Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   On a point of order, Dr Murrison. In Thursday’s session, I asked the Minister why pupil data was not within the remit of this Bill. He said: “On the question of schools, and more broadly the question of public sector authorities, I entirely accept that the handling of pupil data in schools is a critical aspect of our public service operations. The reason why public service authorities have largely been left out of the Bill’s scope is because we do not need to wait for the legislative process to act. We have been working, not least closely with the Government’s cyber-security strategy and the cyber action plan, to ensure that pupil data is kept securely and robustly.” ––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2026; c. 137.] Since then, I have been researching any action taken in respect of the Government’s cyber-security strategy and the cyber action plan, and can find no record of them dealing with the issue of pupil data. I wonder whether, this morning, the Minister could specify what he meant last Thursday or commit to coming back to the Committee with that detail.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   On a point of order, Dr Murrison. Yesterday, I spoke in a petition debate in Westminster Hall. The petition was signed by 114,000 members of the public calling for a public inquiry into Russian influence in British democracy. In researching my response on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I came upon the Government’s statement about this Bill, which said that it would “require organisations in critical sectors to further protect their IT systems”. The split infinitive notwithstanding, I do not believe that the Bill requires any organisations in critical sectors to further protect their IT systems. If the Minister thinks that the Government are correct in saying that, would he like to direct us to that requirement in the Bill?

   Hansard source
3. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove raised the case of M&S, which would clearly be out of the scope of the Bill. However, it has a managed service provider, so it is a bit like the JLR case. I am still looking for some certainty as to whether JLR and M&S would come within the scope of the Bill by dint of the fact that they have managed service providers, which are within the scope. I am still not 100% clear on the answer to that question. I would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister.

   Hansard source
4. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I understand his answer, but, to be clear, if an incident that meets the severity threshold is reported to a client who is out of scope, would that bring any obligation to report in the normal way?

   Hansard source
5. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   On the subject of charging and money, has the Minister had the opportunity to revisit his own impact assessment on the basis that there might be a glitch in the matrix? It says on multiple occasions that the hourly salary for a contract lawyer is £34 an hour. When we discussed it last week, I contended that this was totally unrealistic, probably to a factor of 10.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   In terms of scope, could the Minister give us some sense, when it comes to managed service providers, whether the purpose behind this clause is to enable regulators to find out their entire client list? I would be grateful for some clarity on that point.

   Hansard source
7. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I might have to remind myself. I asked the Minister whether the purpose of this clause is for a regulator to be able to ask a managed service provider what their entire client list is, in order to make various assessments.

   Hansard source
8. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

   This is really where the regulatory rubber hits the road. Earlier, we described cases involving a client who is not in the Bill’s scope but who employs a managed service provider that is, and that is therefore vulnerable to these charges. What happens when there is an interface between a client employee operating an IT system and what the managed service provider does? For example, someone could bring in a data stick, shove it in the side of a computer and break the rules, eliciting some form of ransomware. How will it work when the regulator goes to the managed service provider and says, “Here’s your £10 million fine,” and the client says, “That is down to you”? It is going to be a lawyer-fest, isn’t it? Even lawyers who get paid more than £34 an hour are going to make quite a lot of money.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Businesses: Cost of Energy

   2. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

   Hansard source
10. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Businesses: Cost of Energy

    Ametek and SSS Gears are two quite rare breeds—they are manufacturing companies in my Spelthorne constituency, inside the M25. One employs 200 people, while the other employs 43, and they seek to export around the world. How does the Minister expect those companies to be competitive in a global market when energy prices in Ashford, Middlesex are four times higher than those in Ashford, Alabama?

