---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I rise briefly in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and endorsed by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have less expertise than they have, but as I raised the issue of the Channel Tunnel rescue scheme for the new mark 2 company last year, I would appreciate the opportunity to register my anxieties, and I think those of a number of Peers, about the confusion that is arising—a matter that has been expressed already by the mover and the seconder of the amendment. It was very important for the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to refer with some emphasis to the idea of a possible conflict with the policy formation of the European Commission on these matters on transport links and railways—it is developing apace in Brussels, as we know—and with the national regulatory authority matrix, which is currently governed by both the Government and the Rail Regulator. The Government appear to be keen, as far as we can tell, to effect the sale of the infrastructure for High Speed 1 from St Pancras to Folkestone and the tunnel, and the Eurostar service itself. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has indicated correctly—and I support this entirely—if the Rail Regulator’s role is removed by this legislation and the Government remain the bureaucratic regulator through the powers of the Secretary of State, that certainly restricts the open market nexus of this matter in respect of any change of ownership. It also therefore makes it more difficult for the Channel Tunnel company mark 2 under Jacques Gounon—mostly with French shareholders now, and in a very successful operation last year in the spring, as we know—to get the best conditions for his company, which is an important matter. There are a number of linking elements and interlocking considerations. In conclusion, if potential market practitioners and new owners are coming in and saying—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated—that it is much less attractive to have the Government as regulator, there is a taxpayers’ interest in the Government rescinding that possibility in this legislation because they would by definition get a higher price for the sale if it remained in the hands of the UK Rail Regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation. That is an important consideration. There are a number of confusing and conflicting elements here that also link up with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on a slightly different consideration, and I have some sympathy for his points as well. It is incumbent on the Minister, if he can, to clarify those points before this legislation proceeds further.