---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

My guess is that it is the interaction of different clauses that puts that in place. Let me take the Committee through the argument. The Government do not consider that High Speed 1 should be subject to full economic regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation under the Railways Act 1993 in the same way as Network Rail is. We have said that on many occasions. We have already had some of that debate this afternoon. We argue that that regime was designed for a different type of asset base—a complex and historical network—and we do not think it is appropriate for a new single line such as High Speed 1. There is clearly a disagreement about that. We say that instead of that lighter touch regulation under the access and management regulations 2005 in relation to access to and charges for High Speed 1 is proposed. That would operate in conjunction with the contractual controls over the operation of the railway that the Secretary of State has under the development agreement, which are considered to be sufficient to balance the interests of passengers, train operators using High Speed 1 and High Speed 1 itself. There is a similarity, if you like, between a licence—which as my noble friend Lord Berkeley quite rightly described is not there in the same way as it is for the rest of the rail network—and the development agreement, which is a contract and describes those relationships in a similar way to those in the national rail licence conditions. Of course that is a public document. It is clear how it is intended to operate. The amendment would also result in High Speed 1 being subject to more onerous regulation than currently applies to Network Rail. Both the Office of Rail Regulation and the Secretary of State would have regulatory oversight of the railway—the former under the Railways Act 1993 and the latter through her contractual rights under the development agreement and her duty to set the charging framework for High Speed 1 under the 2005 regulations. We do not consider that this amendment is necessary or appropriate since it would impose an unnecessary burden of regulation. Clauses 2 and 3 aim to ensure that there are clear divisions between what the Office of Rail Regulation does and what the Secretary of State does. The Secretary of State has an important role in regulating High Speed 1. She will maintain oversight of access charging on High Speed 1 because the level and structure of access charges affect the value that the Government will recoup on their investment in any sale. The Office of Rail Regulation will retain the role it has as the appeal body for any disputes over access to and charges for High Speed 1. That role provides a valuable check that statutory obligations to grant access to the railway on fair and non-discriminatory terms are being properly observed. That right of appeal is very important. As I have said on two or three occasions, the ORR is the appellate body. It can direct High Speed 1 to enter an access contract if at all necessary. I doubt whether that will come to pass but it has that power. I hope the noble Lord now better understands how we see the relationship and the mechanisms working and why we do not think it is appropriate to use the licensing regime in the way in which he obviously understands it. It is in Section 16 of the 1993 Act.