Railways Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will relax and take my time, then.

Passengers’ journeys are very rarely just a train journey—there might be a bus to a station, a train and then another bus, or tram, or whatever—and if those parts of the journey do not connect properly, the whole journey becomes more difficult. I know this from personal experience. A missed connection, a long wait, separate tickets or poor passenger information can all make public transport less attractive. The National Transport Survey found that for England in 2023, 50% of public transport trips were across more than one type of public transport. That is why integration is one of the strongest levers we have for getting more people to choose public transport.

The Railways Act 1993 included a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system, and that duty has now been dropped. Amendment 128 would put some of that principle back into the Bill, by requiring the Secretary of State and GBR

“to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—(a) bus and coach services, (b) tram and light rail, and (c) micromobility.”

I also support Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which approaches the same issue from within the railway strategy. It specifically talks about improving connections and co-ordinating timetables, ticketing and passenger information, and includes ferry services. The two amendments complement each other rather well. One establishes integration as a duty, while the other sets out some of the practical things integration should mean for passengers. This is not just about making journeys more convenient; if we want people to make more journeys by public transport, the whole journey needs to work.

I ask the Minister why this duty to integrate transport has been removed from the Bill, and what will replace it. Will GBR have a clear responsibility to work with local and regional transport authorities to improve connections between different modes? Will the Government consider putting some of the practical elements in Amendment 10 —timetables, ticketing and passenger information—into the statutory framework? We have an opportunity here to create a railway that works as part of a wider public transport network, rather than as a system operating on its own. That should be one of the purposes of GBR from the very start.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I am going to be brief. Noble Lords will have observed that my name appears on two of these amendments, the lead amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

First, on the heritage amendment, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for many of the nice things he said about me and heritage railways. As far as they are concerned, I agree completely. I also alert the Committee to the extraordinarily beneficial effect of the amendment that was passed to the Employment Rights Bill making it legal for young people under 16 to volunteer on heritage railways and tramways, which has led to a substantial increase in the number of young people coming forward. The Heritage Railway Association is devoting its annual conference to the subject of volunteering. That was made possible as a result of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and I managed to persuade the House and the Government, with, I think, some help from this Minister, to see included in the Bill.

The other aspect of heritage railways that I want to mention is the fact that there are already a number of operations where heritage railways and the national railway are working closely together and providing timetabled services. I hope very much that it will be possible for those to continue under the new arrangements. North Yorkshire Moors Railway is running into Whitby, as it has done for a number of years, and Severn Valley Railway has just announced a new service in the timetable that is giving people in Bewdley the opportunity to commute to Birmingham with just one change at Kidderminster. This is a step forward, as it means that for the first time for many years Bewdley is going to have a decent train service at times when people want to use it, rather than one that is available just for heritage purposes.

On the excellent amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I remind the Minister of a letter that I forwarded to him from Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council last week. I spent considerable time in Moreton a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Stratford-on-Avon to Moreton tramway, which they claim to be one of the earliest railways in Britain. It opened in 1826. Great events went on at both ends of the line, including a visit by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to the town where many of the public buildings bear the name of his family. Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council is asking for the Minister’s support for its application for funding from the Cotswold District Council’s community infrastructure levy to provide a community rail hub in Moreton-in-Marsh to bring railways and buses together and provide an integrated service. The council has already gone a long way to doing that and has expanded bus services, but if the Minister is prepared to give a nudge in that direction, that will go down extremely well. I thank the Committee for its indulgence in allowing me to, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, Box and Cox in the chair.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I want to touch on four parts of this group. First, Amendment 90, which I strongly support, was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The constituency I represented in the House of Commons for many years, and in which I still live, has a heritage railway, Dean Forest Railway. Although most of its services run on its own tracks, it interacts with the main railway at Lydney and has a decent relationship with Network Rail. I support everything he said in his speech, particularly about the impact on getting volunteers and interesting people in working on the railway. I am afraid the railway indulged me by allowing me to do one of the things I always wanted to do, which was to drive a steam train—I see the Minister is finding that amusing—and shovel coal into the fire as well. It was fantastic. Of course, they do that all the time.

