---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, I have added my name to amendment No. 9. I did so because, as he suggested in Committee, it makes good sense to clarify the clause's intention. It may seem a small point, but it is an important one, because, as he said, the clause as originally drafted would have left the ORR as judge and jury about what was reasonable in its own case. The amendment suggests a sensible alternative—the test of reasonableness should be objective rather than internal to that organisation—so I am pleased to support it. I share his hope that the Minister will accept it. I am sure that he will because—I say this as we are using the word—he is a very reasonable man. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire make about amendment No. 2. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, such provision would be necessary only were we to envisage a situation where the ORR was acting in a grossly unreasonable way. I suggest that it is not necessary to write that into the Bill. There are other ways to ensure that persons acting in that capacity behave reasonably without setting specific provisions. I support amendment No. 9, but not amendment No. 2.