropriate ahead of any legislation. I am very reassured to hear the Minister say that he has already engaged with and got support from the devolved nations on this matter, but will he reflect on the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about how SAF production could be part of the Government’s wider aims and the conversations he has with Energy Ministers about getting to net zero? Decreasing our carbon usage and green energy are so important to that. When I go into schools and meet the pilots, cabin crew and ground staff of the future, the No. 1 thing they bring up are their concerns about climate change.

Finally, it has been a pleasure to be part of this process and see this Bill through Parliament. The Bill is a clear sign that this Labour Government recognise the importance of our aviation sector for the future of young people and for business and international trade. It is also clear that the Government recognise the importance of green energy solutions to ensure that this country and the world have a positive future. Although I missed Third Reading—this is the joke coming—I am glad to be here for the Bill’s final descent towards Royal Assent.

Railways Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is that the very good conditions that private companies have been forced into by trade unions will end up TUPE-ed across to these state employees and, ultimately, the best conditions will be the ones that get delivered to the most, all in that huge new employer.

Many Members from across the House have highlighted the importance of connecting underserved areas, and nowhere in the country is that case more powerfully made than in the south-west. Before closing, I would like to highlight to the Minister two examples affecting my constituency. Both featured in my maiden speech, so I know he is familiar with them. I will continue to champion them, as well as the need to secure the railway line at Dawlish.

Many CrossCountry trains currently pass through Ivybridge station without stopping, because the platform is too short. That forces local people to travel by bus or car to Plymouth, Totnes or Tiverton, making rail travel far less convenient. I have secured with local stakeholders the funding for a feasibility study for the extension. That modest project would make a huge difference to our community and I hope it will not be hindered by the Bill.

I am also committed to securing a Plymouth metro, including plans for a station in Plympton in my constituency. Plympton’s 30,000 residents have been without a station for more than 60 years, and it would be transformative for that part of my patch. Both Plympton and Ivybridge have many residents working at Devonport naval base and at the growing defence hubs in Turnchapel and Langage. The Government have promised billions of pounds to the city as part of a defence deal, but if that deal does not include funding for transport, what is the point? I urge the Government to ensure a joined-up approach in delivering the railway that the city and surrounding communities need to deliver on the defence role that the Government want.

I support the efforts to improve our railways and to bring ticket prices down, but a simple return to a nationalised British Rail is not the answer. As Conservatives, we understand the importance of retaining a strong role for the public sector through open access, protecting rail freight, improving efficiency and providing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Many colleagues have been waiting for a while to speak. To enable me to get every colleague in, I need to drop the speaking limit to three minutes and encourage Members not to take interventions. The next person to speak will be Dr Scott Arthur with three minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a wonderful surprise.

I am a huge fan of rail. Every week I travel to this place via rail, and on my usual train, I am able to get to London in just four hours and 20 minutes. Since I came to the Chamber today, I have had an email from LNER saying that that time will be decreased by 10 minutes, so already this Bill is delivering for people in my constituency. The journey is only slightly longer than the equivalent flight, though it uses 14 times less carbon dioxide and is 100 times more relaxing. Most of the time, the journey runs smoothly—LNER is publicly owned—but like everyone here and across the UK, I am familiar with the delays and cancellations that regularly disrupt our wider railway. That is why I welcome the reforms that the Railways Bill brings. It is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get our railway system back on track.

The creation of Great British Railways will put passengers before profits, simplify ticket purchasing and improve passenger accessibility across the network—something we have heard about already. The Bill also respects and preserves the devolution agreements concerning rail, giving Scottish Ministers the power of guidance and direction over GBR and ensuring that those changes directly benefit my constituents and the Scottish rail sector more widely. Importantly, the Bill will trigger the integration of track and train provision across the UK. That integration has been operating in Scotland for some years and does, for the most part, work well.

It is true that there are some points of concern around provision in Scotland, including regular cancellations and delays, but by and large the system works well. I have to say that the reason that rail is in public ownership in Scotland is due to years of campaigning by both the Labour party and our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. The relationship between Network Rail and ScotRail is one area where GBR could take note. It is an effective and joined-up relationship between track and train operators, and will be vital to a successful national rail service.

I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a basis for Scottish and UK Ministers to work together and provide efficient cross-border services, and I look forward to seeing the memorandum of understanding, which will lay out exactly how that relationship will work. I look forward to supporting the Bill. I must say, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have asked for a lot of local improvements to be delivered via this Bill, yet they do not intend to support the Bill itself. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Talking of cake, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak today in this debate. I hope that the Bill marks the start of a new era for our rail system.

Bracknell’s rail links are its lifeblood, connecting us to jobs, friends, family and opportunities through lines to London and Reading, as well as to Gatwick airport from Crowthorne and Sandhurst. That is why I am so delighted that South Western Railway has now been brought back into public ownership, with Great Western Railway services to follow shortly. The renationalisation of our rail services will create more opportunities for growth, more opportunities for investment, and a rail service for the public good.

First, the Chancellor froze rail fares in the Budget, which means my constituents will save almost £300 on the cost of a season ticket into London, and now we are laying the foundations for a new, modern and joined-up railway system, owned by the public and run for the public. The new GBR livery revealed today, which proudly incorporates our Union flag in its design, is, I think, a powerful symbol of the national pride that we should feel in our railways, but which has, for many years, been undermined by high prices and low reliability.

