---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

The amendment would remove the Office of Rail Regulation’s duty from the 1996 Act not to impede the development agreement—which I ought to make plain to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as I thought I had, is a public document—when carrying out its functions under the Railways Act 1993. That duty has been in place since 1996. It is still relevant today. If it were removed, it could have an adverse effect on the value the Government would secure for the taxpayer on the sale of High Speed 1. Potential investors might well be concerned that the ORR’s regulation of the national network could have unintended consequences for HS1’s revenues if this duty were removed. The circumstances where the ORR would have to take this duty into account might include: if a train operator wanted to run international services on parts of the main domestic network; or if a line were blocked because of engineering works, and services on HS1 had to use the domestic network, or vice versa. Without Clause 3 it is possible that either of the two scenarios I have described could occur and, in the case of the first example, that could potentially drive Eurostar out of business. The overriding duty gives the Government and any potential investor in High Speed 1 comfort that its interests will be fully taken into account. It is designed to protect value overall, so, for those reasons, we cannot support the amendment. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that the overriding duty is about making money. We do not quite see it that way. The purpose of the duty is to provide security over stability of income, and not to tie income to any particular level. Access charges will be capped by a contract with the Secretary of State. The noble Lord was concerned about competition. High Speed 1 access charges will be set in accordance with existing and future European rail directives, which are intended to promote competition. High Speed 1 has, as we know, spare capacity which the Government are keen to see used. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether it was the intention to set prices high. It is not. Consultation proposals for international passenger services would substantially reduce access charges. There are currently no proposals for freight access charges, but High Speed 1 is carrying out market studies to gauge the level at which charges should be set to attract freight traffic. I have made it plain in the past that we see that as highly desirable. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me whether I was satisfied with the level of freight going through the tunnel. No, I do not think that anybody could be satisfied with the level of freight; we obviously want to see more of it. In the end, of course, it must be a commercial matter for Eurotunnel to agree with freight operators. The Government have already agreed some limited support for freight services generally. I do not think that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seemed to think, setting access charges too high. We are setting them at an affordable level, and that is certainly the intention. Obviously, we want to ensure that HS1 is well used and that the traffic in it develops over the next few years because it has tremendous potential, as I think we all recognise.