Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Griffiths]

Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by responding to the shadow Minister. I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.

On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.

The shadow Minister was right to point to the special impact that drop-off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.

Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.

Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.

On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Directions about implementation

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—

(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,

(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and

(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.

The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.

The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.

[Olly Glover]

I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Automatic Compensation

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.

(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

My mistake.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this new clause are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.

While the intention of this new clause is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances. We do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the framework already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.

I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.

[Olly Glover]

How do I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.

In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.

I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.

The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.

Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.

In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.

New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.

While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.

While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.

While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.

The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.

That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively.

The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.

The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.

Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction.

The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.

Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.

[Olly Glover]

I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road.

Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.

Air Traffic Control Disruption

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question. I join the Minister and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in thanking airport, airline and air traffic control staff for handling this incident and helping passengers who experienced such significant disruption.

This is the third major incident in recent years to do with our air traffic control systems. Given the poor passenger experiences, the poor management of the disruption and the poor customer service resulting from it, should the Government not commit to fixing our air traffic control systems before they commit so enthusiastically to massive aviation expansion, which our current systems and processes may not be able to accommodate?

[Keir Mather]

I would like to point out that more often than not, our air traffic control systems and the individuals who work in them provide a safe and effective service for UK air passengers. In a typical year, NATS handles over 2.5 million flights, and around 300 million passengers travel over the UK and across the north Atlantic. We are responsible for a large proportion of European air traffic, and NATS does a good job to ensure that UK passengers get to places safely.

However, incidents like this, and the fact that they have occurred three times within four years, bring home the fact that when disruption occurs, it is incredibly difficult for passengers and for our airlines and airports to adapt to. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that lessons must be learned. There are technical lessons that must be learned, and that is what we will get to the bottom of through the report from NATS and then the six-month report from the CAA. He is right to raise broader questions. If we are to facilitate what this Government want to achieve, which is an ambitious programme of expansion in our airport capacity, particularly in the south-east of England, we will do so with passenger safety at its heart, and effective oversight of NATS must run to the core of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I apologise in advance for a lack of theatre or football analogies, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State’s announcement on Tuesday went into some detail on the arrangements for the UK and French borders, but it was somewhat lighter on the detail of the outcome of her discussions with the European Commission on how to achieve reliable flow through EU member country airports using the new entry-exit system this summer. What tangible and specific outcomes resulted from those discussions, and which of them will take effect in time for the imminent start of the school holidays?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his question. I can confirm that we have discussed the flow of passengers through member state airports with our relevant partners in the European Commission, and with member states. That is certainly something I have been doing over the past 10 months. We know that there are outstanding issues with particular airports, which we continue to raise, both through our in-country posts and at ministerial level, to ensure that European partners are fully aware of just how seriously we take British passengers being able to travel with ease to their summer holiday.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2024-25, 81% of passenger complaints that were initially rejected by airlines were upheld when independently reviewed, leading to £11 million of delayed compensation payments. Does the Minister support the idea of an air passengers’ charter, backed by independent regulation, to support airlines in providing improved customer service and consumer confidence?

[Keir Mather]

I am glad that the Lib Dem spokesperson shares our concern about consumer rights. Disruption and cancellations—but also disruptive passengers, unfortunately—can ruin the holidays of British holiday- makers who save so much to facilitate those experiences. The new Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which has just come out of the other place, will hopefully re-emerge in the House of Commons on the other side of the summer. It includes a suite of measures to strengthen consumer rights, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on exactly the sort of issues that he raises as the Bill makes its way through this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Young people in Oxford, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes are sitting their exams, but they continue to not be able to use a train to get to school or for leisure, despite this phase of East West Rail opening 18 months ago. I have a little exam question for the Minister. What timescale will the Government commit to for the start of regular passenger services: Andy Burnham returning to the House of Commons, a change of Prime Minister, the formal creation of Great British Railways, or the next general election?

[Keir Mather]

I understand that Chiltern Railways is leading negotiations on this important issue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient about the need to get people where they need to go in his constituency. The Government are committed to trying to deliver at pace in collaboration with stakeholders, and I will ensure that he is kept abreast of any developments.

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to produce sound without

“written permission from an Operator”.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

[Olly Glover]

I will press new clause 10 to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

We would like to press new clause 11.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

[Olly Glover]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Access for All programme: review

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

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

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

(a) platforms;

(b) entrances to stations;

(c) exits from stations.

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Great British Railways Board

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

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

(a) Great British Railways,

(b) open access passenger operators,

(c) freight operators,

(d) The Office for Rail and Road,

(e) The Passengers’ Council, and

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

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

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

(5) Any—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response.

