Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

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”.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I travel back and forth every week to and from Belfast. We should also be saying that there are some really excellent people working with disabled people and wheelchairs—I see it every week—and it would be a bit remiss of us if we have the public thinking that we are all saying that it is absolutely terrible. I sometimes see some over-the-top behaviour in terms of how people are treated, quite rightly. We have to recognise that it is not all as bad as perhaps some of the examples, which obviously we could all bring out.

I also wanted to say that it is important that we have minimum standards, because each airline seems to be different. I see that travelling on easyJet and British Airways, and I have to say that easyJet does an excellent job. If it knows in advance, it does extremely well. I would hate to think that those people, many of whom are young people working in their first job—and, yes, training is important—are listening to this and thinking that we are condemning all of them for being heartless and not doing the right thing. Of course, as we know, a lot of it is up to the airlines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, on this issue of parking charges. In Belfast City Airport, which I use every week, there is a £4 charge to drop someone off, but if you are longer than 10 minutes, it rises to more than £20. The alternative is to use the short-stay car park.

I would just like to tell noble Lords what I paid for five visits over 14 days in June: for eight minutes, I paid £12; for 12 minutes, I paid £6.50; for 20 minutes, I paid £7; for 12 minutes, I paid £8; and for 13 minutes, I paid £8. So I wrote to the airport to ask how I was supposed to know what I would have to pay. I had already checked the website, which tells you that it costs £4 to drop someone off, but it does not tell you that you need to do so within 10 minutes. I got an email back from the airport, which said something really quite strange:

“we have introduced flexible drive-up rates in our Short Stay Car Park, meaning prices may vary depending on peak times and availability. These prices are displayed on the boards … Our three on-site car parks provide flexible options”.

I cannot understand what is meant by “flexible drive-up rates” and “prices may vary depending on peak times and availability”. The amount that we are being charged seems to be a figure that is pulled out of a hat.

I do not think that that is satisfactory, and there is a need for regulation on this. Customers coming into the airport—particularly the elderly and the disabled—have a difficulty in managing to get out quickly. Another aspect is that people who have to wait for baggage depend on the availability of baggage handlers to put their baggage on to the carousel in order to allow them to get out to the pick-up point where someone is picking them up. Sometimes you can wait for 10 or 15 minutes, and then you are into big-money charges.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my support to all those who have spoken to the amendments. If we pass one of these amendments, it will send a message and signal that what airports are doing is not right—and it will get worse unless we show that, while we understand that they need to raise money, they should not be able simply to add to the amounts charged.

At many airports now, because people know that they need to get in and out within 10 minutes if they are picking someone up, they wait on the roads outside. At Belfast International Airport, in the evening, the road is absolutely packed with cars parked right along, because, if they go in too soon or if the passenger waiting for luggage is a little late, the money goes up and up. It is just not acceptable. I hope that the Government will accept what are very reasonable amendments from both noble Lords.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, airport drop-off charges are a constant source of frustration to the travelling public. Although neither amendment is in my name, these Benches will support whichever amendment is taken forward.

These measures are a common-sense attempt to bring transparency to what often feels like a stealth tax at the terminal door. So far on Report, we have not talked about how people are often captured the minute they enter the door of an airport. This is not a choice; people are captured and are given these charges. They cannot instantly withdraw their custom and go to a different airport, because they are pretty much locked in both to the airline and to the airport that they have gone for. They cannot shop around, because all of them are doing it.

It seems to us that it is right to support the amendment. For too long, the rules of the game around these levies have been opaque. It feels similar to the bundling and poor practice that we have seen in ticketing, and it is only right that we shine a light on it. I see it as quite useful that we should at least look at this and try to create a bit more transparency.

Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Grand Committee

I ask my noble friend the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Transport and in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the blockages and challenges are resolved as quickly as possible, in order to bring succour and comfort to those in car dealerships in Northern Ireland who have endured unending problems over the last number of months.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dodds’s Motions and to listen to his detailed analysis of the effects that they will have on the garages that sell these cars, on consumers and on the economy of Northern Ireland.

