Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for anticipating my Amendment 118, and to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has signed it. He, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is currently in the Chamber on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and unable to take part in our debates here as a result. Our Amendment 118 relates to the general duties of Ministers, Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road. We submit that these should be exercised “in the manner best calculated to preserve a sustainable role for heritage rail services”. We know that the Minister wants to preserve that sustainable role; as I have said before, he is a great champion for heritage rail and transport heritage in general. If we are to approve and enact the Bill, we want to ensure that it withstands any changes of Minister or Government and would operate in a scenario where we are not so fortunate to have such a supportive and knowledgeable Minister, or indeed supporters in other areas of rail life. I should note as well our gratitude to and appreciation for the Office of Rail and Road for the work that it has undertaken since the passing of the Employment Rights Act and on the publication of guidance this summer, which makes clearer the role that young volunteers can play on our heritage railways. We are grateful for the support that there is presently, but we want to make sure that that is sustained. Our amendment is modest. It would give discretion to Ministers, GBR and the ORR in how they do it, but simply seeks to preserve a sustainable role. It reflects a number of concerns and questions that heritage rail operators, particularly those operating on the main line, have raised with us. I outlined those in my contributions at Second Reading and on my earlier Amendment 90, which relates to the clauses concerning the long-term rail strategy. I will not rehearse them at length here, but they relate in passing to the question of capacity constraints, which we already see affecting many operators that run either exclusively main line services or a blend of the two. The North Yorkshire Moors Railway, which runs to Whitby, is already running on lines that have capacity constraints. If we are to see this in the future, it is important that we give the steer to Ministers, GBR and the ORR, so that they take these into account. They should also do this in the decisions that they take in relation to infrastructure. In the 1980s and 1990s, we saw how decisions that reduced the number of things such as passing loops and stabling sidings had an effect on those who operated charter rail services. So, as with our amendment that looks at the long-term rail strategy—as well as the amendments on the access and use policy, which we will touch on later in Committee—we are looking for opportunities to ensure that everybody involved in the future of the railways continues to pay attention to the important role that the heritage of our railways has played in getting us to where we are and that it continues to inspire the future generations of people who will shape our railway network.