Bracknell is already seeing the benefits of renationalisation, including the ongoing upgrade of the fleet on the Reading to Waterloo line. The new Arterio trains will provide 50% increased capacity compared with the outdated class 455 fleet, and will offer accessible toilets, air conditioning, charging points at every seat, real-time information screens, on-board wi-fi and walk-through carriages, meaning that more people can travel in better conditions every day. These trains were first purchased back in 2017 at a cost of £1 billion but have been stuck in the sidings. What greater symbol can there be for the failure of privatisation than that? I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me recently and for all his work to roll out this new stock.

I am also delighted that the Bill makes provision for GBR to take control of the timetable, as the current system has led to some inexplicable gaps in service. As the SWR timetable stands, after 9 pm there is only one service an hour from Bracknell to Reading. Trains from Reading to Bracknell are also reduced to an hourly service after 10 pm. Needless to say, that has a significant impact on the ability of Bracknell Forest residents to travel for work and leisure. Again, I call for that to be addressed.

The north downs line is deeply unreliable, and I know that Members across the House are concerned about the need to electrify it. The Minister knows that I care passionately about a rail connection to Heathrow airport as well, which is vital, and I know he cares passionately about delivering that along with private sector investment. On that, I will—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

One of the most special moments of my first year as an MP was singing ABBA on the Penistone line train with the wonderful We Can Survive Singers, while travelling through my beautiful constituency. This line is the spine connecting south and west Yorkshire, running between Huddersfield and Sheffield. It courses through eight constituencies, serves over half a million people, and connects six hospitals, four universities, several further education colleges, and hundreds of schools and GP surgeries. It laces together communities with rich histories, vibrant high streets and industry with huge potential.

When I was growing up, our south Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ broken promises resulted in an unacceptable north-south transport divide. On the day that the previous Conservative Government announced that the money for Network North was going to be spent on potholes in London, three out of the six Penistone line services were cancelled. What about Reform? The Reform Members have not even bothered to turn up to this debate. They do not care about rail, but this Government do.

I am thoroughly delighted to support this Bill to take back control through Great British Railways, to deliver improvements for customers, and to take long-term decisions in the national interest. Those at the Penistone Line Partnership are brilliant advocates for our local line, and their voices will be strengthened by the Bill’s introduction of a new passenger watchdog, which will set tough standards.

This Labour Government’s Bill—along with the work of our Labour mayor, Oliver Coppard, and local councils —provides the opportunity to restore the transport network, so that it is once again the envy of the world, including by delivering phases 1 and 2 of the Penistone line upgrades. Our Labour Government have already begun to power that change with our £48 million investment in phase 1, and phase 2 is much needed.

We must go further and fulfil the recommendation of Lord Blunkett’s Yorkshire plan for rail, which includes delivering two trains an hour. South and west Yorkshire deserve better than the once-an-hour service we currently have on this line. It is crucial that the second stage is covered in the next spending review to ensure that my constituents in Dodworth, Silkstone Common, Penistone, Chapeltown and all the places in between can get to college, university, hospital and employment. My constituency helped to build the prosperity of this great nation, and it needs this line’s second upgrade to ensure that it is once more the beating heart of rail.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

As we mark 200 years of our railways, it is fitting that we are embarking on a new chapter in their history. They continue to be an integral part of the story of Britain, as I am reminded every time I visit London St Pancras, which helped Burton upon Trent to become a brewing powerhouse. Below platform, passengers walk where Burton beer barrels were once stacked high—a reminder of the importance of our railways in shaping the very fabric of Britain, and of course supplying punters with the very best beer.

Great British Railways will be the new guiding mind of our railways, joining up operations and putting passengers at the heart of the rail service. Particularly important is the Bill’s focus on disabled people, who must currently navigate a network of inaccessible stations and who constantly worry about whether accessibility services will be in place. Our railways are and must be for all.

My constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter borders what will be the new home of GBR, Derby. Putting aside our rivalries for a second, that will bring benefits to my area and the wider region, and build on 185 years of rail expertise. The long-term rail strategy will be the first of its kind in setting out strategic objectives over the next 30 years. Just as in defence, we are creating an always-on supply chain. I welcome that long-term approach, which means we can bring security to rail workers and prevent the cliff edge that has affected workers in Derby and Newton Aycliffe. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) would like to see the return of the InterCity swallow livery, but delivering improved passenger services must be the priority; that is what this Government will be judged on.

The Select Committee has heard concerns about rail freight, which have been addressed today, particularly in relation to clause 63. We also heard concerns about the operator appeal process as set out in clause 68, which is equivalent to a judicial review; some of the evidence we heard suggests that that is a very high threshold.

The Railways Bill is exactly the change that my Burton and Uttoxeter constituents want to see. With public ownership, we are taking a long-term approach to the railways, with investment through GBR putting passengers and railway workers back at the heart of their railway. In 2027, CrossCountry and East Midlands Railway will come into public ownership, and it will not be long until the people of Burton and Uttoxeter will see the benefit of a publicly owned railway. Right now, the reality is that people face unaffordable tickets, unreliable or cancelled services, inaccessible stations and overcrowded carriages. For many of my constituents, those are barriers to railway travel. The Bill is about changing that. It is how we keep the promise we made in the election to get our railways back on track.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

With permission, I will update the House on the steps this Government are taking to realise the benefits of expansion at Heathrow airport, having invited proposals for a third runway earlier this year.

Today I am launching a review of the airports national policy statement. Britain wants to fly, and this Government will act to meet public aspirations. Our review of the ANPS will ensure that while we unlock long-term capacity for more flights at the nation’s only hub airport, we will also meet our obligations to passengers, communities and the environment. Today is a step forward for UK aviation and infrastructure, supporting growth in the economy and enabling a modern, efficient transport system that harnesses international investment, boosts connectivity and strengthens UK competitiveness.