    Hansard source
11. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. When we left off, we were considering the powers of the Secretary of State to bring new organisations within scope. I am a Conservative, and my view is that the best form of regulation is usually competition, so I am not actually volunteering these sectors for the guards. However, I want to understand the underlying logic as to why certain things have been included and certain things have not. We have a fairly good guide as to what is essential. The reason we do is that we went through a global pandemic, and the following groups and organisations were designated as absolutely essential for the running of the state: health and social care, which is included; education and childcare, which is not; anything to do with the justice system; religious staff; public service broadcasters; local and national Government, which again is not in the Bill; food and other goods, which, as we discussed, are also not in the Bill, although they are in the new clauses; public safety and national security; transport; utilities; communications; financial services; and postal services. That is the analogue I am putting to the Minister: we found out which things we really needed, we designated them as essential and we allowed them to continue during the covid pandemic. None of us particularly relishes being reminded of that time, but we owe it to the people who will be subject to the Bill to ask the Minister exactly what has been argued in and what has been argued out of scope, to understand how vulnerable the blank cheque we are issuing to the Secretary of State is to their including more and more in it, come the day of the races.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    To take this a little bit beyond the theoretical, is the Minister suggesting that, where it is discovered that, for example, a major offshore wind power generation facility was fitted with remotely triggerable kill switches, triggerable by a foreign state or sub-state actor, the Secretary of State could require that energy company to remove whatever piece of hardware or software was producing that threat?

    Hansard source
13. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    What happens when the Secretary of State, via his various proxies—the regulator or whomsoever—gives a direction to a company to do something in the interests of national security, and the entity disagrees and says, “That simply won’t work, and it won’t solve the problem that you are seeking to address”?

    Hansard source
14. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Court Reporting Data

    The Minister complains that it is currently the wild west out there, and hopes that we can somehow regulate it. Well, we do actually have a regulator for incidents such as these. Pursuant to the answer that she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), she acknowledged that data breaches have to be reported to the ICO within 72 hours. We hear that she was advised that this breach did not hit the threshold, which I find absolutely staggering. Advisers advise, and Ministers decide. Why was the Minister’s judgment not to go away and immediately question the advice that she received from her Department?

    Hansard source
15. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Court Reporting Data

    For decades, victims, survivors, campaigners, whistleblowers and journalists have fought to force the British state to reveal the whole truth about the rape and grooming scandal. The data held by Courtsdesk could be invaluable in uncovering the truth. The Minister tells us that we can rely on the Government’s own data instead, but just 4.2% of magistrates court cases are listed accurately by the courts themselves, so for every 25 cases listed, 24 are wrong. How can the Minister ask victims, survivors and any of us who care about the truth to rely on that, especially in the context of the most disgusting cover-up in our nation’s history?

    Hansard source
16. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Court Reporting Data

    That is important data!

    Hansard source
17. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

    I am not qualified to make observations about the enduring value for money or effectiveness of Palantir, but I am concerned that Mandelson’s dynamics with every aspect of this Government have toxified the integrity of their processes. Unless the Minister can make absolutely clear what quiet, unspoken influences Mandelson had on this follow-on order with Palantir, people are bound to question the integrity of the process. To respond to the Minister’s earlier point, if we are to have a viable alternative and meaningful competition in future, he will need to do a little more to advance the case for alternatives, beyond just saying that he has an SME strategy.

    Hansard source
18. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    rose—

    Hansard source
19. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    The position the hon. Member is putting forward is that we would somehow stop the assisted dying Bill progressing in Holyrood. That is simply not the case. I believe there is a date set for this to be further discussed in Holyrood. We are putting the cart before the horse here, because we are being asked to make provision for a Bill that may or may not see the light of day. It is a very peculiar situation. There is also the danger of the precedent that is being set; this is a Member’s Bill, and this system has never been used for one before, so a dangerous precedent could be set.

    Hansard source
20. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 80, page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) Great British Railways must inform Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Scottish Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.” This amendment would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland.

