Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
This page now shows the official record.
Emily carried a live automatic transcript of this debate while it was in progress. Hansard has since published the official report, so the text below is the official record and the live transcript has been retired. Read this debate on Hansard.
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 June be approved. Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
My Lords, before I begin, I would like to convey heartfelt condolences on behalf of the United Kingdom Government to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives today in the tragic high-speed railway collision in Spain. Our sympathies are with all those who have been injured or affected by this terrible incident. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 June 2026, implement the UK’s obligations on rail interoperability under the Windsor Framework and update domestic legislation implementing the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail, commonly known as COTIF. The regulations establish the conditions and technical requirements that railway vehicles, infrastructure and component products must satisfy before they can be placed on the market or put into service in Northern Ireland. Interoperability is about making sure that trains, railway infrastructure and railway equipment can operate safely and effectively across connected rail networks. The interoperability framework in Great Britain is set through the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011. However, during the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, EU states migrated to a new interoperability framework based on Directive 2016/797. Under the Windsor Framework, the United Kingdom is required to apply this directive in Northern Ireland in so far as it relates to the placing on the market, putting into service and free movement of railway products. The regulations implement that requirement by creating a dedicated interoperability framework for Northern Ireland. The framework established by the regulations facilitates interoperability between the Northern Irish and Irish railway networks while providing legal certainty for industry. The railways on the island of Ireland are functionally and technically distinct from Great Britain’s, with key differences including the track gauge of five feet and three inches in the whole of Ireland as opposed to four feet and eight and a half inches in Great Britain. The rail technical standards applicable in Britain and Northern Ireland have always reflected these inherent differences, even when the whole UK was applying EU interoperability law. There is, therefore, more practical benefit in Northern Ireland having closer interoperability with Ireland’s railways than with Great Britain’s. The Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure shares this view. The Minister wrote to me about the benefits of aligning with Ireland’s rail technical regime, which range beyond the operation of cross-border services. These include joint procurement of train fleets with Ireland and economies of scale for rail equipment, reducing procurement and operational costs. She said: “The more fundamental consideration is whether the conditions exist to support the long-term development of an integrated rail network across the island of Ireland. The standardised regulatory approach currently provided through the Windsor Framework creates an enabling environment for joint investment, shared procurement and coordinated railway operations. This is particularly important in the context of the recommendations emerging from the All-Island Strategic Rail Review, itself a key recommendation of the Union Connectivity Review”. Indeed, the joint procurement of the fleet of eight new trains for the Enterprise Service between Belfast and Dublin, due in 2030, a joint service between Northern Ireland and Irish Rail, was facilitated and made cheaper because there was only one technical regime between the two countries and one under which the successful supplier, which comes from the European Union, is familiar with. This legislation will therefore help the democratically elected Government in Northern Ireland to achieve their strategic policy aims in rail. I turn to the issues raised during parliamentary scrutiny. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulations and did not draw them to the special attention of either House. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised several questions regarding implementation, consultation and the wider policy context, and I will address those matters now. The committee questioned the period between the UK’s obligation to implement these requirements, arising under the Windsor Framework, and the laying of these regulations. The UK had not implemented this directive before leaving the European Union. As a result, introducing these arrangements has required careful work to ensure that Northern Ireland and Great Britain can continue to operate effectively under their respective rail frameworks. Delivering these regulations required extensive technical and legal work; it required close engagement with the Department for Infrastructure and the European Union Agency for Railways to ensure the new arrangements would operate effectively. The regulations make changes in a range of technical areas, such as vehicle authorisation, which ultimately relate to rail interoperability and safety. The instrument is technical and legally complex, establishing a complete rail interoperability framework for Northern Ireland to implement the obligations under the Windsor Framework. Substantial implementation work was required to ensure that the regime could operate effectively in practice; this included developing Northern Ireland national technical rules, necessary to supplement the EU technical specifications. The regulations principally apply when introducing new equipment on the railway or making major changes to existing vehicles and infrastructure. The department is not aware of any such rail project being unable to proceed while this implementing legislation was in development, and the department took steps to ensure this through interim measures, including publishing technical notices specifying the EU rail interoperability requirements applicable in Northern Ireland. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report questions the department’s understanding that legislation was needed. We have always been clear that legislation was needed and have been working at pace to get this right and in place as soon as practical. The department implemented interim administrative arrangements that allowed the new interoperability regime to operate in practice while the legislative framework was being finalised. We also informed the European Commission of this work while the implementation legislation was in preparation; therefore, many of the requirements in the directive already reflect practices and standards in operation in Northern Ireland. The committee also asked why updates relating to COTIF are being brought forward only now. The amendment reflects the UK’s position following EU exit. While the UK was a member of the European Union, this issue was addressed through the EU’s arrangements. Following EU exit, it became necessary to reflect the UK’s position directly in domestic legislation. The committee also questioned the decision not to undertake a formal public consultation. The Government carefully considered this issue. These regulations implement obligations that the UK has already entered into under the Windsor Framework and COTIF. There was therefore limited scope to take a different policy approach. While the policy outcome itself was constrained by existing international obligations, the department adopted a targeted engagement approach with those organisations most directly affected by the legislation, including the Department for Infrastructure, Translink, the Office of Rail and Road, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and conformity assessment bodies to inform a practical approach to the legislation. I subsequently also asked the UK industry trade body, the Railway Industry Association, whether its members had reported any adverse effects or expected any in future. They said they had no adverse comments from their members. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has tabled an amendment of regret relating to the absence of a formal consultation. While, of course, I respect those concerns, the Government’s view is that the targeted engagement undertaken was proportionate, given the nature of the regulations and the limited scope for alternative policy options. During scrutiny, concerns were raised regarding the existence of different regulatory arrangements in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including in a submission from Mr Jim Allister MP. I recognise those concerns, but it is important to be clear about the purpose of these regulations. They do not create the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Windsor Framework, which are set out in the withdrawal agreement. These regulations are concerned with implementing these obligations and providing a clear and legally operable framework for industry and regulators. The department also continues to work closely with the Department for Infrastructure to understand and manage any future impacts arising from divergence between regulatory frameworks in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations were not subject to a public consultation on the proposed divergence in rail regulations between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
My Lords, here we are again—another SI, another dinner hour. As many of us have warned for some time, until we actually stop allowing a foreign power, the EU, to take over making the rules for part of our own country, we will be continuing with these SIs. In welcoming the noble Lord to his place, I know his genuine interest in railways, so I imagine he will have read what is actually, I think, the largest ever statutory instrument I have seen. It is a 40-page document with 54 regulations. I know that his opposite number, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will also have read it with great interest. Probably both of them could actually recite the technical details in detail. But, apart from 30 minutes in a committee in the other place, this will be the only scrutiny to which this legislation will be subjected to in this Parliament. Once again, we have regulations that will introduce a divergence in law and authority between two parts of our country, and once again without this Parliament making the laws. The real significance of this strategy instrument is that, whereas today the whole of the United Kingdom is subject to the same law in relation to railways, once these regulations come into effect the country will be divided in two, with one law applying to GB and another law applying to Northern Ireland. The regulations will introduce and give effect to a law made in, as I have said, a foreign Parliament that will be imposed on part of the UK. The lack of opportunity even to debate these regulations, never mind change them, makes this absurd. It is also constitutionally an outrage that a part of this country should be reduced by laws we do not make and cannot change, and yet that is what we are doing tonight. There has been no consultation. Nowhere else do we legislate without at least the façade of consultation with the public, but when it comes to Northern Ireland, that is always null and void. Why has there been no consultation? A chat with the Department for Infrastructure, its Minister, and Translink is not consultation. What about all the businesses affected and the suppliers involved? The Government are at least being honest by saying, more or less, that there is no point in consultation. The Minister himself said there was limited scope. It would be a pointless exercise. Of course, the Minister, whether he likes these regulations or not, is obliged to implement them because of the Windsor Framework. In the other place, the Minister suggested that the debate on these regulations was not the place to raise constitutional questions of disenfranchisement, because Parliament had already voted to adopt the Windsor Framework. The Minister has not said that, but the Minister in the other place was just wrong. I remind noble Lords that we never voted specifically on the Windsor Framework, and any votes have been in relation to different aspects of it through statutory instruments, the first being on 29 March 2023 on the democratic scrutiny legislation. In this context, where is the place to address the constitutional implications of these regulations, if it is not now and in a debate such as this—if not now, when? We are told, in effect, that we have no choice. What sort of way is that for any Government to run our country—to rule that, in part of the United Kingdom, the law is being changed by some people and an institution that we have no say in? Is it something that other Members would accept for their county or area: that they