We are committed to making a decision on a third runway at Heathrow within this Parliament, and we are clear in our ambition to see flights taking off on a new runway in 2035. We said we would get on with this, and we have. When the previous Government set up the Davies commission, it took them five years to publish the original draft ANPS. We will get to the same point in 18 months, with the process completed by the end of 2026, showing our commitment to delivering progress swiftly but robustly. When we say we back the builders, not the blockers, we mean it.

But this is not a blank cheque. Expansion at Heathrow must minimise cost for passengers and customers. The taxpayer must not be expected to foot the bill. That is why the scheme will be privately financed—both the core project and the related infrastructure improvements. Extra staff and passengers must be able to get to and from the airport without turning the M4 and M25 into Europe’s largest car park. Crucially, the expansion must align with our legal, environmental and climate commitments. Starting the review of the ANPS is critical to delivering expansion and will provide the basis for decisions on any future planning applications.

The world has changed since the last ANPS review in 2018, which is when it was designated. New environmental and climate obligations have been introduced, and patterns of travel have changed. However, pretty much every UK airport saw its busiest summer on record. We could put our head in the sand and pretend this is not the case, but we would be doing a disservice to our economy and to the next generation. That is why, in carrying out this review, we will consider how any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests: that it contributes to economic growth across the country; that it meets our air quality obligations; that it is consistent with our noise commitments; and, crucially, that it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero.

We will seek the independent opinion of the Climate Change Committee, which I will write to shortly to request this advice. While a third runway at Heathrow has been factored into carbon budget 6, it is right that we update our modelling and seek the views of the CCC. Given Heathrow’s national importance, we will also consider naming the airport as critical national priority infrastructure, in line with our approach to low-carbon energy projects. We are further considering whether to name a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the project under the Planning Act 2008, providing additional clarity to stakeholders and the local community. It is clear that this is a large and complex programme that requires a thorough and evidence-led approach. Over the coming months, my Department will develop analysis on economic and environmental impacts of expansion. We will also undertake an appraisal of sustainability, as required by statute, alongside a habitats regulations assessment and other necessary technical work. If amendments are needed to the ANPS as a result of the review, we expect to consult on an amended policy statement by next summer. Communities will be able to have their say and we will shortly publish an updated stakeholder engagement approach to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the process.

Earlier this year, we invited potential promoters to submit proposals for delivering a third runway at Heathrow. Seven proposals were received and were considered by officials from the Department for Transport, the Treasury and expert financial and technical advisers. Following that assessment, two potential schemes remain under active consideration: a proposal from Heathrow Airport Limited and a proposal from the Arora Group. We know that we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities, investors and users of Heathrow as soon as possible, so we are seeking further information on the two proposed schemes with a view to reaching a final decision on a single scheme to inform the remainder of the ANPS review by the end of November.

When making that decision, we will consider: the interoperability of the proposed scheme with existing infrastructure; the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes; the land take and impact on surrounding homes and communities; the evidence that the scheme can be privately financed; and the economic benefits of the scheme. This Government are committed to moving quickly but we will also do this properly.

To deliver the scheme on time, the Government are also pressing ahead with a series of enabling reforms. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline the delivery of major infrastructure, including Heathrow. That includes faster consenting routes and more proportionate consultations. On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. We are establishing the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver modernised airspace. That will initially prioritise airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and will also make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London. We will initiate slot reform to ensure future allocation maximises benefits of an expanded Heathrow, as well as approved growth at Gatwick and Luton for passengers, local communities and businesses.

Expanding Heathrow will be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK. Rigorous and effective cost control will be essential to its success, both in minimising any impact on airline charges and costs to passengers and in maintaining credibility with financial markets. The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery. We expect the CAA to publish a working paper in November, with a view to that work completing next summer.

This is a landmark opportunity for Heathrow, for the aviation sector and for the UK economy. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring the expansion is delivered in a way that is timely, cost-efficient and environmentally responsible. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about our pace of delivery, and I roundly reject his criticisms on this. We are the party that is accelerating Heathrow expansion, today setting out this swift and robust review of the ANPS to help us determine applications swiftly. Previous work to get a final airports national policy statement by the last Government took more than five years. This Government will do it three years faster. We are getting on with the job and taking the important and sometimes difficult decisions to get Britain building. I gently remind him that when his great ally and mentor, Boris Johnson, was Prime Minister, he went to such lengths to duck decisions on this issue that he ended up in Afghanistan.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to care about consumers and cost control, and that is precisely why we are reviewing the ANPS and why we are starting the work, via the Civil Aviation Authority, on the model of economic regulation. If we fail to plan for future capacity, prices will rise and choice will shrink. This review will be integral to keeping the UK competitive and connected by ensuring sufficient capacity, sustainable growth and fair competition between global hub airports. I agree with him that consumers deserve affordable fares and greener aviation, and that is what we are working to deliver.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about climate change, service access and our reforms to judicial reviews. On service access, I can be clear with him that we expect this project and associated infrastructure improvements to be privately financed. Through the ANPS review, we will be looking holistically at public transport requirements, be that southern rail access, western rail access or how people get to and from central London. He will recall that, in the spending review, we set out the biggest investment in London’s transport for over 10 years, with £2.2 billion enabling Transport for London to buy new rolling stock on the Piccadilly line and 10 extra Elizabeth line trains. We will work closely with our colleague, the Mayor of London, and TfL to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in place.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the changes that we are making to judicial review, and I would simply say to him that we are acting where his Government had their head in the sand. I am confident that the CAA will look carefully at competition issues in the work that it is doing. I am also confident that, ultimately, we could create 100,000 jobs through expansion at Heathrow. We could boost economic growth as well as opening up new opportunities for trade, tourism and travel. We will do this properly, and that is what we are doing by launching the ANPS review today. I look forward to answering further questions from other hon. Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I look forward to the work she does on this ANPS coming to our Committee in due course. A third runway at Heathrow, combined with all the other agreed—or likely to be agreed—expansions of capacity in London and south-east airports would involve an increase of 177 million passengers, which would be 70% more than the number of passengers in London and the south-east from 2024. I look forward to the Climate Change Committee’s response to the proposal, because it has said that a 35% increase in capacity would be the maximum that would keep the UK compliant with our international legal commitments.

