Future of Seaside Towns

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am pleased to congratulate the members of the Select Committee on producing such an excellent, coherent and well-argued report. I commend especially my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for the brilliant way in which he introduced this debate. I particularly commend the committee for getting such excellent coverage in local and regional media as it went around the country. Coverage of that sort for a Select Committee inquiry reflects well on your Lordships’ House. I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, for providing the note that appears on page 45 of the report, in which he kindly refers to the second book on post-Beeching railway politics which I co-wrote with my friend and colleague from British Rail days, Chris Austin, entitled Disconnected!—Broken Links in Britain’s Rail Policy.

I wholeheartedly support the committee’s conclusion in paragraph 123 that states:

“Inadequate transport connectivity is holding back many coastal communities and hindering the realisation of their economic potential. Emphasis should be accorded to isolated coastal communities which are at ‘the end of the line’”.


When I saw that in the report, I looked forward to the Government’s response and hoped to read a commitment that they would support the reopening of some rail lines to seaside towns and the improvement of services where they still exist. I regret that the Government’s response falls well short of any commitment of that sort. I agree with my noble friend Lady Bakewell that it is a feeble response.

It is worth recalling that scores of Britain’s seaside towns owed their existence to the arrival of the railway in the 19th century. A combination of dramatically improved journey times from the great conurbations and the introduction of paid holidays for factory workers led to the transformation of small fishing villages into immensely popular holiday destinations. Up to the mid-1960s, every one was linked to the railway and, until the arrival of widespread car ownership, depended on it for a large part of their annual holiday traffic.

The railway companies ran hundreds of seaside special trains on summer Saturdays, and this continued until the arrival on the scene of Dr Beeching in 1961 as chairman of British Railways with a remit to eliminate so-called “loss-making” services. The seaside towns fared particularly badly under Beeching. Although the summer Saturday specials were immensely popular, they were expensive to run and tied up the railways’ resources, as the carriages that made up the trains were used on perhaps only a couple of dozen times a year, and were left in sidings for the rest of the time. A more imaginative management approach now would resolve that.

In researching the earlier book that I wrote with Chris Austin, Holding the Line—How Britain’s Railways Were Saved, I came across at the National Archives a secret memorandum to the Cabinet dated 14 January 1964, written by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who chaired the Government’s Rail and Road Committee. In essence, he and his committee were charged with suggesting how best to implement the Beeching closure programme while minimising public opposition to it. A section of Lord Blakenham’s memorandum dealt with holiday resorts, where no fewer than 127 seaside stations had been proposed for closure by Beeching. He wrote the following:

“Few of them receive large numbers of visitors by rail... As more families acquire cars, any loss of visitors which holiday resorts experience as a result of the closing of their stations is likely to be compensated for by the increasing numbers arriving by car, and the effect of the closures on hotels and employment in these places is expected to be negligible in relation to other normal fluctuations in the number of visitors they receive. We do not think, therefore, that holiday resorts need to be considered a special case”.


What a pity that Lord Blakenham’s committee did not have access to the wisdom contained in this Select Committee inquiry, nor a little foresight into how, within 40 years, the railways would come into their own again, doubling their passenger numbers, revitalising communities where services were improved and making a serious contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

There were some astonishingly short-sighted closures, and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, refers to a number of them in his note on page 45 of the report. I was particularly interested to see the picture of Whitby station on page 42, with the somewhat understated caption:

“Coastal towns in rural areas, such as Whitby, often suffer from infrequent rail services”.


Last month, I raised the inadequacy of the current Middlesbrough to Whitby service in an exchange on an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and in a Written Question. Currently, there are only four trains a day, with no early train from Whitby and no evening train back from Middlesbrough, except on summer Fridays. I understand that the community rail partnership has offered funding for more services, but Northern Railway has so far not taken it up. In her Written Answer of 26 June, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, told me:

“Northern is currently working with Network Rail to look at the feasibility of running an earlier service from Whitby to Middlesbrough from December 2019”.


