Keir Mather
MP for Selby · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Keir Mather, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“Now that we have dispensed with that important work, we can get on with the business of running the railway. The Government are doing more to improve things for passengers and freight than any Government have in decades. We are creating GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, cutting out the needless waste and duplication that has characterised the model.”
“The Government encourage station operators to engage with local stakeholders when considering the provision of facilities to support those who cycle to and from stations. Funding for cycle storage is already available from a range of local transport funds, including the active travel fund. With the forthcoming establishment of GBR, we want to ensure appropriate bicycle facilities that are suitable for local circumstances and provided where needed, while retaining operational flexibility and minimising unnecessary expenditure. The new clause would impose on GBR and all passenger service operators a rigid requirement that fails to take into consideration local circumstances such as station size, passenger numbers and demand for bicycle spaces, which could result in unnecessary cost. I therefore urge the hon.”
“The Government have been clear that they intend to transfer historical railways estates and other former railway properties to GBR, which will absolutely be expected to look for opportunities to reuse redundant railway land. The new clause would take away GBR’s independence to do that and its ability to look at a wide range of alternative uses for former railway property, including its potential reuse for railway, commercial opportunities and regeneration. New clause 60 would require Great British Railways and all passenger service operators to provide a minimum level of secure bicycle storage facilities at every station they operate. The Government are committed to improving the integration of transport across the network and are already working to improve facilities to support those who cycle to stations.”
“The DFT has already created Active Travel England to co-ordinate cycling, walking and other leisure uses in England. The funding of active travel in Scotland and Wales is, of course, a matter for their devolved Governments. I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that active travel is an important potential reuse of redundant railway land, but other potential options—including regeneration such as housing, along with heritage lines and retaining the land for future use—should be considered in the round. All the options need to be assessed against objective criteria, including considerations such as funding and safety. New clause 58 would unbalance those considerations by making active travel a priority over other potential uses of railway land.”
“We have already seen the Government’s commitment to doing just that with the continued support for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Northumberland line and the confirmation of new stations at Haxby, Wellington and Cullompton, without the need for a specific restoring your railway fund. Having a guiding mind for the railway that is properly empowered to make decisions is better for everyone—for passengers, freight and open access operators. New clause 58 would require the Secretary of State to establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway land into active travel routes. I know the importance of such conversions, because there is a wonderful converted railway from Selby through to York, on the old rail route for the Selby coalfield.”
“It is continuously important to bear in mind where the last Government may have strayed from the path of productive policymaking, and we have done so robustly in reflecting on the 14 wasted years of the Conservative Government. We must now turn to the future and think about how we can build a railway that serves the interests of passengers now and in the decades to come. GBR will take robust decisions on the use of the network, leading to better co-ordination of the timetable, which could reduce delays and costs over time and improve reliability. Those decisions could well see the opportunity for new routes or services and, where appropriate, the restoration of railway services that were previously closed. Nothing in the Bill will prevent GBR from doing that; indeed, quite the opposite is true.”
“Throughout the business planning process, where infrastructure planning is captured, GBR will have a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, including in respect of environmental considerations. In signing off the business plan, the Secretary of State is under the same shared duty. When making decisions on infrastructure, GBR will also have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will be framed by a number of strategic objectives, including an environmental sustainability objective that includes delivering rail net zero and protecting transport links by investing in climate adaptation. These mechanisms, alongside wider environmental frameworks, will ensure that the key strategic decisions on infrastructure are made with climate resilience in mind. I urge the hon.”
“The Climate Change Act 2008 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to prepare policies and proposals to enable cross-economy carbon budgets to be met, and to lay a plan before Parliament to set out those policies and proposals. The October 2025 plan includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railways. Given the existing duties, it would be duplicative to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network. As the directing mind, GBR will identify sections of the network that are vulnerable to climate-related risks and set out how infrastructure improvements will be made.”
