Coastguard Rescue Service
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am making this statement to provide an update on the coastguard rescue service. I would like to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by coastguard rescue officers across the United Kingdom. For generations, HM Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve with professionalism, commitment and courage. That tradition remains at the heart of the coastguard rescue service today.
On 14 January 2026, the Court of Appeal found against the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the case of the MCA v. Groom. This clarified that, by providing modest remuneration, the MCA had inadvertently created a worker relationship with coastguard rescue officers. A change was therefore required to restore the volunteer model, or enact the worker model, to ensure compliance with the judgment.
On 1 June it was communicated that the coastguard rescue service would change to an expenses-only volunteer model from September 2026. This was judged at the time to be the best option, based on the advice provided by the MCA, taking into account a variety of factors.
I have listened to the views and testimonies of coastguard rescue officers about how these changes might affect them. I visited a coastguard station in Southampton, met officers from Hill Head and Portsmouth teams, and heard at first hand the impact that changes could have on CROs and their families.
MPs across the House, on behalf of their constituents, have raised concerns through parliamentary questions, a Westminster Hall debate and an urgent question. This engagement has been invaluable. I have also heard the deep concerns from many in the coastguard rescue officer community about this change.
Given these concerns, my Department has undertaken further work to scrutinise the information that was provided to inform decision making. Having done so, it has become clear that parts of the information gathering process to inform MCA operational decisions—in particular, the two surveys undertaken—were not sufficiently detailed to properly reflect the impact of these changes.
I can therefore confirm that plans to move to the expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and current arrangements will remain in place.
CROs must feel that their views have been heard, and that they are valued, respected and empowered to carry out their duties and I am committed to ensuring that we now take the time to robustly gather the information required to understand the full operational implications of future decisions, as well as the impact on individual coastguard rescue officers and the choices they will make. This will involve engaging with CROs directly, and ensuring that their views inform the decisions that we will take on the shape of the coastguard rescue service.
Over the coming months, the MCA will carry out further engagement with trade unions, coastguard rescue officers and Members of Parliament, to understand more deeply the potential impact of changes on individuals and operations. The insight gathered from this engagement will support the MCA’s understanding of operational implications, and inform future decisions on the shape of the coastguard rescue service.
In the longer term, the Department for Transport will explore options for how coastguard rescue officers can continue to be rightfully recognised and rewarded and have the flexibility to continue to serve their communities.
Ensuring the safety of the public along our coastline and continuing to properly recognise those who protect our communities through their vital work remain my key priorities.
[HCWS272]
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government strongly support the maritime sector. We have made maritime autonomy a flagship case study for the regulating for growth Bill, updated the national policy statement for ports to support port developments, provided £448 million to support maritime decarbonisation and strengthened seafarer protections. We are also developing a maritime growth strategy to boost the sector’s economic growth.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer. He and I have had several interactions over the marine autonomy sector in particular, and I welcome the regulating for growth Bill, as I have said before in this place. However, I am incredibly keen to be reassured that it is coming early in the autumn. Will the Minister help me to meet those drafting the Bill? A request I made to the chief executive officer of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has not been replied to, and I am very keen to ensure that the businesses working in that sector in my constituency are able to influence the Bill and that we get it through as quickly as possible.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her continued support in promoting the maritime autonomy sector both in her constituency and across the country. She is right to do so. Research from the National Shipbuilding Office shows that there is potential to grow the sector to about £8.3 billion of gross value added by 2050 if we get it right. I will be sure to facilitate a discussion with the relevant officials in the Department for Business and Trade, and I thank her for her continued advocacy on this important matter.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Of vital importance to our maritime sector is our coastguard and our volunteer coastguard officers. I know that the MCA’s planned changes to the operating model have been causing serious concern in coastal communities such as mine in Hastings, Rye and the villages. I thank the Minister for really listening to those concerns from our coastal communities. Can I urge him to ensure that these plans are paused and do not go ahead on 1 September, and to really look at the MCA’s handling of this situation? Will he also join me in thanking the brilliant coastguard rescue officers and the many people in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in my constituency and up and down the country?
Keir Mather
I join my hon. Friend in extending my thanks to CROs across the country for the incredible work that they do. We want to ensure that CROs are tret with dignity and respect, and that they are empowered to carry out their incredible duties. Having listened to the views and testimonies of CROs at first hand, I can confirm that the plans to move to the expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and that current arrangements will remain in place. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and Members across the House to make sure that we get this right.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for pausing the MCA’s brutal decision about coastguard rescue officers, and for convening meetings on cross-Solent ferry transport to the Isle of Wight, which will start next month. It is of some concern, however, that I have received a letter—not from him—telling me certain things that I was not allowed to discuss, including evidence of ticketing and reliability going back more than 10 years. I am sure he understands that the world did not start in 2016, and I will not be told by anyone how to best represent my constituents, or what I can or cannot say.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman of course knows best how to represent his constituents on these important matters. I believe that the dynamic he is pointing to is the dynamic of when dynamic pricing was introduced prior to 2010, and the need to be able to compare and contrast the impact of that on pricing. Evidence about that is of course important, and I hope it is factored into the ongoing work.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside is home to a world-leading maritime industry and an excellent further education landscape. However, one issue that the Tees maritime cluster has identified is a lack of join-up between the two and the fact that there are insufficient qualifications locally for young people to get into the industry. Will the Department work with the Tees Valley combined authority to address this gap and make sure that more young people can get into the industry locally?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that a thriving maritime sector relies not only on technological advancement, but on a growing skill base to make sure that the maritime economy benefits every part of the United Kingdom, including his constituency. I would be very glad to work with the combined authority as we seek to promote maritime skills and draw more young people into this fantastic sector in which to work.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday.
Turning to the question at hand, I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is going to stop the ill-judged decision on CROs, but that does not let the MCA off the hook. At a meeting of MPs recently, the chief executive of the MCA claimed that 93% of coastguard rescue officers supported plans to make them unpaid volunteers. We know from a leaked internal survey that the MCA misrepresented the views of CROs both to Ministers and to Parliament. Up to half of them said that they would quit or reduce their hours if the Government forced through the plans to remove their pay. Given that the Minister has reversed the decision and that he has signally failed to express his support for the chief executive, can he now confirm whether or not he still has confidence in the chief executive of the MCA?
Keir Mather
May I start by extending my thanks to the shadow Minister? Anyone who can endure trading remarks with me on the Railways Bill for as long as we were in Committee together is an absolute stalwart and a credit to the House, so I thank him for working with me on that.
On the broader questions he raises about the MCA, the MCA and His Majesty’s Coastguard do vital work. Ministers have full confidence in the service, but when those on the ground raise concerns on the scale we have seen, and when the evidence base proves insufficient, it is absolutely right that we pause and engage again. That is exactly what the decision to not move ahead with the new model in September facilitates. It will ensure that we treat CROs with the dignity and respect they deserve and, most importantly, that we get this system right.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Transport Secretary and I have held regular discussions about preparations for the EU entry-exit system, and its potential impacts on passenger flows. The Secretary of State has engaged directly with counterparts in France and the European Union, stressing the need for appropriate border staffing levels to support smooth journeys for British travellers on their well-earned holidays this summer.
Jonathan Reynolds
The European Commission has confirmed that member states may partially suspend EES checks for up to 90 days at peak times, extendable for a further 60 days. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been conversations with European counterparts about applying that flexibility at Dover, Folkestone and St Pancras this summer?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of passenger flows relating to EES through the juxtaposed controls. I confirm that the Secretary of State has met her French counterpart and the relevant commissioner at the European Union to discuss a range of issues relating to EES. As part of that, we continually discuss what easements or adjustments are necessary to ensure that flows are appropriately managed.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Road haulage companies in my constituency have reported huge delays as a result of the introduction of the EU entry-exit system—delays that are costing them time and money. Will the Minister meet me and those in the freight and logistics sector to find solutions?
Keir Mather
I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from the freight sector. It is crucial that the sector is empowered to carry out its vital work, especially in the short straits, through which approximately 60% of UK-EU trade passes. She is an advocate for the freight sector in her constituency and across the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that we get this right, so I would be glad to meet her to discuss this subject.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
What a weekend, Mr Speaker! Ministers will be hovering by the phone on Monday or Tuesday. What a visual display of success or failure there will be, as the number of holidaymakers heading to the continent ramps up for the summer season. The Government have had two years on this. Multiple Select Committees in the previous Parliament warned that the technology would not be ready, and that the introduction of the system would be a disaster. How on earth have we got to a situation where the Secretary of State is making last-minute dashes to the European Commission and the French Government to try to get a few extra kiosks—for which the technology does not even work—as holidaymakers face chaos this weekend?
Keir Mather
That is a very theatrical question from the shadow Minister on the scale of the challenge that we face. I can confirm that the meetings that we are having on EES, both in Government and with our counterparts, are to ensure that we get this right, ahead of the peak period. We have supported the port of Dover and Eurotunnel with £3.5 million each in preparation for EES, and earlier this week, we announced £20 million in funding, subject to the completion of relevant checks, to further support border infrastructure at the port of Dover. We are taking a sober, sensible and non-theatrical approach to getting this right.
Greg Smith
I have always enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister. As the nation learned devastatingly last night, trying to defend a single position for a prolonged period does not always have a happy ending. If we get the chaos that is predicted for holidaymakers and freight operators this weekend, will the Government go to the European Union and the French Government and demand that the system be shut down and paused until the technology can be got right?
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I can confirm that I have been clear with Ministers in Government, and that Ministers have been clear with French and EU counterparts, that they should do all they can to avoid disruption, including using the existing flexibilities in EES regulations. We are not being complacent and asking for things retrospectively; we are taking the right steps now to ensure that our juxtaposed controls are prepared. There is £3.5 million to prepare for EES operations, both for the port of Dover, and for Eurotunnel and St Pancras.
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.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are committed to supporting the aviation sector. We are unlocking growth by progressing planning decisions and consulting on the framework for future decisions on Heathrow’s third runway. We are modernising our airspace through the new UK airspace design service and support fund, and are driving decarbonisation, backing sustainable aviation fuel and providing funding for new low and zero emission technologies. We will publish an updated jet zero strategy in early 2027.
James Asser
I recently visited the British Airline Pilots’ Association training facility and flight simulator with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I confess, Mr Speaker, that the results were mixed: if you are flying on your holidays next week, you would not want to fly with either of us! But if I had wanted to fly, I would face training costs in excess of £100,000, with very few funding packages to provide support. That means that kids in my constituency can watch the planes take off at London City airport but stand very little chance of actually joining that industry. Does the Minister agree that we need accessible pathways to pilot training in order to drag the system into the 21st century and to remove it from a position where only a small minority with the financial means to do so can access the industry?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right that the barriers to a career in aviation are too high, and this Government are committed to supporting recruitment from as diverse a range of backgrounds as possible. Our Generation Aviation programme promotes aviation careers through outreach and apprenticeships to help build a future-ready workforce, and has reached over 1 million young people since it began.
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.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. This Government are committed to enabling aviation employers to recruit and train pilots from a broader and more diverse talent pool in Doncaster East and across the United Kingdom, supporting growth by removing regulatory barriers and promoting aviation opportunities.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Secretary of State appears to think it is scaremongering to suggest that, with effect from this weekend, passenger and freight traffic using the channel tunnel and the port of Dover will be disrupted as a result of the European entry and exit system. I do not want the grievance; I want the solution, and I want it before the event, not after it. What is the Secretary of State going to do to achieve an agreement with the European Commission and the French to suspend this ridiculous system until it works properly?
Keir Mather
With enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are taking proactive action to prepare for any potential EES disruption. We have spoken with our French and European counterparts about using the full range of easements, but most importantly, we have provided funding to the juxtaposed controls so that they can prepare for any disruption before it occurs.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be visiting Immingham this afternoon. Does he agree that his journey would be much more convenient if there were a direct train service from King’s Cross to my constituency, and will he join my campaign to ensure that happens?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman is a dogged campaigner for providing that rail link and I will report back to him about the quality of my journey. I am excited for the steel signing ceremony ahead of the opening of the new eastern roll-on roll-off terminal at the port of Immingham, which I understand the hon. Gentleman has been a passionate champion of.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Would the Minister encourage the Government’s traffic commissioner for Scotland to build on the remarkable success of bus franchising in Manchester, and work with the Scottish Government to emulate the success of Manchester’s Bee Network in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Fuel is being transported hundreds of miles from Stanlow in Cheshire to Scottish airports, increasing emissions and undermining our local fuel distribution industry. What will the Department do, alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade and the Scotland Office, to protect fuel security and Scottish jobs, including those of tanker drivers?
Keir Mather
Fuel security and the Scottish jobs that it underpins are of incredible importance to this Government. We remain in regular contact with both the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments to ensure that we are ready to respond in a co-ordinated manner should any disruption to our fuel and refining capabilities arise.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
If a person has a pram, heavy luggage or a bike, or is disabled, it is difficult to use the railway if there is no step-free access. Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), can she outline whether rural areas will be prioritised for step-free access in the future? For many of those people, there are no alternative forms of transport.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Whenever the Secretary of State reviews the ZEV mandate, will she confirm that she will consider the entire electric vehicle supply chain, including the billions invested in domestic lithium mining, battery production and charge point operators, and not just the views of ICE-based legacy car manufacturers?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the EV industry depends on not only automotive manufacturers but the billions of pounds in the charge point sector and the workers who underpin it. Throughout our consideration of the ZEV mandate, we will ensure that our environmental obligations are met alongside making good business sense for all relevant partners in the sector.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
We very much welcome the Government’s initiative to give children free bus travel throughout the summer—it is a great idea. The only problem is that in Winchester and its surrounding area, Hampshire county council keeps cutting funding for bus services. Will the Minister explain what the Department is doing to encourage councils and operators to increase rather than decrease bus services?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cabin air quality, I recently met pilots and cabin crew about the impact of fume events and the lifelong consequences that they can have for them. What steps are the Government taking to investigate, research, regulate and mitigate those issues?
Keir Mather
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Air quality in relation to both pilot and passenger safety is of real concern to the Department for Transport. We undertake work constantly to monitor the impact of cabin air quality on those affected groups, and I would be glad to have a further conversation with him to take that work further.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question on British Steel, can I say that I am amazed that a statement was not brought to the House on this very important matter that affects different constituencies? Nothing ever seems to change, but can the message go back that just telling me is not an answer? This is a big issue for MPs who serve constituencies with steel jobs; it is not one that should have to be brought to the House under an urgent question.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and proposed changes to payments made to coastguard rescue officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling this urgent question on what is an incredibly important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the remuneration of coastguard rescue officers, and I want to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by CROs across the United Kingdom. For generations, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve, often alongside full-time employment and family life. The reason we are here today is that the model had to change.
For years, when people signed up as volunteers, they had their expenses covered and an offer of hourly pay—which they did not need to claim—in recognition of the incredible service they undertook and the impact it had on their personal life. A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that this payment overwhelmingly shifted what many considered to be a volunteer relationship into a work-wage bargain, and that this in turn conferred worker status. Everything we have done since has been to respect that judgment, understand what we do next, and allow CROs to continue fulfilling their vital public service and retain operational capacity.
There is no perfect solution, but ultimately, the volunteer model was judged at the time to be the better outcome for the service. That was the judgment reached by the MCA, which—as experts in search and rescue—took into account a variety of factors including profiles of incident types, geographies and organisational implications, as well as a survey of CRO sentiment and legal analysis, with which it made a recommendation. That recommendation allowed CROs to retain volunteer status, with the aim of protecting flexibility and the ability of people to serve alongside their primary employment. Careful consideration was given to options, including legal position, the operational implications and the wider organisational impact.