To return to the specifics of the statement, the Secretary of State said that she seeks to minimise costs for passengers and customers, but given that the cost of a third runway will be between £25 billion and £49 billion, how exactly will that cost not be passed on to the airlines and therefore the passengers if the Treasury is not going to fund those costs, which we know it is not? On surface access, ever since the building of the fifth terminal, the local authorities all around Heathrow have been pushing for southern rail access to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has long said—and has clarified recently—that it will not pay the cost of southern rail access, so how does she expect that to be funded? If the M25 and M4 are not to grind to a halt, and if passengers and workers from the west and south of the airport are to be able to get in and out of the airport, how is that to be achieved?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise these issues. We will give very careful and thorough consideration to them in the airports national policy statement review, which will take place in the coming months. She referred to the Climate Change Committee’s opinion on capacity expansion. We are making rapid progress in cleaning up the fuel that is used in planes, and we are making huge efforts to reform our airspace, so that we can have cleaner and more direct flights. The carbon intensity of flying has to come down if we are to have more planes in the air. She was also right to highlight the importance of the regulatory model. That is why we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to do this piece of work over the coming months; it is aligned with the review in the airports national policy statement. We will say more on that in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which made the Government’s intent of supporting the proposed third runway at Heathrow very clear. It was good to hear her recognise the complexity of all that will be needed to deliver it, including major diversionary works on two of the country’s busiest motorways. We Liberal Democrats continue to support the right infrastructure in the right place, which is why we have always supported schemes such as East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, we need the right infrastructure to tackle the right problems, and there are many unanswered questions about the Heathrow third runway.

The New Economics Foundation has been very clear in its analysis that the environmental impact of airport expansion will erode a lot of our carbon emission reduction plans, and many studies have questioned the economic case for Heathrow expansion. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about the dangers of relying solely on the private sector to fund large schemes, as happened in the case of the channel tunnel, which remains an enormously underused asset, partly because of the costs that resulted from the decision to fund it only through the private sector.

It is welcome that the Secretary of State has made her support for Heathrow expansion subject to four tests, but I detect perhaps a slight hint of cognitive dissonance, and a contradiction in the Government setting out timelines for delivering something that they say is subject to four tests. The Secretary of State said that she would hear the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the CCC decides that the preferred option for the Heathrow third runway is incompatible with our carbon emissions and our net zero targets, will she drop her support for the third runway?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask colleagues to keep their questions short, so I can get everybody in.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my Spelthorne constituency is on the southern side of Heathrow airport, and the residents of Stanwell Moor, a village of some 520 homes, are half a mile away from the southern perimeter. They have put up with a lot, including appalling behaviour by Uber drivers, holiday parking and noise pollution. In the consultation, will the people of Stanwell Moor be engaged with directly? I also ask that we measure air and sound pollution, and use current levels as a baseline, so that we can determine the impact of the Heathrow expansion.

A50/A500 Corridor

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon, on the subject of the A50/A500 corridor.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this debate before the House. He is an assiduous Member, and he is doing extremely well in bringing forward his constituents’ issues. Does he agree that the Government must also look at the impact that long-term work will have on the motorists who rely on this road and, in particular, the emergency services? Does he agree that if any improvements are to happen, proper consideration must be given to the impact they will have on the day-to-day lives of the hundreds of his constituents who rely on this road daily, whether for employment or education, or, indeed, at times of emergency?

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.

(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.

(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.

(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.

New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;

(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and

(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.

(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.

(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available.

(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.

New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—

“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.

(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—

(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;

(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;

(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;

(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;

(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;

(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;

(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.

(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—

(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;

(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;

(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and

(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.

(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”

This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.

New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—

“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—

“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””

This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.

New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.

(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”

This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.

New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—

(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;

(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,

(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—

“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—

(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and

(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.

New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and

(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;

(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;

(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;

(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.

(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.

New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;

(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;

(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;

(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;

(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) local councils and local transport authorities;

(b) bus service operators;

(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;

(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and

(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.

(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.

(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—

(a) rural areas;

(b) coastal communities; and

(c) suburban areas.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.

New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—

“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.

(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.

(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.

(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.

(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish—

(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and

(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”

This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.

New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.

(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;

(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;

(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;

(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;

(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and

(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).

New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.

(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—

(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.

New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—

“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.

New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—

(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;

(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.

(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.

New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.

(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”

New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

(2) The review conducted under this section must—

(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,

(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”

New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.

(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.

New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.

New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—

“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.

(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”

This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.

New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—

“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—

(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.

This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.

New clause 27—National Bus Forum—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.

(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.

(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—

(a) HM Government,

(b) trades unions,

(c) bus service operators,

(d) local authorities in England, and

(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.

New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.

New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—

(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,

(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,

(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and

(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”

New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.

(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,

(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and

(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.

New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;

(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;

(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—

“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—

(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and

(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.