    Hansard source
21. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    That will teach me to go away for a day; the Committee finished off half the Bill without me. Anyway, we will go back to the usual slow progress today! Clause 80 is pretty straightforward. Great British Railways will have a duty to consult Scottish Ministers before making decisions that relate to cross-border services designated under clause 25, where—this is the important bit— “the decision will significantly affect…Scotland’s economy or…persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland.” Similarly, the clause requires GBR to consult Welsh Ministers where its decisions relate to services designated by the Secretary of State that are provided in Wales under a similar process. Most of the clause is pretty unremarkable, but there is one glaring issue with it: it asserts that GBR will decide for itself when a decision will “significantly affect” the Scottish or Welsh economies. The Minister will recognise that GBR is not an economic forecasting or policymaking body and cannot credibly assess national economic impact internally. The clause therefore makes the duty discretionary and risks major decisions proceeding without any meaningful consultation of either Welsh or Scottish Ministers. How is it sensible for GBR to have the duty to assess whether a proposed action is likely to affect the economies of either Scotland or Wales? That brings me neatly on to amendments 103 and 104. Amendment 103 would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland. Surely that is the correct approach. Similarly, amendment 104 would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, took the decision. Effectively, instead of GBR having the responsibility to say, “This affects Scotland and/or Wales, and therefore we should consult,” the amendments would give the power to the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to call in a decision on their assessment of their own economy. Surely that is the better approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rebuttal. Clause 81, which introduces a duty to consult mayoral combined authorities, is pretty similar to clause 80. In the interest of speed, I will skip straight on to amendment 105, which would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, and not GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy. I am repeating a similar argument, but it is an important one—one of process rather than any political issue. Again, we are talking about a rail body making an assessment of the impact of its activities on an economy that it is not a specialist in. Clause 82 creates a duty to consult Transport for London. Again, we have the same concerns as we had regarding clauses 80 and 81. Under the franchise system, the Mayor of London, and other mayors for that matter, were able to drag in rail operators to question them about their performance and standards; however, that right of consultation seems to have been removed. Is this a deliberate decision by the Minister to reduce the rights of mayors and mayoral combined authorities in relation to consultation? If it is, I would be grateful if he could explain why he has reduced powers, as opposed to increasing them. Amendment 106 would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Greater London. I am sure the Minister will speak to Government amendments 158 to 160 in a moment, but to anticipate his comments, they provide a duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. The Opposition have no objection to these clarifying amendments. Finally, I understand that new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is intended to facilitate collaborative strategic planning between central Government and local authorities, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report every five years assessing the long-term changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure. We support the principle of the new clause, but I recognise that a five-year reporting requirement is an onerous task to impose if no concrete improvements follow. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say in support of his new clause.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The Minister asserts that the amendments would make the process inefficient. Will he please explain why giving mayoral combined authorities or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers the power to call in consultation would make the process less efficient?

    Hansard source
23. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The Minister has heard my submissions. In the interest of time, I will not press my amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82 Duty to consult Transport for London Amendments made: 158, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “a” insert “London”. This amendment and amendments 159 and 160 provide for the duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. Amendment 159, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “service” insert— “(within the meaning of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 158. Amendment 160, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, leave out “which is provided in Greater London”.—(Keir Mather.) See the explanatory statement for amendment 158. Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 83 Advice from relevant local government bodies

    Hansard source
24. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    These are two unremarkable clauses. We have no objections to either of them. As for the Government amendments, they are technical in nature and we also support them.

    Hansard source
25. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 85, page 50, leave out line 3. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences certificates so that it remains the ORR.

    Hansard source
26. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Clause 85 relates to the licensing of train drivers, and other matters relating to them. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 and related assimilated law through regulations. The Secretary of State, by interest, has also been empowered to appoint a person or a body to publish and maintain technical standards in a document separate from the regulations. The regulations set out the requirements that ensure train drivers are competent, medically and psychologically fit, trained on the infrastructure, rolling stock and routes that they are to be deployed on, and generally able to drive trains safely. The power to amend that legislation is required to ensure that the train driver licensing regime can be updated to reflect technological, clinical and medical advancements. The ability to update the legislation on an enduring basis will help to modernise the framework and support health and safety outcomes for train drivers, as well as avoiding operational impacts such as train drivers being unable to be deployed on account of not passing outdated medical tests. The ability to designate a person or body, for example the Office of Rail and Road or GBR, to publish and maintain technical standards will allow the train driving regime to remain adaptable and effective. We are therefore support that. Subsection (2)(b) does not confirm the ongoing role of the ORR to issue licences or certificates. That is much bigger. Through its omission, it opens the door to the removal of the ORR’s role on this important issue. Unions would clearly fall under the definition in subsection (6)(a), but the drafting effectively ringfences them as the primary consultees while shutting out operators, GBR, passenger groups and safety bodies from the mandatory list. There is a non-mandatory ability to consult, but it seems very odd to identify unions but not any of these other very important organisations as part of a mandatory consultation list. That creates an odd imbalance for regulations that directly affect service delivery and safety, giving one group a guaranteed seat at the table while everyone else is included only at the Secretary of State’s discretion. Amendment 107 would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences and certificates, so that it remains the Office of Rail and Road, once again restoring power to the independent regulator with experience and expertise in this space. That is a small but important point. It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters that the ORR is not mentioned. If the intention is to remove that responsibility from the ORR, and that is the Government’s ambition as a result of the clause, perhaps the Minister could make that clear? If not, amendment 107 makes it clear that the ORR is the anticipated body. Amendment 108 is not part of this group but would affect the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to consult passenger and freight service operators, groups representing passengers and railway rail safety organisations before making regulations about the licensing or certification of train drivers. That would mean that not just Labour’s union colleagues would be consulted. I mention the amendment in passing because it is relevant to the discussion of this clause, and I see the Minister nodding sagely. I intend to seek a Division on amendment 107 if the Government are not minded to accept it.

