Railways Bill

Debate between Lord Harper and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[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.