A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run.

Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.

[Keir Mather]

I will briefly turn back to the debate on the previous clauses; because the Opposition spokesperson asked me to provide an example of the motion of consent in general as it relates to timetabling and I was remiss in my duty in not doing so. To give more context, the network code currently sets out the circumstances where train service timings need to be adjusted by a few minutes without requiring specific consent. GBR will follow a very similar process and that is a normal process that industry would expect us to follow.

I now turn to the amendments at hand, all of which seek to make changes to GBR’s charging scheme. I confirm to the hon. Member for South West Devon that the charging regime broadly replicates the one that is in place today. That is intentional, so that all of the charges and discounts referenced will be familiar to industry to achieve a smooth transition to the new framework.

Furthermore, given that GBR will be bound by public law duties, which require fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination in actions and decision making, there is no reason to think that GBR will behave unreasonably. Rather, when making or amending its charging scheme, GBR will be required to balance the various duties set out in clause 18, which include promoting the interests of passengers, promoting the use of the network for carrying freight and enabling operators to plan the future of their businesses. GBR will also be required to consult with industry through the development of its charging scheme, and will be held to account via a clear route to appeal to the ORR on the scheme’s design and application.

Given that existing competition law and applicable subsidy rules will automatically apply to GBR, GBR will not be able to treat other operators unfairly or start levying excessive charges that would undermine their ability to operate successful, profit-driven services. That will be further supported by the ORR’s continued role as competition regulator for the railway. I hope that gives hon. Members some assurance to begin with.

I now turn to amendment 242, which proposes to remove the provision at clause 64(1)(b) that enables GBR to charge operators for services that do not run as planned. In today’s system, that mechanism is called a reservation charge, and the Bill replicates that for GBR. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate that a reservation charge must be issued in all instances where services do not run. Instead, GBR will have discretion regarding how and when to use it. That is particularly important for taking into consideration different industry operating models, especially freight, which is market driven and therefore has to live with less certainty over the services that it needs to run to serve its customers.

A routine and technical example of when a reservation charge is used today, and likely to be replicated in the future, is one affecting passenger services, not freight. Where a passenger service is allocated to a path that is expected to stop at eight stations but—for reasons of its own making and not GBR’s—it terminates short of its final destination and stops at only seven, it could still be charged as planned for the full service. In addition, with finite capacity on the network it is important that, when passenger operators are granted access, they provide those services they said they were going to run and are disincentivised to simply hold on to capacity.

To use a different example, if an operator consistently failed to run a service in its entirety, it would disadvantage passengers seeking to use that train and other operators that might wish to operate a passenger or freight service on an unused path. It could therefore be charged in full. As I have outlined, the purpose of the measure is to encourage operators to use the capacity that they have been allocated. Therefore, the ability to levy a reservation charge is an extremely useful tool to drive the right behaviours on the network. It ensures that best use is made of capacity and that operators remain accountable for providing the services in the timetable that they agreed to deliver.

Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. Perhaps, in slower time, he can walk me through each specific provision and we can come to a determination as to the intent that he outlined, but for the moment—at your discretion, Mrs Hobhouse—I will proceed with the matter at hand.

I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate. The watchdog will already be working closely with GBR to ensure that GBR can respond to its own passenger issues effectively and according to best practice and will not duplicate investigations unless it is necessary to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw amendment 142.

Clause 39 will enable the passenger watchdog to investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to conduct investigations in certain circumstances. For example, the watchdog must investigate any matters referred to it by passengers, potential passengers or organisations representing passengers provided that the matters are not vexatious. It must also investigate any issues referred to it by the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or the ORR, and anything that it appears to the watchdog that it ought to investigate.

If the matters fall wholly within the London railway area, the passenger watchdog must refer it to the London Transport Users Committee. Transport Focus, the body out of which the watchdog will be built, has a duty to investigate matters referred to it, but the clause expands the list of people who may refer cases for investigation, to reflect the central role of the watchdog, its role in the reformed railway and the importance of passenger experience to this Government.

[Olly Glover]

I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Power to obtain information

Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

Apologies. One recognises one’s status.

We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.

I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.

The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.

Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.

Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.

Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.

The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.

Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?

[Keir Mather]

These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.

Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.

I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.

The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.

Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.

The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.

[Olly Glover]

We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.