We have raised a number of issues over a period of time around how the Irish Sea border has affected so many issues in Northern Ireland, ranging from pets to dentists, as well as around the huge amount of extra bureaucracy that is now involved, with the paperwork, the duties, the duty reimbursement schemes—all of that. Yet this Irish Sea car border is qualitatively different and even worse because, as has been said, in three months’ time, these SIs will create an absolute prohibition on the movement of new cars for sale in Northern Ireland from GB if they have not been manufactured fully—I stress “fully”—to the EU-type approval regulations, as laid down by the European Union.

The Irish Sea new cars border, as I will call it, presents an absolute barrier to vehicles that have only GB-type approval. The initial government answer, as was mentioned earlier, was that manufacturers should manufacture to both GB and EU vehicle type approval standards. However, as the National Franchised Dealers Association pointed out recently, in Northern Ireland, manufacturing a car to the EU vehicle type approval standard can make it up to £4,000 more expensive than a car manufactured to the GB vehicle type approval standard; it is also more expensive because of the extra burdensome environmental requirements. Car manufacturers are in the business to make a profit, so I can see why many of them have decided that they are not going to bother to send to Northern Ireland: it does not make sense to sell their models here because of the smaller market in Northern Ireland, as distinct from the GB market.

I know that the Government seem to have realised that they have to do something about this; and that the only solution is to require that all cars produced for sale in the UK must be made to the same standard if there is to be a UK internal market for goods for new cars. They have stated that their policy is now to subject GB vehicle type approval to what is, in effect, EU vehicle type approval; of course, that is what these regulations will do today. The problems with this are that, as has been pointed out, it is going to happen not all at once but over a period of time—there have already been something like three regulations in the last few months—and it still will not make a difference to Northern Ireland sales.

Of course, what we are also seeing—I know that there are noble Lords who will be happy about this—is the Government falling again for the European Union’s strategy of keeping part of the UK in the EU, in effect, then giving the EU the leverage to undermine our leaving the European Union across the whole UK and working towards what I imagine this Government would like to do but cannot quite do yet because it was not in their manifesto: bringing the whole of the UK back into line with the whole of EU law.

Part of the rationale for many people, in voting to leave the European Union, was that they would be able to produce goods more cheaply as a result of not having to bow to the EU’s excessive bureaucracy requirements. Having reflected on this, car manufacturers have concluded that the economic gains to be had from fully exploiting the Brexit pricing benefits in the 2 million-unit GB market are worth more to them than the loss of not being able to sell some of their cars in the much smaller Northern Ireland market.

More worrying, of course, is the fact that this will have an effect—indeed, it already is having an effect—on jobs in the motor car sales market. When any of us who come from Northern Ireland speak to the garages selling the various types of vehicle that have been mentioned—some of us have already done so, I think—they all say that they are already beginning to look at redundancies. This will lead to a very serious situation, quite apart from the fact that people are losing choice in terms of what kind of car they want.

The Government need to move quickly on this. If they think that it is necessary for GB producers to have the same type of regulations as Northern Ireland is going to have to have—or that we are being told we will have to have, because of the Windsor Framework and being left in the European Union—they should be doing that very quickly indeed. I know that they are not going to do this, but I would prefer it if they said, “Sorry, European Union, that’s not what we’re going to do. We’re going to align Northern Ireland with GB. So what about the Windsor Framework? That’s just too bad. You’re being far too pedantic over this, and it’s not necessary”.

We are now seeing more of a move towards getting alignment. It is fair enough if people want to have that, but let us have it for the whole of the United Kingdom and not drip by drip, with little bits here and there. I know that the Minister understands the pressure that will be put on people and garages in Northern Ireland, especially in terms of sales. I hope that he will look at this matter and give a commitment that the Government will speed up the changes and get a move on—or, at the very least, postpone the date of 1 February, because that is less than three months away and will be ruinous for so many people. I ask the Minister to respond to those questions—plus the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds —because we need answers and we need action.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I wish briefly to express my solidarity with and sympathy for the concerns that have already been raised by all the previous speakers. This afternoon, we have been presented with an accurate account of the problems that face the car industry in Northern Ireland.

