Railways Bill (First sitting)

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You say that it fits with the description of what the Government want GBR to do, but from the drafting of the Bill we can conclude that the Government want GBR to be the final arbiter. There is no appellate course from a decision by GBR, except in an area of law. It is the judge and jury in this.

John Larkinson: That fits again with the idea that things go back to GBR to reconsider; it is all put back in GBR’s court. That is the fundamental design, as I understand it.

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

Q Thank you very much for being here this morning. Building on the topic of access and charging, which the Opposition spokesperson raised, can you go into a bit more detail on clauses 60 and 63, particularly on best use of the railway and GBR having to have regard for a range of services in deciding best use? Only after that point does the capacity duty in clause 63 come into effect, to make sure that GBR delivers the services needed to run the railway effectively. Alex or Jeremy, perhaps, can you dig into the concerns that have been outlined that this could result in GBR taking more than what it is entitled to within the railway, and the reality of how the clauses ensure that that does not take place?

Jeremy Westlake: I will kick off by bringing us back to the duty that GBR, along with the Secretary of State and the ORR, will have to make best use of the network. Network capacity is constrained, so we have published an access and use consultation document setting out how this would work in practice. First, capacity allocation must be set out so that the market can see what capacity exists and what it might be used for, and to reserve capacity for those uses. Clause 63 then deals with how GBR will prioritise its services. The first duty is to allocate capacity for best use. Clause 63 kicks in later to define how GBR will actually do that. You define best use first.

[Keir Mather]

Q When we are considering best use, which is integral to the smooth functioning of the railway and the benefits that it can realise for the UK economy more broadly, we should consider the importance of rail freight. Can you speak a little more on what provisions in the Bill promote the interests of rail freight? Could you also touch on the important issue of rolling stock, and how the rolling stock strategy, although separate to the provisions of the Bill, helps with a joined-up approach to the long-term future of the railway?

Jeremy Westlake: First of all, the Bill contains a provision for rail freight growth. That is set out already by Government, and I think the Transport Committee and the rail Minister have set out how that will still be a target. We will therefore have a duty to grow rail freight, and rail freight will then fit within the capacity allocation processes. We are actually doing a lot of work, as it stands today, to make sure that we are promoting rail freight growth, including how you might discount the charges for access to the network to encourage new freight flows, or invest in freight infrastructure and the like.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you. My final question relates to accountability. There is a suite of measures within the Bill to ensure that GBR is compliant with its duties and the provisions of its licence as enforced by the ORR, but I understand that some people have concerns about the balance of accountability powers sitting between the passenger watchdog, the ORR and the Secretary of State—that they are either too diffuse or too concentrated in certain places—and that we could end up in a situation where the Secretary of State might want to take more control over management of the railway within the Department. From my perspective, this Bill offers safeguards against doing that, and its overriding intent is to ensure that the railway is, in a sense, run by GBR, in a way that is decentralised and taken away from Whitehall, in a system that is very different from what we have today. Do you agree with the assessment that the accountability powers within the legislation are sufficiently broad to allow GBR to be held to account, and for no one stakeholder within that mix of accountability to be able to claw back too much control for themselves?

Jeremy Westlake: First of all, I think it is well set out. When you look at how GBR will fulfil its functions, it will do that with regard to long-term strategies for rail, and I think those will set out various roles as well. Personally, I think the balance is about right; you actually want to have multiple consultations and checks and balances in the system, so I think it works.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q My first question is, do you think that the functions and duties of Great British Railways, as set out in the Bill, enable it to be an effective system operator? Also, do you think that this will result in rail travel being more affordable for passengers?

Jeremy Westlake: On the first one, about being an effective system operator, in principle, yes. What the Bill intends GBR to have to do will also require it to grow its capabilities in these areas, particularly in how it does capacity allocation. So the Bill has the intent, but GBR will need to develop key capabilities to fulfil it.

Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that one of the benefits of the system envisaged by the Bill is that Great British Railways, the ORR and Ministers will work to a set of aligned duties. The creation of alignment across all industry parties is an important part of the Bill, and those duties are essentially the criteria that we will use to make decisions in the future. One of those key duties is to promote the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, and of course the interests of passengers include affordability—the price paid by passengers. I therefore think that we will see a more coherent decision-making process for the railway. The key policy intent here is the creation of a directing mind—under public ownership—for the railway, and the Bill sets out how we will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Do you think they have the balance right here? How do we drive value for money for taxpayers given those very significant constraints on competition?

Richard Brown: Yes, I do. I think the balance is right. Putting everything together into GBR makes it the single directing mind. It will be up to GBR and its integrated business leaders to strike the balance and deliver better value for money. There is a lot of duplication and friction in the current system, which I think is one of the things that Keith Williams was highlighting in his review.

The accountabilities are very strong with this Bill. GBR is accountable to the Secretary of State, but is also regulated and overseen by the ORR and the passengers’ council, and has a responsibility to mayoral authorities. First and foremost—I think this featured in the previous discussion—the integrated business units and their CEOs, or whatever they are called, will be accountable to their local towns, communities and passengers. There are strong pressures and forces created with this Bill to actually deliver value for money for taxpayers, as well as for passengers.

Keith Williams: Can I add one thing, there? Even in my time on the review, one of the things that started was bringing track and train together again. That allowed cost simplification, but it also enabled GBR to get a full picture of the revenue and costs of running the railway, which previously did not exist. It was surprising to me, on the review, that getting the costs together was an enormous exercise and a bit of guesswork, because the costs were in so many different areas.

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention, setting out just some of the problems created by this reckless plan that the Conservatives have put out into the public domain and are refusing to explain or withdraw.

We know that if the Chancellor’s proposal to merge national insurance and income tax were to be followed, it would push up income tax by 6.5%, meaning pensioners would pay, on average, £800 more a year. My hon. Friend also makes important points about the impact of the plan on eligibility to the basic state pension. Again, Members on the Government Front Bench have not answered those questions. They had nothing to say on any of those points, which are concerning people across the country, when they responded earlier.

We have tabled new clause 1 because it will force the Government to come clean about these issues. Ministers are refusing to stand at the Dispatch Box to explain how they will fund their £46 billion black hole or to withdraw their policy entirely. New clause 1 will force them to set that out. Because they have been unwilling to explain how they will fund their plan, we will force them to come clean on its impact on public finances.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

Not only is there concern about where the funding would come from, but in the Treasury Committee just now the Chancellor refused to rule out increasing income tax in order to fund the abolition of NI contributions. The House of Commons Library has said that merging NICs and income tax would require an 8% increase in the basic and higher rates of income tax. What will that do for the long-term future of the UK economy?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us that update from the Treasury Committee about what the Chancellor has been saying. Again, we can see the Chancellor being reckless by talking about merging national insurance with income tax without having a second thought for what impact that would have on hard-pressed taxpayers, particularly pensioners. Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance on their earnings and would be hit by a tax increase as a result of national insurance and income tax being merged. That is another example of how reckless these plans are, and how reckless it is for Treasury Ministers to refuse to stand up and explain how their plans would be funded.

The public deserves to know. If Ministers vote against our new clause or they refuse to come clean, then the British people will have it confirmed, yet again, that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy, public finances or the finances of households across our country.

Budget Resolutions

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I praise the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done on this very important issue, and I know that the capital we are providing will help with issues such as the one he has highlighted.

We cannot just put more money into public services and hope for the best. I was delighted to read that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said recently that he was in favour of reforming public services, not splurging on them. Well, here’s hoping that the Labour party breaks the habit of a lifetime. I genuinely hope that he will agree with some of the measures on productivity that we have set out today, because outcomes are determined by how things are done. By focusing on outcomes, not funding, we can deliver real value for the taxpayer. It is a trap to think that simply spending more buys us better public services. Simply spending more is also not sustainable.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

On the subject of unfunded spending commitments, we on the Treasury Committee learned from the Office for Budget Responsibility this morning that the Government have not told it about the £46 billion ambition to scrap national insurance contributions altogether, and because the OBR has not been told, it cannot forecast the economic impact that that may have. How does that bake in long-term economic stability for the United Kingdom?

[Laura Trott]

Unlike the Labour party’s massive £28 billion unfunded tax commitment until 2030, our long-term ambition to cut national insurance and erase the double tax on work does not have a date on it. We have shown that, through careful stewardship of the economy over time, we can reduce people’s taxes without cutting spending.

Simply spending more is not sustainable. If no action is taken, public spending is forecast to grow faster than GDP from 2030; that accounts for pressures that we cannot avoid, such as demographic changes. That must be managed, using all the tools at our disposal—and not by borrowing more, or increasing taxes on the British public. Instead, we have to assess how we deliver public services, and improve them to make the UK more productive and ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances. Yes, this is about money, but it is also about delivering the best services for the public, because productivity is not a theoretical concept; it affects us all, in each area of our everyday lives.

I want better outcomes for children, and teachers being able to spend more time with pupils, rather than filling out paperwork. I want the police to spend more time on the beat, not on forms. As a Member of Parliament representing constituents in Sevenoaks and Swanley, I want nurses and doctors spending time with patients, not having to look at computer screens. Better public productivity means better value for money, better support for frontline workers to do their jobs effectively, and better results.

In last week’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that we are allocating £4.2 billion to investment in productivity. The package is broad and comprehensive, and includes £3.4 billion for the NHS—double its current budget for tech and digital transformation. The NHS says that that will unlock over £35 billion in the coming years—10 times the amount we will put in. At the next spending review, that will be the model for all our public services. The package also includes £105 million for 15 new special free schools across England, which I know will be welcomed across the House. That will create over 2,000 high-quality places for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and prevent local authorities’ use of costly independent provision.

The Budget provides £165 million to tackle the shortage of children’s home placements and to rebuild the children’s home estate. That will reduce the need for expensive and unsuitable emergency provision that does not produce the right outcomes for the children who need our help the most. There is £334 million to cut crime by improving policing technology, and £17 million for modernisation of Department for Work and Pensions services, and replacing the paper-based system for benefits. As a former Pensions Minister, I know the impact that such modernisation has had on the state pension. However, this is just the start. I am also committed to driving forward work to embed productivity at every level across the whole public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

This is my first opportunity to respond to a Budget in this House and, like so many other milestones I reach in this place, I feel like I am doing so while living through a form of parliamentary purgatory. We are trapped with a Government who forbid the public to remove them, who starve parliamentarians of meaningful legislation to scrutinise, and who have now put a Budget before us that is as impotent as it is self-aggrandising—hollow and inadequate, with no agenda and no real plan for growth.

Indeed, the only growth we have seen is in the list of this Government’s broken promises: improving living standards, broken; inflation returning to target, broken; increasing productivity, broken; growth, broken; levelling up the north, broken. Increasingly our country is broken, too, the victim of 14 years of Conservative negligence, of which this Budget is merely the latest sorry chapter.



What is most galling is the staggering dishonesty of the Budget’s central claim that working people will be better off as a result of its measures. It introduces a £9 billion tax cut based on implausible austerity, sandwiched between a £27 billion tax rise the year before and a £19 billion tax rise in the two years to come. For every 5p that this Budget gives back to families in Selby and Ainsty, the Government take away 10p as part of a tax burden that has risen to its highest level for 70 years. Selby families will be £870 worse off as they suffer through the Prime Minister’s recession, while inflation forces them to pay more for their weekly shop, using real wages that are below what they were in 2008.

This Budget is little more than an insult to the public’s intelligence—a prime instance of the Government’s offensively low expectation that working people will not realise the extent of their inadequacy to meet the challenges those people face. Central to the Budget’s failings is the absence of a real plan for growth. I am not sure how the Government still have not grasped this point after 14 years, but there can be no hope of sustained economic growth in this country without well-resourced public services. How can businesses grow if we do not modernise and expand our transport infrastructure? How can British workers be productive if they have to leave the workforce to care for parents or children? How can we level up our country with local government stripped to the bone? How can we have vibrant high streets when crime continues to blight our town centres? Well-funded public services are the bedrock of economic growth, yet this Chancellor intends to reduce real per capita spending for unprotected Departments by 13% between 2024-25 and 2028-29. That is £19 billion-worth of cuts, or a repeat of 71% of the austerity that we saw from the first austerity Parliament.

The Chancellor was in charge of our NHS during a portion of that Parliament, when the justification for hollowing out our welfare state was fixing the roof while the sun was shining. Minister, the sun is not shining now—in fact, it has not been shining for some time. Our public services are in desperate need of support, but this Government are too happy to continue putting critical services on the chopping block to aid their dogma to realise the danger they are causing. It is the same old Conservatives, putting party before country and ideology before reality, and making the British public suffer the consequences. That is the tragedy of this Budget: the missed opportunity to do what is right and achieve the growth we need. I am glad that the Chancellor finally woke up to the necessity of scrapping the non-dom status, but under Labour’s plans, that money would have gone into our NHS, creating more dental appointments and more capacity. Politics is about priorities, and the Chancellor has clearly decided that election giveaways based on fiscal fiction are the order of the day.

With all that being said—the Minister may like to hear this—there is one area of the Budget about which I am pleased: the announcement of the £105 million earmarked for the opening of new special educational needs and disabilities schools for children. That announcement is an opportunity to reiterate my plea for the Government to do everything possible to ensure the speedy delivery of the Selby district’s SEND school, which has had Department for Education funding allocated since 2019, but for which building work has not even begun. Hopefully, that will go some way towards ending the scourge of young people in my constituency with additional needs having to travel in taxis for hours a day, to villages and towns as far away as Scarborough and Harrogate, just to get the learning and education they deserve.

Overall, we are left with a situation where our country has stalled, and a Budget that fails to grasp the economic opportunities of our time while doing nothing to heal the deep structural damage that lies beneath our broken economy. It is high time that the Conservative party lets the British public give their verdict on these 14 years of wasted potential, and I have no doubt that their decision will be for change.

UK Economy

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

It is—and I would add something else: the figures for home repossession were much higher when there was a recession under the Labour Government in 2008-09, in comparison with our record now, and unemployment now is much lower than it was then. Though we are in challenging times, the economy is turning a corner. Our record compares very favourably Labour’s.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said last May that he was comfortable with the prospect of a recession. Now that my constituents in Selby and Ainsty are suffering under that recession’s effects, would the Minister chalk it up as a job well done?

[Bim Afolami]

The hon. Gentleman will do well. There is nobody on the Government Benches who welcomes adverse economic situations for anybody. That is why we are doing everything we can—straining every sinew—to grow the economy. All the measures I have laid out will continue, but they would be put at risk by those on his Front Bench being in office.

Autumn Statement

Keir Mather Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. High inflation is destabilising for an economy: it stops businesses investing, it stops families spending, and it causes misery to people who see the cost of their weekly shop go through the roof. That is why it has been our No. 1 priority. It would be great if it were Labour’s, too.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

It is frankly embarrassing that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have spent this afternoon celebrating inflation staying 2% above target, while families in Selby and Ainsty face 10% food inflation every time they use the supermarket. What message does the Chancellor think his celebrations send to those hard-working families?

[Jeremy Hunt]

It is not celebrating that has halved inflation from 11.1% a year ago; it is hard work and difficult decisions, which unfortunately were mainly opposed by Labour.