Railways Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege, though one tinged with sadness, to follow the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who has just reminded us of the great, gentle wisdom and huge experience that he has brought to your Lordships’ House and which we are set to lose in September when he retires.

Our association, our friendship, goes back not just over the seven years that we have overlapped in your Lordships’ House but nearly a quarter of a century, for it was in 2002 that he came to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where I was an undergraduate, as our 27th master, and a hugely popular one at that. Emma prides itself on being the friendliest college in Cambridge; it became friendlier still when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was our master. Within weeks of arriving, he seemed to know everybody by first name, a feat that he repeated over the 10 years of his stewardship of the college. He did that at the same time as we managed to top the Tompkins Table, the league table for the best degree results, in five of the 10 years that he was master—not, I should say, helped by my own meagre 2:1.

Behind his genuine, friendly exterior is, as we have just heard again, a forensic mind and a wealth of experience. My noble friends Lady Berridge and Lady Blackwood of North Oxford are among those in this House who know what it is like to stand at the Dispatch Box and worry about a probing question coming from their former master. My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne is among those who look at a man who was Permanent Secretary in not one but two departments when he was in the Cabinet. Noble Lords from across the House, I am sure, feel the same about the man that they sat around the Cabinet table with during his time as Cabinet Secretary.

The noble Lord’s advice, as today, is always offered with great kindness, great tact and in a constructive spirit. If we fail to heed it, then the fault is ours. One particularly precocious undergraduate seeking a career in politics was sternly advised not to do it straight after graduation—noble Lords may think perhaps I should have listened a bit more carefully.

But even after that advice was disregarded, the noble Lord was very generous and has always been very supportive. He was master in the time when noble Lords could choose to receive Hansard in hard copy. I do not know if he remembers, but he very kindly offered a few volumes of it to go on the bookshelves in my rooms that probably should have been full of history books and lecture notes. I took him up on the offer. I turned up at the Master’s Lodge to find some 60 or 70 volumes, each the size of a telephone directory, waiting for me. I had to borrow a shopping trolley to bring them back to my room. My advice to any noble Lords who are helping him move out of his office here is to be very careful what they get into.

We shall miss him greatly, but I hope that he will not be a stranger here, as he is not to his former college. We look forward to breaking bread with him at the Long Table, just as at high table. After a lifetime of political service, we wish him and Caro and the family a long, well-deserved and happy retirement.

I turn to the Bill at hand and do so in my capacity as the chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. It is an unremunerated position, so it does not need declaring, but, as the Minister knows, it is a richly rewarding one, because he was my immediate predecessor —he had to give it up to become our Rail Minister. In that capacity and in his time at Network Rail, he did a huge amount to make sure that the celebrations last year for the 200th anniversary of the railways were so richly marked. And, of course, this year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of heritage railways with the celebrations at Talyllyn in Wales, the first of the preserved railways.

Across the United Kingdom, our heritage railways welcome more than 13 million visitors each year and generate upward of £600 million for our economy. They do so against great challenges. We have made great strides, not least with the Government’s support and the long-running campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to make it easier for young volunteers to help out on our heritage railways—that was clarified in the Employment Rights Act last year—but there are many challenges still.

The Government’s support this year through the Great British Summer Savings scheme, alas, does not help most heritage railways. As transport is zero-rated for VAT, they are unable to pass on any savings, because they do not get any from the scheme the Government have announced. If they are holding a static event, they often do so with an external provider and if that provider, often a large multinational, sells the ticket, it is the provider that accrues the benefits in VAT. I know that the Heritage Railway Association has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters but has not yet had an answer. I hope that the Minister can encourage his colleagues at the Treasury to do so on these detailed points.

I want to touch on three areas in looking at the Bill with a heritage lens. The first, I hope, is the easiest to deal with. It is in Clause 32, on the potential powers over rail assets. The wording at Clause 32(4) describes an “additional railway asset” as

“any network, station or light maintenance depot”.

I am not certain, nor are many in the heritage sector, whether that also covers assets which are not part of the main line. If the Minister is able to clarify that, whether today at Second Reading or in later stages of the Bill, it would be a helpful reassurance.

