---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

I want to think carefully about what the noble Lord has said. I think that we may be working at slightly crossed purposes here. I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord is really after. Regulation 11 of the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005 requires an infrastructure manager to publish a network statement. That has to contain information prescribed in the regulation, including details of access charges and the procedure for requesting access to the railway. Decisions of the infrastructure manager in relation to the network statement have to be produced in accordance with Regulation 11 and can be appealed to the Office of Rail Regulation. We do not think that there is any uncertainty about whether Regulation 29 applies to HS1—it does. For that reason, we think that the proposed amendment is wholly unnecessary. Furthermore, the addition of these words to Regulation 11 would call into question whether other provisions in the 2005 regulations, which do not contain similar ““clarifying”” wording, also apply to the rail link. Therefore, the amendment could give rise to doubt rather than avoiding it. I suspect that there is an unintended consequence at the root of the noble Lord’s amendment. I cannot comment on freight charges. It is not for me to talk about that today; it is a discussion for another time. I understand the point the noble Lord makes. Clearly, the cost of access is a consideration. We had some discussion in the House when we were debating this issue some months ago. The point was fairly made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and others—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who is no longer here—that it is clear that there has to be some movement commercially on that issue; otherwise, we will not be able to achieve better access for freight to the Channel Tunnel, which would be a missed opportunity, as we all agree.