“In particular, we recognise that recent progress with battery technology offers a significant opportunity—along with, I am afraid to say, partial electrification—to reduce the subsidy cost of the railway, improve reliability and comfort for passengers, and deliver on our environmental obligations. We are considering that opportunity carefully and will set out our conclusions as part of the strategy. Once Great British Railways is up and running, we will expect it, not the Secretary of State, to take the lead in maintaining, updating and implementing the strategy. New clause 19 proposes that the Secretary of State sets out a framework to reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network and to detail infrastructure improvements for climate resilience. As one of the greenest modes of transport, rail is key in helping to reduce emissions.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clauses, which I will address in turn. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications of diesel, electric, battery and other alternative rolling stock options. The proposed report is unnecessary because the Government are already working to develop a long-term strategy—the first in over 30 years—for rolling stock and related infrastructure. The strategy will pursue modern standards of carbon-friendly traction, passenger comfort and accessibility. We expect to publish it this summer. In developing the strategy, we are carefully considering the case for different traction types.”
“In support of that, as is the case now, GBR will be expected to keep level crossing operations under review, support continuous improvements in safety, and reduce unnecessary disruption so far as is reasonably practicable. GBR will remain directly accountable to the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road, the independent rail safety regulator on this work. As is the case now, effective consultation, robust evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with communities and local authorities will ensure that decisions are well informed and responsive to local needs. Through that approach, GBR will manage level crossings in a way that maintains high levels of safety for all users, reflects local priorities and is firmly grounded in evidence. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.”
“That would create a substantial and ongoing workload that would divert time, staff and funding away from the core functions of managing the railway, including by requiring GBR to develop proposals for engineering solutions even when there is no clear business case for intervention. That would increase costs, reduce flexibility and limit GBR’s ability to prioritise investment where it delivers the greatest benefits. Network Rail has a statutory duty to minimise risks to the public and keep level crossings safe. I reassure the hon. Member that GBR will continue to be bound by those duties, while also taking full account of the wider economic and social impacts that level crossing down time can have on local communities.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which would require GBR to produce annual reports and technical studies relating to road crossings, with the aim of easing congestion. It is our view that the new clause would add highly disproportionate administrative and reporting burdens on to Great British Railways that we do not believe are necessary to manage level crossings and mitigate any of the impacts on communities that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage so powerfully described. The new clause would require GBR to undertake an annual review of every public road level crossing in Britain, assessing the social and economic effects on each area, and would mandate feasibility and engineering studies for any site judged to have high levels of congestion.”
“Gentleman’s suggestion that the Secretary of State should be prevented from awarding general pay rises to workers when train performance has fallen, may I suggest that performance is something that GBR can improve in a lot of ways, including by bringing track and train together and by sensibly co-ordinating the timetable? Those are both lacking today and create many performance problems.”
“GBR will implement best practice across the railway to ensure its staff have everything they need to succeed. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his desire to end short-notice holiday approval, the dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave and the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails. As I have said, we want a railway that works seven days a week. It is our view that the privatised railway caused this issue, with a fragmented set of employee terms and conditions that has resulted in differing approaches to the workforce. In bringing together train operators, GBR can start to tackle some of those issues, which are rooted in the privatised system. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that must not come at the expense of safety or workers’ rights. On the hon.”
“On the proposal to require GBR to establish a train driving school with streamlined training methods to increase driver availability, I assure him that steps have already been taken to address the driver shortage. In May 2025, we announced a reduction in the minimum age to become a train driver from 20 to 18 to allow train operating companies and, in future, Great British Railways to create career pathways for school leavers and broaden the pool of people they can recruit from to address shortages. On training in general and the need for training to reduce unnecessary delays in deploying rolling stock and other areas, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that comprehensive and targeted training is essential to the proper running of the railway.”
“We want a railway that works on all seven days of the week, which is why we have instructed train operators to set out detailed resourcing plans, including on recruiting sufficient drivers and crew. However, the suggested framework also proposes some changes that could breach an individual’s contractual terms and conditions of employment. Such matters are for the employer and the employees, through their trade unions, to negotiate under collective bargaining agreements. They need to be negotiated and updated as part of staff contracts, and that is not appropriate for legislation. Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points.”