I mention that because it is a big tourist attraction in the area. They run lots of themed days, such as Thomas the Tank Engine days, and bring a lot of people into the area; it is very significant. That interaction of heritage railways and tourism is powerful. If you go to London Paddington, it might not be quite as impressive as platform nine and three-quarters, but you will see the number of tourists taking pictures of the sculpture of Paddington Bear. That interaction of railways and tourism is very powerful, so I absolutely support the amendment. Even if it is not acceptable to the Government as drafted, I hope very much that the Minister will consider it. In the same way that the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, were able to get the success on the Employment Rights Act that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained, perhaps the Minister could come back with a government-drafted amendment or some other way of delivering this important benefit for heritage railways.

Secondly, I want to touch on Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and Amendment 101 in his name and that of my noble friend Lord Moylan. The effect of these two amendments would be to require the rail strategy to be laid before Parliament and for there to be the opportunity for a debate. At the moment, Clause 15 requires the Secretary of State to publish the document. As it is currently set out, there are some consultation requirements but there is no requirement for any parliamentary process attached to the rail strategy, and it would be helpful if there were. The amendments do not trespass by insisting that Parliament approve the rail strategy, but it would have to be laid before Parliament and available to the Houses to debate, and the Secretary of State would have to respond to any resolution made by either House. That would force the Government to have a better relationship with Parliament.

Other significant statements by the Government have far more extensive parliamentary processes. The energy national policy statement has substantial consultation requirements, including a Select Committee review. The Planning and Infrastructure Act says that national policy statements must be approved by a Commons resolution. Amendment 101 wants a much lighter touch. It would enable a debate but would not require approval or enable Select Committees to make recommendations. The structure is based on Section 9 of the planning Act for national policy statements. It seems to me that, given the importance that Ministers have placed on the rail strategy, they should embed in the Bill that requirement for Parliament to at least be involved in the process in this relatively light-touch way. That would be welcome. Again, if the Minister does not find this particular solution acceptable, it would be helpful if he could indicate that he is at least willing to have a look at what he might be prepared to put in place.

Thirdly, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who spoke to her Amendment 101A on a railway accessibility strategy, and I think the thrust of her amendment certainly has merit. Again, I would be happy to listen to the Minister. He has a very good track record in this area, in all the roles that he has held, both at TfL and in his capacity as chair of Network Rail, and in his current role. The only point I would add to what the noble Baroness said is that the reason for putting this in the strategy is that the earlier you think about accessibility, the better it will be delivered and at the lowest cost—both of which are very important. Also, if you make the railways more accessible for disabled people, they will be more accessible for everybody.

On thinking about this early, it is not just about the requirements for dealing with people with a physical disability; it is also important to think about things such as signage, information systems, announcements and the data that is available to people with a visual impairment or a hearing impairment, for example, or someone who has a learning disability but is in the workforce. They cannot drive, perhaps, but need to get to work and may find some of the traditional ways we communicate that information difficult to handle. All those things need to be thought about. As the noble Baroness said, there are lots of people for whom public transport is the only way they can get about, until perhaps we have more automated vehicles on the road. That is why this is important. I will touch on that theme in a later group with one of my trade union amendments about consulting disabled people.

Railways Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 38 I will speak briefly to my Amendments 39, 41, 42 and 44 in this group. This group concerns Schedule 1, on the granting of the licence to Great British Railways, and the possible granting of licences to persons other than Great British Railways, to operate railway assets.

The purpose of my amendments is to strengthen the roles of the Office of Rail and Road and the Passengers’ Council, which are mentioned in this list of procedures but are regarded largely as consultees rather than having any larger role. They are supposed to be, and have been sold to us by the Government as, bodies which have significant powers to represent passengers and to work to assist with the regulation of the licence. I am afraid that the legislation amounts to an invitation to consult rather than anything stronger. Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State obtains a formal recommendation rather than just a consultation from the Office of Rail and Road, in relation particularly to safety and standards, before granting Great British Railways’ licence. It would also ensure that there is consultation with the Passengers’ Council as part of that process.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments. Amendment 39 addresses the same part of the process and would require an agreement rather than a consultation. Again, “consultation” is a rather weak term in legal circles; “agreement” would require much greater input from the ORR and the Passengers’ Council. It would require the Minister to listen to and work with them to a greater extent than just with a consultation.

Amendments 41, 42 and 44 concern the

“Grant of licence to persons other than Great British Railways”.


They, too, seek to replace the consultation with a process of agreement and to strengthen input from the Passengers’ Council. They concern mainly new Section 8(4) of the 1993 Act, to be introduced by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, and the two earlier amendments are consequential on that change in subsection (4).

