5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Water Supply in Kent

   I assure you that will not be a problem, Mr Twigg, despite my known verbosity. Sadly, the Minister has heard many of my points before. However, I am grateful that she is here, as whatever any of us have said about South East Water, the one thing that unites us is knowing that she is doing her absolute damnedest. She, through her Department, has been absolutely brilliant. Wherever we sit, it is good to see her here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on securing this debate. Funnily enough, I applied for a debate on this topic—he won on this one—but I will still not speak for the whole eight minutes. This is not the first time we have been here, nor the first time we have had a water outage in Kent, as we have heard from other hon. Members. By my records, this is the fifth major South East Water outage to hit the community I am lucky enough to represent since the start of last year. We heard that there were water shortages this winter because it was too cold, and we heard that there were water shortages this summer because it has been too hot. Frankly, South East Water is the Goldilocks company: it will deliver water only when everything is just right. The common denominator is clearly not the temperature, so what is it? Obviously, the answer is South East Water. Edenbridge and the surrounding areas, which are part of the community I represent, are served by SES Water, and the situation is completely different. Despite remarkably similar—in fact, almost identical—weather to that which can be found a few metres over the border in South East Water’s area, we have not had a single outage—that is remarkable, isn’t it? Although much of the focus over the winter was understandably on Tunbridge Wells, and this time it has been on Whitstable and the areas around Ashford, in reality an outage could happen anywhere. Each time we have had a water outage, a different community has been affected. Across the five outages I have experienced, there were issues in north Tonbridge, south Tonbridge, Penshurst, Plaxtol, Mereworth, Offham, Platt, West Peckham, Wrotham, Addington and Trosley. Each time, it has seemed to catch South East Water by surprise, and its response has always taken too long. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) secured an urgent question in the Chamber on this topic, during which I said that South East Water is the worst company I have come across in my 11 years as an MP. I am delighted to say that many people have been in touch on social media to confirm their own impressions of the company, so I can represent that as the view of the whole constituency. Here is why: South East Water simply does not know where the problems are coming from. It is constantly astonished that it is expected to deliver water—it is almost as though it thought its job was merely to rake in the bills. Now, why has this happened, and how will it recover? It causes so many issues that it is impossible to trust any information that it gives during an outage. Usually, we hear directly from residents first. Let me explain what happened just a few weeks ago in my own community. At 9 o’clock on 28 May, residents at the top of Mereworth lost water. There was no communication at all from South East Water, and nothing on its website. Very late at night, water bottles arrived and were apparently made available only to those on the priority services register. Actually, many of those on the register did not get them. It was only because of an extremely assiduous local councillor, Sarah Hudson, that any of them were picked up and delivered to local residents. It is fantastic that we have such a great local councillor, but we cannot rely on local councillors every night and every time South East Water fails. It took until Saturday evening for water supplies to be delivered to Mereworth, 36 hours after the water was lost. Again, it was local councillors, this time Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, who facilitated and unloaded the delivery in a pub car park for residents to use. Even worse, come Sunday it was established that Mereworth did not have enough water. It just could not be pumped to the properties. Why? Because the booster had failed twice at Bough Beech reservoir. Why did it fail? The view of residents is that it is in the wrong place. I have offered South East Water the chance to take me round to see why that did not work, and to explain it with its engineers. But guess what? It said no. Worse than that, exactly the same issue happened in February, and many of the same properties were without water for the same reason. The alternative provision of water was just as slow. Nothing had changed. How do we stop that happening again? There are things that this company needs to do urgently. Some of it has started, including getting rid of the chairman and the chief executive, but it also needs to improve the list of potential bottled water stations. There is still much more to do. South East Water’s business continuity plan is a joke. Its staff are not empowered to develop local knowledge of each town and village and how to establish the best responses. Given the sheer number of communities affected, one would hope it had started yesterday, but it has never started at all. South East Water also needs to be bolder and braver. It needs to be forthright about the fragility of our water system. It needs to be clear about its inability to serve our community. I am pleased that has started, and that it has objected to the Government’s housing target for Tonbridge and Malling’s local plan. That is the right thing to do because, despite many of us wanting more homes in our area, if the water supply to current households cannot be guaranteed, how on earth can we supply 20,000 more households across Tonbridge and Malling by 2042? I had to debate this in this very room in March, and we debated it in the main Chamber only a few years ago. In the debate with Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it was very clear that the planning needed to happen. Either the supply of water has to increase dramatically or the housing targets have to be reduced. I know the council is directly engaged with the water delivery taskforce, but I understand that the promised position statement has not materialised—certainly not to the standard that Tonbridge and Malling borough council needs. That will leave the council with no choice. It will have to stand against the Government’s housing targets. The Government seem to have no answers for the simple issue that their housing targets for Kent are way in excess of what South East Water can provide. I once again thank the Minister for her hard work. It is very gratefully received, but there are many challenges ahead.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Defence Investment Plan