I have heard the concerns of the CRO community about this change. That is why the next stage of the process—the engagement sessions that were due to take place this week—have been postponed while I carry on working with CROs, trade unions and colleagues across the House. I will reflect on what has been raised in these discussions and consider how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised in the long term. Volunteering has been at the heart of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s response for over 200 years. It enables individuals to serve their communities alongside their primary employment, maintaining choice and flexibility. I remain grateful to all members of the Coastguard Rescue Service for their unwavering commitment to their communities and people in distress around the UK coastline.
Mr Carmichael
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to ask this urgent question today, and I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, last week, we had more than 30 Members in Westminster Hall for a debate on these changes. I am pleased to hear that as a result of his intervention, the check-in meetings were postponed, and that the matters are now under full consideration. Is the Department considering the possibility of legislative change to deal with this problem? The House goes into recess at the end of next week, so can the Minister give the House an undertaking that those check-in meetings and this process of change will not be resumed during the recess, and without a statement first being made to this House?
Since last week’s debate, I have been contacted by a number of full-time officers who have described to me a toxic management culture within the agency. I have been told of at least three whistleblowing complaints that were made to the Department in March. Despite the passage of time, the whistleblowers remain unclear about the progress of their complaints. Can the Minister give me some reassurance that those whistleblowing complaints will be properly and speedily investigated, and that a proper and independent investigation will now be initiated into the management culture within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?
Finally, information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act release indicates that responses to the MCA’s own survey show that almost 40% of CROs would either reduce the number of call-outs to which they respond or leave the service completely. That contradicts what Members of this House were told by the MCA. Can the Minister please explain why this information was not disclosed voluntarily by the agency? Will he now fully disclose the outcome of that survey?
Keir Mather
May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member not only for his championing of CROs, but for doing so in such a fair-minded, open and constructive way? I will respond substantively to some of the points he has made. On parliamentary scrutiny of prospective changes or working through options for the future of CROs, I make the commitment to him that Members of Parliament will be updated fully on any changes and on the next steps. During the Westminster Hall debate on this issue, he made the important point that MPs need to be allowed access to CROs to have meaningful conversations about what they think the future of the service should look like.
The right hon. Member asks whether survey data was used to inform the judgment that was made. I can confirm to him that survey data was one constituent part of a package of advice in regard to an operational recommendation by experts at the MCA about what the future model should look like. That was used alongside impact assessments and modelling. He raised this in his contribution to the Westminster Hall debate, but if he has further information about how CROs believe this change will impact them, and about the reality for his rural constituency and the island communities that he represents so fulsomely, I strongly encourage him to share that with me. I reiterate that I want Members of Parliament to be able to play a full role in representing CROs throughout this process.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I declare my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services. I inform the House that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for coastal communities, we are holding a joint evidence session for CROs next week, so that they can come and tell their stories to parliamentarians. When I spoke to my CROs in Stornoway and across the Western Isles, their message was one that I hope has been received by the Minister: pause the consultation, listen to CROs and hear about the vital role that they play as a fourth blue light service. The role is about not just coastal rescue, but delivering carers and emergency workers to the elderly in time of need. Can I also have an assurance that he will keep CROs fully informed about the process and come back before Parliament goes into recess to ensure that we are fully informed?
Keir Mather
I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple.
Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package.
The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?
Keir Mather
On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead.
I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG for coastal communities. I recently met coastguard rescue officers from Ravenscar who are seriously concerned about the future of the service. These CROs bring decades-long experience and routinely respond to complex call-outs in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, including, sadly, those involving suicide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has mentioned, we are holding an evidence session next week in Parliament. May I invite the Minister to attend and hear at first hand from CROs about their fears for the future?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question. Highly skilled, experienced coastguard volunteers are being badly let down by the Government, and I cannot imagine other rescue service personnel being treated in the same way. No one could argue that £11 an hour was enriching these volunteers; it was merely enabling them to do their vital work. As one coastguard volunteer from my constituency put it,
“I make significant personal and financial sacrifices to be available for emergency callouts—and I didn’t join the service to get paid.”
Sadly, we did not need to get to this point.
Did the Minister even speak to any of the CROs to hear what impact the changes would have on them before this rushed decision was made? Will he commit himself to a full risk assessment of these damaging changes? Finally, will he confirm that the Government are considering viable alternatives, such as a statutory stipend system, passing legislation to exempt CROs from worker status, or even just embracing their worker status?
Keir Mather
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson was right to say that CROs do not do it for the money, but it is the money that makes what they do possible. He also said that £11 an hour does not constitute remuneration in the way that it might, given that we would all hope that CROs can be respected. What it does do is go some small way towards compensating for the Christmas dinners and birthdays missed, the call-outs in the middle of the night, and the disruption to family life. That is a part of the CRO experience that I think needs to flow into our decision making and that was certainly reflected to me when I spoke to the 15 CROs in Southampton the other day and learned about their lived experience of processing these changes.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about risk, about mitigating risk, and about operational certainty. I can confirm to him that operational impacts were carefully considered in the advice that was put to me, and that that modelling has been done and has informed this part of a package of data, alongside the survey information. That informs the experts in the MCA, who are there to advise on what the operational impacts would be, of the reality of the situation.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his continued engagement with me and with other Members, but given the unique nature of the role of coastguard rescue officers and their extraordinary commitment to responding at all hours in areas including my own constituency, will he ensure that the Department undertakes a comprehensive assessment of all viable options so that the Government can reach a fully informed decision that is right for both CROs and the communities, such as mine, that they serve with such dedication?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to reiterate that CROs, their lived experience and their views on these changes must be at the heart of what happens next, which is why the meetings that were scheduled to take place this week are not taking place this week. I want to take the time to reflect on what hon. Members have told me, and also what CROs have had the opportunity to tell me about how these changes will affect them. Nowhere is that more important than in rural communities like the one that my hon. Friend represents. Let me build on that point. As the local Member of Parliament, she should be able to engage with her CROs on this matter where it is most convenient to do so—perhaps at the station itself—so that she can represent them. It is also important for trade union representation to be factored into ongoing engagement with CROs, so that we can make sure we get the details right.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The boss of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency told MPs in person that 93% of CROs surveyed were happy with moving to an unpaid volunteer model. That was false: the survey data shows that in many areas across the UK, nearly half would reduce their hours or quit. I am amazed that the Minister has any confidence in the boss of the MCA. Will he now confirm that the decision will not take effect in September and that he will consult properly himself, and will he say if he does have confidence in the boss of the MCA?
Keir Mather
We need to ensure that the CROs who are affected by these changes have an opportunity to carry on raising their concerns, but also to raise other instances. The hon. Gentleman has argued forcefully that the worker model is an appropriate way in which to continue, and that could be true in a great number of cases, but it is not true in every case. Indeed, I spoke to a CRO in Southampton for whom it is not the case.
We need to tease out the detail of all these matters. We need to listen carefully to CROs, and we need to create the space to allow that to happen. I am not going to say specifically what options I may or may not take in the coming days, but by pausing the sessions that were meant to happen this week I am creating the space that will make it possible to weigh up those options dispassionately and ensure that we can get them right, so that CROs can continue to share their views and we can make decisions that reflect the incredible contribution they make.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.
I am sorry to say that it beggars belief that the response of a Labour Government to a court judgment confirming workers’ rights should be to run in the opposite direction, in some perverse form of fire and rehire. I hope the Minister will make it clear that that is not what we stand for, and that he will do his utmost to address the situation. However, there is a wider point, isn’t there? Too often we see ambiguities in employment status dealt with by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Is that not a reason for us to get on with our manifesto commitment to move to a single status of worker?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the House of making sure that workers and their rights are protected, but his characterisation of the situation at the start of his question was one that I could not reject more strongly. Changes in the coastguard rescue service operating model are the result of a legal judgment which meant that the current model could not legally continue. What we are attempting to do is maintain a system whereby CROs feel valued in their work and feel motivated to turn up and carry out their shifts, and ensure that the fairness that is inherent to that is respected and implemented. That is exactly why I have postponed those meetings this week, and created the space in which to hear from CROs directly about their concerns and to get the detail of this right.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The MCA has told MPs that it has data to back its claim that CROs would rather be volunteers than employees. Can the Minister confirm that those findings can be shared? This has a massive bearing on the MCA’s decision, and may greatly undermine the essential lifeline that CROs provide to coastal communities like mine in North Devon.
Keir Mather
I understand that for the hon. Gentleman it is not an option to have a coastguard service that works effectively; it is an absolute necessity to protect people in his coastal community. What I can say to him is that we will continue to engage with CROs. When one of his colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate asked me what information could be shared, I made a commitment that I would go back to my officials and ask that question, and that is something that I am currently working through. However, what I have derived from this process is the need to ensure—this has been my enduring objective throughout the process—that CROs feel heard and are able to share their concerns, including through their MPs, and the hon. Gentleman has rightly allowed that to happen.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB, and also declare that I am a supporter of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question, and pay tribute to the lifesaving work done by our local coastguard officers, as well as the brilliant volunteer RNLI officers and those in independent lifeboats, like the one at Pett in my constituency. I also thank the Minister for stepping in and pausing this process. I agree with him that it is vital for us to review the process fully and reflect on the MCA’s handling of the issue—which, in the experience of my local coastguard officers, has been pretty shocking—and to pause and take enough time to get this right for our coastal communities. Given the increase in extreme weather events owing to climate change—we are experiencing a heat wave now, we know that there will be more storms, and there might even be more sharks coming to our waters—the work of the coastguard officers is more important than ever before.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points, and for enabling me to reflect on a question that has been raised by a number of Members: the question of about how engagement is to take place from now on. Let me make it absolutely clear that my expectation is for all engagement with CROs, whether through the MCA or meetings with Members of Parliament, to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I want CROs to feel able to share their views openly in all their complexity—and I found some of the allegations made last week by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about CROs being made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their views deeply concerning.
Let me reiterate that I will be making it clear to the MCA’s leadership that that is how I want them to approach this engagement. It includes ensuring that MPs and trade unions play their full role, and I hope that my hon. Friend can do so.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
This House has the capacity to criticise, but it also has the capacity to be fair. The Minister probably finds himself between a rock and a cliff face in a situation that he did not make himself. That does not absolve the MCA from the criticism that has rightly been levelled at it earlier today.
Mine is one of those peculiar constituencies that have both a north coast and a south coast. Those two coastlines are served by dedicated volunteers who go out in all weathers to save lives, and I have heard from some of them. It is quite clear that unless this situation is resolved swiftly, those people will be lost—and if they are lost, they will not come back. Obviously I cannot speak for others on these Benches, but I will back whatever measure the Minister seeks to take in order to ensure that there is a timely resolution to this issue, so that we do not lose good people.
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that we cannot afford to lose the level of experience that we have within the MCA and the CRO community. I, too, heard the scale of concern that he so ably references and has experienced among his own coastguard volunteers. It is critical to recognise all the work that CROs undertake that lies outside the call-outs they receive. They do an enormous amount of work, which is not fully recognised and needs to be. On treating them with due respect and esteem, it is essential that we figure out a way forward that allows us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has picked up the necessity to do that, and it is certainly my intention that that will inform whatever comes next in this process.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I am very grateful to hear that the Minister has engaged with coastguard rescue officers in Southampton, which is typical of his diligent manner and his approach to difficult issues like this. I invite him to interact with my constituents who are part of the Plymouth coastguard rescue team, who tell me harrowing stories of supporting the ambulance service and the police—sadly, too often with suicide-related issues. It is an unbelievable service and, yes, CROs deserve remuneration, but they also deserve a lot more recognition. Will the Minister agree to speak to those constituents of mine?
Keir Mather
I would be glad to speak to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and he raises an incredibly important point: very often, CROs are not only discharging the responsibilities that we would expect of coastguard rescue officers; they are increasingly filling in the gaps for other emergency blue light services that, for whatever reason, are not able to get to people in time, or are thinly stretched and require CROs to step up. That requires them to go beyond the operational requirements that we would expect of them. This process is not just about recognising the incredible service that they contribute within the envelope of what is expected of them; they go beyond that every single day. My hon. Friend explains the issue well, and I would be happy to engage with his constituents.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In my discussions with coastguards in Torbay, they have shared the full spectrum of their activities. One of the most disturbing and harrowing is the recovery of dead bodies—not only where humans or pets may have gone over the edge of a cliff, but where people have died from drowning. That may be an accident or a suicide, and it will leave emotional scars on the officers. Does the Minister agree that choosing not to financially compensate people who undertake work that many of us would find really difficult is nothing short of an insult?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the contributions that CROs make in the most tragic and emotionally traumatic circumstances. We need to do a number of things, including building a system that allows us to retain operational capacity so that we can keep people safe in our water, and granting CROs, and the MCA more broadly, the resilience to be able to carry out their meaningful work. We also need to treat CROs with the fairness, dignity and respect that they require. He is right to say that remuneration allowed us to do that. We are now dealing with the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment to process how we move forward, to make sure that fairness and due respect continue into the future. I hope that he can continue to hold me to account as we do so.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his engagement on this issue. Coastguard rescue officers are an essential part of our emergency response and are much supported by people in Ayrshire, and I put on the record my thanks for their dedicated service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and I are very worried that coastguard services in north Ayrshire are facing a crisis if they are not able to claim compensation. I am pleased that the Minister has postponed further meetings and is working with unions, but will he do all he can to resolve this issue, so that our coastguard rescue officers can continue to perform their essential service?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about rural and island communities in Scotland, and about the impact that coastguard services can have. From speaking to CROs in Southampton, I am cognisant of the principle of demotivation, and I am deeply concerned about its implications. A CRO said to me that this is ultimately about fairness—the money is not anything to brag about, but it is fair recognition for what they do. I do not want any CRO to feel devalued, or to feel less motivated to turn up to a call-out, because of decisions that have been made. That is why it is so important that, with regard to the engagement that is happening next week, we take a beat, take some time to reflect on what CROs are saying, and try to find an equitable solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be part of that process.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I help the Minister answer the question he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is on the Opposition Front Bench? The answer is that the law is an ass and the law should be changed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. How can it be that the law is interfering in a perfectly happy relationship between coastguard volunteers and the MCA? The law is an ass, and that is quite clearly the view of the coastguards I met last week in West Mersea in my constituency.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman is a far more seasoned Member of this House than I am, so I will leave it to him to opine on whether “the law is an ass” is parliamentary language or not. It is incumbent on the Department to deal with the legal reality that has been created as a consequence of the judgment. It is also right to say that the volunteer model that exists for CROs, with hourly remuneration, is rather unique with regard to how volunteering works, and it therefore requires a bespoke response. I can assure him that I am weighing up options for the long-term future of CROs to ensure that recognition can take place. There is a potential primary legislative route that I want to explore, which involves a carve-out, but it would take a lot of time to do; it is very legally complex, and it has other implications that go beyond the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I very much respect and thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgency, but I have to take these decisions dispassionately and with full cognisance of their implications.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers are absolutely vital to the safety of the public along the very long coastline all around my constituency. Can the Minister tell us what response he expects the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to give to the formal written request by the GMB union for collective bargaining purposes and voluntary recognition?
