Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 

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]. The noble Earl said: 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. Moved, 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.)