“Gentleman’s proposed working practices and productivity modernisation framework under Great British Railways covers various areas, with the aspiration, which the Government share, of delivering a modernised railway that fully meets the needs of passengers. I am grateful to him for his considered suggestions for a framework. It covers some matters that we are already taking steps to address, such as the extension of rest day working agreements to improve the reliability of train services seven days a week. As I confirmed to the hon. Gentleman last week, some train operators already have Sunday in their working week, and we are very serious about improving performance everywhere.”
“The previous Government’s inability to solve the industrial dispute is estimated to have cost £850 million in lost revenue—a debilitating amount for industry and the taxpayer. In agreeing pay deals last year, we have more than halved the proportion of rail services lost due to cancellations and national strikes since the height of industrial action under the previous Government, and we have begun the critical job of making the railway work for the passenger once again. Further, although many rail employers had the opportunity to use minimum service levels regulations, none chose to do so as they deemed them either unworkable or unnecessary. For those reasons, we do not agree with the principle behind the new clause, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. On new clause 32, the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, in what could well be our final session, unfortunately, on this big and beautiful Bill, as somebody across the pond might say. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for new clause 31. The previous Government introduced minimum service levels legislation akin to that proposed in the new clause, which this Government repealed under the Employment Rights Act 2025 as it did not support a positive and productive relationship between employers, employees and their trade unions. Indeed, it served only to exacerbate the national rail disputes under the previous Government, who saw two years of widespread strikes and disruption to millions of passengers.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for that important clarification and I happily correct my remarks to reflect that. However, I do not believe that it changes the substance of my point: improvement of performance and productivity can be achieved through myriad factors that do not include preventing the Secretary of State from awarding pay rises to workers when the level of train performance has fallen. There is a point about fairness and equity there, as productivity is outwith the control of some people who work on the railways. The amendment would, in effect, punish people for factors that could be beyond their control.”
“That in itself is a driver of productivity on the railway, which is in stark contrast to more of a scorched earth approach from the last Government, which resulted in strike after strike, often costing the taxpayer in the process.”
“The shadow Minister makes a valid point about the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to ensure productivity as part of GBR’s processes. We differ on the mechanism by which those efficiencies are achieved. GBR will be incentivised to improve performance via its performance duty and, in extremis, GBR and the Government will work with unions as partners to achieve necessary changes. We have discussed at length, when considering the Bill, the myriad forms of accountability and enforcement of consumer standards and the need to drive competition where it drives performance in some areas of the railways. However, our approach to union relations has been different from that of the previous Government: it has been to get around the table to address matters and avoid the need for industrial action.”
“The model for how that will work in GBR is still being considered and developed, together with GBR’s corporate governance and employee engagement structures, and it would be inappropriate to commit GBR to reporting on its structure or employee engagement arrangements when decisions on such matters are still to be taken. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to move his new clause.”
“Such inspection is already carried out by Network Rail and there are no plans to change that under GBR. Consequently, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to move new clause 32 and to withdraw new clause 31. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 55. It is imperative that GBR delivers for its passengers and employees alike. GBR workers will be key stakeholders in its success, so it is important that they, and the trade unions that represent them, are treated with respect, listened to and involved in the key decisions that affect them.”
“My hon. Friend is right to have the aspiration that public sector workers, who keep the wheels of our economy turning by facilitating connectivity and allowing the private sector to thrive, deserve to be fairly remunerated for doing so. Having a public sector body run in the public interest provides efficiencies in itself, with publicly owned English rail operators receiving 33% of Government funding and yet generating £4.5 billion or 38% of the income. If we remove the £850 million of unnecessary strike costs that would have been incurred, that shows that efficiencies and productivity are being built into the system by having a fairer, more decent and practicable relationship with trade unions. On a more specific point, drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure was also mentioned.”
