Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Suttie Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Suttie (LD)
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.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Suttie Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but it has been a fascinating short debate on a hugely serious issue. My noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned that there were three reports on the Windsor Framework that the Government are currently looking at: the one that I produced some months ago, the report of the committee of your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland, and that of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I understand it is likely that, some time in the new year—January or February, or something like that—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having consulted other Ministers, will produce a response to that.
It is clear to me that, in addition to the points and recommendations that all those reports came up with—in my own case, for example, I recommended 16 different things that the Government and the Stormont Assembly should do—this has become a hugely serious issue. The idea that people in Northern Ireland cannot buy a car of their choice in the way that we can everywhere else in the United Kingdom is really serious. I did not come across this during my review; this is a relatively new phenomenon. I have had a look at the statutory instrument, and I cannot pretend I understand every single word of it, but it means that a very serious situation is developing.
My plea to my noble friend the Minister is for him to take the results of this debate back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Minister for European Affairs, Nick Thomas-Symonds. Perhaps they could have a look, in conjunction, at the serious ways in which this could be addressed. The last thing we want is further instability in Northern Ireland around this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as ever, this has been an important and interesting short debate, and it was a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who raised some important issues. It is useful to know that these reports are likely to be responded to in the early new year.
Particularly, perhaps, for the benefit of the Minister, as ever this debate has been less to do with the substance of the regulations before us—which are rather technical in nature—and more to do with the legitimate and very real constitutional concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords about some elements of the Windsor Framework.
The actual substance of these regulations seeks to align the EU and GB eCall components and to incorporate recent developments in international regulations on vehicles. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I cannot claim to be an expert on these subjects, but it strikes me that it would be rather hard to be against the regulations as such.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy with his arguments about the lack of input, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the realities of becoming a de facto rule taker, as we increasingly follow EU regulations since leaving the European Union. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and as I have often said in these debates on Windsor Framework-related regulations, I think that this is a direct result of Brexit, particularly the hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to follow. It is the case that we would not be having these debates if we were still in the European Union.
These regulations state that they are about alignment and removing barriers to trade: paragraph 5 of both the Explanatory Memorandums states that they
“will ultimately remove barriers for vehicle manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
In these debates on Windsor Framework regulations, we often have justifiable criticism about the lack of consultation with the relevant sectors. However, paragraph 7 of both Explanatory Memorandums states:
“All the trade associations representing vehicle manufacturers supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of aligning with international standards”.