Railways Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Minister is right to point out that allocation of funding for passenger services, as opposed to other GBR activities, initially takes place through the spending review funding process. I am about to address his point, but I should say that the Bill contains the ability for Ministers to extend the five-year funding process to passenger services once GBR is set up and prepared to manage that. It would not be responsible to do that from the outset when GBR is still in the transition and set-up phase. Ministers need to feel confident that GBR is financially mature enough before they can consider integrating funding further. I hope that addresses both the shadow Minister’s point and the contribution from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but I am sure that in his line of work he has already encountered many instances where, despite noble intentions for something to perhaps happen at some point in the future, it ends up being years, if not decades, before it does. That is why it would be rather more sensible to enshrine the requirement in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support—slightly barbed support, but support nevertheless. I have nothing further to add. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Rail strategy

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 15, page 8, line 18, 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.

Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Forgive me. The shadow Minister points to the fact that we have, in his view, a dearth of ambition when it comes to what we have set out in clause 18. I would actually argue the inverse—the standards set out in clause 18 relating to reliability of services, avoiding overcrowding and promoting the passenger experience are fundamental to creating the turn-up-and-go railway with a single directing mind that GBR seeks to achieve.

At the heart of it, these are the fundamental building blocks of the passenger experience. Layer on top of that the ways in which GBR will be nimble and dynamic enough under this legislation to lay out the passenger offer over time, and that creates a suite of measures that allow us to enhance, in the whole, the passenger experience. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the amendment.

[Olly Glover]

If you will indulge me, Sir Alec, I will briefly respond to the points that have been made. I thank the Minister for his comments. He will know from our past interactions on this that I very much agree with him that we definitely do not want the micromanagement and overprescription of GBR. That would be absolutely inimical to what I want to see happening, but there is a distinction to be made between setting the overall standards and the implementation of the work needed to meet those standards.

I do not read the rest of the Bill as quite saying, “We’re just going to let GBR crack on and define everything from scratch for itself”. Given the Minister’s comments about micromanaging, which I find encouraging, I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the later amendments that are designed to dilute the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere. Hopefully, given his comments, he might be minded to give them a fair hearing, but we shall see when the time comes.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston makes the good point that these things need to have teeth, and that is the intention of clause 8(2)(e), which would extend the delay repay principle to onboard amenities. Work would clearly need to be done to establish a sensible framework for the evidence requirement for people submitting claims—that would need to be thought through further—but that has not been prescribed here precisely because that would be a matter for GBR.

We also want to add teeth with subsection (2)(f), which is all about making it easier for people to claim compensation and allowing them to do so digitally rather than just on paper. In fairness, a lot of that has improved, and we hope it will continue to improve. I also want to address the very fair point made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The challenge with these things is always where to define the cut-off, but it should not be inevitable that commuters in south-east London, Greater Manchester or anywhere else should have to stand by default.

Rolling stock cuts without replacements on some routes—maybe not the hon. Gentleman’s, but elsewhere—have partly added to some of those problems. That includes the premature withdrawal of British Rail class 455 trains on Southern without a replacement and class 365 trains on the Great Northern network. A lot of these poor decisions were made following the pandemic to save cost in the short term, which has added to some of the overcrowding problems—many of which are preventable. We have included a 30-minute minimum duration in new clause 8 to try to be reasonable and to recognise that things are not always perfect.

In conclusion, we are putting a passengers’ charter forward because we feel that there is value in improving the onboard offer and making it consistent. There are things in the charter that would support other elements of the Bill by strengthening accessibility provision. For catering, my temptation would have been to go even further and wax lyrical about restaurant cars on Swiss railways or Austrian railways, which—if anybody has not enjoyed them—should be very welcome.

In Switzerland, even inter-city trains of just two hours always have a restaurant car, and they have a separate division for on-train catering, which is in-house—they take it very seriously. I have been on 55-minute journeys across Switzerland and have been attended to straight away. It is inexpensive and very good. I have decided not to be too prescriptive and to just talk about onboard catering. It is then for GBR, or whoever, to decide if they wish to embrace that particular bit of Swiss excellence, as well as electrification, as I mentioned earlier.

I think I have said more than enough, Sir Alec. I said earlier that we want to press new clause 8 to a vote. I expect I have to take guidance from the Clerk as to whether a vote on that or on amendment 130 would be most helpful—either is good with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I genuinely thank the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and Members from across the House for their considered and meaningful contributions on this matter. It shows the strength of feeling that we all have about making sure that the passenger experience sits at the heart of the way that our railways function. On the detail about the length of trains, which I agree is an interesting point that has been teased out in this debate, the rolling stock strategy that the DFT is bringing forward will have specific regard to the issue of train length. That will hopefully assuage some concerns.

