---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

We have had a good discussion on this amendment. Before I withdraw it, which, of course, I will, I remind my noble friend that the European Commission’s proposals already strongly suggest that the body that organises access to a piece of infrastructure and determines the charges should not only be separate from train operators and infrastructure managers but should be separate from the Government. My noble friend said, ““This is the way the French do it””. I do not think France is a good example. Rail freight in France has gone down by 40 per cent in the past five years. The service quality is, in parliamentary language, not good and they are about to change it. I think we will find proposals coming from the Commission to make it a legal requirement that the regulatory body across Europe should be totally independent in the future, which I think will be beneficial. I shall be ashamed to have to come back in a couple of years’ time to change the regulations or the law because we have not foreseen what the Commission will do. One of the benefits in the UK is that freight has grown by 60 per cent in 10 years, partly because of government policy. I commend them not just for that—they also rescued the CTRL, which is great—but for having an independent regulator. Having a partly independent regulator in the CTRL does not send the right message to the market. I shall leave the matter there and no doubt we shall return to it later. I shall read what everyone has said with great interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 [Meaning of ““development agreement””]: On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?