I should tell your Lordships how badly Whitby was let down in the 1960s by first the Conservative and then Labour Governments. At the time of Beeching, Whitby had three services: the line to Pickering and Malton, which linked with the main route from Scarborough to York; a service along the coast to Scarborough; and the Esk Valley line north to Middlesbrough. Beeching had proposed the withdrawal of all three passenger services, and BR issued formal closure notices in February 1963. North Riding County Council co-ordinated the opposition, helped by the local weekly newspaper, the Whitby Gazette, whose front page carried reports about the closures almost every week in 1964 and into the early part of 1965—often there was nothing else on the front page.

The Spa Pavilion in Whitby was the venue for two days of public hearings on 8 and 9 July 1964. The Transport Users Consultative Committee acknowledged that there had been a total of 2,260 objections—at that point a record. The hearings appeared to go well for the objectors. There was much reference to the unreliability of bus services in winter weather, to the needs of schoolchildren coming into Whitby and to the effect on the town’s holiday trade if Whitby lost its rail services. The TUCC reported that the withdrawal of the Middlesbrough service would cause “grave hardship” not only to the many users but also to those whose business is very largely dependent upon providing for the large number of holiday-makers who come to the area by train. Its view on the other two closure proposals was similar, though the degree of hardship was described as “serious” rather than “grave”. The Whitby Gazette claimed a great victory and believed that its campaign had saved all three services, but jubilation turned to despair when, three weeks later, the Transport Minister, Ernest Marples, announced that the Middlesbrough to Whitby service would be reprieved but the other two closures would go ahead.

There were two more twists in the story. The first was the position taken by the Labour Party in opposition as the 1964 general election approached. Harold Wilson told a meeting in Liverpool—and it was later confirmed in the election manifesto—that, if elected, Labour would halt the main programme of rail closures. In a letter to the chairman of the Scarborough and Whitby Labour Party dated 13 September, he confirmed that the Scarborough-Malton-Whitby closures would be covered by that undertaking.

The second twist came when, with Labour in power, the Government fell back on a provision in the Transport Act 1962 which said that they could not halt closures which had already been decided. The National Archives contains a paper, also marked secret, presented to the Cabinet in March 1965 by the Transport Minister, Tom Fraser, which argued that the programme of closures should go ahead more or less unmodified, despite the clear 1964 manifesto pledge to halt it, and that efforts to amend the 1962 Act to rescind previously announced closures should be resisted. The final words in Fraser’s paper were “I recommend we stand firm”. That is the reason why the majority of the Beeching closure proposals, including scores of lines serving seaside towns, went ahead between 1964 and 1970.

There are a small number of seaside resorts which have benefited from the activities of volunteers who have managed to reopen their lines as heritage railways and linked them to the main network. I should declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. For example, Whitby is served by four trains a day in the summer from Pickering on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. A main line connection to Taunton has been restored by the West Somerset Railway which goes to Minehead. The Swanage Railway has been linked to the main line at Wareham, and heritage trains continue to run to Kingswear from Paignton. These all make a great contribution to the tourist economies in each of the areas they serve and bring thousands of visitors and holiday-makers to the seaside towns, but they cannot provide the seven-days-a-week, year-round service which they would have had if the lines had not been closed and had stayed as part of the national network. As the note by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on page 45 points out, Cornwall and Lincolnshire,

“appear to be at a particular disadvantage from the impact of rail closures. Significant rail enhancement would assist connectivity to these areas for both … residents and tourists”.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I commend the work of the Select Committee.

Community Football Clubs

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the community assets policy, which I think answers some of the points that he has raised. I will make sure that he has a copy of it, showing how it operates. However, I will say once again that the Minister for Sport is looking at the matter. It is partly a question of contractual arrangements—it is not just a planning situation—because clubs sometimes need advice when entering into contractual arrangements with others. I think that that was part of the problem in the Dulwich case. So there are many aspects to this, but we are determined to look at them.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the undesirable effects of the rise in property values, particularly in inner cities, and the introduction of substantial sums of extra money into football at all levels, has been the growth of what one might call less desirable individuals coming in to own and run clubs—and in some cases to close them down, as we have heard this afternoon? Does he feel that the football authorities have sufficient power to implement their fit and proper person test and keep some of these characters out of the game?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The noble Lord raises a very important point in relation to fit and proper persons—and, again, I will make sure that the Minister for Sport is aware of the concerns expressed in this House when looking at this issue. In order to ensure that the House is aware of this, I will simply say that many successful football players of great wealth are helping—I think that Rio Ferdinand is an example in relation to Dulwich. However, the noble Lord makes a valuable point.