Keir Mather
I have already been very clear from the Dispatch Box that I do not just want, but expect, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to allow trade unions to play their full role when it comes to working with CROs to articulate their vision of what they want the future of the service to be. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to comment on negotiations between a trade union and an employer in the way that my hon. Friend expects, but I am very clear that trade unions must be allowed to play their full role in this process.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this urgent question. My constituents in South Queensferry, where we have a lifeboat, have written to me in great numbers to say that they are concerned about the coastguard service. The service in South Queensferry is unlike many of the others that have been mentioned. It is not rural or in the highlands; it is largely suburban. It patrols an area under three very large bridges, and the CROs have to deal with a lot of tragic incidents. The coastguards there have told me that they are concerned about what might happen as a result of the changes. Will the Minister come to my constituency to hear what they and the community have to say as we hit peak tourist season?
Keir Mather
I am very happy to engage with the hon. Lady’s constituents on this matter, and I thank her for so robustly defending them in this House. She is right to say that we have spoken a lot about the importance of CROs to rural, island and coastal communities. She brings an incredibly important perspective on the implications for cities, especially as we look towards the summer period and peak tourist season. She is right to point to the fact that this will build as an issue over the summer. When the changes were originally announced, they were due to be implemented in September, but that is not to say that I am not cognisant of the fact that there could be implications if people feel demotivated and unwilling to attend a call-out before then. It is really important that we take the time to re-engage with CROs, such as those in her constituency, and to talk about the long-term options.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Fleetwood and Lytham have been officially recognised as the two busiest coastguard stations in the UK, and I place on the record my thanks for their amazing dedication to keeping our people safe. Will the Minister reassure the House that the GMB union and volunteer coastguards will be fully consulted at all stages, and that communities like mine in Blackpool North and Fleetwood are not going to be put at risk?
Keir Mather
The safety of the public and the operational capacity of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are of the utmost importance to the Government. CROs feeling that they are respected and able to play their full part in this process will facilitate that, and that is what I am determined to achieve. My hon. Friend is right to push me on the question of trade union involvement, and my expectation is that trade unions should play their full role in representing their members.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Last week, I met Paul Greenwood of the Selsey coastguard, one of a team of CROs who cover my constituency. The Court ruled that coastguards can be workers when paid for duties; it did not order Ministers to scrap payments. Can the Minister tell me what lawful alternatives were considered, why the impact assessment has still not been published and whether he will publish the MCA survey? Will he pause September’s change while considering an approach that will not risk gaps in emergency cover when people in coastal communities such as mine dial 999?
Keir Mather
I have been very clear from this Dispatch Box that I am tasking my officials with determining what information can be released in relation to the hon. Member’s questions. It is critical that MPs are able to engage fully in this process and hold me to account as they do so. As I said at the start, ultimately we had to comply with the judgment passed down by the Court of Appeal. That mandated the need to change the current system, because if we had carried on implementing it, we would not have been compliant with the law. The question now is what comes next and what the long-term options are, and I am committed to exploring that with Members from across the House.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a GMB member.
I recently met coastguard rescue officers in my office, and they told me how they respond in all conditions and at all hours. They drop everything to save life, and providing that public service often leaves them out of pocket. Can I ask the Minister to consider all options, including carving out an exemption when it comes to HMRC? Can I take this opportunity to encourage all CROs to join the GMB union, so that it can care for their needs, particularly given the recent concerning allegations in a national newspaper about the MCA, which I believe is not being straight with the Government? Can I also ask the Minister to thank the coastguard rescue officers in Bournemouth East for all they are doing to save life?
Keir Mather
Coastguard rescue officers in Bournemouth East carry out an incredible service on behalf of their local community and their country in keeping the public safe, and we thank them deeply for their service.
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are looking at a range of options for what comes next. He must play his part in that process, alongside trade unions. I reiterate that I want CROs to feel they can fully and frankly contribute their views about the implications of this decision, especially now that there is more time, which allows them to properly consider the full range of how this may impact them, alongside primary employment and other considerations. I would encourage him to share that with me, and let us all collaborate in this process to make sure that the voices of CROs are heard.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My constituency has coastguard rescue services operating in Nairn, Burghead and at Gordonstoun school. One constituent who works for a local team told me:
“After September, the cost would fall entirely on myself or my small business employer—this is not right”,
and that the
“changes will force me to no longer be available for call outs during working hours”.
They also said that they
“don’t do this role for financial gain, but the small amount of remuneration enables those of us who are employed to respond to emergency call outs without suffering a financial loss during a cost of living crisis.”
Will the Minister give an assurance on two points: that the changes will not be made until we are collectively satisfied that these volunteers have been treated fairly, and that a life-or-death emergency service will not be diminished as a consequence of the changes?
Keir Mather
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes of a CRO in his constituency is exactly what I want to avoid. He is right to point out that, like a number of the CROs I spoke to the other day, some are small business owners, and we appreciate how hard they need to work, often with small margins, to keep their businesses running. That takes us back to the point that the level of remuneration is not something to brag about, but it does allow CROs to do their job, and it is incredibly important that we are cognisant of that.
I am very keen to facilitate all of us having an opportunity to play our role in engaging with what comes next. It goes back to the point I made to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about ensuring that MPs are kept up to date on all of the latest steps in this process and that they can play their full role in holding me to account, so that we get this right for CROs.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Hayling Island coastguard rescue team provide a vital service in my south-coast constituency. They fear that the MCA’s proposal will have a massively detrimental effect on local recruitment and retention, particularly from the island. How will the Minister ensure that CROs are properly consulted? Will he come to Hayling Island and meet the CROs who do this fantastic work?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being such a champion of the CROs in his constituency, and I am very happy to engage with them if he would be willing to facilitate that.
Making sure that CROs can share their views fully and frankly is incredibly important to me. I am attempting to facilitate that by making it very clear that my expectation is that the MCA leadership should give CROs the space to engage fully with me, their local Members of Parliament, their trade unions and their local leadership, so we can get a clear picture of their views about how these changes may impact on their operational ability and we can all work together to find an equitable solution to this challenge.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I have four coastguard stations in South Devon—Kingsbridge, Dartmouth, Brixham and Bigbury—and hundreds of volunteers, many of whom have written to me with their concerns about these changes. The Kingsbridge team have been out 34 times this year. Last Friday night, they were called out at 1 am and spent all night rescuing three people from a vessel that had got stuck in the mud. These people wake up in the middle of the night to go out to rescue strangers they have never met.
The Minister says he has considered several options, but have the Government done a full risk assessment of the resilience—the long-term resilience—of the service if these changes go ahead? If so, will they publish it? Has he considered changing the law so that the call-out charge is classified differently with HMRC? CROs could then continue as volunteers while continuing to be remunerated for their dedicated service.
Keir Mather
When I was in Southampton a few days ago, the intricacies, the difficulties and, ultimately, the horribleness of mud rescues were explained to me. The hon. Lady very powerfully makes the point that it is difficult for people who are not active CROs to understand the level of commitment required to carry out this dangerous work in the service of people they have never met.
On changing the law and legislative carve-outs, I have been quite clear that, while there are options to facilitate this, they are not a quick fix. Such options will not give CROs certainty in the moment, but they have been considered. On operational risk, I can confirm to the hon. Member and reassure her that impact modelling based on data was carried out by the MCA to inform the recommendation. Robust contingency plans do exist across the search-and-rescue capability of the coastguard and other services to enable them to respond to people in distress across the United Kingdom. We do not want to get into such a situation, however, and that is exactly why I have said what I have said to the House today.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Hunstanton coastguard rescue officers I have met responded to 150 emergency shouts last year, and the small payment helped them to perform this role for locals and visitors alike. However, with 50% of officers in East Anglia saying they would quit or reduce their availability, is the Minister really prepared to take responsibility for the risk to public safety, or will he now simply stop these changes from coming into effect in September while we work on a long-term solution?
Keir Mather
We need to work through this process strategically and methodically to ensure we are taking the right decision based on data and the lived experience of CROs. I have paused the engagement this week to allow us to more clearly get a better read of this situation, and that will inform my approach.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
First, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important urgent question. I have spoken to coastguard rescue officers from Ceredigion Preseli in recent weeks, and they all share common concerns. The first is that as many as half of their colleagues in the coastguard service will reconsider their position should this new proposed model come into effect. Secondly, and just as importantly, there is the impact on partner emergency services. Given the MCA leadership’s statements about the operational impact of these changes, could the Minister ensure that the assessments and the modelling are made public, so that we can properly scrutinise them and have confidence that we understand the consequences of this decision before it comes into effect?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman points to the important fact that the MCA CROs conduct their work alongside other emergency services and full-time employees of the MCA, and we need to take all those operational impacts into account. In response to another question, I said that I have instructed officials to determine what can be shared in relation to this process, and I will have more to say on that in due course.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the team at the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Bridlington, who keep people safe all the way from Northumberland down to Suffolk across 250 miles of coastline 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The proposed changes to make CROs unpaid is just one of the problems facing the MCA. National issues include recruitment and retention, understaffed teams in high-pressure environments working long hours, leading to stress and sickness, and pay that is not commensurate with other emergency services. Will the Minister ensure that the agency is appropriately resourced, but also that it is putting that resource into the right place to ensure our frontline teams have the tools they need?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman will know that my constituents and I are no strangers to Bridlington—a wonderful place to visit—and the CROs who work there to protect us must be given the tools they need to carry out their vital work. The broader review of the MCA will look at exactly the questions the hon. Gentleman raises. I will ensure he plays his part in that process, so that we come to the right answers.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As the Minister knows, my west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly constituency has almost 150 miles of coastline. In an earlier answer, he said that the model has to change, but it does not need to be trashed. He referred to the fact that the remuneration arrangements for CROs are bespoke, but so are the arrangements provided to special constables and retained firefighters. Surely the Minister and his colleagues can find a model that meets the legal obligations and remains a bespoke remuneration system for CROs?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that there are a number of operative models for volunteers. I can assure him that I am looking at the long-term options to ensure that the CRO volunteering model is respected. We had an exchange in Westminster Hall about how the retained fire service model creates implications, but I understand that he is just pushing me to have a broad lens on what the solutions might be and I thank him for doing so.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
On 2 January, Grace and Sarah Keeling and Mark Ratcliffe tragically lost their lives in the sea at Withernsea. Through that day and late into the night, coastguard rescue officers fought in the most terrible conditions to save lives. They did so out of duty, not for remuneration.
When thousands and thousands of people go to the coast this summer and onwards, how can the Minister ensure that they can continue to rely on courageous coastguard rescue officers in future, as they have been able to in the past? I appreciate what he has said today, but will he show even greater urgency in recognising the need to make this change? September is just weeks away and the people we rely on to do this heroic work deserve quick answers.
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the tragic case of Grace, Sarah and Mark. My condolences to their families. He is right to say that this is not a theoretical question. We have an urgent need to address this issue now to ensure that CROs can do what we need them to do, which is carry out this phenomenal public service, and to retain safety and operational capacity across the country. He encourages me to go further and faster, and I have heard his call.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The CROs I have spoken to in Selsey in my constituency do their job out of a real sense of duty. Many of them have done it for many years. It is not actually at all about the remuneration, but the reality is that some of them will have to take on additional paid work if they lose the very small amount of money given to them by the Government to recognise their value. Will the Minister please come to Selsey, which is an isolated coastal community, to talk to my CROs so that he can see not only the brilliant work they are doing, but the value that they bring to the community?
Keir Mather
I have no doubt about the contribution that CROs in Selsey make, and I would be happy to engage with the hon. Lady’s constituents on this issue. She raises the particular issue that for rural communities the impacts might be felt especially keenly. That is why it is critical, as we continue to engage with CROs—I will continue to do so across the country—that we do so with the geographic lens she describes to make sure we can pick up all the operational complexities about what future options could mean.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
In Exmouth and Exeter East, the local coastguard rescue team covers the Exe estuary, mudflats, tidal waters and busy open coastline. It is called on when local people or visitors are cut off by the tide, trapped in mud, in difficulty in the water, or at risk of self-harm. The Minister says that a move to an expenses-only model is needed following the Court of Appeal judgment, but the House has been told that an impact assessment has already combined incident demand, survey data, demographics, employment information and financial analysis. Will he therefore publish that assessment as soon as possible, including any modelling for Devon and high-demand coastal areas such as Exmouth? Most importantly, can he guarantee that the charge will not proceed unless he is satisfied that he will not reduce coastguard rescue officer availability or weaken emergency resilience in communities such as mine?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his robust defence of CROs in his constituency and their incredible contribution to his local area. I have already confirmed to the House that I have instructed officials to determine what can be shared to make sure that he is able to carry out his role of holding me to account and representing CROs. In the meantime, I continue to the thank the CROs in his constituency, who he is such a powerful advocate for, for carrying out their essential work.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
This decision is clearly a kick in the teeth for brave people, like Chris from my constituency, who is worried that it will make the situation worse for whistleblowing rights. He challenged a bullying culture, was terminated and then denied his 20-year service medal. But this is not about money, is it? The CRO payments equate to only 1.5% of the agency’s income. I understand the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about on-call firefighters, but has the Minister considered options such as the allowances paid to councillors, which do not confer any employment rights and which allow people to do the role alongside their full-time employment?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to identify the fact that for CROs, remuneration is not the reason they volunteer, but it allows them to do that volunteering work. She points to a number of options around future models. I can confirm to her that a range of options has been considered. I have paused the meetings that are happening this week to create the space to allow CROs’ voices to be heard and for that conversation to continue.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Since October last year, I have been taking part in the parliamentary knowledge scheme that relates specifically to frontline services, under the auspices of Mr Speaker. As part of the scheme, we visited the MCA and met CROs. I took part in a training exercise about rescues from muddy situations, so I know at first hand the fabulous work they do. But they are not the only voluntary search and rescue organisation out there. I know that many other volunteer organisations are very worried about the implications for them. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on other maritime search and rescue organisations, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other independent lifeboat associations?
Keir Mather
The full impact on search and rescue capability and operational capacity has been considered through this process, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the fact that it is critical that we continue to interpret what CROs are telling us about what the impact will be, and that we rationalise that with how we project demand to flow over the summer and into September.
I missed something in the previous question. On the very serious issue of whistleblowing, may I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) to please write to me about that specific instance? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who I am currently answering, is right to raise these very important issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his answers this afternoon. I remind Members that large slogans are not appropriate and perhaps Members might do up their jacket so I cannot see any. If I had spotted the one he is wearing, I would not have called the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).
Carlisle-Settle Railway: 150th Anniversary
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I heartily congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate on the anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and I thank other Members for their contributions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This is a moment of celebration of our railways, but it is also a time to reflect on the present and the future. I welcome the opportunity to address some of those points today.
The Settle-Carlisle railway, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is, of course, one of the most historical and spectacularly scenic lines in the UK, with a long and colourful history of innovative engineering and dogged determination by the rail visionaries who fought to keep the line open against all the challenges it has faced—a legacy that my hon. Friend is certainly working hard to continue.
I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that the future of the line is indeed secure. The introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer has brought thousands of new visitors to the line, investment at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station and secured the line’s invaluable role as a support route for the west coast main line. These all demonstrate the line’s ongoing importance to our network and this Government’s commitment to its future.
I am pleased that there is such a strong community rail involvement with this historical line. Community rail is all about connecting communities to the railways, and at the heart of the community rail concept are community rail partnerships. The Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company has done some wonderful work in this area. It has been an accredited community rail partnership for more than five years, working to support the local economy and benefit communities along the line.