The shadow Minister also pointed to the potential deficiencies in Network Rail caused by having an operational focus on the maintenance of infrastructure as opposed to promoting the needs of passengers. I would contrast that with the point that a lot of the issues that come with accessibility on the railway and sufficient provision of passenger services arise as much from the access regime and diffuse accountability as they do from cultural or institutional failings in Network Rail. In the current system, access is ultimately decided by the ORR and timetabling by National Rail, and we can end up with a situation where there is a 7 o’clock train from Manchester Piccadilly to London with no passengers on it. The existing system cannot put passengers at its heart, because its decision making process is too disjointed to be able to look at the railway in a holistic way. That is what the Bill is seeking to change.

As all amendments in the group relate directly to the notion of passenger numbers and increasing the number of passenger journeys, I will respond to them as a whole. As a commercial organisation, we believe that GBR will be naturally incentivised to drive up revenue through growing its passenger base and attracting more people to use the railway. GBR must also have the flexibility to determine how it can deliver on that ambition without adverse incentives, for example to congest the network at the expense of passenger experience, being established.

The Bill already includes a duty for sector bodies, including GBR, to promote the interests of users and potential users. That will require GBR to consider during decision making how to encourage new users on to the railway. That is a natural incentive to grow passenger numbers to enable them to realise the benefits of rail travel. That might include working towards encouraging modal shift, extending the network to areas with poorer connectivity or making informed choices to grow different types of services, such as leisure journeys.

In discharging its full remit of duties, including in particular its public interest and making efficient use of public money duties, GBR should make sensible, rounded decisions on where to target passenger growth across the network. It should do that in a sustainable way, and not to meet a passenger target frozen in aspic that might not be appropriate for the needs of the railway at the time. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not doubt that his intentions are genuine and that he would like to see the Bill and GBR lead to greater passenger numbers, but I gently suggest that that cannot necessarily be taken as read. In periods in the past—arguably to a smaller extent since the pandemic, but to a much greater extent going back to the 1980s and before—there was an approach called managed decline. That was a Trojan horse for closing a line of route; intentional efforts were made to reduce passenger numbers. I do not think it can be taken as read that there will always be a desire to grow the network.

[Keir Mather]

May I test something from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective? The Secretary of State has a lot of oversight over how GBR functions under this new regime. One of her duties, and a duty for GBR, will be to ensure efficient use of public money. Do you not think that that creates a strong incentive for her to drive up passenger use on the railway to ensure that we have a balance of service? Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield about the importance of freight, do you not think that the point about the essential correction for freight is important in a way that does not apply to passenger services?

[The Chair]

Order. May I remind Members again that we do not use the word “you”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. His new clause seeks to remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and to require the UK Government to transfer responsibility for rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers in the Senedd within two years. In practical terms, that would mean responsibility for rail infrastructure, investment decisions and long-term strategy in Wales sitting with the Welsh Government, rather than being controlled by the UK Secretary of State or Great British Railways. It would put Wales on the same constitutional footing as Scotland, which already has those powers.

The reason this matters is that, under the current arrangements, Wales has consistently lost out. Because rail is not devolved, Wales has no protection when England-only rail projects are classified in ways that deny Wales consequential funding. That has resulted in Wales missing out on billions of pounds of investment from projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, while the Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding to spend on their own rail projects.

The new clause would align responsibility and accountability, and ensure that decisions affecting Welsh rail are made in Wales. I believe that this was a campaign backed by Welsh Labour MPs prior to the general election, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will start by addressing new clause 30, which would require the full devolution of responsibility for rail services and infrastructure in Wales.

The Bill is designed to bring strategic direction, accountability and oversight of the rail system into a single coherent framework, reflecting the fact that railways operate as an integrated cross-border network. Reserved powers play an important part in maintaining that integration. Retaining responsibility for rail infrastructure at UK level supports coherent strategic planning, consistent standards and efficient operation across England and Wales, including on routes that serve communities on both sides of the border.

The new clause would introduce new statutory boundaries into a network when we most need to simplify governance and reduce fragmentation. By reopening the devolution settlement and mandating the transfer of responsibilities that are already being addressed through strengthened partnership working, it risks diverting attention from implementation and delivery. The Bill already enhances joint working.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[Olly Glover]

Q You have made some really good points about the complexity of rail and the criticality of the relationship between renewals, electrification, signalling and rolling stock, and all the interfaces and dependencies between them. At risk of putting words in your mouth—hopefully I am reflecting back what you said—would you agree that some of those interfaces and the decisions around them have been, historically, a bit suboptimal? In that context, do you think there is enough in the Bill that recognises that and gets us to a better future? In particular, should the Bill explicitly state that there is a need for a rolling stock strategy? I know the Department for Transport says that it is making one, but it is not specifically in there. Do you have any thoughts about how the Bill deals with all those issues?

Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.

This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.

Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.

The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.

Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.

Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.

Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.

[Olly Glover]

Q Mayors, you have made some really good points about the need for clearer accountability and for more responsiveness and understanding of what is going on in your areas. Mayor Burnham, I think your point about Everton is important, in that where there are strong mayoral areas quite close to each other, it is also important to have a regional cross-border overview. Does GBR do enough to strike the balance between strategic mayoral authorities’ having control in their areas and making sure that that is regionally joined up, maybe through subnational transport bodies? Do you think it does enough to provide that regional overview?

Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.

From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Thank you so much. I have no further questions.

[Olly Glover]

Q Mr Bowker, you lived through an interesting time—I hope you do not mind me describing it like that—when you ran the Strategic Rail Authority. The industry was recovering from the chaos and meltdown of the Hatfield disaster and everything that followed. According to some, there were tensions at the time between the SRA and the ORR and other bodies. Given that there appear to be superficial similarities, to some extent at least, between the structure proposed by the Bill and what existed then, what lessons and insights from that time will help us to get this right?

Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.

I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.

Railways Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Q  I am conscious of time, so I just have one broader question about the devolution settlement, which is devolving services and how the railway works, which is mentioned in the Williams review, and I also want to go to Mr Brown’s point about integrated business units. Mr Williams, could you expand a little bit on what the operational reality of a more decentralised railway working in closer partnerships could look like under GBR? The Bill specifically focuses on mayoral strategic authorities as an appropriate unit to engage with to act as a catalyst for economic growth, house building and those things which are really conjoined with rail growth. Can you give us a glimpse of how you feel that the system might work in practice under the Bill’s framework?

Keith Williams: It is a great question, because that, to me, was fundamental to the better running of an integrated transport system. I was listening to the earlier questions, and the advantages of bringing in the mayors and local authorities are twofold. First, there is deciding what the appropriate mechanism for running transport is in their area. I visited Manchester, where you have light rail, heavy rail and buses, so you need to make a decision as to which you are going to promote. In my opinion, that was better done at a mayoral level than a central level. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is integration. We looked at systems overseas and—guess what?—you find that the bus comes to the station, the train starts and then stops. That did not exist in the UK, and bringing the mayors and local authorities into that decision making was hugely important for running an integrated system.

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

Q Both of your reviews highlighted an issue of short-term thinking, or a lack of longer-term vision, on the railway. Are you satisfied with the way that the long-term rail strategy is set out in the Bill, and that it will restore a bit more long-term thinking and vision? Do you think it is a problem that “long term” is not defined in the Bill—are we talking about five, 10, 20 or 30 years?

Richard Brown: I think the Bill talks about a 30-year strategy and the Secretary of State having responsibility for producing that. There will be a degree of evolution, because when you are running an organisation, you need to be the person who is, if you like, giving birth to the strategy, in very close collaboration with your shareholder—if this was a business. The Secretary of State’s strategy will set the long-term objectives about what the Government wish to see the industry do, and then it will be up to GBR to produce the business plans, whether you call them business plans or more detailed strategies, about how it is going to deliver that. I am quite sure that, putting everything together, there are plenty of people in the industry who desperately want to produce a longer-term strategy for rolling stock procurement, electrification and reducing carbon impact, and they are frustrated that it is very difficult to do it now because of the range of parties involved.

Keith Williams: I come from the airline world, and the problem there is that you buy an aeroplane and it lasts for the next 30 years. Rail is very similar: you operate the rolling stock, and that is a long-term decision. I was surprised that decisions were set over five-year periods, because the decisions that you make today partially define the future for a much longer period than five years. Again, a problem of running an airline is that you order the aeroplanes and unfortunately the market declines because of economic factors, commercial factors or whatever. You are therefore taking long-term decisions—that is not wrong—but within those you sometimes have to change direction because of the situation that exists at the time. The classic example of that in rail is franchising: franchising worked while the railway was growing, but once it went ex-growth, franchising came under pressure, and then obviously more pressure when covid arrived.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Olly Glover and Keir Mather

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?

[Keir Mather]

The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.