I urge the Committee to support these amendments and the other amendments in the names of my noble friends. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 39 or 40 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendments 43 and 45 is to explore the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or the Office of Rail and Road grants a licence to a person other than Great British Railways to operate railway assets in Scotland or Wales. As the Bill is structured, under those circumstances there would be a requirement to undertake consultation with the Passengers’ Council if the licence is a passenger licence or a station licence. There is no other requirement for consultation.

Let us think of a practical example. I know that licensing is not about operating the railway; it gives one the licence to operate but it does not bestow any ownership over these things. Core Valley Lines in south Wales is a significant set of 57 stations. It is not owned by Network Rail or operated by Great British Railways. Presumably, it is therefore the subject of a licence. If such a licence were to be issued, or changed, in Wales, it seems to me inherent that one would want the granting of that licence to be subject to a consultation requirement with Welsh Ministers. At the moment, there is nothing in the legislation that would require that to happen. Amendment 45 would introduce such a requirement for consultation before those assets in Scotland or Wales were the subject of the granting of a licence to someone other than GBR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

May I just interrupt my noble friend? I think he has moved on to the next group. We are on the group led by Amendment 59, to which I just spoke.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

And today’s Committee is due to conclude with Amendment 63.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I beg the Committee’s pardon. May I subside?

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

The Minister has described the Bill as a “waypoint”. Let us ensure that this waypoint leads to a sector that is accessible by design and anchored in passenger-first principles. To go back to the previous debate, you get economic growth when people want to buy the product, feel safe to buy it and find buying it an enjoyable experience. These amendments are all incredibly important elements of that. As ever, and as we said in Committee, we must not sign a blank cheque that leaves the travelling public vulnerable to the patchy enforcement we have seen in the past.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I should point out to the House that Amendment 25 erroneously appears in two groups—this one and the next. I understand that it should be in the next group.

Railways Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I agree with a huge amount of what she said, and I welcome her support for the Bill.

As he is still in the Chamber, I want to pay my own tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, whom I first had the pleasure of meeting around 40 years ago when he was a senior civil servant and I was a desperate lobbyist for a particular interest that was affected by his department, the Home Office. He will be missed; that was a wonderful valedictory speech.

I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for the way in which he introduced this debate. I endorse the compliments paid to him from the Benches opposite. He is an extraordinarily successful and popular Transport Minister in your Lordships’ House, and I hope that it will not blight his career if I say that I hope he will remain where he is when Mr Burnham forms his new Government in a couple of weeks’ time.

I have a number of railway interests to declare. The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, referred to one of them: I chair the Great Western Rail advisory board. The noble Baroness is a most diligent and valued member of that board and I am delighted that she is on it. I am also the president of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group and the Heritage Railway Association. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; I am sure that we will come to the issue of heritage railways, which he raised, in Committee. All of these organisations, along with numerous others that have written to me, have interests in the Bill, and we will consider issues that relate to them in Committee.

For me, the most important issue facing the railways is ensuring that they can rise to the challenge of constantly growing public demand from passengers and the freight industry in a cost-effective and well-managed way. An essential ingredient in this renaissance will be ensuring that Great British Railways is the industry’s directing mind, firmly in charge of the railway. Otherwise, capacity will not be enhanced and performance will not improve. It must have the power to decide how the network is best used, as is defined in Clause 50, and doing that is likely to produce more capacity than we have now.

The other great issue is that a long-term rail plan from the Secretary of State will give GBR the opportunity and the obligation to form a business plan to carry out the enhancements that will improve the network the most, as well as the right money to keep the network running reliably. Neither of these documents exists now and they have not for over 30 years. That is why the network is less than optimal and why the need for a future list of enhancements with business cases is so important. If we have this list, we can solicit third-party contributions through Section 106 and other agreements. We all know how landowners and developers benefit from railway improvements but are seldom asked to pay anything towards them.

I will take the Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester as an example. The case for enhancing this route is overwhelming, but it has not made the cut as far as the Department for Transport is concerned over the last 15 years. Even though the line’s popularity has grown year by year and trains are regularly overcrowded, the service’s reliability is undermined by two stretches of single-line working. Developers have great plans for housebuilding, particularly at the western end of the line, including a new town on the edge of Worcester. They have the strongest possible incentive to contribute. It is an easy win, yet for some reason it seems to be very hard to persuade the department of the case.

