Railways Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name rather belatedly to Amendment 208 from the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. She has put it so well that I will not detain your Lordships at all, except to say that I added my name. I am astonished that nobody else did, because it seems like such an extraordinarily good idea that I do not know why it has not been done before.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I did not add my name, but there is a limit to the number of names you can add. Many of us feel very supportive of the recommendations from my noble friend Lady Leaman in those two amendments.

I simply want to give some context to the reasons for the amendments such as those from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to be considered for the Bill, or something based on them being considered, to secure a genuinely fair and free market in the retail sales of train tickets. It is worth remembering how much difference the private operators made to the price you had to pay for many kinds of journey. We have been discussing it in theoretical terms, but there was a time when, if you wanted to travel from Edinburgh to Penzance on the cross-country train which made that journey, the cost was enormous. What changed it? It was split ticket operators demonstrating that they could get four or five different tickets—including, when I did it on one occasion, a West Yorkshire rover ticket that carried me one small piece of the journey—and that this accumulation of a handful of tickets would give you a price less than half the cost that you would have been quoted originally for that journey.

Not only did that cheapen tickets for a lot of people making difficult journeys, but it also changed the attitude of many of the operating companies. Certainly when I go to the station to buy a ticket, I am now always asked whether I want a cheaper ticket by getting the next train or the one before it. There is an alertness to the customer’s need to know what the options are for a reasonably priced ticket, which has been brought into the system by the private operators. I do not advocate these amendments because competition is a good Liberal value, but because experience has proved that to be the case.

All this has to exist in a world in which very rapid change will take place. At the moment, operators issue their own tickets. The result is that there is an invisible interaction between the person selling the ticket, the retailer, and the revenue protection officer on the train whose decision it is whether that ticket will be valid on that train. If you have missed one and are getting the next one, it may well not be; if you have chosen to change your journey pattern, it may well not be. The Minister may fondly believe—we have talked about this in a very helpful discussion—that all this will fall away, because when GBR is the only one providing the trains, there will not be these difficulties. I am not convinced of that; I think that old habits will die hard. If we are not very careful, we will still have a situation where the retailer gives you the impression that he is retailing a piece of paper or an email that will enable you to travel on one of several trains, when you are actually buying something limited by the policies and practice of the operator. It may be one operator in principle, but there will still be different regions under different regional management, so we need to have methods of ensuring that. I hope to return to that second point later in Committee, but we should understand the context and value of what we are discussing.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have my name on these amendments, but I thoroughly agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I especially support what my noble friend Lady Harding said in introducing this group and am entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I do not want to get into the question of appeals, because we will come on to how the appeal process should be structured later.

Amendment 47 in the name of my noble friend about the approved document is particularly important. I assume that the code of practice that we are promised, which the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, was talking about, is the equivalent of the approved document or some part of it. At the moment, we have this ticketing and settlement agreement. We have to know how this is going to work in future. If we do not, we should expect—indeed, we should call for—the Competition and Markets Authority to step in. As things stand, the relevant aspects of the ticketing and settlement agreement constitute part of a block exemption against a Chapter 1 prohibition under the Competition Act. It is, on the face of it, potentially an anti-competitive agreement, but the block exemption exists. The question is whether the agreement satisfies the requirements of the block exemption. We have to look at the agreement to know whether that is the case, which is why Amendment 47 is right. We have to ask the Competition and Markets Authority whether the code of practice or the approved document under the Bill satisfies the requirements of the block exemption.

The fact is that GBR will be in a dominant position. Under the Competition Act, in addition to the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements there is a prohibition on abuse of a dominant position. Much of this debate is saying that, given that we know that GBR will be in a dominant position, we should be actively looking for the Office of Rail and Road, by way of market investigations in this area if necessary, or the Competition and Markets Authority to step in, as the current jurisdiction enables it to do, to counter any abuse. We know from Clause 2(1) that Great British Railways has no Crown immunity. Under Section 73 of the Competition Act, there is a Crown immunity from the constraints, remedies and directions of the Competition and Markets Authority, so GBR does not want to be in a position where the Competition and Markets Authority comes after it to prevent its abuse of a dominant position. For all those reasons, the Government would be well advised to put into the legislation measures that will prevent GBR being tempted to abuse its dominant position and to ensure that the approved document will satisfy the CMA’s requirements for a block exemption.

Railways Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101A in my name to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has added her name. I accept that this amendment is quite long, but it is also a bit of a wish list of everything I would like for improved accessibility across the train network. This proposed new clause would require a 10-year railway accessibility strategy, including a funded programme for permanent step-free access, accessible rolling stock, mobility-aid carriages, accessible interchange and accessible rail replacement services. It would also require measurable targets, annual reporting and the involvement of disabled people in the development of the strategy.

I declare my interests as a member of the Campaign for Level Boarding and as an observer on the Avanti accessibility panel. I am fortunate to have an open invite to Network Rail’s national accessibility group. I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, this week to discuss our amendments. I look forward to the ongoing discussion on how we can improve access for disabled people. I was encouraged by his comments in the earlier group that disabled people will be able to book assistance and buy the best-priced ticket at the same time rather than having to use the six different apps that I currently have on my phone. It is welcome, if not slightly overdue. I also thank Alex Hynes and Alison Smith from Network Rail who I met last week and were also helpful.