Railways (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) Regulations 2005

I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Everyone welcomes this revised COTIF set of regulations, which will be helpful to international rail freight and, I suspect, international rail passengers. I am interested to know whether the 26 or 27 states that have so far ratified them include Malta and Cyprus, which tried to be part of the European Railway Agency even though they have not got any railways. No doubt the same attempt has happened here. I have two issues. The first was that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about the Channel Tunnel shuttle. My noble friend said that the shuttle was a stand-alone service, but there are similar services—they are not exactly the same—through the French Alps, including those that go through the Gotthard tunnel and the Lotschberg tunnel. Some of those are rolling motorways, which means that you put the tractor unit on them as well as the trailer. They run on the same tracks as ordinary freight or passenger trains, as happens in the Channel Tunnel. It is a pity that the Channel Tunnel shuttle train be excluded. It is a further pity that the reason given in the Explanatory Memorandum is that it is,"““to avoid nugatory expense in amending Eurotunnel’s standard Shuttle documentation for no real benefit in terms of improved contract conditions for customers because of the relatively high standards already offered””." The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester explained to me what nugatory meant—very small—and I am sure that he is right. Already offering a high standard is a funny reason to avoid doing something. What happens if the standard drops? Do we suddenly have to introduce regulations? Cars, lorries and coaches on shuttles go through the French Alps. I do not know whether the French Alps are included in COTIF; it would be interesting to know. If they are, it is a shame that the shuttle is exempt. Secondly, paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum mentions the possible derogation to avoid having to include contracts on the use of infrastructure in international traffic. I suppose that that will include: the Channel Tunnel again but not shuttles; the Channel Tunnel Rail Link for passengers and freight; and any other bit of the network in this country. It is again a shame that we are not going all the way down the COTIF route. It may mean that the regulator has to change some of the model clauses in future, as happens on other parts of regulations as a consequence of the Railways Act 2005, and the regulator has found a way of doing that happily. I note that the commission has not necessarily agreed the regulations and is uncertain whether such agreement will be forthcoming. If it is not forthcoming, what happens? It is a shame that we are going for the derogations when it could be much simpler and easier for everyone to comply. Simplicity is the name of the game for anyone trying to run freight or passengers, and the less complex the arrangements the better. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.