(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—

(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,

(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and

(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.

New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—

“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.

(2) The strategy must—

(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,

(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,

(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and

(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.

New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—

“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.

(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.

(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”

New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—

“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—

(a) in full-time education, or

(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—

(a) operate seven days a week, and

(b) serve specified locations.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,

(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and

(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”

New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs

(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).

(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”

This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).

New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and

(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.

(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.

New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”

This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.

New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.

New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—

“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.

(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.

(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.

(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—

(a) the findings of its audit, and

(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”

This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.

New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—

“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.

(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—

(a) the potential for increased ridership; and

(b) the overall sustainability of the network.

(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—

(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;

(b) extending operating hours;

(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or

(d) extending the routes of local services.”

This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.

New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—

“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).

(3) In this section—

‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;

‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and

‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”

This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.

Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).

(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;

(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and

(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.

(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—

(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and

(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’

(A4) After subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”

This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.

Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.

This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.

Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—

“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.

This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.

This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.

Government amendments 32 and 33.

Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—

(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;

(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;

(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.

(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—

(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;

(b) users of local services;

(c) NHS providers;

(d) education providers;

(e) local employers and businesses;

(f) people with disabilities; and

(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”

This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—

“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and

(v) schools and colleges.”

This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.

Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—

“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”

This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.

Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—

(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and

(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.

(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.

(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.

(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—

(a) the scope and nature of the service;

(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;

(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;

(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;

(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.

(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.

(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).

(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”

This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.

Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—

(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;

(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;

(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;

(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;

(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and

(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.

(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.

Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—

(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”

This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—

(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;

(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;

(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and

(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.

Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”

Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—

“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.

This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation

(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.

(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—

(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,

(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and

(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.

(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—

(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,

(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and

(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”

This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

Government amendments 35 to 38.

Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—

(a) singing; or

(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.

(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).

(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”

Government amendments 39 to 42.

Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.

Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.

Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.

This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.

Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.

This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.

Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).

(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—

(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and

(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.

(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”

This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.

Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”

This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—

“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.

(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”

This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—

“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”

This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.

Government amendment 43.

Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—

“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility

(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.

(2) The relevant parties are—

(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;

(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England

where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.

(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—

(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;

(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and

(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.

(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—

(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;

(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”

This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—

“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—

(a) financial remuneration, or

(b) specific guidance (or both)

that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”

Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”

This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.

Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.

(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;

(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;

(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;

(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.

(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.

(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.

Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.

The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.

Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.

In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.

Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.

Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.

The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.

I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.

Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.

Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.

The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Dr Tidball]

In my constituency—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.

[Dr Tidball]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Mr Jim Shannon to speak on the accessibility of railway stations in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) is right to bring this topic forward; I spoke to her beforehand. I believe that the Government need to provide what she is trying to achieve for her constituency in every constituency, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), clearly outlined. There is something wrong when rail staff cannot be in place to help with accessibility without people having to ring 24 hours ahead. Does the hon. Lady further agree that this has to form part of our rail obligations, wherever that may be in the United Kingdom? What is right for her constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood is right for everywhere else, including my constituency. Does she agree that the Government must focus on a strategy that gives equality to those who are disabled in our communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come on to some of the points about the better co-ordination needed to solve some of these problems.

We need an approach that enables us to join things up to understand which of our stations are most likely to secure funding because of their footfall, because they link up with particular bus routes or because they are relatively lower cost and therefore easier to deliver. The process, as it stands, is not transparent, and there is no support available for communities to prepare for it. As an example, I have been approached by residents in Dulwich in recent weeks who would like my support in moving forward a proposal for step-free access at North Dulwich station. A feasibility study would be helpful so we can all understand where lifts could be installed and the broad costs of doing so. But Southwark council has no land interest in North Dulwich station, and there are no major development sites in the local area. At a time when local authority funding is constrained, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s advice on how to move such a proposal forward.

Another example of the urgent need for more joined-up preparatory support is Loughborough Junction station, currently being supported by a local community campaign called “Lift Up Loughborough Junction”. A tiny station occupying just half a railway arch, Loughborough Junction has a particularly long, steep flight of stairs up to its two platforms. It has seen an increase in passenger use compared with pre-covid levels, likely as a consequence of new nearby housing development. Through that development, some funding has been allocated towards improvements at the station, but there is at present no mechanism to decide how that is to be spent or to deliver the improvements.

Delivering step-free access at Loughborough Junction station is complicated. It cannot be done within the current station’s curtilage due to insufficient space, so the station would need to expand either into adjacent arches or on to a site to the rear of the current station. The ownership of those sites is complex, with the Arch Company responsible for neighbouring arches, Network Rail responsible for the structural integrity of the arches, the train operating company Southern responsible for the station, and private land ownership to the rear. If we are to solve the problem of accessibility at the station, there must be a way of joining up those interests, undertaking feasibility work, creating partnerships that can bid for funding together and moving the project forward. As residential development in the area continues to expand, a station that already feels unsafe at peak times due to the large number of passengers will become more and more dangerously overcrowded, and disabled residents, families with young children, and frail and elderly people will continue to be locked out of rail travel.

In 2018, the then Government’s inclusive transport strategy set out the aim of achieving equal access to the rail network by 2030. That is just a few years away, and we are very far away from realising that goal. In the meantime, Government policy has continued, quite rightly, to seek to deliver continued modal shift from private cars to public transport where possible, but modal shift does not happen by encouragement alone. It requires meaningful levels of Government investment to make public transport an accessible, convenient and attractive option, and accessibility is the basic minimum requirement. The Government can encourage people all they like, but if they are literally locked out of using public transport, it will not make a difference for residents with disabilities, parents who need to travel with young children, the less mobile and the elderly.

