Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006
The Earl of Mar and Kellie rose to move,
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/599) [30th Report from the Merits Committee].
I beg to move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and with his consent. I apologise on his behalf for his absence. He was able to speak to two noble Lords at once on two separate telephones earlier today, but he is unable to be here. I will put briefly the four points that he was going to speak about much more eloquently.
This order puts into effect EU legislation on the regulation of railways. I have four questions to put to the Minister. First, the EU legislation allows metros, light railways and tramways to be excluded, but this order includes them. Why was the decision taken to include metros, light rail and tramways when they did not have to be?
Secondly, should community railways be included? They are supposed to be as simple as possible. They often hang by a single financial thread. They should not be burdened by extra regulation. The order demands that they appoint a qualified engineer described in the order as a "competent person" who would have to be independent, insured and paid. Why is the 150-year experience of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate being discarded?
My third question concerns the case of private railways, those for infrastructure trains only and heritage railways, which are both limited to 25 miles per hour. Heritage railways are clearly regarded more as tourism assets than as transport assets. Why are they being included? The EU legislation allows an indefinite derogation for such railways, but the order limits the derogation to two years. Why is that? Why do they not continue to seek guidance from the railway inspectorate as they have been doing in the past?
Finally, on the subject of interoperability, only those lines that are seriously European-network connectable should be required to pay for modifications to meet the standards for the Trans-European Network. If they are not likely to be connectable, should they have to pay for interoperability standards?
I conclude with a plea that we keep regulation of the railways, particularly minor railways, as simple as possible.
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/599) [30th Report from the Merits Committee].
—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
I have pleasure in supporting the noble Earl. I congratulate him on absorbing the briefing of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with such accuracy and demonstrating such fluency in expressing the noble Lord's arguments this afternoon.
How do you know?
I was the other person on the telephone listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, briefing the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I certainly do not intend to repeat any of the arguments that he has used. However, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee and as a member of the legal affairs committee of the Heritage Railway Association. My particular concern with this order relates to heritage railways.
As the noble Earl said, a derogation of two years is proposed by the Government in these regulations, but it is extraordinary that there is not a permanent derogation, because the new arrangements are not intended to apply to those sorts of railways. Heritage railways are an important part of our nation's tourist industry: 105 heritage railways are open to the public; they have 413 miles of track and 5.2 million passengers and 7 million visitors each year. They are a significant element of the tourist industry and it is counterproductive and unfair for them to be burdened with unnecessary regulations, particularly as they are confined to a maximum line speed of 25mph. I hope that my noble friend will be able to provide some comfort on this.
...........the debate continued
(Click here for entire proceedings)
in response to the points raised by Lord Faulkner
Lord Davies of Oldham replied:
I hear what my noble friend Lord Faulkner said about heritage railways, and what he said broadened out into the areas of light rail as well. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, also raised the point about their concerns that they should be included in the framework. My noble friend Lord Faulkner was generous enough to recognise that we have exemptions until 2010, following discussions with the department and operators. We intend during the interim period that the Office of Rail Regulation will work with the heritage and light rail sectors, the insurance industry and other interested parties to resolve remaining concerns, which generally revolve around the question of insurance for the operation of the railways. In the event that no sustainable method of applying safety verification can be developed in time, the Office of Rail Regulation will consider revisiting the options on how best to address the issue. I take on board my noble friend's anxieties and those of the noble Earl, but we need to address the question of insurance. We need to have a solution for light railways and particularly for heritage railways. We have got time to work on this, and we intend to work with the sector to obtain decent and appropriate solutions.
© Lords Hansard 16 May 2006