---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I join the litany of speakers who say that perhaps the Minister has not answered some of the points raised in the debate with the fullness that we have come to expect from him, but there may be various reasons for that. Not least, the position of the European Commission is still unanswered and remains rather open and vague. I agree that at first sight, prime facie, the Bill, be it nasty or neutral—whichever adjective my noble friend Lord Bradshaw may prefer to use—looks eminently like a technical adjustment Bill. However, one has to be careful about these things, and it is the Government’s job to be cautious in handling matters because the Bill’s implications go wider than its text. That can be the case with a number of what are seemingly adjustment Bills; they can appear to be technical and reasonable, simply providing for contingent possibilities, and yet they can get the Government and indeed the policymakers on UK railways into difficulties. There is a wider European scene. The background is the gradual coming together of the high-speed networks of European countries. Britain has lagged behind, but now has at least 110 kilometres of high-speed track, whereas France has 7,400 kilometres. Spain is getting together with Germany; Belgium is getting together with Germany and Holland; and France, Italy and Spain are getting together to create high speed networks. While the Minister is conferring with his officials, he is not necessarily listening to the points made in the debate. From the point of view of the UK taxpayer and the UK national interest—being a laggard country in high-speed railways and thinking about the project for the high-speed line to the north and so on—the best bidder for this sale, if it goes through, of the infrastructure plus London and Continental Railways, perhaps as two transactions, may well be the German railway or other private railway bidders from other countries involved in creating the collective network of high-speed trains. I know the Government have been following that discussion quite thoroughly, and it could be very important to getting the right entity bidding. It is important that we get this right and get the best price for the British taxpayers if these transactions take place. Can the Minister be a little fuller in his answers in the second round of this debate?