MV “Empire Windrush”

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on securing this debate and on her excellent speech, every word of which I agreed with. I am delighted to pay my tribute to our friends from Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies who chose to make their home in the United Kingdom, and to thank them, their children and their grandchildren for the huge contribution that they have made to the well-being and enrichment of our nation. We think particularly of nurses in hospitals, staff on our public transport and in all our public services, artists and musicians, high-achieving sports men and women, and, more recently, trade union leaders and Members in the House of Commons and this House. It is a privilege to share the speakers list this afternoon with such distinguished Members of this House, particularly those with Caribbean origin. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon had hoped to take part, but has been prevented from doing so by a church commitment.

Alongside so much good will and positive feeling towards people whose origins are in the Caribbean, I hope I may be forgiven for striking a slightly discordant note by raising the question of how the Home Office is treating a number of long-settled, retirement-age UK residents of Caribbean origin. One particular case—there are others—is that of a 61 year-old lady, called Paulette Wilson, who lives in Wolverhampton. She came to Britain from Jamaica in 1968 and was initially looked after by her grandparents. She went to primary and secondary school and has a British daughter and grandchild. She worked and paid taxes here for most of her life, and at one stage she worked as a cook in the House of Commons.

Under the terms of the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain. Paulette Wilson never applied for a passport because she assumed she would not need one if she did not intend to travel abroad. One day, she got a letter from the Home Office telling her to register each month at the Solihull immigration centre. While she was there on a visit, officials declared that she was an illegal immigrant, had her carted off to the appalling Yarl’s Wood immigration removal complex and told her that she would be deported—presumably back to Jamaica, which she had not visited since she left as a child almost 50 years before. Fortunately, Paulette’s MP—Emma Reynolds—and the Refugee and Migrant Centre in Wolverhampton both intervened. At last, she has now been given leave to remain, although she has lost benefits for the past two years, as well as her flat, and has to rely on financial support from her daughter.

Similar cases recently reported in the media include that of Anthony Bryan, a 60 year-old painter and decorator who has lived in Britain since he arrived from Jamaica as an eight year-old child. He was also declared an illegal immigrant and sent to a detention centre. Home Office staff went as far as booking him on a flight to Jamaica, which was only cancelled after interventions by an immigration lawyer and his local MP, Kate Osamor. She described his situation as “barbaric” and said:

“People are left wondering: how can someone who has done so much for the community be treated like a piece of rubbish? Why send people to detention when they have done nothing wrong?”.


Your Lordships will recall that in 2012, the then Home Secretary announced a “hostile environment for immigrants”. This has clearly led to overzealous interventions by officials. I have mentioned just two cases today, but there are many others; they will not have the good fortune of excellent local MPs taking up their cases.

I hope the Minister will be able to say that that hostility has been abandoned and that immigrants who are here lawfully are welcome and appreciated. Surely the Home Office could bring itself to offer Paulette Wilson, and others treated in a similar way, a proper apology?