   It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House. That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.

   Hansard source
3. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Water Supply in Kent

   I apologise for the untimely interruption earlier, Mr Twigg— if I had been in the Chair, I would have been shouting at me. I wanted to open my mobile phone because at half-past 4 this afternoon a lady from Herne Bay texted me to say: “Sewage is being discharged into Herne Bay from a combined sewage overflow”. That is a common occurrence, and most Members present who represent coastal seats will have had messages like that over and over again. We can go around this circuit as many times as we like; we went around it last Wednesday, and then again on Monday, so I suspect that the Minister will get fed up listening to a cracked record. Yet again, I have to highlight the fact that we are building hundreds and hundreds of houses in our coastal towns and hinterland, for which there is no water supply and no adequate sewerage. I learned today from one of my excellent local councillors in Dover, Martin Porter, that Southern Water is resisting a planning application for a village, simply because it cannot provide a facility to deal with the sewage the little estate will generate, any more than South East Water can supply the water that will be needed. Yet, as we have discussed in the last few days, the water companies have a statutory duty to provide water to every house built and—Southern Water is the sewage authority for both the areas I have mentioned—to dispose of the sewage, but they simply cannot do it. Yet again, I make this point: will the Minister please take on board the need to ensure that the water companies are statutory consultees for all planning applications, so that we get a clear steer as to whether water supplies and sewage facilities are available, before yet more houses are built?

   Hansard source
4. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Local Government Reform

   I preface my remarks by saying that I have a high personal regard for the Minister and I am sure that she would never personally wish to do anything unfair or politically partisan. However, there are very good reasons why, when changes are made to anything to do with constituency arrangements or democratic arrangements, they are normally carried out under the authority of an impartial body. I believe, as I suspect my Conservative colleagues believe, that if a body such as the Boundary Commission had been in charge of this operation, the results would have been very different. A coach and horses has been driven through anything to do with local, cultural or historical, as well as, shall we say, orientation among communities—all those ideas have been totally disregarded. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Dr Murrison, that we would need a much longer debate if we were to do justice to the enormity of what has been proposed. My hon. Friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas will be subsumed under and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. That is exactly what is happening in the city of Southampton, with the naked land-grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency—wards known collectively as the Waterside—coupled with another land-grab of wards from Test Valley borough council that are contained in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency. I must emphasise that the changes were first proposed long after the general election and were not in Labour’s general election manifesto. Labour rightly thought it proper to put in its manifesto the fact that there would be elected mayors and strategic authorities, but the abolition and merging of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody’s vote. The Government like to trumpet the fact that they are strongly in favour of the devolution of political power and of listening to what local people want. Well, I have some data for the Government. Ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency—splitting the constituency and the New Forest apart and tearing the Waterside away from the New Forest, which Waterside inhabitants have for hundreds of years viewed as part of their community—an online petition has been gathering signatures. This issue is relatively local to a part of the south of Hampshire, so we might think that, if we were lucky, the petition might get 5,000 or 6,000 signatures. I checked at exactly 10 o’clock this morning and there are 22,812 signatures so far, and I am sure that the total is well over 25,000 with paper signatures taken into account. What sort of issue must there be for 25,000 people in a local area to say that they utterly reject the tearing apart of the New Forest in this way and its takeover by the city of Southampton, which, as we have heard is the case in other scenarios, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the aegis of New Forest district council are accustomed to being in? I have many more points that I would like to make, but, out of consideration for my colleagues, I am not going to make them. I will make just one final point. We have tried—we really have—to engage in a sincere way with the Government. When the original Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria: there would be no unnecessary duplication or fragmentation, and the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils unless—as an exception—there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries. However, the only reasons given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something, which could be said in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous. I am sure that if this Minister had full strategic authority—to make a bad pun—over this policy, we would not be experiencing what we are experiencing. There is total outrage about this matter. It needs to be put right, and I hope the Government can be persuaded to think again.

