Railways (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) Regulations 2005

I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the regulations. I was inspired to hear that he did not repeat exactly what was said in the other place as recently as 12 July. I congratulate him on having produced a different speech, which is always very good. In general, we support these regulations, but a couple of points arose when the regulations were considered in the other place on 12 July on which I would like to dig a little further. The first and, I think, the most important aspect is associated with the derogation with France. The Minister said plainly, as I understood it, that that was an agreement that had been made and that there would be a derogation. That is a slightly more substantial statement than was made in the other place four or five days ago, when it was suggested that it was hoped that there would be a derogation. At this stage, with the Recess coming up and with such a long time in between, it is important to try to bottom out the question of whether there is an agreement about derogation or whether it is, at the moment, a hope rather than an actuality. It will affect not only freight but passengers crossing through the tunnel on the shuttle. It may be a matter of concern to the UK in particular. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a little more information about how firm the derogation was. I am interested to note that the convention goes back not to the 1950s but to the end of the 19th century, when it was truly an international rail agreement made, presumably, almost as soon as the railways became international. It is of long standing, and, in those circumstances, one hesitates even to pick at it, but I would like to know whether there are any costs associated with any of the changes, particularly for the train operating companies as they implement the new rules. If there are costs, are they likely to be transferred to passengers? Those are the main points. There seems to be little disagreement about the regulations. I am always fascinated by the word ““stakeholders””; it covers a multitude of sins, and we have not the faintest idea who has been consulted about anything. I assume that they are appropriate people and appropriate organisations concerned with the regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the two aspects that I raised—the derogation and the attribution of costs, if there are any. Other than that, I have no further points to make.