The second area concerns mainline access. Most heritage railways operate on preserved stretches of line, but a large number do so also on the mainline network, including Vintage Trains, LSL and West Coast Railways. The Minister will know of the “Polar Express”, the “Jacobite” and many more. He will be aware of the potential implications for those such as the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the North Norfolk Railway and the Swanage Railway. The granting of licences is covered in the Bill, but the onus is now placed on the Secretary of State rather than on the Office of Rail and Road. A number of mainline steam operators therefore worry that this removes the certainty that they have enjoyed regarding access for heritage operations.

In particular, they look at Clause 59, which means that GBR will be in the intolerable position of having to decide on the allocation of capacity while being a major operator itself. The architecture of the Bill sets up a tension that is different from the situation we have under the 1993 Act. There are no checks and balances written in. In the later stages of the Bill, Parliament should look at how it might give guidance on how these priorities should be applied. I hope, whether within the Bill or in the discussions we have, that we will be able to talk about the importance of leisure travel and heritage operations to our visitor economy and to inspiring the rail employees of the future and that we will be able to give some certainty to those who run those operations.

The third issue was touched on in another place at Second Reading by Liz Saville Roberts MP, who chairs the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail. It is the possibility of a heritage rail safety and standards board. The Minister will know that many examples of the progress we have made in driving up standards and safety on the railways have, sadly, followed tragic incidents. In June 2018, in the wake of the Croydon tram accident at Sandilands, the consequent Rail Accident Investigation Branch report led to a recommendation that there should be a safety and standards board dedicated to heritage rail. There is a Light Rail Safety and Standards Board, which was set up after that accident and is publicly funded. There is a Rail Safety and Standards Board for the national network, established following the public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove disaster, which is also publicly funded. I hope to explore through the Bill whether we can make some progress on safety and standards for the heritage sector itself. The Heritage Railway Association at the moment fills that gap on a voluntary basis through the provision of volunteer-run safety and standards boards and consultation across the sector, but that is a burdensome and slow process for volunteers to run. The Bill, I hope, presents an opportunity to build on the work that they do to establish a professional and publicly funded safety and standards board for the heritage rail sector, and to follow up a recommendation that has been outstanding since 2018. I look forward to discussing all this and more with the Minister over the course of the Bill.

Railways Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

90: Clause 15, page 9, line 9, at end insert “, including heritage railway services.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to include consideration of heritage railway services in the Government’s long-term rail strategy.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 90 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who is prevented from standing up at this a moment to say that he agrees with every word I am about utter because he is presiding over us with inscrutable impartiality.

This is a large group of amendments dealing with the Government’s long-term rail strategy, as provided for in Clause 15. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I propose adding a modest line at the end of subsection (1)(b) with the words “including heritage railway services”. Noble Lords may not think that this is the most pressing of the amendments in the group that deals with the long-term strategy, but there cannot be a long-term strategy for rail without an understanding of and an appreciation for the past and the lessons it can teach us.

Heritage services operate on main line rail services, not just on preserved lines. They are highly visible and hugely cherished services that form special birthdays, wedding anniversaries and memorable occasions for families across the country. They are also a hugely important recruiting sergeant for our railways—for the passengers, the drivers, the engineers and all the many other roles that go into making our railways a success.

Not for nothing was the special train that toured the country this year and last, as part of the Railway 200 events, named “Inspiration”. I pay tribute again to the work of Network Rail, the National Railway Museum, the Minister and others who had a role in its great success. It covered 12,000 miles, visited more than 60 locations and inspired more than 100,000 people, a large number of them young people, particularly on school visits. Brilliantly, the exhibition and the events were targeted at young schoolchildren at the time when they start to decide the subjects that will help form the careers they might pursue. On board the carriages were exhibitions that opened their eyes to the many and varied roles that they could play on the railways of the future. This, of course, is on top of the social and economic impact that heritage railways have directly through their work: the vital role they play in tourism, conservation, skills and training and regeneration in communities across the country.