Disabled Access: Public Premises

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Once again, she has campaigned on these issues. I know that the provision in the Equality Act does not simply apply to public sector buildings but to public buildings—buildings that are accessible to the public or a section of the public. It does not only apply to museums, art galleries and concert halls but to shops, retail outlets, pubs and so forth. Just last month, my honourable friend in the other place, Penny Mordaunt, set up a group, as the noble Baroness will know, of 11 sector champions to look at this and who will be challenging inequality. That will work alongside the provision that we have in the Equality Act. Of course, the Government will be looking at how that interface is working.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a significant number of Premier League football clubs will fail to honour the commitment that they gave in 2015 to make all their stadia disabled accessible by August 2017? Will he remind them that Section 20 of the 2010 Act is not an option but is mandatory? Will the Government empower the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to enforce the law and make sure that accessible stadia guidelines are observed?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right and I know that he has raised this issue many times before. Some are of course stepping up to the plate and some are not. Some are partly there. I mention my own club, Leicester City, which I hope will do a bit more but is already part of the way there. I take the point seriously. I will write to him on his second point about enforcement because I am not sure where we are on that, but I agree that we need to keep their feet to the fire to make sure that they are performing.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, these amendments concern Clause 13, which we debated in previous groups, and the restrictions on the powers to impose planning conditions. There have been a total of 24 amendments to this clause—some of which we have already debated—which deleted or added words or otherwise amended it. That is 24 amendments to this one clause, out of a total of only 77 amendments to the whole 44-clause Bill on Report. That highlights, as other noble Lords have said, the problem that some parts of the House have with the clause.

My noble friend Lord Beecham referred in a previous debate to the title of the Bill: it is the Neighbourhood Planning Bill but very little of it is actually concerned with neighbourhood planning. As we have heard, it is far more about the Secretary of State taking powers to direct, order and intervene in local decisions. For me, that is not very localist and does nothing to enhance, support or encourage localism. The amendments in this group have to be seen in the context of all the amendments to the clause.

Amendment 19 would delete the section on public consultation. Amendment 20 would add a provision whereby consultation has to include local authorities. I am sure the Minister will tell me shortly that of course it will include local authorities, but it is not in the Bill and we think it belongs there. Amendment 21 seeks to build in an appeals process.

Amendment 26 refers to “a mediation system”. When I raised this issue in Grand Committee, I did not get a particularly favourable response from the Government and I have put the amendment down again. We need to have some system for dealing with these matters but, as I say, I did not get a wildly favourable response from the Government then.

Amendment 27 would give local authorities another option in dealing with these matters. It would set out in the Bill a default position, so that if an applicant has not responded to the council’s pre-commencement conditions, they would be agreed by default. The amendment is an attempt to help move the process on. We all want to get homes and properties built quickly, without having to sit there when things have not been agreed. If, after a certain period, the council’s default position were to be agreed, that might encourage people to talk and seek early agreement.

Amendment 28A would require that regulations be made by statutory instrument, and that there should be a consultation period.

This is the final opportunity at this point for the Government to explain why Clause 13 is necessary. The case has not been made today, or in Grand Committee. I have not heard any noble Lords talk about receiving representations to that effect, but perhaps the Government can tell us more about those they have received. What is the pressure behind the clause? We have not really seen the evidence.

Finally, Amendment 34 seeks to help the Government by requiring that an independent report be commissioned and brought to Parliament; then, we would finally be able to set out the robust evidence that is necessary. I beg to move.

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

I must advise the House that if Amendment 19 is agreed to, I am not able to call Amendment 20 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for speaking to his amendments. He said that the Government had not set out the purpose of the clause. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in the debate that we have just had, I set out the two main objectives of Clause 13. I hope that, on reading Hansard, noble Lords might find that that was a succinct explanation of why we believe that the clause is necessary. The policy was announced in the Budget last year and confirmed in the Queen’s Speech, and we have set out the case on several occasions during the passage of the Bill.

There are a substantial number of amendments in this group and if I am to do justice to them all, I am afraid that it may take a moment or two—although less time than when the speaking note was originally drafted. I will begin with Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which would remove subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA. This amendment would therefore remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1), much the same as Amendments 11 and 13, which we have already discussed. Subsection (3) requires that, before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State,

“must carry out a public consultation”.

This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has given no concession whatever, I beg to move and then test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should inform the House that if Amendment 7X is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 7Y, 7AA and 7AB by reason of pre-emption.

Scotland Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

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

The Committee will be free to debate the amendments when we reach them on the Marshalled List.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if I may help the Committee, we cannot go backwards on the Marshalled List. We have decided that Clause 17 will not be part of the Bill.