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 Had a friend who was going to give me a lift rescinded the offer, taking the Bluebell Railway would have been the only way I could reach the campsite we were staying at.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.