I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, succeeding the Minister, where I am joined by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who serves as its president. HRA members attract more than 13 million visitors and generate more than £600 million annually to our economy. Thanks to the change that the Government agreed in what is now the Employment Rights Act, it provides opportunities for young people and volunteers across the country. This brings generations together; it helps people with neurodiversity to find fulfilling things to do; it helps tackle loneliness in people of all ages; and so much more.

The Minister, of course, knows all of this from his time chairing the Heritage Railway Association and through his lifelong passion for our railways. He is a great enthusiast for the past as well as for the future of railways. He will know, too, that the charities, trusts and small businesses which look after our rail heritage do so in the face of significant challenges: the restricted availability of coal, particularly following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the closure of key mines such as Ffos-y-Fran in south Wales, and the rising costs of energy and employment, not least through the changes the Government have made to national insurance contributions.

Heritage railways have had a tough summer once again, not just because of the rising temperature but because of the rising cost of living. Regrettably, the Government’s Great British summer savings scheme, which encouraged people to enjoy days out with their families, did not help the heritage railways, because transport is zero-rated for VAT. The very dry weather we have had this summer meant that heritage railways were unable to run steam operations because of the risks of lineside fire. I listened with interest to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, made in a previous group about biodiversity helping to tackle the challenges of dry grass by railway lines, which is something that many heritage railways are already doing.

Even before the decision that was encouraged by the Government’s national emergency alert on 14 August, many heritage railway operators had taken the decision to stop running steam services. I visited the Bluebell railway in Sussex the morning after the alert went out and saw the impact it had on it and many other railways, in the absence of steam, which of course is such an attraction for so many of the visitors. Those restrictions have continued. I was supposed to be on the “Mayflower” service running from Bristol down to Plymouth last weekend, but the continued red conditions mean that steam tours on mainline rail have required diesel assistance, and that has sadly had to be postponed until the spring.

In that context, there is some nervousness among heritage rail operators about certain provisions in the Bill, both those who run services on the mainline, whether through timetabled open access rights or through ad hoc pathing requests, as well as by those who rely on the national rail network to move historic locomotives, carriages and other rolling stock. The Minister knows well the challenges that are inherent in co-ordinating all of this. Heritage rail is often slower than modern trains, and pathing even 75 miles per hour heritage trains is getting more difficult.

Standards have of course also changed in the intervening years. Slam-door carriages are needing to be replaced at a cost to the operators who run them, and often to the dismay of those who come and see a livery other than the one they were expecting. Capacity both on lines and at major railway stations is being squeezed. Platform capacity is an issue for the “Polar Express” trains which run out of Euston, and there is already only one suitable path a week out of King’s Cross. One only needs to look at the queue of international tourists who wait to stare at a brick wall labelled “Platform nine and three-quarters” to know the important draw of heritage railways and their importance to our tourist and visitor economy.

Further amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I have tabled to the Bill seek to probe some of the challenges of access and other areas of concern. We are very grateful to the Minister, who made time ahead of Committee to meet both of us to discuss these issues. At present, there is no mention of heritage in the 99 pages of the Bill, nor in the 24 pages of the briefing document, published today, which gives a bit more detail on the Government’s long-term rail strategy. Many of the concerns which those operating in the heritage part of the sector have raised could be alleviated if there were a duty to consider heritage, among all the other important considerations which will help to shape the Secretary of State’s long-term strategy for rail. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, if I intervene at this point, it might enable the occupant of the chair to be free to speak to his own amendment. As the Committee can see, we are doing a bit of a Box and Cox exchange here. I must first declare an interest as a vice president of the Aln Valley railway, which will be well known to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for tabling his Amendment 90. This is a necessary signal. There have been times in the recent history of the railways when there have been people in some management positions who did not like the heritage sector. That has changed significantly, not least because of the success to local economies and the popularity of the heritage sector, but we need to give that signal in some way.

My main purpose in standing is to speak to my own Amendment 105, which is on a different matter entirely: integrating road and rail transport. When the railways were nationalised, along with British Road Services and many bus companies, it was suggested that everything would be co-ordinated; trains and buses would meet each other and it would all work out beautifully. None of that happened. It was an abject failure: nationalisation did not secure co-ordination between different forms of transport.

If you travel around other countries, particularly in northern Europe, including countries that have public sector railways and those that have private sector railways, you will find that there is often a frequency and reliability of connections between trains and buses, and between buses and ferries, which enables people to plan their journeys with a degree of confidence. That confidence rarely exists in our own country. There is a general feeling that, if you are lucky, you might be able to get a bus from the station. The idea that the bus would be waiting for your train, and might wait five minutes if your train is five minutes late, is somehow alien to the system. The same is true in reverse, of course. There have been some improvements at Berwick station, which I use regularly. Important Borders bus services are integrated into the passenger information screen. You look at the screen and it will tell you that the next train is through Edinburgh and, after that, there is a bus to Galashiels. That is on the actual indicator screen, but that does not happen in many places.

In being so limited, it fails to provide for, first, the number of commuters who are affected by this—this amendment was suggested by the Association of British Commuters—who have to drive to the station. They therefore have to use their car when, really, their objective is to have a train journey to work. A bus connecting with the train would reduce their use of the car and discourage them from saying, “If I’m getting the car out, I might as well drive the whole way rather than use the railway”. It is also a disincentive for travellers visiting more distant places as tourists who cannot rely on a connecting bus, rail or ferry service. It is another of these things that could be included in the Bill not to create a complicated obligation, but to start signalling that we see it as something desirable that is likely to improve and increase the use of the railway.

This is a neglected area. Many other countries achieve a great deal more in this area than we have thus shown any sign of doing. I suggest that the Minister finds a way of encouraging bus-rail co-ordination, recognises it as an objective of the industry and realises that, without it. we are discouraging people from using trains.

--- Later in debate ---

I should say two final things before I sit down. The noble Baroness referred to railway replacement services. The Minister for Buses in the other place and I have pursued accessibility on those services—rightly, given what she said and many people’s experiences. We are seeking to change this, and it will of course be easier with GBR. In the meantime, tomorrow morning I will raise the issue of scooter acceptance with all the operators we control.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of Amendment 90, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I tabled, including the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Berkeley and Lord Faulkner himself, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friends Lord Grayling, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan.

I will focus my remarks on Amendment 90, but, in passing, I want to say how much I agreed with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in relation to her amendment, in particular the unacceptability of the fact that people who rely on certain forms of electric wheelchair or mobility scooter cannot get to Whitley Bay on the Tyne and Wear Metro. She is absolutely right to raise that, and much else, and I was heartened by the Minister’s response.

Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on connecting services is an important one in connection with this. I mentioned that I visited the Bluebell Railway last month. Had a friend who was going to give me a lift rescinded the offer, taking the Bluebell Railway would have been the only way I could reach the campsite we were staying at. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was right to highlight the trials that have just been started by the Severn Valley Railway for a commuter service in rush hour. That might not be right or appropriate for every heritage railway, not least because of the extra burden it places on volunteers, but it is another reason why the Secretary of State ought to consider heritage rail services in the long-term strategy for our railways.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right to mention the challenges of timing, both what time of day movements can happen and the short notice that is often involved. I and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, have tabled further amendments, Amendments 222, 225 and 230, which touch on this and other issues of access, which we can return to. As the Minister rightly says, we also have Amendment 118 in a later group, which deals with the access and use policy. It was very useful to have his comments about that perhaps being a better place for a reference to heritage railways, before we turn to that debate later in the Committee’s deliberations. I am grateful to him for what he said on this group as a prelude to that and I look forward to the debate on the access and use policy that we will have.

However, I note that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 relates to the Secretary of State’s long-term strategy for

“the railway services that the Secretary of State wishes to see provided in Great Britain”.

We are much heartened that the present Rail Minister and the Secretary of State want to see heritage rail services continuing, but we are legislating for an Act of Parliament that will long outlast their services in Government. It would be useful to know whether every subsequent Secretary of State also wishes to see those services continuing, hence the probing that we have done there. We will return to this issue in the debate on access and use in later stages.

With gratitude to the Minister and all those who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 90.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.