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.

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?

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.