I want simply to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the point that the situation we are faced with apparently conflicts with the internal market Act 2020—and he is right. However, there is also an issue here around the promise of the Windsor Framework, to which this Government are committed, the previous Government were committed and the European Union is committed. Nobody who reads the Windsor Framework can miss the fact that in it is an attempt to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the fear of increasing divergence—that is, the fear of the sneaking imposition of an island economy on the island of Ireland or on Northern Ireland—is now over. The language on page 10 is very explicit.

If it turns out that the promise of the Windsor Framework to the people of Northern Ireland is simply something that they misunderstood—I do not think it is—and is not valid, that will have implications for the stability of the political process in Northern Ireland, because it was at least partly on the basis of the Windsor Framework that the return of the devolved institutions happened in Northern Ireland. So there is a lot at stake here. The spirit of the Windsor Framework is very clear, and there is a lot at stake here for both the UK Government and the European Union in maintaining loyalty to that spirit.

Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Regional Connectivity

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not able to confirm that we will do everything we can to deter that practice because, of course, historic rights to slots are an asset and when an airline fails, those slots can be transferred for a sum to another party and that money can be used to pay creditors. What I can commit to my noble friend is that, for example, the Flybe slots are part of a competition remedy and cover specific routes, which means that any operator can apply to the slots co-ordinator to take up those slots for those specific routes.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not seem to be able to get an answer from any other Minister to my question regarding the Belfast to London and Belfast to EU route, so perhaps the noble Baroness can answer it. Can she explain why, given that you can get duty free from Dublin to London, you cannot get it from Belfast to London? Indeed, nor can you get it from Belfast to the EU, because the EU does not allow it. Will she come back to me with a real answer on this—even if it is one the Government do not want to admit to?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not sure I am going to be able to help the noble Baroness any more than other Ministers have, as it is beyond my departmental brief. However, I will pass her concerns on to the Treasury.

Aviation: Cost of Travel

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the options for reducing the cost of travelling by plane from Great Britain to (1) Northern Ireland, and (2) other parts of the United Kingdom not attached to the mainland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of air travel for UK connectivity, and we are supporting this connectivity through public service obligations, or PSOs, and a 50% cut in air passenger duty on domestic flights from 1 April 2023.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Does she realise that air passenger duty will still be payable both ways, whereas when you fly out of the UK, you only pay it one way? Is she concerned about the escalating costs of flights to Northern Ireland and back? The prices are outrageous now. Dublin Airport has no air passenger duty and a huge subsidy from its Government, and you can get duty free from Dublin to London—but you cannot do so from Belfast to Mallorca because we are still accordingly in the EU. Does the Minister not realise that something has to be done if we mean levelling up? We cannot level up without a fair opportunity for people to fly within the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

There is a fair opportunity for people to fly in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the week commencing 27 November, there were 143 flights a day between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The provision has recovered, demand is back to 2019 levels and it is a competitive market.

Industrial Action on the Railways

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The role of the Secretary of State is, of course, to support the sector in reaching an agreement.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it was misjudged of Her Majesty’s Government not to engage more with the union on this issue. To treat the RMT as a pariah, even if the RMT tweets that the Government are a pariah, does not show respect to the members of the RMT. I hope that, after these three days, the Government will start to negotiate directly and ask the union to come in, even if they are not totally running the railways. I share one bit of good news: Northern Ireland railways are not on strike. Does the Minister agree that this might have something to do with the fact that Northern Ireland railways have always been, and probably always will be, in public ownership?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Obviously, in the discussions around this dispute, it is important to separate out the workers and the leadership. No disrespect whatever is intended to the members of the union. We believe that those members who are choosing to strike may not be doing the best for their industry as a whole or for their long-term future. We are trying to get that across to them. I say again that it is important for the union to come back to the table and meet to find a resolution.

Insulate Britain

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

This Government have one of the strongest records in the world in tackling climate change, and I fear that using the word “trivial” in relation to this disruption is a poor choice of word. Insulate Britain has said that days of disruption are necessary to force the Government to act. This is just a small, rag-tag group of people who will not force the Government to do anything.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure that most of your Lordships’ House have been on demonstrations or protests during their lives, even if they do not want to admit it now. Those demonstrations were different: the police were involved beforehand and looked to make sure that the law was not broken. What we are seeing here are people who have gone out deliberately to obstruct ordinary daily life. Some of the demonstrators have said that they think they are not being arrested and charged properly and ending up in prison because of the COP 26 conference. There is a kind of feeling that they do not want people to be in jail for anything vaguely to do with climate change. Can the Minister confirm or deny this?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

It certainly has nothing at all to do with COP 26. Obviously, certain matters are operational matters for the police, but the noble Baroness is right: we all know of good protests. Getting a million people out on the streets on a Saturday afternoon where the police have been told in advance, where there is a good level of public support and where you do not destroy any statues is a good protest. Insulate Britain members are not good protesters.

Cycling: Bells

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are not about to mandate bells on bicycles. That would be disproportionate, and it is unlikely that any enforcement would be a police priority. However, cyclists must take responsibility for their actions. A little “ding ding” on a bell on a bridleway is perfectly fine, but if you are travelling in central London, it will get you nowhere, and in those circumstances, a shout is probably preferable. I am afraid that the Government will not be mandating bells at the present time.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the huge increase in cycling, but millions of people will never get on a bicycle, and millions of pedestrians on pavements feel intimated and threatened by that small minority of anti-social cyclists. Has the Minister given any thought to how we can identify those anti-social cyclists who head off very speedily? Could they all have something that shows who they are, so that they can be identified?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government looked very closely at the issue of safety. In the cycling and walking safety review of 2018 we looked at licensing, but we concluded that the costs would outweigh the benefits of getting more people on to a bike. However, I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that it is an offence to cycle on the pavements, under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835. Enforcement is an operational matter for local police forces.

Belfast International Airport

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the operation of Belfast International Airport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the measures taken in response to Covid-19 have been unprecedented, enabling airlines, airports and ground handlers to benefit from a very significant amount of taxpayer support. This includes, but is not limited to, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and financing facilities. In Northern Ireland, airports have also benefited from business rates relief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Belfast International Airport is the largest airport in Northern Ireland, with 70% of all Northern Ireland travellers passing through it. It is an easyJet hub for the whole of Europe, and it is open throughout the night, with extensive essential flights for Royal Mail, the air ambulance, the military, security and freight. Yet, despite opening throughout the pandemic, it has not received any Department for Transport money or Northern Ireland finance support, even though a tiny Londonderry airport was allocated £1.2 million last week, and Aer Lingus at Belfast City Airport was supported for three months through the public service obligation. Can the Minister look into this and see what more the Department for Transport can do to ensure equal treatment for Aldergrove?

Can she also tell Northern Ireland passengers why, as it stands at the moment with the protocol, from 1 January, duty-free and tax-free goods will be available on all flights from GB airports to the EU, except from Belfast—and yet when flying from Dublin to London, you will be able to purchase duty-free? Will the Minister take this up as a matter of urgency with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who sits on the joint committee, as this is just not fair?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, a number of issues were brought up there, and perhaps I will take away the last issue and write to the noble Baroness. Financial support for airports is of course a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is the case that all of the airports—Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport—have benefited from the business rates relief. It was also the case that, for a very short period, there was an additional PSO in place, which operated from Belfast City Airport. This was put in place because that was the last remaining flight and therefore it needed to be protected, but that support was needed only for a very short period.

Rail Franchising

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is unacceptable to defend inappropriate strike action around the country by people who should not disrupt the lives of passengers. I wait with interest to hear any Labour Member say that the strikes are wrong. Sadly, I have not heard that for 18 months. I am waiting patiently. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough says from a sedentary position that it is about safety, even though the safety regulatory authorities say that it is not. That is the shame of it.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Why has the RMT been able to negotiate successfully in Scotland and in Wales the question of driver-only trains, which is concerning for the public, when we cannot get that here in England? Is it something to do with the Secretary of State?

[Chris Grayling]

Driver-only trains have been operating in this country for 30 years. The ASLEF union recently reached a perfectly sensible agreement with GTR about the development of new train technologies. Yet today the RMT is striking on South Western Railway, even though that company has said that it does not plan to take the second person off the train. That is an absurd position. Of course, the hon. Lady will remember the comments of the president of the RMT at the TUC conference, where he said that the real aim is to create a national rail strike and bring down the Government. That is my concern. It is about not passengers but political motivation, and that is not acceptable.