“That will ensure that the statute book is tidy and appropriately reflects the changes the Bill makes. I stress that this power cannot be used to make policy changes and is intended only to ensure that the outcomes of the Bill are not hindered or confused by existing legislation that should have been consequentially amended.”
“For example, it was necessary to make some amendments to the closures regime in the 2005 Act as it was aligned with the franchising system in the 1993 Act, whereas we now need it to align with the Bill. Importantly, there is no change to the outcome to the closures process, and the role of the ORR and Ministers is not changing. Amendment 190 ensures that documents sent in accordance with the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill can be sent electronically. It is a common and standard amendment to reflect technological developments. Amendments 187, 189, 194 and 195 remove provisions that are no longer necessary. The last thing I will address in this group is clause 88, which I commend to the Committee. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make amendments that are consequential to the Bill.”
“Clause 87 points towards schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments arising from the Bill. The Bill has broadened its scope, and much of the related previous legislation will need altering slightly. These minor and consequential amendments allow for the necessary changes and updates to be made, and will help propel the Bill forward. I therefore commend the clause and schedule 3 to the Committee. Amendments 188, 191 to 193 and 196 to 199 in my name are consequential amendments to the Railways Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that reflect the removal of franchising. The new provisions about railway passenger services and the creation of GBR.”
“Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 74, line 14, at end insert— “36A Omit Schedule 4. 36B In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7, after paragraph (e) insert— ‘(ea) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined authority; (eb) if the proposal affects its area, a mayoral combined county authority;’”— (Keir Mather.) This amendment amends the Railways Act 2005 to make consequential provision related to the functioning of GBR. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 89 Regulations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 198, in schedule 3, page 74, line 13, at end insert— “35A For section 48(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Scottish service” means— (a) a Scotland-only service; (b) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(3) of the Railways Act 2026; or (c) a station service provided in relation to a station in Scotland at which services falling within paragraph (a) or (b) make a scheduled call.’ 35B For section 48A(4) substitute— ‘(4) In this section “relevant Welsh service” means— (a) a railway passenger service that is provided to any extent under section 31(4) of the Railways Act 2026; or (b) a station service provided in relation to a station at which only services falling within paragraph (a) make a scheduled call.’” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.”
“(2) In subsection (1)— (a) at the appropriate place, insert— ‘“mayoral combined authority” and “mayoral combined county authority” have the same meanings as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;’ (b) in the definition of ‘railway funding authority’, after paragraph (d) insert— ‘(da) a mayoral combined authority; (db) a mayoral combined county authority;’; (c) in the definition of ‘secured service’ omit paragraph (a). (3) In subsection (5A) omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (8), at the end insert ‘or in an Act or a Measure of Senedd Cymru’.” See the explanatory statement for amendment 196.”
“(2) In subsection (2), after ‘Passenger Transport Executive,’ insert ‘a mayoral combined authority, a mayoral combined county authority,’. (3) In subsection (4), in both places it occurs, after ‘Passenger Transport Executive’, insert ‘, mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority’. 34Q In section 42(1B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34R (1) Section 45 is amended as follows.”
“(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute— ‘(4) For the purposes of this section the appropriate national authority is— (a) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 25 of the Railways Act 2026, the Secretary of State; (b) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 26 of that Act, the Scottish Ministers; (c) in a case where the railway passenger service that is interrupted or discontinued is a service which may be designated under section 27 of that Act, the Welsh Ministers, and where in any case there is more than one appropriate national authority they shall each have the powers conferred by this section.’ 34P (1) Section 41 is amended as follows.”
“34J For section 36(7) substitute— ‘(7) Where a service is designated as experimental or its designation is extended, the person designating must give notice of the designation or extension to the person who is to provide the service.’ 34K (1) Section 37 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement under which’ substitute ‘arrangements under which it is required that’. (3) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchise agreement’ substitute ‘arrangements of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a)’. 34L In section 38(2A), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34M In section 39, omit subsections (1) to (3). 34N (1) Section 40 is amended as follows.”