I secured this debate to seek help from my hon. Friend the Minister. Is he considering the criteria for future rounds of Access for All funding so that areas such as mine, with many inaccessible stations, will not continue to be overlooked by that funding stream because we do not have the highest levels of footfall, major transport interchanges or nearby development sites. What representations is he making to the Chancellor in relation to the Budget about the overall quantum of Access for All funding, so that future rounds of the scheme can start to deliver the step change in railway station accessibility that is needed across the whole country? Is he underlining to the Chancellor that Access for All funding should be part of the strategy to support disabled people who want to work to get to work?

Will the Minister consider a better approach to pre-bidding support for Access for All, on a locality basis, to help local communities and councils to understand how best to prioritise their stations for Access for All bids, and to create strong local partnerships in which multiple agencies need to be involved? May I ask for his support in relation specifically to the complex situation at Loughborough Junction station, and to the need for a feasibility study for North Dulwich station and feasibility work at Gipsy Hill station, which requires accessibility works to one platform only? Finally, can he tell disabled people in Dulwich and West Norwood, and across the country, when they can expect the equal access to the rail network that is their right?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

This is a very important debate. Minister, you may wish to take this opportunity to reflect on the accessibility funding application of Wadhurst station in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

Road and Rail Projects

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be delighted to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for Redditch. I know what a transformative project the midlands rail hub could be for his constituents by improving capacity into Moor Street station in Birmingham. I look forward to discussing it more when I visit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Obviously, the Secretary of State has an open invitation to visit Crowborough and Wadhurst stations.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I will follow on from the Secretary of State’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and King’s Cross. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned digital signalling on the east coast main line, which will improve capacity, but five trains a day already run between King’s Cross and Lincoln. All that we are asking is for them to continue the last 40 miles through Market Rasen and Grimsby to Cleethorpes. There would be minimal expenditure apart from, I think, a safer crossing at Market Rasen station, and it would help the economic growth of the north Lincolnshire area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

“Your Department”—anyone would assume that I was running Transport. I was a Minister in that Department once, but not any more. I call the Secretary of State.

[Heidi Alexander]

In the past couple of weeks, we announced Project Reach, which will improve mobile connectivity in a number of tunnels and sidings, and some of those improvements will take place over the Great Western Railway network. On the works at Old Oak Common, the Rail Minister is very alive to the question of how we minimise disruption for users of the GWR service, both in the construction phase and once HS2 is in operation, and is looking in detail at that. Of course, when it is finally open, the station will offer a valuable interchange for GWR customers, who will be able to go to Birmingham without going into central London.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Supply is constrained at the moment; the UK has one commercial production facility, in Immingham. We need to build investor confidence to commercialise some of the sustainable aviation fuel demonstration projects around the country. More supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, good for those who wish to fly.

I think it is worth taking a moment to reiterate what is at stake. When UK production of low-carbon fuels is up and running, it could support up to 15,000 green jobs, contribute £5 billion a year to our economy, and deliver clean and secure energy. What is more, fulfilling the SAF mandate could save up to 2.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year by 2030. Seizing those opportunities will ensure that we deliver on our bold plan for change and that the UK and our world-class aviation sector are leading the way in the race towards sustainable flight.

This country cannot be open for business, open to investment and open to growth yet have a closed mind when it comes to international connectivity. The Bill is a clear signal that we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero. We can and must do both. We have the opportunity of a lifetime and, I believe, a moral mission to future-proof aviation. When the sector succeeds, it is not only a source of growth, through trade, business and tourism, but a source of joy, aspiration and opportunity. It is as vital today as it will be for future generations. Their need to fly, explore the world and do business requires us to act now. That is what the Bill does, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Let me begin by setting out an unambiguous truth: aviation is vital to the British economy. It is a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, our competitiveness and our connectivity.

When it comes to the impact of aviation on our economy, the figures speak for themselves. Aviation contributes £52 billion to UK GDP, supporting over 960,000 jobs across the country. That includes 341,000 people working directly in aviation—from air traffic controllers to aerospace engineers—350,000 jobs in the supply chain, and another 269,000 supported through consumer spending. Aviation also delivers nearly £8.7 billion in tax revenues, and aerospace manufacturing adds a further £9 billion directly to GDP, plus over £10 billion more when including its supply chains. Some 197 million passengers and 2 million tonnes of freight move through our airports each year. The economic case is therefore unanswerable. In short, we must all support this thriving industry with clear benefits to the country.

The Conservative party has always recognised the strategic importance of aviation, but, unlike the current Government, we understand the damage that can be done with poor policy choices—I regret to say that we have seen plenty of that from the Labour Government over the past year. Alongside their national insurance jobs tax, which is putting pressure on businesses and threatens to leave working people £3,500 a year worse off, Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty threatens the vitality of this thriving industry. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that rises planned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise an extra £555 million in taxes over five years, pushing up the costs for businesses and passengers alike.

In a speech that will have a lot of common ground with the Secretary of State’s speech, I regret to say that Labour’s handling of its professed desire to expand aviation raises more questions than answers. The decision to approve a second terminal at Luton airport, which we support, will be judicially reviewed. The proposal for a second runway at Gatwick has been kicked down the road for surprising reasons, to say the least, and the supposed support for a third runway at Heathrow is no more credible. The Chancellor has promised that the latter proposal will be operational by 2035, with spades in the ground in this Parliament, but that ambition looks very far-fetched, and there are substantial logistical and financial barriers to its construction. So far, the Government have provided no solutions on those points, so we will watch developments in the next few weeks with considerable interest.

