Railways Bill

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 20, I will speak also to my Amendment 22. These amendments, while technical in nature, address some important issues underpinning the Bill: the preservation of integrity, clarity and fairness in football governance across the whole nation, alongside the safeguarding of competition and community interests.

My amendments are necessary on the basis that the English football pyramid is littered with examples of English teams playing in Welsh or Scottish league systems, or vice versa. I understand that Cardiff City FC has played in the English football pyramid for 104 years, famously winning the FA Cup in 1927, and, more recently, reaching the FA Cup final in 2008. Its participation in the English football pyramid does not make Cardiff an English club—at least, it would take a very bold person to say that to a group of Cardiff fans.

Similarly, in the case of Wrexham AFC, as I am sure that many noble Lords are aware and have been aware for longer than I have, Wrexham has been in the English football system even longer than Cardiff, having joined an early English football league known as the Combination as far back as 1890. It is, proudly, the third-oldest professional association football team in the world. Although the club has suffered from financial hardship down the years, Wrexham has recently had new life breathed into it by its purchase four years ago by the Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds and the American actor Rob McElhenney. The attendant publicity from the docuseries “Welcome to Wrexham” had a significant impact on the club’s renown, leading to it acquiring a new, global fanbase, without precedent for a team that was in the fifth division at that point. I had the pleasure of visiting its Racecourse Ground when the club was supporting Wrexham’s excellent bid to become the UK City of Culture for 2025. I saw how rooted the club was in its community and the great work it was doing on behalf of the whole wider area.

I hope that those two historical examples provide instructive and relevant information on the point that I intend to make. It is foreseeable that, if the Bill is read on its simple meaning, it could apply only to English clubs. That could lead to a grave lacuna whereby the regulator is instructed to regulate English clubs only but not all football clubs in the English football pyramid. I know that that is not the intention, but with my probing amendments, I hope to seek clarification on that point.

We do not want a case where Swansea AFC, Cardiff City, Wrexham AFC, Newport County, Llansantffraid and others could be in a unique position where they play football against regulated clubs but are themselves unregulated. I have added my name to the amendment tabled by my fellow Northumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Beith—I believe he was born in Cheshire, but his 42 years representing Berwick-upon-Tweed makes him a Northumbrian in my eyes—who is seeking reassurances for a team closer to home for us both. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that he has raised through his amendment as well and set our minds at rest on this important matter. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his introduction to what I am going to say about Berwick Rangers. I declare an interest as having for some years been the honorary president of Berwick Rangers Football Club, which has existed for 143 years. During virtually the whole of that time, it has played in Scottish leagues, despite its stadium being in England. My amendment is there simply to secure clarification, which I am confident the Minister can give—although clarification would not necessarily survive subsequent amendment of the parts of the Bill to which I shall refer.

It appears to me that none of the regulatory provisions applies to a team in a competition that has not been specified by the Secretary of State. Under Clause 2(3), the Secretary of State does not have power to specify a competition in which the majority of the teams are not English teams. Thus, the Secretary of State could not designate the Scottish League, or the Lowland League or the Scottish Cup, in all of which Berwick play or have played.

Furthermore, Clause 15 makes it clear that operating licences are required only for a club operating a relevant team, which is defined in Clause 2(1) as a team participating “in a specified competition”. That would not apply to Berwick Rangers, because competitions in which they play could not, under the Bill, be specified. However, references in the same clause to a club with a stadium in England does raise in people’s minds the question about whether the Bill could be extended to Berwick—which would not be the Government’s intention, I am quite sure. Not only do they not seek to extend the Bill to Berwick Rangers, I do not think they are trying to move into the world of Scottish football, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid is well aware, is quite distinct in many respects, some of them desirable, some of them perhaps less so.

It has been the privilege of Berwick-upon-Tweed to play in Scottish football for almost the whole of its existence. Indeed, it has led to occasions on which we have played Glasgow Celtic, when I was able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who came with the team for that fixture. We have played Glasgow Rangers on a number of occasions, defeating them in 1967 and holding them to a draw in the Scottish Cup on another occasion. To have a club playing such distinguished teams is obviously an asset to a town and, if there is any regulatory structure to be put in place, it should be the same one as for other teams in the Scottish league in which they play.

Berwick’s notable history is a very powerful case for making sure that any legislation deals properly with it. I am confident that the Government have no intention of causing us problems in this respect, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some clarification and would keep the matter in mind if there is any redrafting of this part of the Bill.