---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

moved Amendment No. 5: 5: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— ““Network statements (1) The Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/3049) are amended as follows. (2) After Regulation 11(9) insert— ““(10) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that this Regulation applies to a rail link facility.”””” The noble Lord said: I move on to the 2005 regulations. A few weeks ago, my noble friend responded to my Written Question about the network statement for the CTRL, which I submit, under these regulations, should have been produced when the first section opened in November 2006. It is now one year and three or four months later: we have seen a draft network statement, but we have not seen anything else. As my noble friend said, the charges are still being discussed. I tabled this amendment because if Network Rail had been a year late with publication of a network statement, it would have been fined £5 million, £10 million or £20 million. The CTRL is a year and a bit late. Is my noble friend going to fine it? What is he going to do about it? It has not got very far with its charging proposals. As he said, it is still discussing the matter. It is good to have the discussions, but why this delay? It again indicates a slightly cosy relationship compared with that between the Rail Regulator and Network Rail, which jolly well does produce its network statement in time. It is a very fine document. Can my noble friend give me some assurance that, while the Secretary of State is the regulator in this respect, the Government will try to enforce the regulation as it should be so that we get a network statement that is meaningful? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked why there is no freight on the line. The answer is that the freight does not know how much it is going to pay. How can it start preparing a service if it does not know how much it is going to pay? I rest my case. I beg to move.