    Hansard source
27. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    As I mentioned, we support the intention behind these clauses, but I stand firm in defending the need for the ORR to be the issuing body, so I will press my amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    As we have just heard, the Luxembourg protocol is designed to provide access to cheaper rolling stock in the UK and overseas, as finance can be secured and/or rolling stock leased from non-UK sources, and UK rolling stock companies can lease abroad at lower risk. I learned an interesting fact over the weekend. I thought that this proposal would affect only ROSCOs operating in this country, but it actually affects the Government too. I learned that the Government own the freehold of one train in the UK, which is on the Canvey Island miniature railway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was very keen to point out to me that the Government have skin in the game on this clause. I have read that into the record, so I hope she is pleased with that. We have no objections to the clause. As for Government amendments 201 and 202, which deal with the Isle of Man, I was slightly surprised by them. I am sorry to say that I have never visited the Isle of Man, so I had to do some research on its rail infrastructure, and it turns out that it is entirely heritage in nature, with Victorian rolling stock including a horse-drawn tramway. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why Victorian rolling stock and horse-drawn tramways need the benefit of the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol. I am sure that he has that at his fingertips.

    Hansard source
29. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    We have no objection in principle to the new clause, but, as we have learned to our cost as consumers in the similar approach taken to car parking charges and the removal of vehicles badly parked elsewhere, this will all come down to the operators contracted by GBR to undertake that function. It is merely asserted that the costs are related to those incurred in the removal, but we all know that such costs can be inflated by unscrupulous operators. Although we do not object to the new clause in principle, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that reputable companies will be used and that this measure will not be used as a secondary source of income for GBR or its contractors.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I have nothing to add. Question put and agreed to. New clause 61 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 62 Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers “(1) The Scottish Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities— (a) from the Scottish Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, to— (i) Great British Railways, (ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways to— (i) the Scottish Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a proposed GBR; (c) from a former GBR, a company wholly owned by a former GBR or a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and a former GBR, to— (i) the Scottish Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, (iii) Great British Railways, (iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Scottish Ministers and Great British Railways; (d) from a company wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers to another company wholly owned by them; (e) from the Scottish Ministers to a company wholly owned by them, or vice versa. (2) The Scottish Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.) This new clause allows the Scottish Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 63 Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers “(1) The Welsh Ministers may, for any purpose connected with railways or the provision of railway services, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities— (a) from the Welsh Ministers, or a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, to— (i) Great British Railways, (ii) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by two or more of the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State, Great British Railways and a proposed GBR; (b) from Great British Railways, a company wholly owned by Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways to— (i) the Welsh Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, (iii) a proposed GBR, (iv) a company wholly owned by a proposed GBR, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and a proposed GBR; (c) from a former GBR, or a company wholly owned by a former GBR, to— (i) the Welsh Ministers, (ii) a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, (iii) Great British Railways, (iv) a company wholly owned by Great British Railways, or (v) a company jointly owned by the Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways; (d) from a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers to another company wholly owned by them; (e) from the Welsh Ministers to a company wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers, or vice versa. (2) The Welsh Ministers must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before making a scheme under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c).”—(Keir Mather.) This new clause allows the Welsh Ministers to make schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities in connection with the designation of a body corporate as Great British Railways. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 64 Further provision about transfer schemes “(1) Schedule (Transfer schemes) contains further provision about transfer schemes under sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers). (2) In sections (Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State), (Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers) and Schedule (Transfer schemes)— (a) ‘a former GBR’ means a body corporate formerly designated as Great British Railways under section 1; (b) ‘a proposed GBR’ means a body corporate that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Railways under that section.”—(Keir Mather.) This new clause makes supplementary provision about transfer schemes under new clauses NC61, NC62 and NC63. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 65 Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council “(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment in the civil service of the State become employees of the Passengers’ Council (but this is subject to any provision contained in the scheme that allows a person to object to becoming an employee of the Council). (2) A scheme made under this section— (a) may make provision for giving full effect to a person’s transfer into the employment of the Passengers’ Council as a result of the scheme, and (b) may (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).”—(Keir Mather.) This new clause makes provision about transfers of staff from the civil service to the Passengers’ Council. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 1 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.”—(Jerome Mayhew.) This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
31. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I seek a bit of advice here, Sir Alec: I presume this is the right time to talk about new clause 35 as well.