cannot change the laws that are imposed and they simply have the obligation, as this SI will have, upon criminal sanction, to implement them? We are creating in these regulations a scenario in which railways will be governed in a part of the UK not by an agency of the United Kingdom but by the EU’s railway agency. When we look at Regulations 28 to 30, we discover that for a supplier in GB to supply any railway equipment to Northern Ireland, it must apply for and obtain a declaration of conformity that it is complying with the handed-down laws of a foreign Parliament. The Government, and indeed the Minister, have not even acknowledged that there will be an impact on businesses in Northern Ireland and GB. We are creating a separate railway regime for Northern Ireland, so businesses supplying equipment to Northern Ireland will have to meet the requirement laid down by the EU. This will lead to additional paperwork, declarations and costs. Will the Minister, when he is summing up, actually deny that there will be extra costs for businesses? We are seeing a drip-drip moving of Northern Ireland further away from the rest of the United Kingdom. This cannot be allowed to continue. Our railways in Northern Ireland have been safe, despite the many years of the IRA trying constantly to blow them up and block the line from Belfast to Dublin. They go through some of the most beautiful parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister would prefer to be discussing how we could have them electrified and get railway lines back to parts of Northern Ireland such as Fermanagh, where we used to have them. Instead of discussing what the public would really be interested in, we are discussing this because the Government have lost control of what happens in one part of our own country. It really is shameful. That is why, despite these regulations being technical, unless I hear something very important from Minister, I will be opposing them. They were opposed in the other place. There was a vote in the other place and more than 100 Members of Parliament voted against this statutory instrument. I am pleased that gradually more and more people are beginning to realise that the Windsor Framework is destroying businesses in Northern Ireland, those that want to work in Great Britain and those that want to go to Northern Ireland, and that we have to do something about it. I beg to move my amendment.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on securing this debate. I want to make it clear how offensive regulations of this sort are to all unionists, whether they live in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. It is offensive and unnecessary to have different laws in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that those laws should be imposed by a foreign power. It is offensive that there was no consultation and that Northern Ireland electors have no say in their making and cannot reject them. Moreover, it is offensive to electors in Great Britain that some aspects of the laws changed by this statutory instrument apply this side of the Irish Sea. I hope the Minister will confirm that, although he did not bother to mention in his opening speech that he was changing the laws of Great Britain. In fact, that is the main reason the EU insisted on the Northern Ireland protocol, now rebadged as the Windsor—whatever it is. It wanted to use it and Northern Ireland as a lever to impose EU law on the whole of the UK. I recall attending a meeting at the LSE during the debates about the withdrawal process, at which the EU negotiator said that the EU is a legislative hegemon and intends to remain so. It wants, as an objective in itself, to impose its laws outside its own territory—which is not particularly necessary, but it is what it wants to do. It is not because, as some of the nationalists and Sinn Féin say, that the objective was avoiding a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That was not really the objective; we can see that in these regulations, which actually create a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says: “A change in area of use will also occur in the case of a vehicle that crosses the border on the island of Ireland”. It goes on: “A change of the area of use of vehicles … will trigger the need for authorisation to place on the market”. It therefore keeps a border in Ireland, from the regulatory point of view, but imposes, as most EU stuff does, additional bureaucratic procedures. Previously authorised vehicles need to be reauthorised, if they change their area of use, and moving from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland is such a change. Even if a vehicle is intended for use only in Northern Ireland, it will still need reauthorisation. It says: “If vehicles are intended to be used in Northern Ireland only”, they have to be reauthorised. The only difference is that then the vehicle owner has the option of applying to the agency set up by the EU, or the Department for Infrastructure. Ministers and noble Lords may be irritated by the stream of regulations and statutory instruments, and the debates that they trigger, generated by the Northern Ireland protocol/Windsor whatsit. They should, however, brace themselves because dynamic alignment, to which this Government are committed—the previous Chancellor in her Mais lecture said she wanted to see dynamic alignment unilaterally applied to virtually every area of trade with the EU—will require us to accept all regulations passed by the EU since we left. We know roughly how many there are because each regulation bears a number. So far this year, it has got up to regulation 2106/26—more than 2,000 have been passed this year. There have been more than 25,000 regulations introduced since we left in 2020, so your Lordships should look forward to a tsunami of statutory instruments and debates of this nature, as we try to absorb in our legislation everything that has happened since we left. Why does it have so much legislation? It is because it is committed to it; it is what it does. It has had innumerable reports, most recently pointing out that the reason the EU is the slowest-growing continent in the world is that it is overregulated—but it cannot stop itself from doing it. It is what it does, just as drug addicts take drugs. Why we should consider joining such an organisation or unilaterally adopting its regulations and forcing on ourselves the very things that have made it the slowest-growing economy in Europe beats me. We are growing faster than the major countries in Europe thanks to Brexit—let us keep it that way.
My Lords, another night, another statutory instrument connected to the Windsor Framework. I fully accept the many frustrations connected with the implementation of the Windsor Framework, which are widely understood in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for his very clear exposition, in many ways clearer than the statutory instrument document that we have in front of us, and substantially so, and I am grateful to him for that. I also accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right: there is a problem in general about the Government’s mode of address and consultation on these Windsor Framework-related documents. As I say, this is not the first, and it will not be the last that we have enjoyed in this Chamber at dinner hour. This matter of mode of address is important. Let me say one thing that is significant: I understand why it often seems that the problems associated with this legislation are so small—they are problems just for Translink, I think it says at one point. Well, we need to know more about what those problems might be for Translink. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right that it is not exactly clear what the problems for business are. It may be that they are slight, but it does not matter. The point is that it is a big, politically sensitive area in Northern Ireland. That is the big thing that government has to ask. The Government’s relationship to the Windsor Framework is a problem. Let us be clear, by the way: the Windsor Framework passed with a larger majority in the House of Commons than the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 by some long way and we have therefore to take it seriously, but the Windsor Framework is not simply an agency under which we have to cope with this sort of Euro legislation. It is important also because, as the Command Paper states clearly on page 5, it is an unhooking from the pressure in the earlier phases of negotiation accepted by our Governments—Tory Governments of 2017 to 2019—and documents of withdrawal; that, for example, the British Government will work to create an all-Ireland economy. That is the unhooking. It is very clear on page 5, for example, of the Command Paper that this will be a different path of development for Northern Ireland, a path of development that has been hugely successful. It is widely accepted that after the Belfast agreement, the Northern Ireland region is now the fastest growing, and Belfast is probably doing better than Manchester. Can we get away with saying that? Well, the figures look as if that is the case. The problem has been that the Government will only come to the House and tell us, “Here is the latest irritating thing we are doing on the Windsor Framework”. The Windsor Framework is something this Government fully support, but they will not draw attention to their major area of success, the growth of Belfast. The debate then becomes so downturned, miserable and depressed. That is why I am talking about the Government’s mode of address on this subject. Just read page 5 again of the Command Paper and add to it something that it does not specifically mention: the defence expenditure of the UK in Belfast. This is the context: Northern Ireland’s economy has rarely looked stronger, and it relates to that key element in the Windsor Framework, which exists along with these myriad other irritations. I have one final point. I said, “another night, another statutory instrument”, but actually it is not quite the same as before. We are on the eve of some form of reset between the United Kingdom and the EU—I think 20 November is the date. What this will mean, to put this very crudely—it has already been more than hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—is that we are all going to become rule takers. In Northern Ireland specifically, let us consider what is proposed—so what one reads about regarding the SPS deal. The United Kingdom Parliament is going to be accepting rules in the same way that the Northern Ireland Assembly has had to do, with one exception, of course: it will not actually have a Stormont brake. That is what the democratically elected Government are moving towards, but the specificity of Northern Ireland’s uniqueness at the present stage, that it alone has to be a rule taker from the European Union, looks as if it is going to change quite markedly, especially when we get into next year and when we read about what an SPS agreement is likely to include. So, in conclusion, it is not another night, another Windsor Framework statutory instrument; it is the last of an old type of debate.