I have no doubt that the principles behind the Bill are right and the only effective approach to simplifying and reducing the huge cost of our railways, which is required by the complex structure that was set up when BR was privatised. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the merits of the privatisation that he introduced, for reasons that I have explained to him. However, there are no credible alternatives being advanced to take the railways into their next stage of development other than those proposed in this Bill.

In 2023, I co-authored a book on railway power and politics, Signals Passed at Danger. Our conclusions on privatisation were that the policy was “a leap in the dark, a radical experiment where neither the Government nor the British Railways Board could predict the outcome”. This time around, we know the results of the privatisation experiment. That is why the principles of this Bill have widespread support from the public and throughout the industry. It would be wrong not to recognise that some good results were achieved over the last 25 years. I am happy to recognise them: notably, new trains, reopened lines, more services and a dramatic improvement in safety standards. However, the costs have been high, involving levels of financial support that British Rail in its day could only dream about. Too much has been spent on lawyers, consultants and administration to meet the plethora of new regulations. This Bill offers the chance of radically simplifying the structures and reducing unnecessary regulation and costs. Much of the debate has been about passenger services. On these, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to build on the brand strength and loyalties built by the TOCs.

Turning finally to rail freight, the Bill gives us the opportunity to see that it takes a much larger share of the nation’s transport needs than is currently the case. Here, I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said. The political view was always that “freight does not vote”. It is true that the financial targets set for BR on freight back in the 1980s and 1990s meant that much of the infrastructure had to be abandoned as it failed to meet the Government’s stringent financial criteria, despite the strong environmental advantages over heavy lorry traffic.

Some of this has been regained by rail, and efficiency has improved so much that more traffic has been won by the freight companies, particularly intermodal traffic. More can be done. With active government support for rail freight terminals, electrification and full-length freight loops, the growth can be even greater. The great underused asset is the Channel Tunnel. It is shocking that less rail freight currently passes through the Channel Tunnel than was carried by the train ferries before the tunnel opened. GBR will be able to help the development of international freight with gauge clearance work to carry the largest containers and provide wider access to the rail network. The inclusion of a requirement to set a rail freight growth strategy is welcome and a complete change from the framework of the 1970s, where rail freight was seen as a lost cause and not worthy of support.

There is much in this Bill to welcome. There are bits in it which we want to improve in Committee, but overwhelmingly I give it my support.

King’s Speech

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my railway interests, as I will be speaking a lot about the Railways Bill in my remarks this evening. All these interests are unpaid. They include presidency of the Heritage Railway Association and of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group. I am a member of the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board and the National Railway Museum’s advisory board, and I chair the Great Western Railway’s stakeholder board.

I want to commend all those who are making such a success of Railway 200, the 200th anniversary of the opening of the world’s first passenger railway between Stockton and Darlington in 1825. It is rightly being celebrated throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and allows us all to celebrate just how much railways have contributed to a nation’s happiness, health and prosperity. Railway 200’s exhibition train, which is called “Inspiration”, is conducting its nationwide tour and will be doing so until this summer. If noble Lords have not visited yet, I urge them to do so. It is likely to be at a heritage railway close to where they live. Curated in partnership with the National Railway Museum, the exhibition carriages of “Inspiration” are a great celebration of what the railway has done for everyone.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on the part he has played in making Railway 200 such a success, his commitment to the heritage sector and, most important of all, his determination to ensure that we as country appreciate and stand behind our railways. My noble friend and I were invited to join the celebrations for the 75th anniversary of the Talyllyn Railway this week, but our duties here made it impossible for us to get away to north Wales. I am sure he will want to join me in sending our congratulations to that wonderful little railway.

I have spoken before in your Lordships’ House about the huge contribution that heritage railways make to the regional economy, to tourism and to the preservation of engineering skills. I again thank noble Lords in all parts of the House and the Government for supporting my efforts and those of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to make it legal, through an amendment to the Employment Rights Act, for young people to work and volunteer on heritage railways. I am told that that is already making a great difference. It is a small change but an important one.

The value of a national rail system cannot be exaggerated. They have long played a vital part in shaping regional economies and communities, bringing a sense of community cohesion as they transport people from A to B. They enable people to get to work, school and university, to see friends and family, to go shopping and to go on holiday. There is so much more that they could be doing, particularly in improving the environment, by attracting much more heavy freight off the roads and on to the railway. I know my noble friend the Minister has already received representations from the rail freight sector and been given practical examples of what could usefully be done. I appreciate that the debate on the gracious Speech is not the right place for discussing detailed amendments to the Railways Bill, but I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that he and his officials are studying carefully the freight industry’s representations on matters such as access arrangements for non-Great British Railways operators and the freight growth target set for Great British Railways.

I will finish on a positive note. On Monday, direct services between Bristol and Oxford, calling at Bath, Chippenham and Swindon, were introduced by GWR and launched by the Secretary of State. The service runs every two hours and was made possible only because of the capacity improvements that Network Rail has made at Oxford station. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is exactly the type of thing we should be seeing train operating companies and GBR doing in future? They are responding to market demand, looking at new routes and growing revenue to help reduce taxpayer subsidy. It is also important to demonstrate that the rail network is not totally London-centric, and the success of this service will enable new housing opportunities and new job opportunities. It is connecting incredibly popular tourist destinations in Oxford and Bath, and will have superb connections to East West Rail when that opens for passenger service. I am sure that there are many other examples of where we can grow the railway in future, and I look forward to my noble friend’s speech.

Rail Freight

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is no use upgrading Haughley junction without upgrading Ely. Previous Governments have not found the money to do that and, regrettably, in the financial circumstances that this Government find themselves, we have not so far found it either. But I have had some useful discussions with local Members of Parliament and the combined authority mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough about what we can do both to improve the business case for Haughley and Ely junctions and to reduce the cost. One of the crippling costs of that upgrade is the number of level crossings needed because East Anglia is very flat; there may be some things that local highway authorities can do which would make that project easier to do and give it a better business case in the future.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the secrets of growing rail freight is to increase the versatility of freight locomotives? In that context, will he welcome the development of tri-mode freight locomotives—electric, battery or diesel—so that they are able to run anywhere in the country?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend clearly knows a lot about it—probably more than I do—but I was at the launch of the Class 99 locomotives last autumn, which I think are the ones he is referring to. There are 30 being leased and operated through GB Railfreight, and he is right that they will be versatile to run anywhere. In fact, that may solve the issue at London Gateway port that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to, because if there were battery-electric locomotives then we would not need fixed electrification. It is right that the rail freight fleet needs to be updated. That investment is very welcome, and I expect it to be followed by investment by the other freight operators which believe that there is a long-term future in freight on the railway.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Let us not assume that the cap will be busted, because the progress on the trans-Pennine route upgrade demonstrates pretty satisfactorily that, planned properly, you can make substantial railway enhancements without limitless additions to the budget. We will come back to this House and the other House in short order about the costs and timescale of HS2, but there are some really substantial lessons to be learned from starting a project with no specification and giving contractors, in essence, a licence to print money. There is no way that this Government are prepared to do that with anything that has been announced in the past few days. One of the consequences of that is to allow ourselves time to plan what needs to be done properly, to cost it properly and to contract for it properly. I do not think that we can tolerate assuming that caps will be busted, because we have a terrible example of it at the moment, and we should leave that example in isolation and deliver projects properly, having planned them first.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken in this exchange and warmly welcome the Statement that was made last week in the other place. I congratulate the Minister on getting his head around the facts and being able to explain what is happening with such clarity—for example, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her remarkably technical but important question about the Leamside line. Did the Minister see the press coverage at the weekend on the completion of the Chiltern tunnel for High Speed 2, and does he agree that it is time that we started to celebrate such engineering feats? When it is built, the railway is going to have some marvellous engineering—not just tunnels but viaducts as well—which I think will make our railway the envy of the world.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. There are some remarkable structures, either in the ground or coming out of the ground, for HS2, but he would have to agree with me that you have to be tinged with sadness to stand here and not know how much they have cost so far. That is a shocking weakness, which we will come back to and no doubt debate at some stage. My noble friend is right that British engineering can produce some extraordinary feats, and the tunnel that was in the newspapers at the weekend and the viaduct across the Colne Valley are very elegant structures.

Incidentally, if noble Lords who take a train journey between Manchester and Leeds would like to give me prior notice, I can arrange for them to travel in the cab with the driver, and they can see the extraordinary amount of work that is being done on an operating railway, which is neither trivial nor simple, and get some understanding about what is going on there. My noble friend Lord Faulkner is right to highlight these great structures on HS2, but, equally, what has been going on between Leeds and Manchester and out to York is extraordinary, and it has been done with relatively little disruption to the train service. If any noble Lords—within reason—would like to see it at some time, I will arrange for them to be able to do that.