   Hansard source
5. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Local Government Reform

   There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Belfast: Violent Disorder

   Does the Minister share my concern that, irrespective of the personal motivation of the perpetrator, the circumstances by which he came into this country send a signal to those ideological movements abroad that wish us harm that there is a very easy back door by which they can infiltrate this country? If an operation of that sort is mounted in the future, what sort of violent response will there be to a spectacular terrorist attack that could and should have been prevented by secure borders?

   Hansard source
7. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Defence Investment Plan

   May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.

   Hansard source
8. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Myanmar: Human Rights

   I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Myanmar. I have not spoken under your chairmanship before, Mr Twigg—it is an honour to do so. I thank the Minister for attending. We have had meetings with his colleague at the Foreign Office, and I know it is an issue of great interest to the Government. Ukraine, Iran and Sudan have captured the headlines, but Myanmar is the civil war the world has forgotten. I went as Foreign Secretary in 2018, deeply concerned about the genocide of the Rohingya that had happened a year earlier. I was fobbed off by the Tatmadaw, the Burmese army and the Myanmar authorities. But at least we thought the country was taking tentative steps towards democracy, and following extensive engagement, we did manage to get two Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, released after they had reported on the genocide. Then things started going backwards. In 2021 we had a military coup. Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned, and since then we have had a vicious civil war with appalling human rights abuses by the military dictatorship. Some 7,000 to 8,000 people have been killed, 30,000 have been arbitrarily detained, 40 political parties have been banned, and there are now 14,000 political prisoners, including nearly all the pro-democracy candidates in past elections. There are daily airstrikes on homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, churches and other places of worship. There is arson, torture and sexual violence, and 4 million people displaced from homes.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Myanmar: Human Rights

   The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted what I was going to say, but I absolutely agree that we have to go further. In terms of the current situation, in nine days’ time, Aung San Suu Kyi will mark her 81st birthday. She has recently moved to house arrest but is still unable to contact her family. We must not forget that life under military rule means no freedom of expression, no free press, no free courts, internet restrictions, sham elections and total bloodshed as the Government conduct a vicious civil war with total impunity when it comes to civilian casualties.

   Hansard source
10. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Myanmar: Human Rights

    I will respond to that as soon as I have taken the final intervention that I am going to take.

    Hansard source
11. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Myanmar: Human Rights

