Railways (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) Regulations 2005

That is a moot point. I may be tempted to stray too far. I produced my historical allusion to the longevity of COTIF and to its limitations, but it is extensive. It goes beyond the boundaries of Europe, as will be recognised. That is why there are 42 signatories to the old convention. Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Berkeley emphasised the issues with regard to derogation. Let me emphasise that we are confident that it will occur. The French are entirely on board with us in those terms. We are speaking on it against a background in which all interested parties want us to be successful. I may speak with slightly more emphasis than was given a week or so ago in Committee in the other place, but it was emphasised there that we have good reasons for derogation and expect to be able to deliver it. We cannot think of anyone who would stand against the proposition, save perhaps those with a more general point of view who make the case made by my noble friend that any form of derogation is a pity. He is perfectly entitled to that point of view, as goes without saying. In many areas, we are only too happy to sign up to provisions that govern us all without any difficulty at all. However, he will appreciate the uniqueness of the shuttle services in the Channel Tunnel. They are sui generis and also a perfectly intact system with no implications for the wider railway system. That is why we define the matter in those terms. We think that costs will be very marginal. We would not be in a position in which we could talk so confidently about the support given to us by the railway industry across the board unless it were not recognised that in only very limited cases were there likely to be any costs for interests in this country. I give an assurance on that. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, indicated that in some respects there was an element of reinsurance on the matter. Thanks to our more substantial experience with a great deal of the issues that now concern COTIF, and our more generous provision with regard to travellers on our own system, there are areas in which we derive very little benefit from an international system that will improve rail travel in many other countries. However, Britons travelling abroad will benefit from that additional insurance. I was asked where the headquarters were and why we paid so much money. We paid £140,000, which does not sound a significant amount, given the general outlay with regard to railway expenditure. However, it has gone up. There is a body of 16 officials in Berne, Switzerland, where the original COTIF arrangements were established in the distant past. It is no surprise to any of us here that a significant international organisation that long pre-dates the European Community should have its home in Switzerland. My noble friend also asked whether standards had dropped. The problem with not signing is that we have higher standards at present, and, therefore, there are no costs for us. What would happen if standards in the area in which we sought derogation were not maintained at levels comparable with the rest of COTIF? We did not think that we needed to insist on that with regard to the Eurotunnel position. Neither we nor the French propose to run railways in any form that are of a standard lower than the prevailing norm in Europe. In fact, on the whole, we both aspire to higher standards than many in Europe. I cannot speak on behalf of the French Government—much as I would like to—but, having travelled on a few French trains, one or two of us can testify to the fact that they operate at a reasonable standard. The points that have been raised are interesting. I appreciate the fact that there has been general recognition of the value of the regulations. That means that, when we are in a position to give our support to the new version of COTIF—the 1999 version, updating the 1980 version, moving on from 1950 and going on from way back in the 19th century—we will make a significant move into a new era. It is important that it is recognised that we have a clear and consistent position that, although minor changes can be bureaucratically applied within the framework of universal acceptance of such changes, anything of any significance must come back to Parliament for approval. That is clearly written into the Act by which the regulations are governed. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee. On Question, Motion agreed to.