“(4) For subsection (9) substitute— ‘(9) The duty of the national authority under subsection (8) is discharged without its taking further steps so long as the provisions of any arrangements, in force at the time of the proposal, so far as they require the provision of the services, continue in force without modification.’ (5) In the heading, omit ‘franchised or’. 34G In section 32(12)— (a) omit ‘franchise agreement or other’; (b) in paragraph (a), omit ‘franchised service or’; (c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘agreement or’. 34H In section 34(2B), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. 34I In section 35(6C), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’.”
“(2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (10). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34E (1) Section 23 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a), for the words from ‘in’ to the end substitute ‘under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026;’. (3) Omit subsection (8). (4) In the heading, omit ‘non-franchised’. 34F (1) Section 24 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)(a), for ‘a franchised service’, substitute ‘a service provided under section 31 of the Railways Act 2026’. (3) In subsection (7), omit ‘franchise agreement or any other’.”
“(2) Omit subsections (1), (7) and (8). (3) In subsection (2) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (5), omit ‘(1) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’. 33C (1) Section 10 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsections (1), (3), (6), (10) and (11). (3) In subsection (4) omit— (a) ‘also’; and (b) ‘otherwise than under franchise agreements’. (4) In subsection (8), omit ‘(3) or’. (5) In the heading, omit ‘Franchising and’.” This amendment and amendments 197 and 198 amend provisions of the Railways Act 2005 to account for changes made by this Bill, in particular the ending of the franchise system. Amendment 197, in schedule 3, page 74, line 12, at end insert— “34A Omit section 16. 34B Omit section 18. 34C Omit section 20. 34D (1) Section 22 is amended as follows.”
“This amendment provides for the duty to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating public transport for travel to and in Greater London to apply in relation to services provided under a public service contract awarded under clause 31(2). Amendment 194, in schedule 3, page 74, line 2, at end insert—“29A Omit section 205.” This amendment repeals a spent provision of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 relating to franchise agreements. Amendment 195, in schedule 3, page 74, line 8, at end insert— “32A Omit sections 3 and 4.” This amendment repeals provisions of the Railways Act 2005, which are no longer required due to the provision made by this Bill. Amendment 196, in schedule 3, page 74, line 11, at end insert— “33A In section 6, omit subsections (5), (6) and (8). 33B (1) Section 8 is amended as follows.”
“(2) In subsection (4A)— (a) for ‘Network Rail Limited’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) for ‘Network Rail’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’. (3) In subsection (8)— (a) in the definition of ‘land used by Network Rail’, for ‘Network Rail’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Great British Railways’; (b) omit the definition of ‘Network Rail’.” This amendment amends provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to reflect the new role of GBR. Amendment 193, in schedule 3, page 73, line 36, leave out from “(1)(a)(ii)” to the end and insert “for ‘franchise agreements,’ substitute ‘a public service contract awarded as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Railways Act 2026,’”.”
“Amendment 191, in schedule 3, page 73, line 13, at end insert— “25A (1) Schedule 6 is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph 1(aa). (3) In paragraphs 3, 7(2) and (4), 8, 9 and 10(5), for ‘appropriate national authority’, in each place it occurs, substitute ‘Secretary of State’. 25B In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11, in the definition of ‘eligible person’, in paragraph (a)(ii) for the words from ‘or a body’ to ‘agreement’ substitute ‘, Great British Railways or a subsidiary of Great British Railways’.” This amendment makes consequential amendments of the provision about railway administration orders and provides for employees of Great British Railways and its subsidiaries to be eligible persons for the purposes of pension schemes. Amendment 192, in schedule 3, page 73, line 34, at end insert— “27A (1) Section 163 is amended as follows.”
