Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.


Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I think noble Lords are making too much of this. I have checked the record of what I said at Second Reading and I cannot see that there is a contradiction between what I said and what was said in another place, or with what I have said today. Perhaps noble Lords are reading more into my comments and observations than is there. I try to be as clear as I can at all times and do not like to leave confusion. Let me make a few more observations about open access because I think the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was trying to suggest that we might be closing that down. Eurostar will be charged the same as any other operator with the same agreement. Eurostar is an open-access operator and would have to release any reserved capacity that it is not using. It is clear that that is the way we expect it to operate. The noble Lord asked whether Eurostar would have priority on the line. The answer is no. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the nature of the relationship. New entrants are entitled to access the railway in accordance, as I think I said earlier, with the 2005 regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made a point about regulation by agreement. Other railways are regulated in the same way as High Speed 1. What is proposed is similar to how the Chanel Tunnel and the French railway system are regulated. On the suggestion made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that independent regulation would secure more value, that is speculation, but whether or not a contract with the Secretary of State would be less attractive than independent regulation will depend on what the contract states. It is a key document in defining relationships and comes at a cost. There are relativities here. The details of that contract are not yet developed, although some of the key principles, particularly on access charges, are already understood. We all need to reflect on this discussion. It has been useful. I can see that some noble Lords need more convincing, but there is nothing in what we are doing here that falls outside the scope of what is currently operational and understood. As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, made clear, it is important that we achieve best possible value because, as I said earlier, that will enable us to continue the high level of investment that we have more generally made in the rail network. I am not sure whether I can add anything else today. However, between now and Report stage, if noble Lords want further clarification and better understanding of how we intend to secure best value, fulfil our commitments to open access and so on, I am more than happy to facilitate further discussions.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c235-6GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Access Construction Channel tunnel Cooperation High Speed 1 line Finance Fees and charges Licensing EU law Infrastructure High speed trains Railway network Network Rail Regulation Subsidies Eurostar London and Continental Railways Office of Rail Regulation Waterloo Station
Legislation
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk