Keir Mather MP: speeches

549 published records · newest first.

Speeches

3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. We consulted the industry and the public on the future of the content and functions of the alternative dispute resolution service, and identified that the transfer of the Rail Ombudsman sponsorship to the watchdog represents the simplest option with the least disruption to the passenger experience. That choice was supported by both Transport Focus and the Rail Delivery Group. In the current service, decisions on disputes are made by legally trained staff. That gives passengers and operators assurance and confidence that disputes are handled fairly and correctly. The resolutions are binding, and the impartiality and neutrality between passengers and operators ensures that disputes are resolved fairly. Passengers achieve fair solutions, and operators are required to issue reasonable compensation. That places the balance of duty on operators while ensuring that the passenger experience is at the heart of what the ADR service is there to facilitate. If the shadow Minister requires any further information, I will happily seek it out and provide it. On new clause 46, I assure the shadow Minister that the ORR will retain its role as the official publisher of rail statistics. As now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, which enables flexibility and allows the collection of data to be proportionate and needs-based and ensuring necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the ORR in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it is established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency and we do not propose to reduce that going forward. The passenger watchdog will have access to the data collected by the ORR and be able to use it to identify issues in areas for improvement for passengers and to follow up. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will feel that this matter is already addressed by the Bill and existing legislation and will seek to withdraw his amendment. I also thank him for his contributions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 Standards
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
With your permission, Mrs Hobhouse, I will speak to the clauses now and address the new clause once I have heard the shadow Minister’s remarks. Clauses 44 and 45 relate to complaints and dispute resolution. Clause 44 designates the passenger watchdog as the body that will deal with complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. Retained EU law on rail passenger rights includes requirements on operators to provide travel information to passengers and assistance to passengers who need it to travel. Transport Focus is currently the body designated to receive complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. The Bill consolidates the existing regulation to ensure that Transport Focus retains that role when it becomes the passenger watchdog. The clause therefore replaces the existing regulations on this matter. That will ensure that operators are held to the same, or indeed higher, standards for passenger experience, and that there is still a body clearly responsible for monitoring and addressing such complaints. Cause 45 places a duty on the passenger watchdog to provide an independent alternative dispute resolution service to users and potential users of train and station services. The watchdog will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR to fulfil that duty, ensuring that the watchdog provides an independent service to rail passengers that can handle disputes between passengers and service operators fairly and impartially. Transferring the sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman to the passenger watchdog will provide an effective independent service that has the appropriate third-party accreditation. That includes ombudsman status, which gives it the power to require remedial action from operators on passenger complaints that it upholds. The clause will ensure that the watchdog has the legal obligation to continue to provide an alternative dispute resolution service, even after the existing contract with the Rail Ombudsman expires in 2028.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I start by addressing two points that the shadow Minister made. First, on the publication of information and advice, I set out in my original arguments surrounding the new clauses that there might be instances where, for professional or personal reasons, it might be best not to publish confidential information. On a broader issue, the shadow Minister asked why local transport authorities were not listed directly under clause 48. On the question of the devolution of rail services, the Committee has rehearsed at length the Government’s view that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right unit of economic activity to be able to engage with productively. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive list of those that might be consulted, and there is provision written into the Bill for the council, where it considers it appropriate, to consider consultation without such a reference as is listed in the clause. Local transport authorities could fall within that frame of reference. Amendment 75 would ensure that GBR consulted the passenger watchdog when developing key performance indicators. GBR will set out its proposed activities over a five-year period in its business plan, setting KPIs for itself there based on how it intends to deliver the business plan and, through that delivery, meet the high-level goals in the Secretary of State’s funding objectives and her long-term rail strategy. The ORR will independently scrutinise GBR’s business plan and advise the Secretary of State on its quality, which will give the Secretary of State the right information to support her decision on whether to approve the plan. All advice on the business plan can and should be published, so the public can also be aware of how that is developing. This constructive challenge process will ensure that GBR’s KPIs are realistic, measurable and ambitious. Additionally, as we have discussed, there is already a requirement in clause 49 for GBR to consult the watchdog on policies or procedures affecting users or potential users of the railway. This would also cover consultation on any KPIs about passenger services. Therefore, this amendment is duplicative of the drafting already in the Bill, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it. New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to reduce disruption. First, it is clearly critically important that we reduce disruption for all passengers and stakeholders on the railway. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that GBR should collaborate with local authorities to reduce transport disruption across modes. I am aware of his efforts to campaign for more joined-up planning in his area, and I hope that the Bill will improve the system for him. I would point out to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, however, that there are mechanisms elsewhere in the Bill that will enable the sort of collaboration and co-operation that the amendment envisages. The Government are supportive of a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, which is why GBR will be able to agree partnerships with MSAs to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities. Together, the provisions in the Bill create a framework for significant levels of co-operation between GBR and transport authorities. GBR will be organised to work collaboratively with devolved leaders, and I would expect that potential disruptions would be discussed between them as a result of those closer working relationships, enabling them to explore possible measures to reduce disruption and contribute to the effective operation of transport networks. I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to new clause 70, which seeks to impose several requirements on GBR before it can make service changes, such as publishing a statement, publishing a notice of changes on stations or routes, providing compensation for passengers and consulting various stakeholders. Let me address each of those elements in turn. It is redundant for GBR to publish a statement about whether service changes are compatible with its functions. The Bill assigns GBR the function of providing railway passenger services, and planning service changes is inherent in that. There is no need to affirm that separately through a published statement. GBR will not plan service changes in a vacuum. Clauses 80 to 82 require GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and Transport for London before making decisions that will significantly affect the interests of the economy and people in those areas. GBR will also be required through its duties to consider local transport plans when making service changes. As for publishing notices, it is for GBR to determine the best approach to communicating service changes to the public, and GBR should be able to adapt its communications approaches in line with stakeholder needs and technological advances. The consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog will cover passenger information. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister that appropriate information will be provided to passengers. The watchdog will have powers to request improvement plans and refer issues to the ORR for enforcement when GBR falls short. I now turn to planned service changes. For clarity, as the new clause indicates, that relates to when GBR chooses to replan services in advance, for example timetables and stopping patterns. It does not relate to service disruption. I cannot see a feasible or a necessary solution to providing compensation to passengers affected by service changes of this nature. Clearly, the development of an effective timetable requires the need for service changes, for example to make the most of infrastructure enhancements for the benefit of passengers and communities. That will especially be the case under GBR, as GBR can review the network and timetable holistically and make joined-up decisions in a way that has been impossible in previous years. In relation to compensation, quite apart from the undeliverable practicalities of funding and administering such a scheme, at the heart of this is the fact that GBR is being established as the expert-led directing mind of the railway, in charge of planning the best use of the network and balancing its statutory duties. Those duties include promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services and acting in the public interest. Any planned service changes by GBR will therefore be the result of that new system and guided by those duties. Forcing GBR to compensate all those affected by service changes would therefore cut across GBR’s ability to balance its duties in the round, and could create perverse incentives not to make changes and to allow services to stagnate. I add one point of assurance: service change and service closure are separate issues. The Railways Act 2005 contains the specific processes that must be followed for full service closures, with a decision-making role for Ministers who are the relevant railway funding authority for a given service. Closure proposals must also be ratified by the ORR. The Bill does not change the fundamentals of this process, which protects our important passenger services. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve yet again under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 35 provides definitions for key terms used in chapter 1 of part 2, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpretation. I commend the clause to the Committee.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will happily let the shadow Minister intervene again, because I would like to seek clarity on how inserting “and” would allow the watchdog to choose whether it has to investigate something in the first instance.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive approach to the remaining clauses and the Government amendment as part of this group. He and his colleagues have ably and comprehensively outlined any potential concerns that they have in relation to the passenger watchdog, many of which would map over to consideration of these clauses. Therefore, I have put our points in relation to this group on the record. Question put and agreed to. Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 55 Investigations by the LTUC Amendment made: 173, in clause 55, page 31, line 30, leave out “Passengers’ Council” and insert “Committee”.— (Keir Mather.) This amendment corrects a reference that was made to the incorrect body. Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan .)
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which would require the ORR to take action in the event of a referral from the passenger watchdog. First, I will point out that enforcement actions by the ORR are not the only way in which problems can be solved. The Bill gives the watchdog the power to request improvement plans, to allow operators to explain their planned improvements and agree them with the watchdog before issues are referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action. That is likely to be a faster way to get improvements for passengers than going straight to enforcement action. I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that the watchdog will be listened to; it is an intention that the Government support. However, it is also important that the ORR, as the sector regulator, is able to take a broader view before deciding whether enforcement action is appropriate. That is because the passenger watchdog is only a passenger champion—it has a sole focus—and, by comparison, the ORR is the regulator for the whole sector and has to take into account a wide range of matters. If that were not the case, enforcement decisions could be taken that were good for the passenger but had a negative impact on the network as a whole. Each time that the ORR makes a decision, it must transparently explain its rationale to the watchdog on that basis. Therefore, in our view these amendments are unnecessary and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw them. Clause 42 will give the passenger watchdog the power to: “make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate”, in order to resolve a matter under investigation. If the watchdog believes that an operator is currently “contravening, or likely to contravene” its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly to request an improvement plan or refer the matter to the ORR and inform the Secretary of State that it has done so. If the case is referred to the ORR, the ORR can choose whether to take enforcement action or not. It must then inform the watchdog and the Secretary of State of its decision. That will ensure that the watchdog can act independently to resolve problems through engagement with operators and by directly engaging with the ORR when necessary. Without clause 42, the watchdog would not be able to effectively resolve matters that it had investigated and follow up on them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
But they are not outside the scope of the passenger watchdog as a whole. We would not want to be prescriptive in one place, only for us not to be able to make the passenger watchdog agile and adaptive in dealing with the needs of other modes. There could be unforeseen issues in which the passenger watchdog will need to represent passengers, or new developments, for instance those arising from new technology, where we would want the council to be able to advocate for passengers in the future. The Bill already gives the council a purpose: via a combination of the functions and duties set out in the Bill and the Railways Act 2005, the council’s purpose and railways functions are set out sufficiently and are rightly broad. Amendment 64 replaces the passenger watchdog’s duty to make efficient use of funds with a duty to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis. The revised duty being suggested by the shadow Minister and the duty in the Bill are to all intents and purposes the same. The watchdog will need to conduct some form of analysis to ensure it is making efficient use of funds when deciding which issues to investigate. Therefore, the amendment is duplicative and in my view unnecessary. With all this in mind, I urge the shadow Minister not to press these amendments. Clause 36 places two general duties on the watchdog, which it must consider when carrying out its rail functions. The first is a duty to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, which is designed to ensure that the watchdog will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled passengers. The second is a duty to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds when it exercises its rail functions, which will ensure that the watchdog takes the overall cost of the railway into account when carrying out its functions—for example, when advising GBR or the Government. This will ensure that its recommendations are realistic and actionable, and therefore carry more weight in the industry. These duties will enable the watchdog to be an effective passenger champion, with the needs of disabled people at the heart of its priorities.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank hon. Members for these amendments, which all relate to the passenger watchdog’s investigation reports. I will begin with amendments 138 and 69, which both require the watchdog to publish its investigation reports. Amendment 138 also requires the watchdog to lay the reports before Parliament. First, I would like to reassure the Committee that the passenger watchdog will routinely publish reports of all its investigations. The watchdog also has an obligation under the Railways Act 2005 to prepare a report of its activities at the end of each financial year, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. That obligation will remain unchanged and will ensure there is transparency and parliamentary scrutiny around the watchdog’s activities. However, it is worth saying that, for matters referred to it by the Government and the ORR, there must be an opportunity for the referees to review the watchdog’s findings and consider next steps before reports are published. The watchdog’s investigations may also uncover issues that need to be kept confidential, for instance commercially sensitive issues that should not be shared publicly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. The existing transparency and security requirements on the watchdog are comprehensive enough to ensure that the public and Parliament have access to investigation results and general reporting without compromising sensitive information. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendment 70, which would require the passenger watchdog to publish reports of its investigations within six months of completing them. Although we would expect the watchdog to publish reports of all investigations within a reasonable timeframe, it is important that it has some discretion. The watchdog’s investigation may uncover issues that need to be considered carefully and some investigations will naturally be more complex and time-consuming than others, for example investigations into persistent cross-industry issues involving multiple operators and regions. Transport Focus has raised concerns that setting a deadline may force it to hasten or reduce the scope of investigations, which is not in the passenger’s interest. Transport Focus also has arrangements in place to raise urgent issues with operators, which would continue, so it can act quickly to solve problems for passengers in parallel with investigations if needed. In some cases, reports may benefit from being shared in draft, with time allowed for those impacted to consider improvements. The watchdog should have the flexibility, in that instance, to seek the best outcome for passengers. For those reasons, I do not support a statutory requirement to publish all investigation reports to a six-month deadline. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for amendment 140, which proposes to remove the requirement for the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State to consent to the publication of an investigation report on issues that they referred to the watchdog. Clause 43 is intended to ensure that Ministers have an opportunity to review the investigation report on matters they have referred to the council before the report is published. That is especially important where the matter under investigation is sensitive and needs some discretion to raise issues carefully and privately, as that may be the best and quickest way to get action for passengers. One example would be issues relating to availability of funding, where Ministers will need to weigh that up carefully against other priorities. For those reasons, I do not support removing the requirement for ministerial consent before the council sends or publishes a report of an investigation resulting from a referral by the Secretary of State or by Scottish or Welsh Ministers. We are not expecting Ministers to refuse consent to publication, but the clause is a necessary safeguard to protect confidential information, to allow issues to be weighed up carefully and to ensure that problems are fixed for passengers as swiftly as possible. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment. Finally, clause 43 will enable the passenger watchdog to prepare, share and publish reports of its investigation findings. As I have already set out to the Committee, the watchdog must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the Secretary of State. Similar provision is in place if the investigation has been undertaken following a referral from Scottish or Welsh Ministers. If the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the ORR, the watchdog must inform the ORR before publishing a report of its findings. The clause will ensure that findings of the investigations are transparent and available to the public and Parliament, so that train operators, including GBR, can be held to account for the way they are treating passengers.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification. Amendment 141 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to standards that may be set, varied or revoked by the passenger watchdog. Amendments 73 and 144 would both remove the requirement for the ORR and the Secretary of State respectively to consent to new standards. It is my view that the watchdog must seek the Secretary of State’s consent before the standards are referenced in associated licence conditions, and therefore before they becoming binding on operators, because that is one of the only ways to ensure that the standards are affordable and actionable. Ultimately, the Secretary of State is funding GBR, and if the Government are not able to provide the funds to support a new standard, which could in theory add costs for operators, the standards are doomed to fail. Similarly, the ORR will remain the sector enforcement body, enforcing all licences. It is therefore important that it gives consent to standards before they become binding on operators. That will ensure that all standards are fair and enforceable. These measures are necessary to ensure that the new rail system will work effectively. The Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s input into the standards will provide constructive challenge, ensuring that all standards are high quality and serve the railway as well as possible. All three bodies are subject to the duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled passengers, so they will share a common goal of improving the passenger experience. There should therefore be no concern that the process will weaken or undermine standards; rather, all bodies will be committed to improvements for the passenger. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage not to press their amendments. New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to review the Access for All programme, which delivers step-free access upgrades at stations across Great Britain. I recognise that passengers with accessibility needs often find rail travel challenging, as facilities and assistance frequently do not meet expectations. Many of Great Britain’s 2,581 railway stations predate modern accessibility standards, making navigation difficult for disabled passengers. That is why the Access for All programme was introduced in 2006, and why it is so important. More than 270 stations have benefited from it so far. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has proposed a review of the programme, and I am delighted to inform him that the Government agree with him so strenuously that a review was already conducted in late 2024. The Department and Network Rail have acknowledged that the delivery of the programme from 2019 to 2024 was disappointing, which led to the late 2024 review. The national Network Rail Access for All team has now been strengthened to improve governance and financial control, and accessibility has been given a higher priority by all Network Rail regions. That review, and the associated changes, resulted in almost 34 projects being completed in the last 18 months, compared to 36 in the previous five years. I think that that demonstrates our commitment to improvement.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The shadow Minister asked about the interaction between Transport Focus and London TravelWatch in instances in which cross-border services might need active deliberation between the two organisations. They currently operate under a memorandum of understanding, and I understand that they are planning to update it when the Bill becomes more mature, which will allow them to develop a consistent framework for dealing with cross-border issues. Where a case is under investigation and is fully within the London railway area, it falls within the remit of London TravelWatch: rightly, the passenger watchdog must refer the case to London TravelWatch as the independent expert on travel in the London area. The shadow Minister also asked some operational questions about the passenger watchdog’s budgetary planning and the size of its staff. Those matters will be actively developed later in the process, once we have set the legislative foundation for the organisation to be created. The shadow Minister made a fair point about the principle of investigation, but intensive investigations are one thing, and the ability to have regard to complaints that are not vexatious is quite another.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for amendment 74 and new clause 45. Amendment 74 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when it issues requests for improvement plans, and new clause 45 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the ORR. We are creating a strong passenger watchdog, which will have real powers to monitor passenger experience and hold GBR and others to account. It will be able to demand information from GBR to a deadline, investigate problems and demand improvement plans to encourage improvements. Finally, it can refer cases for enforcement to the ORR. It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers would be too high. The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new, streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will also enforce all other railway licences, to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. That is fair and rational. If operators did not comply with their consumer licence conditions—for example, relating to accessible travel standards—the passenger watchdog would directly engage with them and request an improvement plan. We would naturally expect operators to comply with that request, because if they do not, they will be aware that the ORR can simply take action against them for the original licence breach. That mirrors what happens in practice today, where most compliance issues are resolved through direct engagement and improvement plans rather than resorting to enforcement.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I see.
3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, but also right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee for their contributions on this important point. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is correct that I intend to argue that the passenger watchdog will focus inherently on the needs of passengers. I believe that that is self-actualising, to an extent, in creating one in the first place. But he is also right to push me further on specific provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made some really important points, first about the fact that the duties and responsibilities inherent to the passenger watchdog demonstrate how it will serve the interests of passengers. Having an independent monitoring power for the passenger experience, investigation powers, enforcing minimum consumer standards—this is inherent to representing passengers on the railway.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Before I get into to my substantive points on this amendment, I want to circle back to a query the shadow Minister raised earlier, via an intervention, about accessibility and data sharing. I have a little more specificity to share with him: independent retailers will have the same opportunity as GBR to provide passenger assist to customers, and we are absolutely committed to a fair and open market. As part of this, the ORR’s code of practice will ensure that retailers get sufficient access to systems and data.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution as part of this debate, and throughout our proceedings, on the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities and for parents with children. She has already shared with me, for my benefit, examples from across Europe of where family-friendly accessibility measures are baked into the way train services operate. One notably striking example was of a children’s playground in a railway carriage in Finland. We hope that accessibility in all its forms can be embedded into GBR’s operational processes, including where it creates new opportunities for things like additional passenger services. I also point my hon. Friend to the fact that the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is a really important piece of the puzzle in ensuring we have rolling stock that is unified in its capacity to offer better services for passengers with disabilities and for families travelling on our railways. Her point is very well made. The Government are committed to ensuring that Britain’s railway continues to rank as one of the safest worldwide and, as promised, the Bill does not change that safety regime. In my view, there is no need for further safety duties in the Bill. In short, everything that amendment 32 seeks to do is already in the Bill’s provisions, so to include it would be duplicative and would muddy the definition of “performance”. Amendment 31 is intended to require a report on how GBR has balanced the general duties in clause 18, but the amendment is unnecessary. The clearest account of how GBR has balanced its duties will be set out in its published business plan, which the ORR must advise on and the Secretary of State must approve—both reviewing the plan with those same duties in mind.