    Hansard source
32. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Thank you, Sir Alec. On new clause 11, I hear what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says about fiscal responsibility, but it seems a bit strange to set up a fund with no funds in it. Although, as Committee members have seen in the new clauses I have tabled, I support the principle of having a long-term approach to infrastructure development and investment in rolling stock and skills in this country, I cannot support the creation of a new fund without fully understanding where that money would come from.

    Hansard source
33. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The answer is no, because money was involved. A shining example of the restoring your railways project is the Northumberland line, which was created under and funded by the restoring your railways project, and which is now open and a great success. New clause 35, which is in my name, is relatively long, and would require Great British Railways to create a long-term pipeline of infrastructure works. If our “Certainty of Funding” new clause is added to the Bill, new clause 35 would fit nicely with it. The new clause would provide more certainty to the supply chain, and would make provision for a visible pipeline of works, allowing for long-term investment in UK manufacturing, specialist engineering skills, apprenticeships and workforce development. That would prevent the loss of specialist skills during funding gaps, which we heard much about in the oral evidence session. Not only that, but I have been lucky enough to be in my role for considerably over a year now, during which I have met many organisations related to the railway supply chain. One overwhelming piece of feedback I get is on the feast and famine we have with the relatively short control periods, and the lack of visibility on what the next control period will have. The new clause seeks to address one of our structural problems, supporting stable employment, rather than cyclical redundancies, and encourages suppliers to invest in new technologies and productivity improvements. In the recent past, this country has not had a very good reputation for delivering large infrastructure works, and having the ability to carry them out quickly and cheaply. The new clause would help, meaning that when we say we will do something, we have a better chance of it actually happening.

    Hansard source
34. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The Conservatives are very supportive of the intention behind the new clause. The replacement for Network Rail within GBR cannot bring the same, frankly uninterested, culture to these assessments that Network Rail is notorious for. I salute the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who has tabled a number of new clauses on this issue to highlight the problems that his constituents and, as we have just heard, many others have faced. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage says that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I think that is sensible, given that the requirement for an annual review may well be too onerous, but we look to the Minister to acknowledge the problems faced by those communities that are cut in half by very impactful level crossings, and to provide assurances that the Government will address this significant concern.