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on securing it. It is important to continue to debate regularly laws that apply to part of the United Kingdom, especially when they are set by others and not by the House of Commons, the House of Lords or the Stormont Assembly. When they are set by people who do not live, vote or have any role in the United Kingdom, it is fair that we should examine in great detail what these laws are all about. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and I obviously have great respect for his views, but I remind him that, in terms of the narrative, the investment coming into Northern Ireland is mainly in the services area, and the services are of course outside and have nothing to do with the Windsor Framework. That is where the growth is in Northern Ireland. He said references to the all-Ireland economy were removed as a result of the Windsor Framework, but, of course, every piece of legislation under the Windsor Framework is to align Northern Ireland with the rest of the EU and the Republic of Ireland, rather than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the fundamental problem with the Windsor Framework—which he well knows, because we have debated this many times. On this SI, I ask the Minister to address the point that was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Government said that the 2016 directive, which would be implemented by these regulations, “already applies in NI as international law by consequence of the Windsor Framework’s ratification”. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in paragraph 81 of its report, was scathing about the Government’s responses, saying that this was completely untrue. I wonder whether the Government will take the opportunity tonight to deal with that assertion by the committee that this is “incorrect”. What we have been asked to scrutinise is a done deal. We do not have the opportunity in either House of this Parliament, or elsewhere, such as in Stormont, to change what is before us. It has already been decided by others and imposed upon us. It is striking that in their answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Government set out how extensive the discussions had to be with the European Commission to reach a consensus and to engage closely with it on the legal drafting and timelines for implementation. There was no such consultation, close detailed negotiations or discussions with anyone in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, is right to raise once again the issue of public consultation. The Government said in their response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that “the scope for policy discretion in how the Directive is reflected in domestic law is limited”. That is an understatement if ever there was one. That is why they did not consult with anyone other than the Department for Infrastructure and Translink. These are serious matters. Every time we examine these regulations and SIs, we come back to the fundamental themes: laws being imposed upon us; the lack of any proper, convincing consultation with those affected by it; and divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to explain whether he sees any risk to the supply chain for industries in this area in Northern Ireland. I note that in their response to the scrutiny committee, the Government said that they “have no active plans to implement the content of the 2016 Directive in Great Britain”. They have spent enormous amounts of time negotiating with the EU about imposing it on a part of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us: if it is good for Northern Ireland why is it not being considered for the rest of the United Kingdom? Having done all this work, it would be simple to transpose it to rest of the United Kingdom as well. What is the reason for not doing that? Finally, can the Minister set out in detail the consultation arrangements with the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure to ensure that there is not a lot of divergence? The Government said that these arrangements were “effective during the first major revision of Britain’s National Technical Specification Notices for rail interoperability”. I would like to know: who is engaged in those arrangements; what is the accountability mechanism; and how do Northern Ireland Assembly Members interact with them? I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations but if the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pushes for a vote, we will certainly be in the Lobby with her.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for bringing forward this regret amendment. The regulations before the House concern railway interworking in Northern Ireland and arise from arrangements linked to international and post-Brexit obligations. Members may differ on the merits of the regulations themselves. I want to focus on an issue that should concern this House as well as elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Decisions affecting Northern Ireland continue to be made with insufficient consultation and very little accountability, in not only this issue but others. Consultation is not a perceived nicety; it is a fundamental part of good government. Decisions which affect the people, business and infrastructure of Northern Ireland should not be presented simply as, “Take it or leave it”. Those who will be affected by such changes should have a meaningful opportunity to express their views before decisions are taken, not merely after they have been announced. Too often Northern Ireland finds itself in the position of being informed rather than consulted. That approach risks creating a sense of detachment and frustration among those who are expected to live with the consequences. There is also the question of accountability. One of the strengths of our constitutional arrangements is that Ministers can be questioned, challenged and held to account by Parliament. Yet where regulations flow from external obligations or complex arrangements there can be a growing perspective that responsibility becomes very diluted. Those in Northern Ireland have a right to expect that decisions affecting their transport, infrastructure, economy and daily lives will not simply be handed down to them. Whether one supports or opposes these regulations, surely, we can all agree that people should have a meaningful opportunity to influence decisions before they are made, not after. Whatever view we take on the merits of these regulations, we should insist that Northern Ireland’s voice be heard and that decision-makers remain answerable for the consequences of their decisions. This House has frequently emphasised the importance of engagement, transparency and public confidence in decision-making. These principles should apply no less to Northern Ireland than to any other part of this United Kingdom. For these reasons, the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, performs an important service: it reminds all of us in this House that good government depends not only on what decisions are made but how they are made. I am fairly supportive of the regret amendment.