It is against that backdrop that we come to the Bill before us. When we entered opposition, we made it clear that we would not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. We made it clear that where the Government’s choices would benefit the country or the economy, we would welcome them. That is why we will not seek to divide the House on this legislation on Second Reading. This Bill is a logical follow-on from the statutory instrument passed in September last year that established the SAF mandate, the first stage of which came into effect in January. Having mandated that airlines will be required to use a specified percentage of SAF—2% this year, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040—it is logical to take steps to ensure adequate levels of locally produced fuel.

While the mandate requires the consumption of SAF, it is a new technology, and its production carries a high risk for investors. Encouraging the development of the plants required to produce this fuel is the purpose of this Bill and, to a very large degree, it is a continuation of the policy of the previous Government. In 2023, it was the last Government who committed to an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism to support UK-based SAF production. In early 2024 we published the detail, with plans for a guaranteed strike price model to give price certainty to SAF producers. I hear the Minister say, “You didn’t do it!” He is completely correct, because unfortunately there was something called a general election that followed shortly after.

As the Secretary of State has outlined, under this model, producers will be topped up when the market price falls below a guaranteed strike price; when the market price rises above, they will pay it back. The system mirrors the successful contracts for difference model in offshore wind, and the economic benefits could be considerable. A cost-benefit analysis produced by the Department for Transport before the general election suggested that the SAF industry could add more than £1.8 billion to the economy and create more than 10,000 jobs in the country, but, more fundamentally, SAF is a product of what we know to work. As the Secretary of State said in her speech, it can be blended with conventional Jet A-1, used in existing aircraft and refuelled at existing airports. The capability exists. The challenge is not scientific; it is economic. That is why the concept of a revenue certainty mechanism was one of the six pillars in the previous Government’s jet zero strategy, and, as the Secretary of State outlined, the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism has wide support in the aviation industry.

Let me be clear: while we will not oppose the legislation this evening, we will carefully scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. In that spirit, I will put some questions to the Minister, which I hope he will address in his summing up. The first is about passengers. In the press release announcing the Bill, the Government said that the revenue certainty mechanism would keep ticket price changes minimal:

“Keeping fluctuations to £1.50 a year on average.”

The Secretary of State said the same in her speech. Perhaps in his speech the Minister could outline what this figure is based on. Do the Government stand by it? Is it a commitment, or a rough estimate?

The second question is about what type of SAF the Government favour and how it will be produced. While the SAF mandate permits the production and use of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids SAF in the early years of the mandate, and also contains a small but increasing requirement for power-to-liquid SAF in later years, the bulk of the SAF to be developed and used under the terms of the mandate is second generation SAF, which is to be made from municipal waste, non-edible crops and woody biomass. The UK is a small island, with insufficient spare land to enjoy self-sufficient food security or to grow new forests at scale. Does the Minister think we will be self-sufficient? If not, what proportion of the ingredients necessary for making second generation SAF does the Minister think we will need to import?

Relatedly, the HEFA cap comes into force incrementally from 2027, despite there currently being no domestic production of second generation SAF in the UK and low levels of second generation SAF produced globally, removing the opportunity to source mandated volumes through imports. This risks making the costs of hitting SAF mandate targets very high indeed, because suppliers will soon be forced to buy out of their mandate obligations—a significant cost that will be passed on to the airlines and, ultimately, to passengers without delivering any decarbonisation benefit at all. Will the Government consider revising the timelines for phasing out HEFA SAF to bring them more in line with the timescales for domestic second generation SAF production, in order to minimise the costs for passengers?

The next area of interest is planning. The plants in which the Government are seeking to encourage investment will be large, and—as the Minister no doubt knows—large developments tend to attract a lot of local opposition, often leading to planning inquiries, judicial reviews, vast expense and years of delay before any construction work begins. If this does not change, the revenue certainty mechanism may not be sufficient to attract investors, so what will the Government do to minimise delays in the planning process?

I turn now to timescales. When will the first contracts be awarded under the RCM? Will there be a timetable for reaching full mandate compliance? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis)—who is no longer in his place—touched on, the issue of the strike price is critical to the success of the proposal. What criteria will be used to set the strike price? Will the methodology be published, and will there be regular reviews? Finally, will the Government commit to regular reporting to Parliament on industry take-up, production capacity and cost trajectory, to ensure that they remain accountable for the Bill over time?

The importance of this Bill is clear. Backing UK production of sustainable aviation fuel is necessary if we are to meet our net zero goals without undermining the competitiveness of the aviation sector. However, let me be clear: as the Bill moves through the House, we will continue to look closely at the detail and press for changes where necessary, where improvements can be made to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them.

I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity.

Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights.

That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF.

I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It has been said by the Secretary of State and echoed across the Chamber that the UK has a world-class aviation sector that is key to growth in our economy. I welcome the introduction of the Bill as it will provide certainty for producers of sustainable aviation fuel, allowing the sector to grow and invest.

We all know the benefits that airports have for our communities, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) will welcome the Chancellor’s investment in Doncaster Sheffield. When we think about airports, we may automatically think about Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester. However, as East Midlands airport is in my constituency of North West Leicestershire, it will be no surprise to anyone here that that is the airport I automatically think about.

The airport provides huge benefits to my local economy, as well as making an important contribution to the wider UK economy. As the second largest air freight terminal in the UK, East Midlands serves as the hub for DHL, UPS, FedEx and Royal Mail. This growth is backed by investment in the nearby east midlands rail hub, which transports our goods from port to port. In addition, the airport serves as a base for RVL, a specialist airline that provides support to the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The transition to sustainable aviation fuel is going to be key if those organisations are to grasp the nettle on net zero.