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Clause 21 preserves the Secretary of State’s current ability to issue guidance to the Office of Rail and Road under the Railways Act 1993, and clause 22 does the same for Scottish Ministers. The clauses are necessary to maintain the ability of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to issue guidance to the ORR when exercising relevant statutory functions, alongside the ORR’s duty to have regard to such guidance, which must of course be published to ensure that the safety regime that underpins the railway does not change. Both clauses confirm that neither the Secretary of State nor Scottish Ministers can issue guidance to the ORR in relation to its functions as an enforcing authority under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This is to ensure that the safety regime remains completely independent of Ministers. In addition, guidance cannot be issued to the ORR when it carries out functions relating to train driver licensing, or its functions under the Competition Act 1998 to main consistency in the arrangements for competition regulation between the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority. That will also provide further protection for the private sector. The guidance issued under the clauses is intended, as is currently the case, to support the ORR in discharging its relevant statutory functions. Guidance can provide for a better common understanding of an area or encourage a strategic focus on specific issues, whether that relates to supporting freight growth, driving efficiency or improving passenger experience. Furthermore, the ORR will be afforded the flexibility to balance any issued guidance against its wider statutory duties and requirements. The ORR confirmed at the Transport Committee that it can balance receiving ministerial guidance with its role as an independent regulator, and that it does so effectively already. Therefore, the clauses will help to ensure that the ORR’s regulatory role remains aligned with the strategic priorities set by the Government in a manner that is practical, proportionate and does not undermine the ORR’s independence as a regulator. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 169, in clause 24, page 13, line 29, at end insert— “(da) contain provision about the use to be made of the power to give directions under section 7,”. This amendment makes further provision concerning memoranda of understanding between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank all hon. Members for their amendments, which seek to make changes to the provisions on the rail freight growth target. I also thank the shadow Minister for his very warm birthday wishes. I agree with the sentiment that he expressed: what more of a gift could I have received than working through the amendments in this group? Amendment 262 seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of how targets to increase freight on the rail network could impact level crossings. As I said in a debate on a previous group of amendments, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that any future decisions on rail operations—passenger or freight—are well informed and responsive to local needs and those of the railway more broadly. GBR will continue to manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, as enforced by the ORR, that reflects local and national priorities, and that is firmly grounded in evidence at a local level.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
We have already discussed amendments 166 to 168, which provide clarity on the situations in which the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when issuing directions or guidance to GBR. Amendment 169 will provide the opportunity for further clarity by encouraging the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to address how the power of direction and consent requirement will be used within the terms of the memorandum of understanding. That mirrors the provision in clause 23 for the MOU between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. The amendment is a sensible mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will work together to hold GBR to account against their own priorities within a stable and co-operative framework that supports the operation of the whole system. I commend it to the Committee. Clause 24 provides the legislative basis for the MOU with the Welsh Government. Just as clause 23 does for Scotland, clause 24 requires the preparation and publication of the MOU and states some of the areas that it may cover. The areas the MOU may cover for each devolved Government are different to reflect their distinct devolution arrangements. For example, clause 24 explains that the MOU for Wales may contain joint objectives for the railway within the Wales and borders area. That creates a practical mechanism to drive co-operation and to set out the detail of how the railway will be run. It will encourage both Governments to carry out their functions in a joined-up way, while ensuring appropriate accountability and transparency. In turn, that will drive better outcomes for passengers on both sides of the border. I commend the clause to the Committee.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Clause 19 ensures that the existing safety duty under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 will be preserved in full and continue to apply to the relevant sector bodies. Safety is a critical priority for the Secretary of State and for this Government. The clause is necessary to fulfil the Government’s commitment that the Bill will not alter the existing legal framework underpinning rail safety, which has led to Britain’s railways consistently ranking as among the safest in the world. That is all I have to say on the clause.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will start with the point about accessibility, which the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford have both spoken about. I reiterate how essential it is that accessibility provisions are hardwired into the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work that is already taking place in that space, whether that is delivering the next phase of the passenger assist programme, rolling out welcome points more broadly or widening eligibility for the disabled persons railcard. He is right to say that there is a lot further to go. We are all responsible, through the creation of GBR, for ensuring that accessibility is wired into the heart of it through its duties and in the functioning of the passenger watchdog—to which we will turn to later in our deliberations. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about accessibility of railway functions through an app. GBR will have a one-stop-shop app where people will be able to book train tickets and passenger assist all in the same place, which will hopefully go some way to addressing the concerns that he has outlined.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