Its work includes organising station open days and art installations, running projects to support access to the railway and environmental initiatives with community organisations, as well as providing a range of services and products that benefit locals and visitors alike. The company achieves so much for the benefit of communities along this historical line. I congratulate it on its most recent reaccreditation, awarded in recognition of its community-centred projects and services provided across the Yorkshire dales and Cumbria.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, which does so much valuable work in helping to restore, preserve and maintain the historical buildings and structures along the route, sparking the imagination and engagement of the public.
The railways, of course, have changed so much since the first passenger trains on the Settle-Carlisle line, and I think it is appropriate to raise where this Government see the future of this railway. Rail reform will put passengers and customers back at the heart of the rail network. The Railways Bill, of which I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter, is progressing through Parliament and will create Great British Railways, which will bring track and train together under one publicly owned and accountable body to reduce fragmentation and improve decision making. GBR will work closely with local mayors and local authorities to make sure that services meet the needs of their areas and better integrate with other modes.
I now turn to Northern Trains and its performance as the main operator on the Settle-Carlisle line. I am pleased with the introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which links Greater Manchester and Lancashire to the Settle-Carlisle line and the dales. I also hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents are able to partake in Northern’s offer of discounted tickets between Leeds, Settle and Carlisle, in honour of the 150th anniversary. But that does not mean there is not more work to do.
Northern’s performance leaves room for improvement. We have an improvement plan that outlines the steps that the operator will take to improve reliability, with a target of 90% of all its trains arriving within three minutes of timetable and cancellations below 2%. I am pleased that the latest rail period results show that cancellations on the Leeds-Carlisle route were only 1.24%, but we need to work to improve punctuality, with 77% of trains arriving within three minutes of timetable. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve services for both tourists in her remarkable area and her constituents. Northern is also in discussions with train manufacturers to procure new train sets to replace the oldest trains in its fleet. The procurement of up to 450 new train sets will offer increased capacity as well as more accessible trains for passengers.
In January and April this year, the Settle-Carlisle route played a critical role in supporting passengers during several closures of the west coast main line for engineering work. To avoid lengthy replacement bus journeys, Avanti West Coast operated its bi-mode Evero trains over the historical route—the first time in more than a decade it has been used for that purpose. Feedback was incredibly positive, underlining findings from the rail watchdog, Transport Focus, that passengers prefer to stay on trains than take replacement bus services—that is certainly my preference, too—even if it involves a longer journey. Avanti hopes that the Settle-Carlisle route can continue to play an important role as a diversionary route over the next decade, especially when a significant volume of renewal activity is required on the northern section of the west coast main line.
On infrastructure, Network Rail recently installed a footbridge with lifts at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station, allowing the closure of a high-risk level crossing and enabling a rail connection to the nearby quarry. The scheme was a mix of public and private investment, including a contribution from the quarry along with the Access for All fund. Connecting the quarry by rail safeguards the future of the facility while reducing carbon emissions by taking lorries off the road.
The 150th anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle line is an opportunity not only to celebrate extraordinary railway heritage, but to recognise wider investment to ensure that rail continues to support communities, connectivity and economic growth for generations to come. That investment includes the £323 million west coast north modernisation programme, which is the biggest improvement programme on the northern section of the west coast main line in decades.
Network Rail and industry partners are working together, in the spirit of Great British Railways, to keep passengers moving while replacing ageing infrastructure, particularly the overhead line equipment that powers electric trains. Over the past two years, Network Rail has renewed around 200 km of overhead wires on the northern sections of the west coast main line. The work will improve reliability and deliver a more resilient and better-connected railway for passengers and freight. From the Settle-Carlisle line to the west coast main line, rail remains a vital part of connecting people, places and opportunities across the north and Scotland.
My hon. Friend will recall the Department’s investment of £13.5 million as part of the £38 million Carlisle station gateway project, part funded by the borderlands inclusive growth deal and delivered in partnership between Network Rail and Cumberland council. The scheme provides a new public square to the rear of the station, an enhanced Court Square to the front, new lifts and increased car parking capacity. Works are on site and the Scott & Brassey public house has now opened in the restored first-class waiting room, with passengers enjoying a selection of great local ales. I often travel up to Glasgow, and I will avail myself of those great local ales as soon as I make contact with Carlisle station.
To conclude, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are firmly committed to honouring our railway heritage and improving services for passengers in rural communities across the north. She continues to be a resolute champion of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the Government are committed to supporting her and her constituents as she continues to do so. Here is to the 150 years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
National Policy Statement: Ports
Keir Mather Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Development of ports in England, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is essential for supporting growth, energy resilience and energy transition. It is equally important that this development should take place with consideration for the environment, and that port facilities should be well designed with both those ends in mind.
The national policy statement for ports, which applies to England, and in Wales, to the reserved trust port, Milford Haven, sets the policy framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure in the sector. It continues the long-standing policy of enabling our competitive ports sector to respond in an agile manner to rapidly evolving market demands, using the Department’s port freight demand forecasts—which we published alongside our consultation—as a yardstick but not as a constraint on local commercial judgments. It also updates the policy in detail to reflect the wider present institutional and regulatory framework, and the Government’s priorities.
I am grateful to everyone who responded to the consultation on earlier drafts, and to the Transport Committee for its thorough scrutiny of the proposals. Following that consultation and scrutiny, I am today, pursuant to section 9(5) of Planning Act 2008, presenting a response to the Transport Committee’s report (HC 1028) on its scrutiny and to the consultation, and pursuant to section 9(8), laying before Parliament the final proposed text of the amended national policy statement for the prescribed consideration period of 21 sitting days.
Copies of these documents will be made available in the Library of each House and on the Department’s website, where a post-adoption statement will also be published in due course.
[HCWS183]
Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance
Keir Mather Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next.
For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition; I am sure that his words will have been heard and appreciated. Some 17% of CROs are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%. As a Labour Minister, does he agree with me, a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the MCA to recognise the GMB as a union for CROs?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.
I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.
The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.
The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.
A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up.
Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.
Jim Shannon
I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.
The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.
Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.
Brendan O’Hara
As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?
Keir Mather
I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks.
If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve-out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.
Steff Aquarone
Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?
Keir Mather
I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.
Andrew George
All the Minister’s points apply to retained firefighters. He cannot say that we cannot appropriately transpose that framework agreement between the MCA and CROs simply because they have to be called out within five to seven minutes. Those kinds of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it is possible in the case of retained firefighters, there is no reason why it cannot be transposed to the CROs.
Keir Mather
Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it.
I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today.
In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.
Keir Mather
I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.
Keir Mather
I have given way plenty of times.
This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.
Ports and Port Connectivity
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Jardine, to serve under your chairship. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this incredibly important and prescient debate. As an island nation, our prosperity has always depended on our ability to trade, connect and compete with the rest of the world, and that is as true today as it has ever been. True also is the importance of the ports sector across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and the contributions by MPs from across the Chamber today have reflected that.
I turn briefly to some of the comments that have been made today. My hon. Friend pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the grey hulls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country. She said that we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and that I need to work hard with my MOD colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of Falmouth port and the exciting future in floating offshore wind, which I know she is challenging for, and also the next generation, who share the deep sense of civic pride in our port communities and are among the most ambitious about enhancing that status and projecting it into the future.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones that provide a catalyst for economic growth, a point also reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I also note the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about funding for the business case for the rail improvement project she speaks about. I would be grateful if she wrote to me to set out the detail of that again, and we will pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of port connectivity, not just to Northern Ireland, Belfast and his constituency, but to the entire Union of the United Kingdom and the economic bonds that exist within it. I am very pleased to say that I have accepted an invitation to visit Belfast port for myself to see those operations at first hand, and I am encouraged to hear that it is engaging in the master planning process and has such an exciting programme of expansion. On the Windsor framework, the UK Government are working hard to reset the relationship with our European partners. That will bring simplified trade procedures and reduced friction at ports, but he is right to hold us to account on that important issue for businesses in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) showed how planning reform, decarb initiatives and national growth do not need to happen to the exclusion of one another; they must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like those she represents. She is right to be ambitious about reviving the prospect for the port of Ramsgate. I just visited Portsmouth, another municipal port that shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth. I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency.
I am excited to visit the port of Immingham very soon to see the investment it is bringing forward. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that, as I am a Hull lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He and other hon. Members raised the important plan for the grid connection process. I can confirm that I am working closely with colleagues in DESNZ, and also within Ofgem and NESO, to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline that are not shovel-ready and cannot be scaled at pace, so that our ports get the grid connections they deserve. That will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy that we hope to bring out later this year.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I am glad that they have focused on the fact that we can unlock efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure; that is an incredibly powerful point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) also raised a point that we do not reflect on enough: beyond the quayside, even in some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities. There are inequalities in access to opportunity and to the fantastic roles we have in the maritime sector, but there are also major issues to do with economic inequality. It is this Government’s driving mission to address that. We want to make sure that ports such as Southampton continue to grow and offer fantastic services through the cruise sector. Part of that is about making sure that we get the grid connections right, but it is also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities that improved port connections can bring.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encourages me to make spending commitments from this Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point about rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles. That is more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy in the other place—but, if the hon. Member wrote to me about it, I would be very interested to engage with him further from a maritime perspective.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the port of Tilbury, which I had the real pleasure of visiting recently. I take his points about the implementation of EES very seriously. We continue to work with our EU partners and EU member states to encourage pragmatism whenever queues build, to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators. I assure him that I am working very closely with my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise.
The impact of our ports should not be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life—the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the energy we rely on—all arrive by sea. Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities, supporting around 30,000 direct jobs. With the latest figures showing an annual contribution of over £2 billion, they are also catalysts for local, regional and national growth, although a key theme that has arisen from this debate is our obligation to ensure that the proceeds of that growth are spread more equitably among the coastal communities that Members represent.
Last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy. That was in no small part down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020. The Government are working hard to match that appetite for growth. I have heard some of the limitations of the National Wealth Fund in terms of the investability of propositions before the organisation. However, £5.8 billion is being directed towards five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barriers to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date. Last year, the Government announced a further £448 million for the UK SHORE—Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports.
We know that investment alone is not enough; a modern and effective planning system will also be essential to the future success of our ports. That is why we will soon publish the revised national policy statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. I put on the record my thanks to the Transport Committee for its robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our additions and updates. We are also working closely with regulators to streamline the planning and consenting process, including tackling the backlog of harbour order applications. A new prioritisation framework will ensure that time-critical applications can be identified and processed more quickly, preventing any unnecessary delays.
For ports to reach their full potential, they must work seamlessly with our road and rail networks. Congestion and capacity issues, whether at the port gate or miles away, can have a huge impact on supply chains. From the lower Thames crossing in the south to the trans-Pennine route upgrade in the north, the Government are pouring billions into improving port connectivity. In March, we announced over £27 billion through the third road investment strategy, including a new performance metric to reduce delays on gateway routes. At the same time, GBR will work to improve rail access, supporting our ambition for a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050 alongside the duty in the Railways Bill to promote rail freight.
As we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime decarbonisation strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future, setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us to get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports’ current and future energy needs; over the coming months, we will publish a summary of those responses and set out our next steps.
For centuries, ports have supported the movement of people, goods and ideas. They have helped to build the foundations of our national prosperity. Today, they continue to drive growth, support jobs and create opportunities in all four corners of the United Kingdom. Supporting the continued success of our ports is one of the Government’s top priorities, and we will keep working with and listening to industry as we shape the right policy environment for them to thrive. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who made such considered contributions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Great British Railways will create a railway run by the people for the people, turning the tide on a decade of decline under the previous Government. Eighty per cent of the rail journeys that will ultimately be run by GBR are now being run by publicly owned operators, and we are already seeing more reliable services as a result.
Mike Reader
The Minister will be aware that freight services using East West Rail infrastructure already terminate at Northampton Gateway. Will the Minister work with me to ensure Northampton is included in East West Rail’s long-term vision for passenger services, ensuring connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on this issue. He will know that, as set out in the recent project consultation, East West Rail services are not currently planned to serve Northampton. However, current work does not preclude that, and East West Rail will provide important interchanges with major rail lines. I would be very keen to work with my hon. Friend as he seeks to take this campaigning issue further.
Jeff Smith
We in the north have waited a long time for the trans-Pennine route upgrade—it is very important to us in Manchester, and very welcome. What progress can we expect on improving journey times and reliability and reducing cancellations, and what more investment can we expect to improve facilities for passengers across the north?
Keir Mather
The Department is investing in multimillion-pound rail infrastructure improvements across the north, including in Manchester. The £11 billion investment in the trans-Pennine route upgrade will electrify the 76-mile route between Manchester and York, increasing capacity and improving reliability with faster, cleaner and more frequent trains.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I dare not think how many years of my constituents’ lives have been given over to points failures and signal failures, and the confusion that follows, on the line between Waterloo and the south coast. What can Ministers do about it?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for his tireless advocacy on this important matter on behalf of his constituents. We need a railway that gets people where they need to go, on time and in an efficient manner. If he writes to me in more detail about the points failures that are affecting his constituents, I would be glad to pick that issue up with the Rail Minister.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Safety concerns are blighting passenger rail services. Constituents working at Leicester train station have raised serious concerns about security gaps, particularly the near impossibility of reaching transport police during emergencies. With nearly 80,000 offences recorded on our railways in 2023 and 2024 and the RMT reporting staff being punched, threatened, spat at and abused simply for doing their jobs, what assessment have Ministers made of whether private security contractors at railway stations have the enforcement powers they need to keep both passengers and workers safe?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. The safety of staff and passengers on our railway is of the utmost importance to this Government, and we are committed to working with the British Transport police to make that a reality. Although in some regards the statistics are positive—theft at railway stations has reduced—the hon. Member is right that there is always work to do to ensure our staff can deliver the railway services we need without fear of being assaulted. I will certainly pick up his point about security staff at stations and share whatever assessment I can make in writing.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Last night, the Secretary of State claimed that the arrival of the class 701s at South Western Railway was an example of what a nationalised railway could do. As she well knows, those trains were ordered back in 2017 by a private company from a private company, using private finance. Her only involvement was some garish vinyl wrap and to turn up and claim the credit, all while ordering Avanti West Coast and, now, Govia Thameslink to cut services to the public. She told us that nationalisation would be
“more than a paint job”
and that passengers would come first. Why has she done the exact opposite?
Keir Mather
The trains that the shadow Minister references were sat in the sidings for years, underused, and have been brought into service by this Government. If he wants to improve the passenger experience and make sure that promoting the interests of passengers and future passengers on the railway is at the heart of how our system operates, he should have done the right thing and voted for the Railways Bill on Third Reading yesterday.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to yesterday’s vote. Last night, he and his Secretary of State ordered Labour Members to vote against the protection of rail discounts for veterans and their families. He told us that the Government have “no plans” to cancel veterans’ railcards. At the last general election, Labour had no plans for a family farm tax or to raise our taxes—in fact, they had no plan for how to govern the country. Surely that is all the more reason to protect veterans in the Railways Bill, so why will the Secretary of State and the Minister not stand up for our brave veterans?
Keir Mather
It is disappointing that the shadow Minister fails to recognise the fact that I confirmed at this Dispatch Box last night that none of the existing concessionary schemes for veterans are changing. More than that, we accepted a fantastic recommendation from a colleague on the other side of the House to increase the entitlements available for veterans and their families when attending Remembrance Sunday services. This Government are putting veterans and their families at the heart of our rail network.
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.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
While we bring passenger services into public ownership, we have frozen rail fares so that passengers can travel for less this summer—the first fares freeze in 30 years, saving passengers £600 million. Alongside that, our £3 bus fare cap and free bus travel for children in August will help families make the most of the holidays. For road users, we are also keeping costs down by continuing the freeze on fuel duty for the rest of this year.
John Milne
Train travel to the south coast increases significantly in the summer months, but Horsham sits on a line to the south that faces severe delays and cancellations. Govia Thameslink’s forecasts show demand continuing to rise sharply. Without a resolution to the notorious Croydon bottleneck, we risk undermining economic growth and confidence in public transport. Where does Croydon sit in the Government’s priorities, and will the Minister commit to finally advancing these long-promised, endlessly postponed works?
Keir Mather
I understand that some of these temporary changes reflect lower summer demand, which falls by around 6% overall and 15% in peak periods. Aligning services to that reduced usage enables a more cost-efficient timetable. It reduces taxpayer subsidy and it unlocks savings. The hon. Member is right to point to where that might be causing an impact for his constituents, so I would be glad to pick that up with him to see what more we can do to advance the pace of works that affect his constituency.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned about the reduction in Thameslink services serving Slade Green and Abbey Wood during the six weeks of the school summer holidays. Is it possible to review the decision? Given that both Southeastern and Thameslink are in public ownership, will the Minister outline how their timetables and services can be better integrated at Slade Green to improve punctuality and journey times for my constituents?
Keir Mather
There is always more to be done to unlock more benefits from a cost-efficient timetable, and I recognise the importance of good-quality rail services to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I will ask the Rail Minister to write to him to set out what is possible in this particular case.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The new timetable improves capacity and journey times along the east coast main line, delivering over 60,000 additional weekly seats. Overall connectivity at Berwick has been strengthened, with more frequent regional services and better connections to Newcastle. CrossCountry now provides an hourly service, and TransPennine Express has increased the number of services between Newcastle and Edinburgh from five to eight a day in each direction, with further improvements planned.
John Lamont
In a survey I conducted in the Borders about Network Rail’s new timetable changes, more than 70% of residents said they were now less likely to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station as a result. The timetable changes mean fewer direct services to London, with many passengers having to change trains. This is having a significant impact on elderly train users and disabled train users. Does the Minister agree that, if his plan for Great British Railways is to be a success, frequent and reliable services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London need to be reinstated?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for championing the needs of both elderly residents and people with disabilities, but also everybody who uses those direct services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to London. I know that a small number of direct services have been cut, and I appreciate the fact that he has been doing community outreach on this important point. I suggest that he shares the results with LNER and Network Rail, which can use his findings to inform future planning, but I am very happy to work with him further on this important issue.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Decarbonising transport is vital for our energy security and to make the network fit for the future. We are turbocharging the roll-out of electric vehicles, overhauling public transport, supporting low carbon fuel uptake in aviation, and funding technology innovation for maritime through the multimillion-pound UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research programme.
Amanda Martin
Portsmouth international port has invested significantly in shore power infrastructure, supported by Government funding, to enable ships to connect to grid electricity while berthed, rather than run diesel engines. However, the high cost of electricity is threatening to render the entire investment worthless. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that shore power infrastructure at UK ports is economically viable, given that grid transmission standing charges make shore power significantly more expensive than marine diesel and transmission costs nearly doubled in April?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is an absolute champion for Portsmouth international port and I am sure that she will be thinking of its 50th anniversary celebrations next week, when it will be bringing its pioneering work with Britanny Ferries on this issue to fruition. I recognise, however, that high electricity prices can impact the economic viability of shore power in the short term. The Government are working to improve shore power connection times, and will continue to engage with the sector and across Government on mitigating high electricity costs. UK SHORE, our £448 million investment in decarbonising maritime, will allow applicants to include onsite energy generation and battery storage to help reduce costs.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?
Keir Mather
We believe that the benefits of having electric rolling stock for our train services actually allow us to improve efficiency on the railway, and I hope that those improvements can be realised for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Department has not made an assessment of the potential merits of providing UV index alerts on public information boards at transport hubs. UV guidance and forecasts are published by the UK Health Security Agency and the Met Office. They are included in TV and radio weather reporting and can be readily accessed on a range of weather apps.
Carolyn Harris
One of the key findings of the recent beauty, hair and wellbeing all-party parliamentary group UV safety report was that the public do not fully understand the UV index. With evidence showing that over 86% of skin cancer is entirely preventable, the report recommends that daily UV ratings be widely advertised across communities, including transport hubs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how that could help to educate and protect the public, and ultimately save lives?
Keir Mather
I know my hon. Friend is producing a report on this critical matter and I would be very glad to meet her to discuss its findings. We ought to take every opportunity to ensure that people understand the impact of UV on their skin health, so I look forward to meeting her to discuss those findings further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer and the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for bringing this issue forward. She always brings forward incredible issues for us all to be aware of. The figures for skin cancer in Northern Ireland are rising, and she has brought UV index alerts to the Minister’s attention. It is important that he takes action after discussing the matter with the hon. Lady, but after that meeting will he convey his thoughts to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that Ministers there do the same thing that the hon. Lady wants? If she wants it, then, in my opinion, we should support her.
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is right to say that skin cancer affects people across the United Kingdom and we need to work as one United Kingdom to deal with it. I will certainly take what I learn from my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East and reflect it through to colleagues in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Court of Appeal’s judgment made clear that the current arrangements could not continue, but we are committed to protecting volunteers who preserve a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Members across the House to ensure that we continue to have volunteers at the heart of our seafaring nation.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Keir Mather
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member, with whom I work productively on a number of issues in this space. He will be aware that the MCA is responding to a Court of Appeal judgment that made it clear that the current arrangement could not legally continue. We believe that protecting volunteering preserves one of the most valuable forms of public service, which he outlines. I look forward to working with him to support those volunteers.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Minister will know that I have been campaigning on the availability of driving tests, so I was pleased to see this week that our changes have released driving tests back into the system. Will he update me on how the demand for tests in my North West Leicestershire constituency will be matched with the supply of new driving tests?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. Coastguards in my constituency were told only last week that they are to lose their remuneration, and they are furious that their specialist skills and dedication are now being undervalued. I heard the Minister say earlier that he was prepared to meet colleagues from across the House. I hope that the offer is extended to all colleagues with coastguard stations, because the risk to recruitment and retention, as well as to the work of other emergency services, such as the police, needs to be clearly understood.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady’s question reflects the strength of feeling across the House about the volunteers who man the coastguard, as well as about the need to ensure that the consequences of the judgment are fully understood and volunteers get the support they need. I would be glad to meet her. I should also note that the chief executive of the MCA will be doing a drop-in with Members of Parliament; I will ensure that the details are shared with her.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Residents in Hertford and Stortford tell me that their bus services are too often irregular or delayed, causing unnecessary disruption and stress. I welcome the £19.5 million allocated to Hertfordshire county council through the local authority bus grant last year, but will the Minister say a bit more about how we will work with the Lib Dem administration to ensure that the money is used effectively, and about what this Labour Government are doing to improve bus services in semi-rural communities such as mine?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is Transport questions—there must be a link somewhere. Good luck, Minister.
Keir Mather
While I think this is, in the main, an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Gentleman is right that coastal erosion can affect a variety of transport infrastructure, including our ports. The forthcoming national policy statement for ports will address the issue he raises.
Mr Speaker
I think it is his kayak—he cannot get it because of the erosion.
Railways Bill
Keir Mather ExcerptsWednesday 10th June 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clauses 49 and 50.
New clause 1—Passengers’ Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;
(b) targets for reliability of services;
(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—
(i) seat design,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,
(iii) provision of power outlets,
(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;
(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;
(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.
New clause 2—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
New clause 3—Fund for future railway improvements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a fund for the purpose of providing improvements to the railway in the long term, including investment in new or reopened railway lines and stations.
(2) The fund under this section is to be called the Tomorrow’s Railway Fund (‘the fund’).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for monies to be allocated to the fund for each funding period.
(4) Local and regional transport authorities may apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund, for the purpose of enabling construction of new railway stations and associated infrastructure.
(5) A purpose enabling construction under subsection (4) includes a feasibility study for any station or associated infrastructure.
(6) In this section ‘funding period’ has the meaning given in Paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 2 to this Act.”
This new clause would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid to central government for funding for feasibility studies on, or construction of, new stations, railways, or other enhancements.
New clause 4—Restoring Your Railway fund: review—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the Restoring Your Railway Fund.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the effect of the fund on the reopening of railway lines and stations.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous Government in February 2020.
New clause 5—Rails to Trails Programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—
(a) walkers,
(b) wheelers,
(c) cyclists, and
(d) horse riders.
(2) The programme must include—
(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),
(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;
(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.
(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the ‘Rails to Trails Programme’.”
This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.
New clause 6—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—
“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).
(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to—
(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,
(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,
(c) offer discounted fares for passengers who are UK armed forces veterans,
(d) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,
(e) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,
(f) introduce a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,
(g) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,
(h) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and
(i) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—
(i) multiple rail services, or
(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.
(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”
This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s and veterans’ discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.
New clause 7—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—
(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;
(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.
(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).
(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”
This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.
New clause 8—Great British Railways: environmental targets—
“(1) In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to take steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.
New clause 9—Great British Railways Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or,
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
New clause 10—Devolution of rail to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended according to subsection (2).
(2) In section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the transfer of functions relating to rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) the management of rail infrastructure;
(b) the operation and funding of rail infrastructure;
(c) the planning, funding and management of maintenance, enhancement and renewal of rail infrastructure;
(d) the regulation of capacity, access, charging and performance arrangements of rail infrastructure; and
(e) the integration of passenger services with rail infrastructure.
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) must come into force—
(a) on a date no later than three years after the passing of this Act, or
(b) on a date agreed between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers,
whichever is the earlier.
(6) Regulations under this section must make provision about funding for the Welsh Ministers relating to the functions transferred to them under subsection (4).
(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the level of funding to be provided under subsection (6).
(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause devolves rail in Wales to the Welsh Government and makes provision about the devolution of commensurate funding.
New clause 11—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—
“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.
(2) In this section ‘safe bicycle storage’ means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.
(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—
(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and
(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”
This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.
New clause 12—Welsh rail funding report and strategy—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) an estimate of the cost of unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal need in Wales since 1 April 2000;
(b) a strategy to fulfil any need identified under paragraph (a).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include a definition of “unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal”.”
This new clause requires a review of funding, including as needed to make up for rail infrastructure not developed since 2000.
New clause 13—Investment in rural areas in Wales—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy (‘the strategy’) to increase levels of investment in railway infrastructure enhancement in rural areas in Wales.
(2) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the strategy.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers when preparing the strategy.
(4) The Secretary of State must receive the consent of the Welsh Ministers before publishing, revising or replacing the strategy.”
This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on improving railway infrastructure enhancement investment in rural areas of Wales.
New clause 14—Passenger growth target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.
(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—
(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and
(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.
New clause 15—Travel facilities for rail staff—
“(1) Great British Railways must, following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify, provide free and discounted travel to persons who are—
(a) employed by GBR;
(b) employed by a subsidiary of GBR;
(c) employed by a company owned by GBR;
(d) employed by a company contracted to provide a service to GBR;
(e) employed by a company licensed to operate railway services on GBR infrastructure;
(f) employed by a railway services company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority;
(g) employed by a company that is subcontracted to provide rail services to a rail company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority; or
(h) any other person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the creation of an industry wide concessionary travel scheme for rail staff, and a requirement for that scheme to be consulted with the trade unions.
New clause 16—Reopening of services to underserved areas—
“(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.
(2) In meeting its purpose, the department must consider—
(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and
(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.
(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.
(4) In subsection (3), relevant transport authorities means—
(a) Scottish Ministers;
(b) Welsh Ministers;
(c) in England—
(i) any—
(a) mayoral strategic authority,
(b) combined authority, or
(c) combined county authority
with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and
(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”
This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.
New clause 17—Duty to consult certain Members of Parliament—
“(1) Great British Railways must consult certain Members of Parliament before making a decision within subsection (2).
(2) A decision is within this subsection if—
(a) it relates to railway passenger services or railway infrastructure, and
(b) in the opinion of Great British Railways, making that decision would have a significant effect on the economy of any area or on persons living, working or travelling in that area.
(3) In this section ‘certain Members of Parliament’ means any Member of the House of Commons who represents a parliamentary constituency that includes any part of an area as described in subsection (2)(b).”
This new clause would require Great British Railways (GBR) to consult MPs whose constituencies include areas likely to be affected by decisions made by GBR relating to passenger services or railway infrastructure.
New clause 18—Railway services: safeguarding accreditation scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that all operators of passenger railway services participate in a recognised safeguarding accreditation scheme.
(2) Any scheme under subsection (1) must be recognised by—
(a) the British Transport Police, or
(b) any other authority determined as suitable by the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires all rail service operators to engage with a nationally recognised safeguarding scheme.
New clause 19—Railway workforce: dispute resolution—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about railway workforce terms and conditions and dispute resolution.
(2) Regulations under this section may designate which terms and conditions for staff working on the railways require—
(a) consultation prior to agreement, or
(b) can be imposed without consultation.
(3) Any industrial disputes about arrangements under subsection (2) must be referred to a dispute resolution process.
(4) Any findings of a dispute resolution process under subsection (3) must be accepted and actioned in full including—
(a) any enforcement action to be taken;
(b) any award of the dispute resolution by all parties.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to define which railway workforce terms and conditions can be imposed, and which must be agreed, and for any that must be agreed, to refer disputes to binding dispute resolution.
New clause 20—Duty to integrate across modes of transport—
“In exercising any of their functions under this Act, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must seek to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—
(a) bus and coach services,
(b) tram and light rail, and
(c) micromobility.”
This new clause puts a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to promote the multimodal transport integration with rail.
New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR.
(2) Any scheme under this section must—
(a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);
(b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate.
(3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.”
This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.
New clause 22—Duty to provide step-free access—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State has a duty to approve such works as are necessary to enable step-free access to all platforms at qualifying stations served by any GBR passenger service.
(2) In this section, a station is a qualifying station if—
(a) in any given year, at least one million passengers—
(i) start a rail journey,
(ii) end a rail journey, or
(iii) transfer between passenger train services
at the station; and
(b) on the day on which this Act is passed, there is not step-free access to all platforms at the station.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to approve work on ensuring stations serving more than one million passengers a year are step-free.
New clause 23—Accessibility strategy for the railway network—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an accessibility strategy for the railway network (‘the strategy’).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to describe how the railway will be made accessible for all passengers by the end of the period of ten years beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, having particular regard to disabled persons.
(3) The strategy must include—
(a) a timetable and programme of works for delivering permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms;
(b) measures for ensuring accessible rolling stock, interchange, and station facilities;
(c) an assessment of costs and funding requirements to meet the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) a plan for monitoring progress against any goals set in the strategy, including through annual reporting to Parliament; and
(e) arrangements for consultation with such disabled persons’ organisations and other persons as the Secretary of State may designate.
(4) The strategy must not consider any reasonable adjustment for disabled persons as a substitute for the provision of permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms.
(5) Arrangements under paragraph (3)(e) must include consultation throughout the development, implementation, and review of the strategy, including involvement in design and delivery of any activity proposed by the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a ten-year railway accessibility strategy, within one year of the passage of the Bill.
New clause 24—Regional railway services passenger organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a passenger organisation for each region in which Great British Railways operates (‘GBR regions’).
(2) Any user of railway services who is resident in, or who regularly uses services within, a region may join the regional passenger organisation established under subsection (1) for that region.
(3) The purpose of each regional passenger organisation is to represent passenger interests, including representation of passengers’ expertise to management boards of GBR regions.
(4) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of each regional passenger organisation, including that members of each organisation must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (4) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(6) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (5).
(7) No less than one-third of any regional board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise representatives of regional passenger organisations, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(8) Any representative to which subsection (7) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the organisation, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(9) Regulations under this section must create a disabled people’s committee as part of each regional passenger organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the regional passengers organisation and the GBR regions.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish regional passengers groups in each region in which GBR operates, with the purpose of representing passengers' interests and putting forward passengers' expertise.
New clause 25—National passengers group—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a national passengers group (‘the group’), comprising representatives of each regional passenger organisation under section [Regional railway services passenger organisations].
(2) The purposes of the group under subsection (1) are to—
(a) facilitate engagement with regional passenger organisations on national rail proposals,
(b) act as a body that the Secretary of State and GBR must consult on national rail proposals, and
(c) provide oversight and scrutiny to the regulatory work of the Passengers’ Council.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of the group, including that members of the group must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (3) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(5) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (4).
(6) Any national board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise at least one-third representatives of this national passenger organisation, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(7) Any representative of the group to which subsection (6) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the group, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(8) Regulations under this section must create a National Accessibility Panel as part of the national passengers’ organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the national passengers group and the national GBR board.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a new national passengers group made up of representatives of regional passenger organisations and requires that the group is represented on a GBR national board.
New clause 26—Transfer of employees to GBR—
“(1) For the purpose of meeting GBR’s function in section 3(1)(i) of this Act, the Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment for—
(a) Network Rail,
(b) any franchise operated by DfT Operated Ltd, or
(c) any franchise operated by a rail company under a contract with the Department for Transport,
become employees of GBR.
(2) A scheme made under this section must in particular include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”
This new clause is consequential on Amendment 64 and enables for the transfer of employees to GBR from Network Rail and DfT-operated franchises.
New clause 27—Pension schemes—
“(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to active members of the Railway Pension Scheme who joined the scheme after 4 November 1993.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide that any person who—
(i) is an active Member of the Railway Pension Scheme,
(ii) joined that section of the Railways Pension Scheme after 4 November 1993, and
(iii) becomes an employee of GBR through arrangements made under this Act,
remains a member of the Railway Pension Scheme under terms and benefits that are no less favourable than those terms and benefits received by the person prior to the passing of this Act;
(b) provide that persons employed by GBR are eligible to join either—
(i) the Railway Pension Scheme, or
(ii) any other scheme, provided that the terms and benefits of that scheme are equivalent to the Railway Pension Scheme.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would provide that employees of GBR, or those transferred into GBR, can continue to access the Railways Pension Scheme or a pension scheme providing equivalent benefit.
New clause 28—Season ticket discount—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) under the age of 25, and
(b) enrolled in full-time education at a recognised educational institution
to access a discounted season ticket for travel on railway passenger services provided by participants in the scheme.
(2) A discounted season ticket under this section—
(a) must cost no less than a third of the price of the full-price season ticket provided by Great British Railways, and
(b) may be limited to allow travel only between the holder of the season ticket’s residence and recognised educational institution.
(3) ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 29—Duty to co-operate—
“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—
(a) reduce transport disruption, and
(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.
(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—
(i) maintenance;
(ii) construction;
(iii) any other work;
related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.
(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.
New clause 30—Accessible rail strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.
(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—
(a) percentage of stations with step free access,
(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,
(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.
(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.
(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.
New clause 31—Service changes: consultation—
“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—
(i) its functions under Section 1;
(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;
(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;
(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;
(d) consult—
(i) local stakeholders,
(ii) passenger groups, and
(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements
about those changes.
(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it includes changes to rail—
(a) timetables;
(b) routes;
(c) service capacity.
(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.
New clause 32—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) capacity of the rail network,
(b) the potential need for new lines or services,
(c) level crossings, and
(d) the accessibility of the rail network.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.
(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.
New clause 33—Rail devolution: Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—
(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;
(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;
(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;
(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and
(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.
(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.
(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 34—Mutual and co-operative structures—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual and co-operative corporate structures.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider mutual and cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.
New clause 35—Duty to consider capacity at Ely Junction—
“(1) In exercising functions under section 17 (rail freight target) and section 15 (rail strategy), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase capacity at Ely Junction.
(2) The rail strategy prepared under section 15 must—
(a) identify Ely Junction as a capacity constraint of national strategic importance for freight and passenger services, and
(b) set out how the Secretary of State will work with Great British Railways and other relevant bodies to address that constraint.
(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress towards resolving capacity constraints at Ely Junction.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely Junction as a nationally significant capacity constraint and to report to Parliament on progress in addressing it.
New clause 36—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.
(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—
(a) is a member of the armed forces;
(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or
(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.
(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.
(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.
New clause 37—Train frequency duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must—
(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;
(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.
(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).
(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—
(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;
(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.
New clause 38—Accessible ticket machines—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—
(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;
(b) have the same user interface;
(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and
(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.
New clause 39—Passengers’ Council Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) The persons appointed to the board by the Secretary of State must include a minimum of two disabled persons.”
This new clause would ensure representation of disabled people on the Board of the Passengers’ Council.
New clause 40—Population change: railway services—
“(1) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State have a duty to provide railway services for an area or at a station proportionate to any increase in population of the area served by that station.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a population increase includes any change in residency of an area that is either—
(a) permanent, or
(b) seasonal.
(3) In this section ‘seasonal’ means any period, or periods, of at least seven days where in the opinion of Great British Railways it is reasonably predictable that the population of an area will increase relative to the population during any time that is not the period in question.
(4) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State must consider provision of—
(a) infrastructure,
(b) rolling stock
(c) services, and
(d) any further investment necessary
for the purpose of meeting the duty under this section.”
This new clause would put a duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to any permanent or seasonal increases in population in areas.
New clause 41—Contribution of rail to environmental targets: report—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and before the end of each period of twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Report on the contribution of rail and rail travel in the UK to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with—
(a) meeting the UK carbon account target for 2050, as provided for in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.
(2) A report under this section must include recommendations to Great British Railways for any actions to increase the contribution of rail to the goals in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the contribution of UK rail to net zero and climate change goals.
New clause 42—Assessment of passing loop at Tisbury—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the West of England line.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits to—
(a) reliability of services on, and
(b) capacity of
West of England line railway services that pass through Tisbury.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing an assessment under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a new passing loop at Tisbury.
New clause 43—Provision of food and drink—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to provide food and drink on all qualifying GBR services.
(2) A GBR service is a qualifying service if it has a journey time of at least one hour from the station from which the service first departs to the station at which it terminates.
(3) In meeting the duty under this section, Great British Railways may provide food and drink through such means as it considers appropriate.”
New clause 44—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 45—Great British Railways Governance—
“(1) This section applies to a person who—
(a) works for, or
(b) has a financial interest in
a private company involved in the railway sector.
(2) A person under subsection (1) is ineligible for appointment to positions within the governance structures of Great British Railways, including—
(a) any Board of GBR,
(b) any regional Boards that oversee GBR at a regional level,
(c) Passengers’ Council, and
(d) Office of Rail and Road.”
This new clause requires that people who work for private companies involved in the railway sector or who hold a financial interest in the railway sector are ineligible for participation in the governance of GBR, including on the board of national GBR and in regional GBR boards.
New clause 46—Review of passenger safety—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of passenger safety.
(2) A review under this section must in particular have regard to the safety of women and disabled people.
(3) The review must consider—
(a) staffing levels at railway stations and on board trains, including for late-night services and other services which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety;
(b) lighting in waiting areas;
(c) opening hours and accessibility of help points;
(d) CCTV coverage at stations and on trains;
(e) the potential merits of introducing real-time reporting applications for incidents where a passenger is harassed or otherwise is unsafe, and an associated rapid response protocol following a notification being made to an appropriate authority via such an application;
(f) public awareness of methods to report concerns about safety, including the British Transport Police text facility;
(g) the potential merits of providing a dedicated phone number that allows passengers to directly contact the next station on the line to report incidents or safety concerns;
(h) coordination of travel connections from stations at night, including between rail operators, local public transport and licensed taxi services;
(i) the potential merits of increasing, where it is practicable, patrols of trains and stations by train managers, guards or other appropriate persons for the purposes of identifying incidents, supporting accessibility, and promoting passenger safety.
(4) Where the review recommends any action to improve passenger safety, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must make all reasonable efforts to implement that action.
(5) In this section, ‘appropriate persons’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that it may have different meanings for different purposes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review ways to improve passenger safety. It sets out the content of such a review, and requires the Secretary of State and GBR to take reasonable steps to implement the review’s recommendations.
New clause 47—Free train travel for 16 to 18-year olds in education or training—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide for a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) aged 16, 17 or 18, and
(b) either—
(i) enrolled in full-time education or training at a recognised educational institution, or
(ii) undertaking an apprenticeship
to travel for free on railway passenger services subject to the condition in subsection (2).
(2) The condition is that the travel undertaken must be between a person’s residence and either—
(a) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(i), the recognised educational institution at which the person is enrolled, or
(b) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(ii), any place at which the person is employed, or undertakes any training relating to that employment.
(3) In this section ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 51—Long-term freight access agreements—
“(1) Great British Railways may enter into long-term access agreements with—
(a) Freight operating companies, and
(b) Persons developing, owning or operating rail-connected logistics facilities.
(2) An agreement under this section may be granted for a period exceeding 5 years where the ORR is satisfied that the agreement—
(a) Supports the rail freight target set under section 17, and
(b) Does not unduly restrict network capacity for other users.”
This amendment would allow GBR to enter into long-term access arrangements for freight.
New clause 52—Purpose of Great British Railways—
“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—
(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,
(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,
(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,
(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,
(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,
(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,
(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,
(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,
(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,
(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,
(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,
(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and
(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.
(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
New clause 53—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).
(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—
(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,
(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and
(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.
(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.
New clause 54—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must include measures to—
(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;
(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;
(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;
(d) end practices including—
(i) short-notice holiday approvals;
(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;
(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;
(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;
(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;
(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;
(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;
(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;
(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—
(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or
(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.
(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.
(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.
(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.
(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—
(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;
(b) data on—
(i) workforce productivity,
(ii) cost savings,
(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and
(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).
(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”
This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.
New clause 56—Anti-social noise—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.
New clause 57—Ticketing and Settlement Agreement—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (‘the agreement’).
(2) The agreement must set out the—
(a) opening hours, and
(b) range of products sold,
at any ticket office operated by Great British Railways or the Department for Transport Operator.
(3) The agreement must include all measures set out in Schedule 17 of any Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in place on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Changes may only be made to the agreement regarding opening hours or the range of products sold if—
(a) an equality impact assessment, and
(b) consultation process
has been undertaken by the relevant passenger body.
(5) Regulations under this section must establish a process for challenging any changes proposed under subsection (4).
(6) The Secretary of State must decide on any challenge made under subsection (5).”
New clause 58—Metroisation—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a rail metroisation strategy.
(2) The purposes of a strategy under this section must include increasing the proportion and number of passenger journeys under 10 kilometres undertaken using metropolitan rail services.
(3) The strategy under this section must—
(a) include proposals—
(i) for cooperation between Great British Rail, the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and mayors for the purpose of developing and delivering metropolitan rail services;
(ii) for the funding of those services;
(iii) for the development of local metroisation area plans by local planning authorities and mayoral authorities;
(iv) for provision of multimodal ticketing across transport within the area served by any metropolitan rail services;
(b) specify the governance arrangements for metropolitan rail services provided for by a corporation under subparagraph (a)(i).
(4) For the purpose of this section—
‘local metroisation area plan’ means a plan for the delivery of rail services and ancillary services to an area served by metropolitan rail provision, including—
(a) the intended outcome of the provision of such services;
(b) station access and interchange arrangements;
(c) the funding model for those services;
(d) a projection of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre travelled using the relevant metropolitan rail provision;
‘mayoral authorities’ means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning given by section 107A(8) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) a mayoral combined county authority within the meaning given by section 27(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
‘metropolitan rail services’ means rail services that start and end within an area with a radius of 25 km from a designated point within a local authority or mayoral authority area.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for rail metroisation, including cooperation with mayoral authorities to deliver that metroisation.
New clause 59—GBR contribution to town growth—
“Great British Railways may enter into a joint venture or partnership vehicle with a mayoral development corporation for the purpose of delivering rail infrastructure and services to town growth zones, station investment zones, or new green towns promoted by, or otherwise connected with, that mayoral development corporation.”
This new clause would enable GBR to enter into agreements with mayoral development corporations to deliver rail to areas of new local growth.
Government amendments 92 and 93.
Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
“on an equal basis via any means of sale, including online and at station ticket offices,”.
This amendment would give GBR a statutory function to ensure that passenger fares must be sold at ticket offices on the same basis as online.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 56, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) ensuring the safety, including safety from assault, of all GBR and non-GBR employees that facilitate railway services, and
(i) ensuring that there are safe staffing levels to facilitate railway services.”
Amendment 64, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) acting as the single employer of all persons currently employed by—
(i) Network Rail,
(ii) franchises operated by DfT Operator Limited,
(iii) franchises operated by rail companies under contracts for passenger rail services between those companies and the Department for Transport, and
(iv) such other companies operating or facilitating rail services as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that any such specification is made following consultation with and with the agreement of relevant trade unions.”
This amendment would add to GBR’s statutory functions a duty to act as a single employer for all rail workers transferring into it from Network Rail and DfT franchises, and for persons employed by rail companies wholly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers to be transferred into GBR subject to the agreement of those ministers.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.
(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.
Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(a) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal under Section 67 a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary.”
Amendment 166, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) a regional railway undertaking that is nominated by any other body that is a relevant local government body for the purposes of this subsection.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘regional railway undertaking’ means a company that is—
(a) wholly owned by a relevant local government body, or
(b) limited by guarantee.”
This amendment would ensure that a devolution agreement could be reached with a devolved railway body whose geographic coverage may vary from current mayoral area boundaries.
Government amendments 94 and 95.
Amendment 150, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.
Amendment 46, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of a direction, variation or revocation published in accordance with subsection (5) to the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5B) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment would require that any published direction, or variation or revocation of a direction, issued to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State is provided to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
Amendment 151, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 152, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 7, line 27, at end insert
“, including the levying of charges on providers of railway rolling stock.”
This amendment ensures that the charges GBR may impose include possible levies on rolling stock companies.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after “publish” insert “lay before Parliament”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the Rail Strategy before Parliament.
Amendment 4, page 8, line 23, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
Amendment 55, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the expansion of the railway network to rural population settlements that are currently not served by the railway, and
(d) co-operation between GBR and relevant local and regional transport authorities, for the purpose of integrating railways with bus services and active travel options including cycling routes and walking routes.”
This amendment would require that the rail strategy to include measures to support rail travel in rural areas, and measures to better integrate rail travel with other travel options, including active travel.
Amendment 68, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) resolving key capacity constraints of national strategic importance, including Ely Junction.”
This amendment is related to NC35. It would require that the Rail Strategy includes consideration of key capacity constraints, and include Ely Junction as such a constraint.
Amendment 72, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the provision of rail services to areas experiencing permanent or seasonal population change within the meaning of section (Population change: railway services).”
Amendment 65, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 66, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 85, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include Key Performance Indicators for GBR, including—
(a) for operating a safe railway,
(b) for promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,
(c) for promoting the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods,
(d) for increasing the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport,
(e) for promoting high levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers Council,
(f) for minimising the number of services delayed or cancelled,
(g) for delivering value for money, taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,
(h) for improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.
(2B) The rail strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 38, page 8, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) When the strategy is revised or replaced [in accordance with subsection (4)(b)], the Secretary must lay before Parliament the revised or replaced strategy, subject to subsection (4B).
(4B) The duty under subsection (4A) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that all revisions made to the strategy are non-substantive.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any replacement, or substantively revised, rail strategy.
Amendment 86, page 8, line 34, leave out
“the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement strategy”
and insert
“the revised or replacement strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 170, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) When preparing the rail strategy, the Secretary of State must ensure that it aligns with the ten-year strategy for UK Infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to align with the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 90, page 9, line 2, after “Ministers” insert
“, Scottish Ministers, the Mayor of London, Mayors of Mayoral Combined Authorities or Mayoral Combined County Authorities,”.
Amendment 171, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, at end insert—
“(d) the ten-year strategy for UK infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to have regard to the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 87, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) Great British Railways must prepare an annual report to be laid before Parliament detailing its performance in meeting, and its forward plan to meet, its statutory duties.”
Amendment 67, in clause 17, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Railways about how they intend to meet the target under this section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (a) and insert—
“(a) so as to protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment replaces the requirement to consider the interests of users of the railway and needs of disabled users of the railway with a requirement to protect and promote the rights of those persons.
Amendment 70, page 10, line 17, after “particular,” insert
“in the manner best calculated to make improvements for”.
This amendment would require the duty-holders to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network rather than only promoting the interests of disabled persons.
Amendment 53, page 10, line 26, at end insert
“including the value of public investments”.
This amendment adds a requirement to consider the value of public investments as part of the general duty on cost-efficiency in relation to public funds.
Amendment 30, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) so as to maximise, so far as practicable within the resources available, the social and economic benefits resulting from the operation of the railway network in Great Britain,
(h) having regard to the effect the provision of railway services has on the environment,
(i) so as to increase the use of railways relative to other modes of transport,
(j) so as to achieve targets towards the full accessibility of the rail network,
(k) so as to secure the affordability of fares,
(l) so as to improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to maximise social and economic benefits, achieve targets for modal shift and accessibility, secure the affordability of fares and improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.
Amendment 35, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to promote the transfer into direct employment by GBR of non-GBR employees who facilitate railway services.”
This amendment ensures that Great British Railways performs its duties in a way that ensures the maximum possible insourcing and integration of the rail workforce.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) acting in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner,”.
This amendment would place a requirement on Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR to exercise their functions in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers—
(i) by rail,
(ii) by rail relative to private car use and domestic flights, and
(iii) resulting from the integration of rail services with active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry and any other public transport services.”
Amendment 157, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway,
(h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth,
(i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services,
(j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways,
(k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and
(l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.
Amendment 59, page 10, line 28, at end insert—
“provided that they must not favour the conditions of paragraph (f) over the conditions of paragraph (a) to the extent that any station may not have step-free access as a result of balancing the requirements.”
Amendment 36, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“‘non-GBR employees’ means—
(a) employees of a company or body contracted to provide services to GBR to facilitate railway services, including cleaning;
(b) employees of companies granted a licence to operate services on GBR infrastructure;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 158, page 10, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including levels of fares, the availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion, including growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”
This amendment defines standards of railway performance for the purposes of Great British Railways functions.
Amendment 167, page 10, line 41, at end insert—
“‘rights’ of passengers and disabled passengers includes rights under the Equality Act 2010, data protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and consumer protection legislation (including the Consumer Rights Act 2015), and other legal rights to non-discrimination, accessibility, privacy, fair treatment, information and redress.”
This amendment is consequential upon amendment 29.
Amendment 57, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) In meeting the duty under subsection (2), they must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce incidents of assault against persons working on the railways, and
(b) ensure levels of staffing sufficient to meet the duty.”
This amendment would ensure GBR will have a duty to reduce staff assaults and protect safe staffing levels.
Amendment 159, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment requires the ORR to promote competition in its appeals role.
Amendment 160, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.
Amendment 31, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(h) its functions as the enforcement body for rail passenger rights and obligations, consumer protection and accessibility, including passenger related licence conditions.”
This amendment means that the ORR’s duty to promote competition does not apply when it conflicts with its passenger rights enforcement duties.
Amendment 54, page 11, line 31, insert—
“provided that such exercise does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration or unreasonably increase the cost to public funds of providing railway services.”
This amendment means that ORR must exercise its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds.
Amendment 91, in clause 25, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not designate a service currently commissioned by—
(a) a local government body as defined in Section 5, or
(b) Transport for London
without obtaining consent from the relevant body.”
Amendment 75, page 14, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not vary or revoke a designation so as to permit the operation of railway passenger services by any person other than a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing any designation of services in such a way that allows operation by a company other than a public sector company.
Amendment 76, in clause 28, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section must not provide that railway passenger services are exempt from designation unless those services are to be provided by a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from exempting any passenger service from designation unless it is provided by the public sector.
Amendment 77, in clause 31, page 16, line 31, leave out from “contract” to end of line 37 and insert “to—
(a) Great British Railways, or
(b) one or more GBR companies that are public sector companies.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of passenger rail services is performed using public sector companies exclusively.
Amendment 88, page 16, line 32, at end insert—
“(a) Great British Railways or a GBR Company may sub-contract a direct award under this section to a private train operating company.”
Amendment 78, page 17, line 5, leave out from “companies” to end of line 6.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Scottish Ministers.
Amendment 79, page 17, line 11, leave out from “companies” to end of line 12.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 80, page 17, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) In this section “direct award” means the award of a public service contract without any competitive tendering procedure.”
Amendment 143, in clause 34, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 144 to 147 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, or young people aged 26 to 30.
Amendment 32, page 18, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are British residents to travel at discounted fares for an annual fee on railway passenger services provided by all licensed rail operators.”
Amendment 144, page 18, line 30, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 145, page 18, line 33, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 146, page 18, line 37, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 147, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
“(a) Great British Railways, being a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State,
(b) a GBR company, that is, a company wholly owned (directly or through one or more wholly owned subsidiaries) by Great British Railways,
(c) a company that is wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers,
(d) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers, or
(e) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;”.
This amendment defines GBR and GBR companies in such a way as to ensure that they are always public sector companies.
Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) must protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment adds the requirement to protect and promote passenger rights and the rights of disabled persons to the duties of the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 71, page 19, line 35, leave out
“must have particular regard to”
and insert—
“must take all reasonable steps to promote improvements in meeting”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.
Amendment 60, page 20, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) In taking into account costs under subsection (1)(b), and having regard to its duty under paragraph (1)(a), the Council must not treat the cost of providing step-free access as sufficient reason for preferment of other reasonable adjustments to meet the interests and needs of disabled persons.”
Amendment 47, in clause 42, page 23, line 12, leave out from “must” to the end of line 18, and insert—
“take such action, from the range of enforcement actions open to them, as is necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention, unless there is a legal impediment to so doing or the issue has satisfactorily been remedied.
(4) The ORR must take such enforcement action as required by this section within one month of the matter being referred by the Passengers’ Council.”
This amendment would require the ORR to take enforcement action within one month of an issue being referred to it by the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 61, in clause 46, page 24, line 29, at end insert—
“including provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Amendment 161, in clause 47, page 25, line 24, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert—
“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”
This amendment gives the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.
Amendment 39, in clause 48, page 26, line 3, before “a mayoral strategic authority” insert “the mayor of”.
This amendment clarifies that statutory duties to consult apply to the mayor of a mayoral combined authority.
Amendment 51, in clause 49, page 26, line 29, at end insert—
“(fa) any proposed—
(i) closure,
(ii) reduction in provision of, or
(iii) amendment to the operating hours of,
ticket offices,”
This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council on closure of, reduction in provision of, or any changes to opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 58, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) any proposed changes to staffing levels at stations or on trains.
(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsections (2)(a) and 2(h).”
This amendment would require any changes to staffing at stations or on trains to be subject to consultation with the Passengers’ Council, and require the Passengers’ Council to consult the public on such changes as well as on changes under subsection (2)(a).
Amendment 62, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”
Amendment 52, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsection (2)(fa).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51 and requires the Passengers’ Council to consult the public about proposals from GBR to close, or change the opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 63, in clause 53, page 28, line 12, after “persons” insert
“including but not limited to provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 69, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In performing the duty under subsection (1), Great British Railways must have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for both freight and passenger services.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways, in performing its capacity duty, to have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for the benefit of both freight and passenger services.
Amendment 162, page 36, line 1, leave out from “to” the end of line 4 and insert—
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Amendment 8, page 36, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.
This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.
Amendment 9, page 36, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Amendment 163, in clause 64, page 36, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 148, in clause 68, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”
This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.
Amendment 26, page 38, line 16, leave out from “must” to the end of line 20 and insert—
“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”
This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.
Amendment 27, page 38, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or
(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”
This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.
Government amendments 97 to 106
Amendment 73, in clause 70, page 40, line 36, at end insert—
“a GBR company, or other public sector company,”.
This amendment would change the definition of an infrastructure manager in the relevant 2016 regulations so as to exclude GBR companies and other public sector companies, alongside GBR.
Amendment 74, page 41, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) In regulation 14 (establishing, determining and collecting charges) after paragraph (9) insert—
‘(9A) Paragraph (9) does not apply to GBR.’
(5) In regulation 19 (capacity allocation), after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) Paragraph (4) does not apply to GBR.’”
This amendment exempts GBR from the requirement on infrastructure managers to operate separate accounts for separate functions.
Amendment 164, page 41, line 5, leave out clause 71.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts.
Government amendment 107.
Amendment 149, in clause 72, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this clause.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under clause 72, clarifying that privately funded sidings and terminals are not brought into scope.
Amendment 165, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Amendment 41, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 40, page 48, line 6, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 42, page 49, line 4, after “must consult" insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 110 to 117.
Amendment 44, page 55, line 38, leave out clause 92.
Amendment 45, in clause 92, page 56, line 24, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision for the public ownership of rolling stock by Great British Railways;
(b) make provision for Great British Railways to buy and own future passenger rolling stock as—
(i) current rolling stock contracts end, and
(ii) old rolling stock are taken out of commission.”
Government amendments 118 and 119.
Amendment 82, in clause 96, page 58, line 5, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Scottish Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 83, page 58, line 7, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Welsh Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 84, page 58, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In this Act, a company is ‘wholly and jointly owned’ by the Secretary of State, Great British Railways, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers if every member of the company is—
(a) one or more of those persons, or
(b) a company that is itself wholly owned by one or more of those persons.”
This amendment defines the terms “wholly and jointly owned” in such a way as to ensure that companies that are wholly or jointly owned by GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, are always fully public sector companies.
Amendment 3, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.
Government amendments 120 to 123.
Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 63, line 6, at end insert—
“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”
This aims to ensure that the Code of Practice explicitly includes a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.
Government amendments 168 and 169.
Government amendment 124.
Amendment 154, in schedule 2, page 65, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) The date specified in sub-paragraph 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.
Amendment 7, page 65, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.
(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—
(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);
(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);
(c) fares;
(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;
(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”
This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Amendment 43, page 66, line 19, at end insert “mayor”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 155, page 67, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.
Amendment 156, page 67, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.
Government amendment 125.
Amendment 6, page 74, line 27, at end insert “including passenger services”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 7, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Government amendments 126 to 140.
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 92, line 20, at end insert—
“, and any person exercising functions of a public nature on its behalf in connection with rail systems or services for which Great British Railways is responsible.”
This amendment makes any person exercising functions of a public nature on behalf of Great British Railways subject to the public sector equality duty.
Government amendments 141 and 142.
Keir Mather
It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts.
On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face.
The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill.
Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
One concern that has been repeatedly raised during scrutiny is that Great British Railways will both operate services and have significant influence by being the directing mind over access to the network. If a future Hull Trains application were to compete with a GBR-operated service for scarce capacity on the east coast main line—I know that the Minister, like me, uses Hull Trains—who does he believe passengers would trust to make that decision: the independent regulator or GBR itself?
Keir Mather
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for again raising that important point about open access, as he did on Second Reading. I share his passion for Hull Trains—I am surprised we have not met on a Hull train to have a subsequent conversation about open access. GBR needs to be the directing mind for the railway. It needs to take the decisions on what constitutes best use in a way that is fair, providing a role for open access while also being compliant with its duties, especially in respect of the need to grow rail freight on the network. The Secretary of State will also be compelled to set a rail freight growth target. There is nothing precluding open access from playing its full role as part of our railway under GBR; it certainly can, provided that it offers value for money and the great service that both the right hon. Member and I have experienced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Mather
I would like to make a little bit of progress. [Interruption.] I will let the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) make a short intervention.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on, the issue of open access agreements is very important, because there is an inherent conflict in the arrangements in the Bill. I am unclear about whether it is the Transport Secretary or the Office of Rail and Road who will take decisions. The open access bid from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway would see a direct link from Shropshire to London, with trains stopping in the important market town of Wellington. He talked about economic growth, and if that direct access were to be allowed, it would give a multimillion-pound boost to the market town of Wellington. Who will make the decision on that?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pushing me further on this issue. It is GBR’s responsibility to determine what constitutes best use of the railway in relation to its duties. The role of the ORR in that process is that decisions can be referred to it when it is the view of stakeholders—whether it be an open access operator or anybody else—that GBR has incorrectly applied the framework by which it needs to determine best use on the railway and has made a decision in a way that is irrational or unfair, prejudicing one stakeholder over the other. There are important and robust safeguards for the ORR to be able to determine whether the way in which GBR has determined best use is consistent with the framework that we have provided for it. I hope that provides him with reassurance.
Keir Mather
I would like to make some progress; I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.
I will use my first speech to speak about the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which I commend to the House. I look forward to hearing about some of the amendments tabled by other hon. Members; I will respond to them at the conclusion of proceedings.
Let me begin with amendment 92. I believe that in this House we need to be honest: under previous Governments, the British people were promised real change only for it to be abandoned on first contact with political reality. Not this time. Labour promised to nationalise our railways—no ifs, no buts—and today that is exactly what we will do. We are acting in law so that Great British Railways—the people’s railway—is owned by the British people and run in their interests, not in the service of private profit. I know that might appal Opposition parties, but they should believe me that ordinary people in Britain will not ask why we are taking this bold step; they will be asking those who had the power to do so, “What took you so very long?”
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill. I recently had a productive meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place regarding my amendment to close loopholes that could allow private companies to creep back into operating GBR rail services. He kindly promised to take that on board, and I am pleased to see those issues addressed by Government amendments 92 and 106, as well as the commitment to bring in further changes regarding the Secretary of State having powers of designation to ensure that they cannot be used for back-door privatisation. May I invite the Minister to provide further commentary and reassurance to the House regarding the Government’s moves on that issue and the very welcome position they have taken?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope he sees that the Government have tabled amendments to ensure that Great British Railways cannot be privatised by the back door. Any changes would have to be made through an Act of Parliament, with full consultation with the House. I am sure that the people who have sent us here would look at any proposition to turn back the clock on the momentous decision we are taking—to go back to a railway that was fractured, in decline and confusing for passengers to use—and encourage every Member of Parliament not to do so. That is the importance of our amendments, and I am glad that my hon. Friends sees that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
GBR launched in my constituency when South Western Railway came back into public ownership. The engineers at the depot said that bringing rail and the railways together would improve customer experience. Will my hon. Friend expand on that?
Keir Mather
I am glad that my hon. Friend is working so closely with the people who drive our railway and discussing the impact that GBR will have. She is right to say that, by integrating track and train and having a single directing mind for our railway, we can think more holistically about the skills of those we need to drive that change. That is a really exciting possibility to take forward.
Finally on amendment 92, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). It is no exaggeration to say that, without his efforts, this historic provision would not be entering the statute book. I thank him for his work with my officials and the Rail Minister to make that change a reality.
I see that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is again attempting through an amendment—we discussed this in Committee—to press the railway back into a mode of franchising. The 30 years of privatisation are what left our railways in the fragmented and dysfunctional state they were in when this Government came to power. We took immediate steps to fix that, passing the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. It is only right that any future Government that wish to return us to a railway with rising costs, confusing and inconsistent fares, and record cancellations should have to seek agreement from this place.
I turn to new clauses 49 and 50, and amendments 124 and 132. They introduce a new route for the independent sector regulator, the ORR, to modify non-GBR operator licences. That will allow the ORR, after consultation with the operator and others and the passing of a statutory notice period, to modify the contents of a licence. That approach is consistent with that taken in other regulated sectors such as water, electricity and gas. Such modifications will be needed across the industry to reflect the changes we are making in this Bill and to ensure the consistent adoption of standards and services across the rail network.
Amendments 168 and 169 ensure that the ORR can still make technical modifications to the GBR licence with GBR’s consent. That reflects the fact that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in every minor and technical amendment to the GBR licence. From day one, we have been committed to creating a simpler and more unified rail sector. Industry-wide alignment is critical to ensuring that passengers and other users of the rail network benefit from a less fragmented system. The amendments will ensure that all operators, not just GBR, are in lockstep in adhering to consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog, obligations relating to rail safety and the effective delivery of vital cross-industry functions by GBR.
New clause 48 and amendments 110 to 119, and 126 to 128 all build on the transfer scheme provisions that were added to the Bill in Committee. New clause 48, together with amendments 118 and 119, introduces a new power to vary the application of certain taxes in relation to transfer schemes. That ensures that we can restructure the public sector and move staff and assets into GBR in a tax-neutral manner, avoiding a complex and unnecessary money-go-round that would hinder the delivery of better public services. Beyond that, the remaining amendments I referred to are all technical and ensure that the transfer scheme provisions are fit for purpose.
Amendments 107, 108, 141 and 142 are technical amendments to clarify the definition of GBR infrastructure and to ensure that GBR can run trains on third-party infrastructure, for example High Speed 1.
You will have to buckle in for this one, Madam Deputy Speaker: amendments 93, 97 to 106, 109, 120 to 123, 133, 137, 139 and 140 are all technical amendments that ensure the Railways Bill supports the potential future corporate structures of GBR. As I have already said, the Bill will be a long-lasting piece of legislation, and it is right that it provides an appropriate level of flexibility for GBR to adapt and change in the years ahead. It must design itself to meet the challenges of the day, and the Bill must enable it to do that.
Finally, amendments 94, 95 and 136 correct an oversight in the legislation and ensure that Transport for London and other local government bodies can continue to co-operate with the Secretary of State for specific purposes, as well as with GBR, reflecting that decisions about devolution will remain with the Secretary of State.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend for moving at such pace on this. I am sure that many commuters around the country will be pleased to see the progress. On devolution and the integration with local transport schemes, I know the route, the process and the decision maker if we want to get a new Metrolink tram station in Greater Manchester. If I want to reopen the Middleton Junction train station in my constituency, what route do I go down?
Keir Mather
That is exactly why we are establishing GBR: to provide my hon. Friend with a consistent approach to making the case for the railway infrastructure improvements that he needs. Also, the devolution settlement enshrined in the Bill will ensure that GBR can work at the local level, with the ability for mayors to fund GBR directly to achieve specific local goals. It is our hope that through that devolved approach, with GBR able to work in lockstep with the mayors who are pioneering place-based politics across the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend can realise the changes to the rail system that he so desires.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Like others, I congratulate him on the speed at which he is moving this forward. He talks about the ability of Great British Railways to support local infrastructure. I have concerns about one of the railway stations in my constituency, Harlow Mill, and the number of suicides because of the lack of safety provision there. Will moving to Great British Railways mean that we can address some of those issues more easily?
Keir Mather
We certainly hope that it will. On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises, will he consider writing to either myself or the Rail Minister so that we can think about how we can better integrate those live concerns about people suffering from mental health crises and how we might better protect them on our railway? That is an incredibly important point. Just to conclude—
Wendy Morton
The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is right to say that I am well aware of the specific measure that she speaks to. Having the relationship between GBR, the mayors and political representatives in Westminster, such as herself, is critical, and it is part of the purpose of GBR to better facilitate those conversations. I am sure that, through its establishment, she can take forward the debate on this particular matter with her usual passion.
Keir Mather
I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.
The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.
This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.
Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.
Keir Mather
With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice.
I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution.
GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR.
On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned.
New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency.
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region.
On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.
I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors.
New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station.
On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for meeting me and Olivia from my office to try to find a way to implement the new clause. I also thank Simon Watkins, who is vice-chair of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who has repeatedly raised the new clause’s objective with me. The Minister said earlier that GBR will be “owned by the British people and run in their interests”; does he agree that when we talk about the British people we mean all the British people and that, when the Bill proceeds to the Lords, our representative there, the Rail Minister, would be wise to—
Keir Mather
I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue.
On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute.
Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality.
On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.
New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train.
The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend will have heard representations for ensuring that, under clause 5, devolution agreements must not be unduly limited, either by the Bill or its implementation. Is he able to offer any reassurances to Transport for West Midlands and other bodies that they will continue to be part of the conversation about how the Bill is implemented?
Keir Mather
Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.
As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.
James Wild
The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.
Keir Mather
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.
Wendy Morton
I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that accountability and transparency should be at the heart of this. I think we have pointed to a bit of a discrepancy between the views of the major parties on how that should take place. It would be an interesting argument to say that, on the one hand, we did not want to micromanage the railway but then to put on the face of the Bill lots of key performance indicators that would allow us to do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the sentiment that accountability needs to run to the heart of GBR. That is what the passenger watchdog is there for: to enforce consumer standards on the railway as licence conditions for all operators. I thank her for raising that important point.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause 56, on antisocial noise. That is a debate that I certainly want to take forward, and he knows how passionate I was on that matter in Committee. I thank Members once again for their contributions and for getting the Railways Bill on track for what I am sure will be a pleasant journey through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 49
Modification of licence conditions
“For section 12 of the Railways Act 1993 substitute—
“12 Modification of licence conditions by the Office of Rail and Road
(1) The Office of Rail and Road may modify the conditions of a licence under section 8.
(2) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice—
(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications,
(b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect,
(c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made,
and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given—
(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on—
(i) each licence holder whose licence conditions are affected,
(ii) the Secretary of State,
(iii) the Scottish Ministers,
(iv) the Welsh Ministers, and
(v) the Passengers’ Council.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with subsections (2) and (3), the Office of Rail and Road decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any licence under this section.
(5) The Office of Rail and Road must—
(a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,
(b) state the effect of the modifications,
(c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and
(d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(b).
(6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the Office of Rail and Road in relation to that modification.
(7) The date specified by virtue of subsection (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this section.””—(Keir Mather.)
This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify rail operator licences, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-strained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports: the main five London airports as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester. The regulations are deemed necessary in the context of the ongoing conflict in the middle east, which continues to create disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector. The Government have therefore designed a slots hand-back measure for the summer and winter 2026 seasons that allows airlines to return a proportion of their slots without losing the right to the same slots the following year. The regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations.
The ongoing conflict in the middle east has created significant disruption to aviation. Airlines face longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and in some cases shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. Those developments remain unpredictable and continue to place pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are outside the control of airlines but nevertheless affect their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond effectively to known risks to their operations, and passengers could face last-minute cancellations and disruption at departure gates. The regulations respond directly to that uncertainty by providing limited, targeted flexibility while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The regulations allow airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the United Kingdom. Those are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times exceeds available capacity. Airlines will be able to hand back slots without losing their historical entitlement to those same slots in the following equivalent season.
The 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under the regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance: it provides airlines with flexibility to adjust schedules in response to the impacts of the conflict in the middle east, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is strictly time-limited.
The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland, and there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. It raised some comments that I will briefly address. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views were received. Although many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers therefore concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.
On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures. Where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or re-routing. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations, but this measure addresses that gap.
On the final points that were raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. The powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Replacement powers are being sought through the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill and any future use will depend on prevailing circumstances.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulation informally through the pre-laying scrutiny period. It will be considered by the Committee this Wednesday, and we are not expecting concerns to be raised.
The policy intent behind the measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. The regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights and remove the pressure to operate services purely to retain slots. They also help to protect connectivity, as airport slots underpin route networks built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historical rights despite temporary disruption ensures that those connections can be restored when conditions stabilise. Finally, they support the financial stability of airlines. Without these measures, airlines could be forced to operate loss-making flights or risk losing valuable slots, neither of which would be beneficial for the sector or for passengers. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what is essentially a pickle of the Government’s own making. We will not divide on the regulations because we recognise that there is a real problem that has to be solved. But rather than fiddling around with emergency statutory instruments to plug a gap, the real problem is the Government’s running down of the domestic energy sector and our ability to refine jet-grade oil and supply our airline industry.
We need to rejuvenate our energy sector, encouraging the investment and business conditions that will allow refineries to reopen. That is essential to manage the challenges posed by fuel shortages—I am thinking of Stanlow, Fawley, Pembroke and others. We have the ability to refine jet fuel in this country; we just need to expand it. The problem with the Government’s other policies on energy is that they are making it so expensive to operate energy-intensive businesses such as oil refining in this country that the industry has voted with its feet and left in a large percentage. We do not actually need less jet fuel than before the conflict in the middle east began. In fact, the spiralling cost of the carbon tax has meant that refineries are struggling to remain open. That will only increase our reliance on imports and make us vulnerable to geopolitical concerns around the strait of Hormuz.
If we want to support our oil refining sector, we must start by removing the additional costs, such as the carbon tax, while backing our North sea oil and gas industry to support the energy ecosystem that we rely on. That includes licences for new exploration and drilling. However, we have seen little evidence of that—in fact, quite the opposite in the case of the North sea, with the Government’s baffling legislative proposal on new licences.
Given the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling the fundamental issue, they have turned to these regulations, which have had the unfortunate consequence of dividing the opinions of airlines and airports. While airlines broadly support the proposals, we should acknowledge—as I hope the Minister will—the ongoing and significant concerns of airports. Those concerns have increased over the near two years of this Government’s rule, because of their mix of anti-business mandates and enormous increases to business rates, which have imposed significant costs on airports, even if they have managed to avoid the preposterous increases that were originally set out. The increases will create further challenges for regional airports, which face some of the steepest charges. We only have to look at Heathrow, which had an initial proposal of a 350% increase in its business rates.
The combination of measures has made airports wary, so it is unsurprising that they have concerns about the concept of an increased number of flights being cancelled under a new regime, with the cost of those empty slots being borne by the airports. I understand that this goes to the winter of 2027, though I think the Minister said June 2026. I may have misheard him, so perhaps he could clarify—
Jerome Mayhew
If we could have a bit more clarity on that, I would be grateful.
The director of the Airports Council International Europe went so far as to say:
“The UK Government is effectively handing airlines a carte blanche to cut services and not deliver their schedules, leaving passengers, communities and airports to bear the full brunt.”
Although I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, that is a strong argument and deserves a direct response from the Minister about how he will maintain the balance through these regulations.
We all appreciate the importance of airport slot alleviation, particularly if there are significant fuel shortages, so I will not oppose the regulations today. Nevertheless, the proposals have been introduced in such a way that I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a few of the issues. That includes whether there are sufficient protections for travellers under the 14-day window, and whether he is confident that the system will work as intended and we will not see people’s holidays more disrupted than necessary over the summer period. In addition, I would be interested in hearing his rationale for extending the period into the winter when the peak period for flights is during the summer. Would it have been feasible to make changes at a later date, particularly if the Government get around to passing their Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill in a more timely manner than they appear to be doing at the moment?
Ultimately, the Government are right to ensure that there is flexibility when there is a crisis, but we have been repeatedly told that there is not a jet fuel shortage. That is always liable to change, but those comments raise fair questions from the sector about the appropriateness of the regulations that the Government propose. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the concerns of airports, and, frankly, my concerns about the risk posed to the travelling public, so that there can be clarity about the necessity of these measures beyond the existing alleviation rules.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for their remarks. I will deal with each point they raised in turn.
First, on the question about timing asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I confirm that the slot alleviation measures will be extended to winter 2026. I find his link to broader questions on the refining sector admirably creative, but I am not sure that they have a direct bearing on the measures that we are considering. Our domestic refineries are still able to produce kerosene and jet fuel to a solid and viable extent. I remind him that we are not passing these measures directly in response to a shortage of jet fuel, but to pre-empt any future shortages that may arise, even though we believe that the supply is currently as it should be.
I also remind the hon. Member that we implemented a similar pre-emptive framework during the covid-19 pandemic to deal with similar disruption. This is a measured approach to be able to manage any potential fluctuations in supply as they occur.
The hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Sutton and Cheam are right to point to the concerns raised by airports through the consultation and to consumer protections for the travelling public. I will address both of those points together. We very much recognise airports’ concerns about the potential impacts. That is why these measures are strictly temporary, limited in scope and affect only a small proportion of slots—up to 10%.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed to the fact that a lot of airlines thought that the figure should be higher. The Government took a different view to make sure that the impact on the airports sector is contained.
Allowing these regulations to reallocate slots that are handed back ensures that airport capacity is not wasted. That provides flexibility for airlines while ensuring that we have efficient use of airport infrastructure. We believe that 10% strikes the right balance.
On passenger protections, airlines are required to provide passengers with at least 14 days’ notice of any flight cancellations, but that is not the intention of this policy. It is designed so that airlines have a longer lead-in time to be able to see where potential disruption might lie, and to be able to reallocate those slots efficiently to protect the travelling public and ultimately give them more security and better forewarning about disruption, where it may occur.
Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, passengers are entitled to a choice between a full refund or being re-routed under comparable transport conditions to their final destination at no extra cost.
The shadow Minister asked why winter, and why the measures do not extend just to the summer. There is an important point about using the retained EU law functions that we have now to ensure that we have a long-term approach to managing disruption across the rest of the year. As he pointed out, measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will provide us with greater flexibility on slot reform, which we can use going forward.
On the Lib Dem spokesperson’s points on JNUS—I have never said JNUS out loud before—the justified non-utilisation of slots is triggered when a fuel shortage is materially occurring. The regulations give us a forward look that allows us to build in contingencies well in advance, and not just when a fuel shortage reaches its bite point. That is why a longer-term approach is necessary, but he is right to hold my feet to the fire.
Luke Taylor
There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public.
The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument.
Question put.