“(3) After that subsection insert— ‘(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply in relation to a document required or authorised by virtue of sections 118 to 120 or 149A to be given or served by the Secretary of State to or on any person.’ (4) After subsection (3) insert— ‘(3A) A notice sent to a person by electronic means is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been given on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.’ (5) At the end of subsection (5) insert— ‘“working day” means any day other than— (a) a Saturday or a Sunday, (b) Christmas Day or Good Friday; or (c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.’” This amendment allows for the electronic service of documents under the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill.”
“Amendment 190, in schedule 3, page 73, line 12, at end insert— “24A (1) Section 149 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) after ‘this Act’ insert ‘or the Railways Act 2026’, (b) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) by sending it to the person by agreed electronic means (for example, by email to an agreed address); or’, and (c) in paragraphs (b) and (c), after ‘paragraph (a)’ insert ‘or (aa)’.”
“Amendment188, in schedule 3, page 72, line 28, at end insert— 22A “(1) Section 130 is amended as follows. (2) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), omit ‘under Welsh franchise agreements’. (3) In subsection (1ZC)(a)(ii), omit ‘under a Welsh franchise agreement’. (4) In subsection (1A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— ‘(a) a Scotland-only service; or (b) any other railway passenger service provided or secured to any extent by the Scottish Ministers.’.” This amendment makes changes to the penalty fare provisions of the Railways Act 1993 that reflect the way passenger services will be provided under Part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 189, in schedule 3, page 72, line 34, at end insert—“23A Omit section 136.” This amendment repeals section 136 of the Railways Act 1993, which is no longer necessary.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 186, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert— “7A In section 18, omit subsection (6A).” This amendment removes provision about franchised and operator of last resort services, which will no longer be necessary. Amendment 187, in schedule 3, page 70, line 28, at end insert— “8A In section 22(1), omit ‘or Schedule 4A to this Act’. 8B In section 22C(2), for ‘, subsection (1) above or Schedule 4A to this Act’ substitute ‘or subsection (1) above’.” This amendment removes provision referring to Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993, in consequence of the repeal of that Schedule by the Bill.”
“Clause 92 sets out the details of when a number of clauses will come into effect; clauses 85, 86, 88 to 91, 92 and 93 will all come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force on the day, or days, set by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 93 sets out that this Bill, once it has become an Act, can be known as the Railways Act 2026. For the very final time, I commend the clauses to the Committee.”
“However, the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and North East combined authorities have chosen to retain separate passenger transport executives to deliver transport functions. This is a technical amendment, consistent with existing policy. It provides certainty for areas in England that still operate passenger transport executives, and supports wider Government commitments to close collaboration with local partners. I encourage Members to support it. I will now address clauses 90, 91, 92 and 93. Clause 90 provides definitions and explanations of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Clause 91 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and that clause 86, on the Luxembourg protocol, also extends to Northern Ireland.”
“Clause 89 provides clarity on the regulations that may be made under the powers granted by this Bill by listing the procedures that will apply to them. Amendment 200, in my name, provides a definition of passenger transport executive for an integrated transport area. This is required in the Bill, as provisions elsewhere repeal a definition included in the 1993 Act that could otherwise have been relied on. Passenger transport executives were established by the Transport Act 1968 to provide and coordinate public transport across modes in major urban areas. The evolving landscape of devolution has seen some authorities choose to absorb passenger transport executive functions into their mayoral combined authorities.”
“It falls to me finally to say that regardless of individual Members’ perspectives on the merits and demerits of certain aspects of the Bill, it is one of the most consequential pieces of railways legislation that have come before this House in the last century. I am very proud to have been a part of it, and I have enjoyed it very much because of the contributions of everyone in this room. Thank you, all. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.”
“Member for West Dorset—and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East was characteristically forensic in his scrutiny of specific aspects of the Bill, and I thank him for his hard work. May I also thank my Bill team, who have done an incredible amount of hard work over many months, predating my occupancy of this role, to make this piece of legislation possible? It is enormously appreciated. I thank all the Doorkeepers for facilitating our Divisions and keeping us safe; the Clerks for their assiduous work; and all the Chairs who have been in charge of our proceedings.”