    Hansard source
35. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
36. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    New clause 31 seeks to reimpose minimum service levels. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose minimum service levels on passenger rail services, and for GBR to enforce them. The previous Government passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023, and the new clause essentially makes the railways subject to those regulations once more. The purpose of the new clause is to reduce the impact of rail strike action on the ability of passengers to access their place of work and essential services, and to reduce the negative impacts on the wider economy, by setting minimum service levels—MSLs—for passenger rail during strikes. The intention is that the new clause will lead to an improved and more consistent level of service for passengers during rail strikes, when work notices are issued by employers to secure MSLs. Public transport is critical for the everyday lives of citizens in Great Britain. The transport system supports all sectors of the economy and is a crucial enabler of economic growth. Rail is an important public transport mode as it enables passengers to make vital journeys, such as commuting to work or accessing essential services. Strike action on the passenger rail network can lead to disproportionate disruption to millions of people who rely on these services. A survey conducted by the Department for Transport in 2022 found that most rail users’ journeys were impacted by strike action, with some passengers reporting an adverse financial impact as a result. Strike action usually takes place when there is a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the dispute cannot be resolved by other means. It is intended to cause disruption to the employer and, in some cases, the wider economy. Strike action in the rail sector, however, affects ordinary rail users, who are not party to the dispute. In December 2022, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that rail strikes between June ’22 and January ’23 would result in a loss of UK economic output of around £500 million due to people outside the rail sector not being able to work. Several sectors, including hospitality, have reported loss of revenue directly from the impact of rail strike action. Government intervention is intended to mitigate disproportionate impacts of strike disruption on the railway, rail users and the wider economy. While the rail industry has put in place contingency plans to run a limited number of services during previous strike action, the level of service that it can deliver varies. Setting MSLs for passenger rail services will provide an important tool for employers to be able to deliver an overall improvement on the service levels that are typically seen during strike periods, and provide passengers with more certainty and consistency, which is just as important. This is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of passenger rail strike action on users’ access to their place of work and to essential services, and the impact on the wider economy, while balancing that with the ability of workers to take strike action. New clause 32, also in my name, would provide for a working practices and productivity modernisation framework. It would implement a number of provisions to make running GBR easier and more cost-effective for the Government and the taxpayer. Currently, there are a number of historical terms and conditions in train driver contracts that are outdated and allow drivers to hold their employers to ransom over pay. They make the railway inefficient to run and drivers slow to train, and end up costing taxpayers and fare payers more. Let us look at some examples of improvements—this is a non-exhaustive list. We could get drivers to operate train doors without additional payments, and provide a train driving school with updated training methods to speed up route knowledge and training times. At the moment, it takes a lot less time to train a pilot to fly a jumbo jet from scratch than it takes to train a train driver. We could deal with the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails, and introduce multidisciplinary flexible maintenance teams that support other local teams when needed. We could permit driver managers to drive trains when required, and link general pay rises to productivity gains. All those examples, which are listed in the new clause, are eminently sensible improvements to the ability of GBR to run an effective, modern railway. Most people agree that having a seven-day timetable with a six-day roster is ridiculous, because it means that the Sunday service is voluntary. As a result, drivers are always paid overtime even though the service is part of the standard schedule. That does not happen anywhere else in the public or private sector. The new clause would mean that GBR could be run more cost-effectively. Many train companies have historical disputes with drivers over this issue, and have been unable to remove it from their trip terms and conditions as the drivers would simply go on strike. Now is a perfect time to change approach, with the full backing of the Government, in primary legislation. This wholesale reform of the railways is an opportunity for the Government to reset the terms and conditions for train operation. As I have said, it is currently quicker to qualify to fly a commercial jet than to qualify to drive a train, and once a pilot has their licence they can fly almost anywhere in the world, while qualified train drivers are restricted to a specific route. We want to make it quicker and easier to become a train driver so that more people have access to the job. That is why the new clause legislates for GBR to establish a train driving school with updated methods. It would decrease dependency on overtime for sick days and for leave. GBR would be directly accountable to Parliament on the success of the framework, which we believe to be important.

    Hansard source
37. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The Minister has inadvertently misunderstood that paragraph of the new clause; it does not refer to performance but to productivity.

    Hansard source
38. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    That is an interesting point. If the productivity of a private business falls, it becomes less profitable and cannot afford pay rises. Should the same attitude not be directed to public sector bodies? Where productivity falls, the people who suffer are the taxpayers. As the Secretary of State and GBR stand in the shoes of the taxpayer, should they not apply the same approach that the private sector has to live with?

    Hansard source
39. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    The Minister raises interesting arguments, but I wish new clauses 31 and 32 to be put to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
40. 10 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Railways Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I have no comments.

    Hansard source