My Lords, it is important that we debate these regulations, because if they come into effect, they will end the existing arrangements that testify to the reality of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subject to a common legal framework in relation to railways. They cut our country in two, placing one part under a single regime and the other part under another. What is striking about this is that the law that is being applied to one part of the country through the regulations is not the legislation of a devolved legislature within the United Kingdom that reflects the wishes of the devolved legislators, who, in turn, reflect the wishes of their constituents. In actual fact, even if the whole Assembly unitedly opposed these, it would make no difference. That is the bottom line. The basic content has been devised by a foreign Parliament, in which the people of Northern Ireland are not represented. To some, that is acceptable, but to those who believe in the United Kingdom, it is not. This is an extraordinary humiliation of not only the people of Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom, which is, through this imposition, having its integrity disrespected by 27 states. We know that the doctrine of recognition in international relations means that diplomatic relations can be obtained between two or more sovereign states if they recognise each other’s territorial integrity on a reciprocal basis. However, through these regulations, the EU 27 not only refuse to recognise the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom by means of claiming a right to make the laws of the United Kingdom but they, in effect, make those laws and, in so doing, undermine the territorial integrity of the UK. This is in stark contradiction and violation of international law, which states that every state shall refrain from any action “aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country”— that is according to the declaration of the United Nations. These regulations testify to the efforts of 27 states to do the exact opposite: to disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. To those who say that the regulations will ensure that the railways of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland connect with those of the republic, implying that this is somehow providing a convincing argument, I remind them that while we in this country are more used to sea borders than land borders, most countries have rail borders with other countries, many of them on more than one front. However, even those that have only one rail border with another country do not find it a reason to subject itself to the laws of the neighbouring country. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should approach the question of how railway lines move from one country to another—as other sovereign states do—by means of agreement, not by dictating the laws in a foreign Parliament that the people of Northern Ireland have no representation in. The indignity has been greatly compounded by the decision of our Government not to hold a public consultation on this legislation, which runs through many provisions and is more like a Bill than a statutory instrument, albeit amendable. Of course, one can understand the logic. What is the point of having consultation? The United Kingdom will still have to bow in submission to the legislation set by parliamentarians elected to represent the constituents of other countries, not Northern Ireland. However, this only serves to underline the reality of our humiliation. Not only will the people of Northern Ireland be disfranchised; now they are not even worthy of consultation. Perhaps the Minister can explain whether the Government are content to allow divergence. When the legislation comes into force, the standards in Great Britain will be different from those in Northern Ireland. The supply to run our railways that previously came from GB will no longer be able to come unless GB suppliers are prepared to go through the problem of getting the EU declaration of conformity under regulations. There is a push to redirect our supply chain from the rest of the United Kingdom to the Irish Republic—and those who support the Windsor Framework would be quite happy with that.
