---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I beg to move amendment No. 3, page 1, line 5, at end add—"'(3) In subsection (1) ““rail services”” refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom.'." The Minister accused me of intellectual gymnastics. This amendment is full of intellectual clarity, so we shall have no problem with it. He will recognise the amendment because it is very similar to one that I tabled in Committee. I tabled it again because, as I said in Committee on reading the Minister's answer, we would like to seek further clarification, or to press the matter to a Division if we have a disappointing response. As the Minister said, clause 1 is intended to clear up any potential confusion about whether the Government can continue to provide financial support to the rail link and the services running on it, now that the construction phase is complete and the services are up and running. That is deemed necessary because any future buyer might be in some doubt about it, which is why the clause includes the words:"““For the avoidance of doubt””." The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to subsidise HS1 into its operational phase, but it is the stated intention of the Government that this power will be exercised in relation to domestic services only, and not to international ones. The explanatory notes to the Bill say as much:"““the Secretary of State will provide revenue funding for domestic services operating on the CTRL””." The Under-Secretary said:"““It would be wrong for the UK taxpayer to subsidise services across the continent.””––[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 13.]" It is therefore strange that the Government's stated intention is not reflected on the face of the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State may continue to provide funds"““in relation to the rail link or railway services on it.””" However, a large proportion of services on the rail link will be international. Nothing in the Bill prevents the subsidy of services bound for or returning from continental Europe. The Bill states that"““nothing in sections 31 to 33 of the 1996 Act prevents the powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005… from being exercised in relation to the rail link or railways services on it.””" We contend that leaving the clause unamended will not restrict revenue funding to domestic services, as the Government require. Elsewhere, the clause uses the phrase:"““For the avoidance of doubt””." Let us ensure that doubt is avoided and ambivalence removed. The amendment would add a new subsection, which states that"““'rail services' refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom.””" We are led to believe that it is not the Government's intention to fund international services, so let us make it clear in the Bill. In Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary,"““in extremis, does not the Bill allow the possibility of part of the service that Eurostar is running in the UK being open to revenue funding?””" He replied:"““In essence, if, in the short term, any extra subsidy were to be provided to Eurostar Ltd, such as through leasing stock agreements, the hon. Gentleman is right. That could be interpreted as being a short-term subsidy from the Government. However, as I have repeatedly said, it is not the intention of the Government publicly to provide any subsidy to Eurostar in the long term.””—[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 14.]" The Under-Secretary's answer was extraordinarily revealing. Although he repeatedly said that it is not the Government's intention, there is a genuine possibility that the Government will not be able to fulfil their intention. If it is the Government's intention that there is revenue funding only for domestic services, let us include that on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt and ambiguity. The Government's current position appears to be that they offer revenue funding and support to domestic services and not to international services, but only in the long term, not in the short term. That is ludicrous. In Committee, the Under-Secretary told us that my amendment was unnecessary. He said that the power to support rail services under the 2005 Act extended only to the United Kingdom. That may be the case, but, as I pointed out, some of the trains that run on British soil are international services. As his answer showed, the Government may well subsidise some international services in the short term. Being in British territory does not necessarily make a train a domestic service. Does the Under-Secretary concede that, in the light of his reply in Committee, just because the Secretary of State's powers are restricted by the 2005 Act to funding only services in Great Britain, funding is not restricted to domestic services? Does he concede that some trains that run on British track are international services? If he concedes those points, does he admit that the current wording of clause 1 does not meet the Government's stated objective? For the avoidance of doubt, my amendment will help the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will accept it in that spirit of help.