---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: 4: Clause 3, leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new Clause— ““Repeal of s. 21 of 1996 Act Section 21 of the 1996 Act (duties of the Office of Rail Regulation as to the exercise of regulatory function) is repealed.”” The noble Lord said: This is similar to the previous amendment but it concerns Section 21 of the 1996 Act and is to do with the powers of the Rail Regulator. As my noble friend said, in the 1996 Act, the Rail Regulator still has powers in relation to the CTRL, but there is one major difference between the regulatory powers and duties in connection with the rest of the network and those in connection with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. On the rest of the network, the regulator’s duties basically come under Section 4, which is amended by the Railways Act 2005, but the principle is that he has a duty to promote the use of the network for the carriage of passengers and goods. We debated this matter at length when we considered the 2005 Bill, but that principle still holds good. Section 21(1) of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, as amended by the Bill, states: "““The Rail Regulator shall have an overriding duty to exercise his regulatory functions in such a manner as not to impede the performance of any development agreement””." In plain language, that means a duty to make as much money as possible for the infrastructure manager, which, frankly, is what has happened with the Channel Tunnel. Of course, it is not regulated in the same way and it is owned by a private company, but that company has sought to make the charges as high as possible. That has resulted in there being quite a few Eurostar trains—there would be an awful more if the prices were lower—and very few freight trains, which are more sensitive to price. The Government should consider very carefully why this link should be different from the rest of the network, where the regulator has a duty, as does the Secretary of State, to promote the railway for the carriage of goods and passengers. However, here the duty is to promote the railway for the financial benefit of the person who has bought it from the Government. I do not think that that fits together very well with my noble friend’s many statements, in which he has said that he wants to see lots of trains on this route and the expansion of the railway and so on, which of course I support. Here, the company buys the link—whether it is with or without the regulator, I do not know—with the expectation that it can make as much money as it likes, and the Government will encourage that because our regulators will be independent but not quite as independent as the independent regulator. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about this. It is very serious that on this line, which, one hopes, will be the first of a number in this country, the developer comes first and passengers and freight come very much second. I beg to move.