With respect to the hon. Member, I do not think that those two examples are analogous. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to set out the long-term rail strategy, to guide how GBR will work over the decades to come, but in terms of access, charging, passenger experience and making sure that our railway runs for every part of the United Kingdom, GBR will be solely responsible for that work. Therefore, I do not believe that the NHS England comparison works in this instance. Both amendments 98 and 236 would require the ORR to consider whether GBR procuring services from the private sector would be a more efficient use of public funds. In carrying out its monitoring role, the ORR is already under a duty to consider the efficient use of taxpayers’ money, alongside duties to promote the interests of passengers, the use of rail freight and the public interest. Prescribing a specific and focused test that the ORR must apply when monitoring the delivery and outcomes of GBR’s activities is ideologically driven and adds nothing to the already comprehensive monitoring role that the ORR possesses. The ORR’s monitoring and advisory role, His Majesty’s Treasury spending controls and external scrutiny will all ensure proper value-for-money scrutiny. If the ORR thought there was a significantly better value-for-money way of achieving a certain objective than the one proposed in the business plan put forward by GBR, the ORR could highlight that to GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill therefore already delivers this intent. New clause 43 would require the Secretary of State to set a private sector growth target. I agree that the private sector has a vital role to play in our railways. That is true across the supply chain—in rolling stock, freight, open access services, ticket retail and innovation—and nothing in the Bill seeks to exclude or marginalise that contribution. However, we do not agree that imposing a statutory growth target for private sector involvement is the right approach. The Bill establishes Great British Railways as the single directing mind for the railway, responsible for balancing its statutory duties in the round. Those duties include promoting the interests of passengers and potential passengers, making efficient use of public funds, promoting the use of rail freight and enabling providers to plan for the future of their businesses. Those are the right incentives to create the railway that we want—one that is reliable, connected, effective and brings together the best of the public and private sectors to deliver for the general public. Private sector growth in isolation, without regard to those aims, could drive the wrong incentives and will not create the railway that we all want to see. The Bill is designed to secure the best of both worlds. GBR will simplify engagement and provide clearer long-term direction and greater certainty, while continuing to procure billions of pounds’ worth of goods and services from private sector suppliers. We expect that a substantial proportion of GBR’s expenditure, once established, will continue to flow through the private sector. Open access operators will continue to play a role where they add value and represent best use of the network, supported by fair and transparent access and charging arrangements, with appropriate regulatory safeguards. The supply chain will benefit from longer-term strategies and more coherent planning than the fragmented system delivers today, and the duties reflect the need for private sector providers to plan with certainty. What matters is not meeting an arbitrary target, but delivering better outcomes for passengers, freight and the taxpayer. A statutory private sector growth target would add rigidity where flexibility and judgment are required. In the light of all those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press the amendments and the new clause.
29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Before I speak to amendment 39, I will respond to the questions about the timings of the MOUs, but may I bring the Committee’s attention to the fact that, by reaching this clause, we are now one quarter of the way through the Bill? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The hard work progresses. Work has begun on negotiating the MOUs with Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The MOUs are subject to negotiation with the two Governments, but as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston pointed out, the heads of terms for the Welsh MOU have been published. It is our intention to publish the Scottish MOU as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham imagined a nightmare scenario in which we are not able to publish the heads of terms because we do not reach an agreement. Both the testimony we heard at the Transport Committee and what Scottish Ministers, including Fiona Hyslop, have had to say suggest that the negotiations are progressing, as are deliberations on the Bill overall. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask what the pre-election period means for the publication of the MOUs. I refer him to the noble Lord Hendy’s testimony on publication to the Transport Committee, in which he essentially conveyed the message that we are cognisant of the fact that that period is approaching and that we are working on the development of the MOUs on that basis.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →