Railways Bill

Melanie Ward Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles]

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.

Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of railway accessibility. I wish to put on record, as I have been advised to by the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, that my name has been mistakenly added to new clauses 22, 59, 60, 61 and 62, but has correctly been added to new clause 23, which concerns that issue of railway accessibility.

[Cat Eccles]

The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded.

Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail.

The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed.

I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

This Bill represents a once-in-a-generation chance to create a simpler, more effective and more accountable railway. I am pleased that c2c, which serves my constituents in Thurrock, was one of the first operators to come under public ownership. I look forward to the reversal of 30 years of privatisation, which have seen fragmentation, outsourcing and a dangerous lack of investment in infrastructure. Nationalisation and the establishment of Great British Railways will allow us to protect the long-term future of our railways, putting passengers first, not profit.

When we commit to putting passengers first, however, that must mean all passengers. That is why I strongly support amendments 70 and 71, proposed by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Last year, the Transport Committee released a worrying report on access to public transport by disabled people. The Committee estimated that more than one third of disabled people were regularly avoiding travel because they believed it would be too complicated, too unsafe, or things would be too likely to go wrong.

The amendments would require a commitment from Great British Railways and a proposed passenger council not simply to consider the interests of disabled users, but to carry out their responsibilities in a way that actively promotes their interests. Accessibility must not be viewed through the same lens as customer service, where minor delays or engineering faults are considered irritating but, unfortunately, normal. Accessibility failures should be incredible rare, and failures to meet standards should be regarded as a serious infraction of people’s rights.

[Melanie Ward]

My hon. Friend is making some important points about railway accessibility, which is also an issue for my constituents, particularly at the railway stations in Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn. That is why I added my name to new clause 23, which would have introduced a strategy to ensure full railway accessibility across the country within the next 10 years. We have been waiting far too long for our railways to be accessible. We need action now.

[Jen Craft]

I completely agree. We have waited since the inception of the railways for them to be accessible. As anyone who, like me, is a bit of a rail geek and enjoys a trip on a stream train of a weekend will know, railways in the past were not designed with access for all in mind, and we can and must do better.

If a train station lift breaks overnight, wheelchair users who travel regularly on the train might find themselves in a position where they are unable to travel to work or school, visit family or get to their local hospital. That is not inconvenient; it is unacceptable. The lifts are currently out of service at Tilbury in my constituency, and the solution that is being offered is for people to travel on to the next stop, change trains, go round and come back. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. This sentiment is not reflected in the way we currently talk or think about service provision for disabled people. We urgently need a change of mindset, recognising that accessibility is a non-negotiable matter—it is the bare minimum.

At my local station in Grays, we have been waiting for operational lifts for years. Although c2c received a grant under the Access for All scheme, the lifts have been a categorical failure. As the fourth most used station in the east of England and a busy transport hub, it should have the proper infrastructure. The lifts were initially promised for late 2024, but they were not delivered until August 2025. They did not work—in fact, they have never worked. They frequently break down. Now, due to quite a lot of persistence from me, they are finally being torn out and replaced.

This has had a significant impact on my disabled constituents. One woman told me that she was trapped in a lift for 35 minutes and had to be removed by firefighters, while another told me that her husband is reluctant to use the station because he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and struggles with stairs. It is just such a shame that these brand-new lifts, which were promised under an access scheme, are out of order so very often.

I am very pleased that the Bill will bring Network Rail, which is responsible for providing, servicing and now replacing these lifts, into Great British Railways. It is absolutely right that the organisation becomes part of a unified, publicly owned body that is accountable to all the passengers who rely on it. I am hopeful that this added accountability will help to foster genuine progress on accessibility.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Melanie Ward Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will start with a short summary of the Bill. Which will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. The reason for that is that under international law applicable to space, Governments including the UK are liable for damage to property or death or personal injury caused by space activities. Section 36 passes on that liability to spaceflight operators and requires them to indemnify the Government. Without legal certainty over a cap, much-needed investment in the UK space industry, which is critical for defence and civilian purposes, will be held back, and that investment will go elsewhere. That is the purpose of the Bill: to encourage vital investment in our space sector, of which we should be proud.

I realise that parliamentarians in this place have not always been enthusiastic about space. When the Soviet spacecraft Luna 2 reached the surface of the moon on 13 September 1959, the Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, who went on to be a Speaker of this place, reacted with great enthusiasm. He said:

“I don’t think many people are terribly interested in the Russian rocket”,

despite it being historic. Harold Macmillan, on the other hand, was much more enthusiastic. When Armstrong and Aldrin were waiting in the lunar module, and we had had a man on the moon, Harold Wilson said:

“We must all be filled with a profound sense of wonder and admiration in witnessing this historic event.”

In fact, the UK played an important role in that space mission, and UK industry was involved, too. There was somewhat of a stooshie—a Scots word for a row—about the failure of the British ambassador to attend the launch, and his letter in the National Archives explains why. His explanation basically boils down to the fact that he had been to one previously, and that once you have seen one space launch, you have seen them all. It just goes to show that the importance of the special relationship is nothing new, but it did cause somewhat of a stooshie. Of course, nothing in 1969 was as important as Newcastle United winning the Inter-Cities Fairs cup.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend just talked about the importance of the space sector to so many of us and, indeed, to the whole of the UK. Will he join me in welcoming this Labour UK Government’s investment in the space sector in Scotland?

[John Grady]

Yes. The UK Government have invested in Orbex, in Forres in the north of Scotland. It remains important to give grants to earlier-stage companies because they cannot get the equity and debt funding that more advanced companies can, so I welcome that important investment.

The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. When we tap in and out of the underground on the way home or when we purchase things, that relies on satellite technology. Space is also a key focus for the national wealth fund, as confirmed by Lord Livermore, who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and John Flint, the chief executive of the national wealth fund, when we discussed the fund at the Treasury Committee this week. Space is an important future business for Britain, and an important economic opportunity.

Another reason why it is important to invest in space is for defence—it is critical to the defence of the United Kingdom. If we have a vibrant space industry in the United Kingdom, that will support the technological innovation we need to defend our country and our allies as we move into a much more difficult foreign policy context.

[John Grady]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UK Government have committed to investing in defence and in advances in tech defence. As we develop defence, investing in space is utterly critical and central to that. It is a matter of some regret that Scottish companies that invest in military matters are not funded by the Scottish National Investment Bank or Scottish Enterprise, because they have the view that we should not invest in defence, even though it will create jobs and is important for defending the north of Scotland, which is where my mother came from and which is now very important for defence.

I am an MP for Glasgow, which has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. My seat has the fantastic University of Strathclyde. I recently met Professor Malcolm Macdonald from the university, who is the director of the centre for signal and image processing and the applied space technology laboratory. He outlined to me with great enthusiasm and knowledge the amount of innovation in the space sector in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. This is a critical industry that we must invest in and for which we must create the conditions of investment. Around 52,000 people work in the space sector across the UK, so this is a big opportunity.

Let me turn to talk about precisely what the Bill does, albeit with four words: it seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I emphasise that spaceflight activities are heavily regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for safety. There is day-to-day scrutiny of their safety from an expert safety regulator—the CAA is one of the best regulators in the world—so we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the very minimum extent possible by a very strong regulatory regime. One of the reasons why our family of nations has a great advantage in space is that because we are right at the end of Europe, we have a great place to launch, because we do not launch over big urban areas. If we go right up to Shetland, there is nothing for hundreds of miles.

There are treaties under international space law, and the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by UK spaceflight-related operations. Despite the space safety regime, there is a residual risk that things go wrong and the UK Government face claims. The UK Government can make claims against operators, which take place under section 36 of the 2018 Act. That is quite proper. Operators have to assume and bear risk, and the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them—as we are quite rightly adopting a cross-party spirit today, I commend the previous Government on their work on space law—which is why the regime under the 2018 Act makes provisions for space operators to put in place compulsory insurance.

The businesses have to insure themselves and are regulated by a very competent regulator. The question is: what happens if a claim exceeds the amount of insurance that can be put in place on a sensible basis? That is really what we are addressing here. The current legislation does not require the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government to include a cap in the licence; it makes it optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides:

“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee's liability under section 36 in respect of the activities authorised by the licence.”

The critical thing that my Bill will do is quite simply to swap “may” for “must”, and as a consequence the word “any” in section 36 is changed to “the”. That is consistent with long-standing Government policy that the liability should be limited—there is a clear, documented policy that it is limited.

However, the problem with documented policies as opposed to statute—as a recovering lawyer, I go back to my legal career here—is that Government policies are ultimately much easier to change than statutes. We can have a claim for legitimate expectations and a breach of those, but that is a very difficult class of claim to run, and there has not been a huge number of successful cases of that sort in the courts. It is a difficult area of public law.

Business quite properly says, “You could change this policy and expose our existing investments to additional risk.” Business could also fairly go and look elsewhere for investment. Investors will not invest in the same way in the face of a lack of statutory protection, so the critical thing the Bill does is to include a statutory protection. It requires the Government to cap the liability and encourages people to invest, and that puts us on a par with our principal competitor nations for space investment. So, four words to the Bill, with two swapped, but it is absolutely critical for the future of an industry that could be brilliant for the United Kingdom and all our constituents for years to come.

[Melanie Ward]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the space sector gives our country—and indeed to the world—a sense of possibility and innovation? He talks about the four words in the Bill—Buzz Lightyear provides us with another four words to take inspiration from: “To infinity and beyond!”