My airport also serves millions of passengers every year, with the likes of Jet2, easyJet and Tui operating out of it, supporting my constituents and those from those across the midlands to take a well-deserved holiday. Having met representatives of Jet2 recently, I know that there is huge support for the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, and it will be interesting to hear more about the transitional arrangements to ensure that airlines such as Jet2 have the fuel they need to decarbonise and meet the mandated mix over the short term, as well as to see the SAF industry develop for the future.

As East Midlands airport’s thriving cargo facility extends to meet the demands of exporters from across the UK, cutting greenhouse gas emissions via sustainable aviation fuel will not only have significant benefits for net zero, but will put an estimated £5 billion a year back into our economy by 2050. It will also create additional jobs, securing a long-term sustainable future for the industry. It also puts forward a clear commitment to jobs at the airport, which will benefit my constituents and those of neighbouring MPs in the east midlands. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that North West Leicestershire will see the full strength of these training and work opportunities when they come about, because we have a lot to offer.

I know that the measures in this Bill, alongside the work announced to modernise airspace, will be welcomed by the sector. May I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to the 60th birthday party of East Midlands airport on 21 July?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, particularly the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, which is not only a sensible intervention but a timely one. It gives investors clarity, it gives producers confidence and it gives communities such as mine a sense that this transition will bring jobs rather than take them away. I thank Ministers for listening not only to the sector but to those of us who represent Teesside.

In our region, we have a number of producers with an interest in scaling up SAF production—principally Alfanar, which has already invested £2.5 billion in our region and wants to go much further by building a brand-new plant that will create 2,300 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs. Alfanar is not alone, however; we also have Iogen, Willis, Nova Pangaea, Abundia, Arcadia and many active producers or others looking to scale up—serious players with serious plans. I spoke to one earlier this week; it said that the Bill is exactly what the industry is looking for.

May I put just a couple of questions to the Minister? What those producers need now is confidence that enabling work for final investment decisions can begin, ideally before the Bill completes its full legislative journey. Of course, there is a precedent for that in the Energy Act 2023. What engagement will the Minister have with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the carbon capture track project. I know that a number of the producers are keen to benefit from track 1 expansion, so producing those two things in train seems like a sensible thing to do, and I hope that there is cross-departmental engagement.

Ultimately, I thank the Government and urge them to move at pace to deliver the jobs that we want for the industry in our region. I want to ensure that young people watching from working-class communities across Teesside know that these are not abstract opportunities that are distant from them, but opportunities for them that they can get into—like our expansion in skills training. This sector can be transformative for the Tees valley region—not only for Middlesbrough but for Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton, Darlington and Hartlepool. Our area suffered industrial decline for many decades, but now we are seeing new life and new industry. Finally, Teesside is taking off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris McDonald for the final Back-Bench contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I agree. Whether it is in Sunderland or, as I mentioned, the north-west and down in south Wales, we will see jobs in the supply chain throughout all this work. It will also benefit Heathrow and our other major airport hubs.

I thought it might be useful to make a few comments about why I believe SAF is the solution. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) gave a great description of why the flight range equations essentially drive us in the direction of sustainable aviation fuel. Electrification certainly would be possible for short-haul flights, but the hydrogen simply does not have the density. As I think the hon. Gentleman also said, infrastructure is important—we heard that from the Secretary of State in her opening statement—because planes take off from one place, but they land somewhere else, and they need to be able to refuel there too.

Sustainable aviation fuel is certainly the right approach, but a couple of Members raised concerns in the debate about the raw materials for feedstock—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that issue. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) said that he had learned about second-generation sustainable aviation fuels; it is probably just as well that he is not in his place, because I might blow his mind when I talk about third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuels.

Essentially, there are concerns about the raw materials and municipal waste. Although the amount of waste per person will decline, a lot of it is put into energy from waste plants, and the new investments are really about future generations of SAF. We have heard about biomass. If that biomass is not from a feedstock, perhaps that verges into the second generation, but it is third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuel that will enable us to scale up this industry. That will open it up to the direct combination of carbon dioxide and hydrogen using green electricity, which will enable us to scale it up. An abundant supply of those raw materials is needed, which is why I am so confident that we will see the industry spread around the whole of the UK.

Why do I say Billingham will become the UK and European centre for this work? There is a justification. Teesside already produces 50% of the UK’s hydrogen, and the chemicals cluster there is well-known for producing pharmaceuticals for fertilisers and various other chemicals. We produced synthetic petrol in Billingham in the 1930s, and we produced synthetic jet fuel there in the 1940s for the Royal Air Force during the second world war. I say that not to imply in some way that we still have the skillset—many of those people are quite rightly enjoying their retirement, or have perhaps moved on from that—but to demonstrate to the House that there is not a big technological risk associated with this technology. Third-generation SAF will rely on the Fischer-Tropsch process, which has been around for 100 years.

In fact, when I talk to investors in the industry and ask them what the big risks are, they highlight economic risks—with which the Government are getting to grips right now through this legislation—and political risk, which is about the consistency of Government policy. As I mentioned earlier, the biggest threat to these jobs and to this industry is the ideology of the Reform party. As we see the jobs and investment, I am confident that people in my local community will vote for jobs and investment in the future as well.

As such, I warmly welcome this legislation. I very much look forward to the day when I can welcome right hon. and hon. Members to Teesside international airport, and enjoy a drink with them in the bar before we jet off to Alicante for our holidays.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.