    The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have campaigned for many years on freedom of religion and belief, and I agree that what is happening to Christians in Myanmar is an absolute tragedy. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) that we have to do more when it comes to sanctions. I say to the Minister that I am very aware of the trade-offs and challenges in foreign policy, and that the environment we are in at the moment is far from benign when it comes to human rights. Tempting though it may be to say—although I know the Minister would not—that because the UK has its own problems, we should not get too involved in this, we matter when it comes to Myanmar. That is for a very simple, straightforward reason, which is that, on the Security Council, we hold the pen when it comes to Myanmar, so it is our responsibility to make sure that the UN is aware of what is happening there. Given what is happening, it is a special responsibility for us to galvanise the United Nations to do everything in its power to end the bloodshed and brutal oppression of the Burmese people. I recognise that sanctions are in place, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about human rights, but we can do more. One of the biggest things we can do is repeat what I did in 2018 and organise a high-level meeting on Myanmar, chaired by the Foreign Secretary, at the United Nations General Assembly in September to make sure that we draw the attention of everyone who attends that vital meeting in New York to what is happening and to the terrible suffering of the Burmese people. If it is the only thing we do—I do not believe it is the only thing we can do—at least the UK will have made sure that the world knows what is happening in Myanmar. Myanmar might not care too much about the UK as a country, but it cares about China, the country that is protecting it; it cares about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is sitting on the fence apart from the brave exception of the Philippines; and it cares about the UN, so this is a major moment where we must make sure that we do our duty. There are other things. We all know that the aid budget is being cut, but if the UK finds something to support humanitarian efforts—obviously, without channelling it through a corrupt and merciless Government—other countries will follow. And for the sake of posterity and of future victims, it is essential that we give full support to any efforts to assemble evidence of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, including referring the Arakan army to the International Court of Justice. Will the Minister commit to the Foreign Secretary chairing a high-level meeting at UNGA in September? Will the Government respond to the final report of the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews? Will the Government consider invoking article 14 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court to request an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Myanmar? Will the UK sanction military-controlled banks in the way that other countries have? Sadly, the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, is currently showing little interest in human rights across the world. Partly as a result, some autocrats are beginning to think that they can literally get away with murder, but the US is not the only democracy on the planet. There are us, European democracies, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries that share our democratic values. Britain does not have to stand on the sidelines, Britain must not stand on the sidelines, and I hope that when we hear from the Minister, he will tell us that Britain will not stand on the sidelines.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Defence Investment Plan

    The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?

    Hansard source
13. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Railways Bill

    On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?

    Hansard source
14. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Defence Investment Plan

    The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?

    Hansard source
15. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Railways Bill

    A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents. I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe. I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced. Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action. I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability. Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound “to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”. We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers. I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

    Hansard source
16. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Railways Bill

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?

    Hansard source
17. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

    On devolution, we have to appreciate that the increase in the borrowing limit is underwritten by the whole of the UK economy. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows of any equivalent flexibilities that English local authorities, which are also under huge financial pressures, could use.

    Hansard source
18. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Nigel Huddleston

    Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas. The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events. The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games. For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on. Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one. We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future. As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world. Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster. As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too. Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous. We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.

    Hansard source
19. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    I beg to move, That this House has considered local government reform. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about. One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas. All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen. Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum. Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?” The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city. In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city. But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that. We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there. Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area. I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do. If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition. When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough. But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character. Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road. Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters. I could go on and on. Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.

    Hansard source
20. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets. It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.

    Hansard source
21. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient. One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city. I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire. In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The local nature of local government is critical. The other problem with these giant councils is how remote they will be. In Oadby and Wigston at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices, or take a maximum five-minute drive. Harborough is a little bigger, but is still very local. If we get a giant council, my constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to see council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and local government will be less local. The point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority will not necessarily care about.

    Hansard source
23. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    I am very sorry to hear that. It is bad when people feel that the goalposts are being moved because it erodes trust in the process even further. Crucially, nobody asked for this. People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorted out locally, but nobody ever emailed me to say they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote. No one emailed me to say they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester. It is a bad idea, being done for the wrong reasons and in an undemocratic way. I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants a bigger city and will get all the council tax and business rate revenues from the areas moved in. He would have a place to dump all the housing need without ruffling any feathers in the city. I can see the upside for him, but I cannot see what is in it for my constituents, and nor can they. They do not want this, as is clear and indisputable. The Government cannot pretend for a second that this is in any sense what local people want. The Minister here today does not live in our area, which is not her fault, but she has asked people what they think. Now that she has heard, I hope she will start to listen to local people as she makes her decisions.

    Hansard source
24. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Local Government Reform

    Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The irony of all this is that the Minister’s only argument is that we must avoid a two-tier system, but what the Government want is to replace one two-tier system with a completely different two-tier system that has a mayor and unitary authority. It is an exercise in the utmost futility. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

    Hansard source
25. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Investment Plan

    Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.

    Hansard source
26. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Investment Plan

    Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?

    Hansard source
27. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Investment Plan

    Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Investment Plan

    These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?

