---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I do not know the answer to that, but my concerns nevertheless remain. If this wording is used elsewhere, however, perhaps I should start a campaign to amend the wording in other statutes similarly. If we were to have a profligate or wasteful ORR, it could cover its high-spending ways by imposing fees that are higher than necessary but that it decrees reasonable. Amendment No. 9 would change the wording so that the fee payable in any case would be such an amount as"““is reasonably incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation””." In other words, it would introduce an objective test, so that in any disputed case that might come before the courts, they would be able to say whether that is a reasonable amount. That is how we should proceed, and the amendment's wording is far better than the original wording in the Bill. I began to make this point in Committee, and the Minister stopped me in my tracks. He said he had listened to my point, and that if I were to table an amendment on Report:"““I shall be happy to consider it, but I make no promises at this stage on whether it will be acceptable to the Government.””––[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 21.]" When we started on the process of considering the Bill and the Minister was facing questions, he rather dismissed my point, but when I returned to it in Committee proper it was clear that he had been reflecting on my remarks and he generously said that he would consider such a suggestion on Report. He has subsequently indicated to me that he is minded to accept this amendment. I do not want to blight the Minister's career, but may I say to him that he has behaved as a model Minister in this instance? He listened to the argument and felt that a fair point was being made from the Opposition Benches, and he has graciously conceded that the amendment should be made. I therefore hope that no Member will disagree with amendment No. 9. I am always nervous when I see my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in the Chamber, because I know how volatile he is, but I hope that I am taking him with me in my arguments. Amendment No. 2 also relates to the power to charge fees under clause 4, but seeks to make a change by adding at the end of proposed new section 21A(6),"““but such further notice shall not include any increase to the fee payable in the original notice attributable to the fee remaining unpaid after the date specified in the original notice.””" Proposed new section 21A(6) gives the ORR power to revise a fee notice that it has already issued by issuing a subsequent notice. My concern is that if there were an unreasonable person in the ORR they could issue a notice, and if it was not paid by the time stated in the notice they could issue a second notice increasing the fee—perhaps even adding interest on to it—and that subsequent notice would then supersede the original fee notice issued. That is not how the ORR should behave, but it could behave like that under the Bill as drafted. My amendment No. 2, which I am delighted my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has signed, would prevent that from happening. In other words, the ORR would not be able to issue a subsequent notice mentioning a higher fee solely because the original fee was not paid on time. The Minister may be less convinced about amendment No. 2, but I ask him to reflect on the points I have made. Surely it is not proper for the ORR, or indeed for any body, to be able to revise a fee and thus impose a penalty on the person due to pay it merely on the grounds that they have been late in paying it. I hope that the Minister will give me a full house today by accepting that amendment too.