Channel Tunnel: International Rail Strategy

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s proposals to create an international rail strategy to increase the usage of the Channel Tunnel from the existing 50 per cent for passengers and 10 per cent for freight.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the recent report. This Government support a thriving international rail passenger services market, given the benefits of greater choice, new services and lower fares, as well as the opportunity of serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford with international trains. We are also keen to see the growth of international rail freight, which supports the Government’s growth mission; we are working hard to increase freight flows through the tunnel.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer, but he will know that in 2010 Deutsche Bahn brought one of its ICE trains through the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras with a view to starting through services to Germany from 2012. Other companies have indicated a similar interest, but nothing at all has happened. Does my noble friend agree not only that it is important to increase the use of stations that are now out of use, such as Ebbsfleet and Ashford, but that the tunnel access charges need to be reduced if these services are to be competitive? On freight, is he aware that the amount of freight currently going through the Channel Tunnel by rail is less than went on the train ferries operated by British Rail more than 30 years ago?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I think I was there when the Deutsche Bahn train was at St Pancras in 2010; sadly, as my noble friend says, that did not materialise. There is currently a real opportunity for more passenger traffic to more destinations, and this Government are determined to seize it. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently signed a memorandum of understanding with her Swiss counterpart to explore the setting up of a direct connection with Switzerland.

On the charging situation, the access charging framework for the Channel Tunnel provides for an incremental reduction in unit charges as traffic levels increase. Eurotunnel also operates a discount scheme for new routes; HS1 is currently consulting on a similar scheme. Those are important for new entrants. The recent review of the control period charges by the Office of Rail and Road reduced them by 10.4% for passenger trains and by 66% for freight trains. The volume of freight needs to increase; it would be good if it were greater than what the old train ferries coped with.

Railway Electrification

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement a rolling programme of railway electrification, and if so to what timescale.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my railway interests as listed in the register.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

Updated plans are currently being developed by Network Rail for where and when electrification is required to deliver a fully decarbonised railway over the next 25 years. Those plans will consider the integration of both track and train through Great British Railways and the significant recent progress in battery technology. All investment decisions will be subject to current and future spending reviews and will be for the first time integrated with rolling stock decisions.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, at the railway industry reception in the House of Commons last week, my noble friend said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that in the context of Railway 200:

“We’ve got … to celebrate all of the history. But we’ve also got a chance to celebrate the future”.


Does he agree that his Answer to me just now is a way of celebrating that future, provided we can embark on a programme of investment in electrification, battery power and new technologies which allows the railway to grow and the freight business and the passenger business to take on new markets with new traffic? Does he further agree that that is the only way that we can meet the net-zero emission targets and make the railway completely carbon free?

Railway 200

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to Railway 200 to celebrate the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the modern railway.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I refer to my railway interests as listed in the register.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, Railway 200 marks the anniversary in 2025 of the first public passenger railway in the world and will celebrate the railway’s contribution to the nation’s and the world’s development and connectivity. A reformed railway is vital to the Government’s commitments to deliver more growth, jobs and housing. Railway 200 is a celebration not only of the past with heritage railways but of the present and the future, including the UK’s exciting technical and engineering innovations and the career opportunities across Britain that they offer. My department is playing a full role in this.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a great Answer. In 1845, 20 years after the first passenger railway, Benjamin Disraeli wrote:

“The railways will do as much for mankind as the monasteries did”.


He was right about that. Can my noble friend the Minister be a bit more specific about the support that the Department for Transport is giving to Railway 200, particularly the financial contribution? Does he agree that the celebration provides a great opportunity to not only showcase what the early railway pioneers did but to look forward to what the railways can achieve in future?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have to agree with Disraeli after all these years. The railway is currently, and will remain, publicly supported to a great extent but with significant private sector contributions. As my noble friend would imagine, we are appealing to all the people whose businesses support the railway, to make sure that the public sector contribution is as low as possible at a time of financial stringency. We have not finished that process yet. Meanwhile Network Rail, which is supported by the department, has contributed some support to get the project going. I cannot say exactly what the department’s contribution is. I expect it to be as low as possible, and in due course if my noble friend asks we will be able to tell him. At the moment we are still collecting financial contributions from those people whose businesses support the railway and vice versa. As far as the nature of the celebration goes, quite clearly the benefits are not only a good celebration of history but of the fact that the UK’s railways are leading the world with technological innovation. Those are the things that we will be clearly showcasing alongside, as I said, the career opportunities offered.