    Hansard source
29. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Defence Investment Plan

    I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first. Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?

    Hansard source
30. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Railways Bill

    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.

    Hansard source
31. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I, too, wish England and Scotland the very best in the world cup. I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—many happy returns. May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister made about the helicopter crash? Our condolences go to their families, and to the family of Michael Storey. I thank the Prime Minister for his short statement on Belfast. The scenes in Belfast are deeply, deeply disturbing. A man is in hospital after a brutal attack and now families are frightened after a night of violence. There is a live criminal case, so we must be careful about what we say, but we can be clear about this: people have a right to be angry—I am angry—and people have the right to expect their politicians to secure our borders, but no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police. We all have a duty to stand up for public safety in every way. Last night, America carried out strikes on Iran in response to the downing of a US helicopter. This comes just days after renewed attacks on Ukraine. The world is getting more dangerous and the British public want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to protect our national security. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, will the full defence investment plan finally be published this week?

    Hansard source
32. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    That sounded like a no. We have wasted two years waiting for the defence investment plan. Projects have been put on hold and Britain is getting weaker with every passing day. It has been reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Defence needs an extra £28 billion. Will that requirement be met in full?

    Hansard source
33. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I welcome the pay rise for the armed forces. The Prime Minister says he has increased defence spending, but he has not. This year he is cutting it by £3.5 billion. What he is talking about are hopeful increases, and we do not know if he will make them because there is still no defence investment plan. At a time when we need leadership, we have total paralysis. It is reported that the Chancellor is only willing to find £13 billion for the DIP. At the London defence conference last year, the Prime Minister said that defence would be the “central organising principle” of his Government. How can that be the case when he is giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need?

    Hansard source
34. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    We have heard the Prime Minister say that about 100 times. There is still no defence investment plan. He is the Prime Minister now—at least I think he is. Should I be calling Andy Burnham instead to ask these questions? He is the Prime Minister, and the reason he is dithering is because he does not know where the money is coming from. The military is waiting and the bond markets are watching. He has only three options: cutting spending, more borrowing, or higher taxes. We know that the Chancellor wants to put up tax to pay for defence. Will the Prime Minister rule out raising taxes?

    Hansard source
35. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I remember when the last Government led Europe when we were fighting the war in Ukraine. When Russia invaded, we were ready. We supplied Ukraine with munitions. We increased defence spending. But I was not asking the Prime Minister about our record; I asked him if he would rule out tax rises. He did not rule out raising taxes, so tax rises are coming. He cannot borrow more, because the markets have no confidence in him. The Prime Minister is in this mess because he maxed out on spending in his first two Budgets. That is why the benefits bill is set to rise to over £200 billion by the end of the decade. He has things the wrong way round: he has a benefits plan until 2031, but no defence investment plan. Why not just cut welfare?

    Hansard source
36. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    At a time of increased global instability and tension, with war in Europe and the middle east, the Prime Minister is paralysed, giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need. Tony Blair says to cut welfare for defence. Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General—and also one of them—says to cut welfare for defence. We all know why he will not cut welfare. It is because he is too weak—too weak to make a decision, too weak to face down his Back Benchers and cut benefits, and too weak to stand up for our national security. As the sun sets on his premiership, he is scrabbling around for a legacy, but is it not the case that his real legacy will be a bloated welfare state and weaker armed forces?

    Hansard source
37. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Railways Bill

    I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out. We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters. Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government. That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong. Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.

    Hansard source
38. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Railways Bill

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control. Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off. We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire. When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway. The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    Hansard source
39. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Local Government Reform

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire. Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place. Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial. Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area. Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area. Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them? Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it. My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities. That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities. Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.

    Hansard source
40. 10 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Local Government Reform

    It is very clear from my hon. Friend’s powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire do not want local government reform, and my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford in Essex do not want it either. Has he seen the letter from 16 council leaders from the County Council Network giving a whole host of reasons why it is a bad idea? I would add that it is a Trojan horse that Labour is using to try to cover our green fields in concrete. There is no demand for this. People do not want it. They want to protect their existing local identities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan?

    Hansard source