My Lords, I join the Minister in sending our very sincere condolences to the people of Spain regarding the truly awful railway accident that happened today. Our heart goes out to the families of those who have lost loved ones. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity of this short debate through her amendment. We on these Benches support the regulations. In many of the debates we have had stemming from the Windsor Framework, there have been understandable and justifiable concerns about the framework leading to increased divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom where previously, any divergence was minimal. In the case of these regulations, however, Northern Ireland’s and Britain’s railways run to different specifications and gauges, for historical and geographical reasons. Northern Ireland’s rail network inevitably must connect with the rail network in the Republic of Ireland. However, until a tunnel is built under the Irish Sea, there is no direct rail connection between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House for the short but excellent and extremely useful report on these highly complex and long regulations. As the report states, there has been a considerable delay in implementing the 2016 EU directive in Northern Ireland, which is required under the Windsor Framework. The Minister referred to this in his introduction, but I am sure he will admit that to most people, this seems an exceptionally long delay before implementation. The committee’s report also stated that there are no active plans to implement the 2016 directive in Great Britain, but that there will be a review as to whether greater alignment with the directive might be beneficial. Can the Minister say when he expects the findings of that review to be published? As usual in these debates, the concerns are less about the regulations themselves and more about the understandable constitutional and parliamentary scrutiny issues stemming from the Windsor Framework and the adoption of EU law when there is no longer any direct UK involvement in the drafting of that law. However, these regulations are implementing a 2016 EU directive that was drafted and agreed upon when we were still a member of the European Union. In previous debates, I have shared the concern of the noble Lords opposite about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. It is something we all need to be concerned about. As other noble Lords have said, it is also highly regrettable that there was not wider consultation. As there are now more moves towards greater alignment with the European Union, which we on these Benches welcome, it is equally important that new and improved ways be found to allow this Parliament to have a greater say and involvement, especially at the earliest stages, when legislation is being drafted. This is particularly true, as I have said in previous debates, because the House of Commons no longer has a European Scrutiny Committee. I hope it will rectify this very soon.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her regret amendment. I join the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in expressing the condolences of these Benches to the people of Spain and to those affected by today’s tragic accident in Spain. I start by acknowledging that the EU has a legitimate interest in railways that springs from the need for interoperability between national systems if its single market is to be perfected. It explains, for example, why the EU has been requiring adoption of a single signalling system throughout its realms. But that goal of interoperability is and will remain a complete chimera as far as Ireland is concerned. As the noble Lord has already explained, the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 settled on a standard gauge of four foot, eight and a half inches for Great Britain and an Irish gauge of five foot, three inches for the railways of Ireland. For reasons too lengthy to explore now, the standard gauge was adopted in time throughout most of western Europe, while the Irish gauge established itself only in parts of Australia and Brazil—presumably there were Irish engineers there. It follows that no European train, indeed no British train, could run in Ireland because it would not fit the tracks, even if the considerable difficulties of transporting it across the substantial body of water that separates Ireland from her nearest neighbour in the European Union could be overcome. The argument of interoperability for EU involvement in Ireland’s railways, north and south, therefore fails dismally. These regulations replace for Northern Ireland alone the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011, which have, until now, governed rail interoperability across the whole United Kingdom. It is worth stating that cross-border arrangements in Ireland—arrangements which include practical co-operation between railway authorities on both sides of the UK-Irish border—have never been criticised for a lack of effectiveness in the operation of Irish trains. I am sure there has very occasionally been cause for complaint, but generally the system works well. In the place of those regulations, Northern Ireland is to implement the 2016 EU directive, together with the technical specifications adopted under it. Regulation 2 defines both the directive and those specifications as they are “amended from time to time”. Therefore, this is dynamic alignment in perpetuity. This means that the rules governing Northern Ireland’s railways will change not just today but in the future, whenever the European Commission chooses to change them, without any further Act of this Parliament and without any vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The mechanisms of democratic consent and the Stormont brake, whatever their merits, offer scant means of effective objection. The Minister wants a single directing mind in charge of Great British Railways. He seems to be happy that it should be a single directing foreign mind based in Valenciennes, of all places, in charge of railways in the rest of the UK. I do not criticise my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak for not having the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 at the front of his mind when he negotiated the Windsor Framework. None the less, it is not right that people in one part of the United Kingdom should be governed by rules in whose making they have no say. I would have expected the European Union, with its long-standing commitment to democratic norms, to be the first to understand that. The regulations have some intriguing implications. They require the whole of Ireland to adopt the European rail traffic management system—the single European Union signalling system that will allow interoperability with trains that cannot get to Ireland and will not fit the tracks if they do. Why is the British taxpayer paying for this in respect of Northern Ireland? Is this what the people of Northern Ireland want? We will never know. There has been no public consultation; manufacturers, suppliers, those who work on the railway and, above all, passengers get no say. Can the Minister explain why? He has been asked this by a number of noble Lords. We have never taken the view that the Windsor Framework was the final word or beyond improvement in what is an evolving situation. We will always look at constructive proposals for change and reform. One such proposal would have been persuading the European Union not to proceed with these frankly daft regulations. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government ever approached Brussels with such a proposal. We need to ensure that legislation works for all parts of the United Kingdom; this does not. For that reason, if the noble Baroness divides the House, we will support her.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and for the thoughtful points that have been raised. I will briefly respond to the issues that have featured in this debate. Noble Lords raised the question of consultation. The Government carefully considered whether a formal public consultation was appropriate. These regulations implement obligations that the United Kingdom has already entered into under the Windsor Framework and COTIF. As a consequence, there was limited policy discretion available regarding the fundamental policy outcome. However, that does not mean that engagement did not take place. The department worked closely with those organisations most directly affected by the legislation, including, as I have said, the Department for Infrastructure, Translink, the Office of Rail and Road, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and conformity assessment bodies. That engagement informed the practical approach to implementation adopted in these regulations. As I said in my opening speech, the railway supply industry trade body for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Railway Industry Association, has reported no adverse effects so far and no anticipated adverse effects for its members. That deals also with the point about the impact on business, because the business of maintaining and improving railways is very limited, and many of the people who do it are members of the Railway Industry Association. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn. He asked a number of questions and it would be more convenient if I wrote to him with all the answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the question of the delay, which the SLSC raised. As I outlined in my opening remarks, substantial technical and legal work has been undertaken to ensure that the framework could operate effectively alongside existing domestic railway legislation and provide a workable, durable and legally robust regime for industry and regulators. It is a complex set of regulations—it has taken quite a long time to achieve—but it is the right thing to do in these circumstances. The noble Baroness also asked about the review. The outcome of the review will be published by March 2027, in the post-implementation review of the Great Britain implementation regulations. These regulations provide the legislative framework necessary to implement the UK’s obligations relating to railway interoperability in Northern Ireland and to update domestic legislation implementing the International Convention concerning Carriage by Rail. They provide clarity and certainty for regulators, infrastructure managers, operators and manufacturers, support the continued operation of cross-border railway services on the island of Ireland, and ensure that domestic legislation accurately reflects the UK’s international obligations. They are the right solution for Northern Ireland’s railways and the industry that supplies them, given the unique technical characteristics of rail across the island of Ireland. As I said, the eight train sets for the Enterprise service from Belfast to Dublin, ordered jointly between the two Governments, demonstrate precisely the benefit of these regulations. The vehicles will run on the railways of both countries, under a set of rules which are absolutely the same in both. That relative simplicity has enabled a cheaper purchase, and from a supplier in the European Union which is familiar with the regulations. They are technical regulations, but they perform an important function in providing a clear, stable and legally operable framework for the railway industry in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and I hope he will write on the questions that were not answered in the time available, particularly those to do with the supply across the United Kingdom and the costs. Anyone who has listened to this debate tonight can see, particularly after what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, that this is a nonsense. These are nonsense regulations in the way that they are being done and the fact that we really do not need them in this sense. We certainly do not need the European Union telling us what to do when it has no interest, in that sense, to do with the railways. I want to correct one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said. He said that the Windsor Framework had a huge majority in the Commons. I remind him that that vote was no more a vote on the Windsor Framework than the vote on tonight’s regulations. We have never had a vote on the Windsor Framework. It was a vote on the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations, and I think that is very important. I understand about the regulations tonight, and I accept that both Front Benches and probably everyone who has read all 58 pages will recognise that they are probably needed in that sense, but we should not be doing it in this way. As far as the Windsor Framework is concerned, this has to be looked at. It is unsustainable. We cannot keep having other parts of the world that should have no say in our country dividing our country with statutory instrument after statutory instrument. Because of that, and because I think it is important that we recognise what these SIs are doing, I would like to press my amendment on consultation, of which there was none.
Official Hansard report. Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.