---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

As the noble Lord will know, access charges for HS1 must be set in accordance with the charging framework established by the Secretary of State through the development agreement—I have explained that several times today. The amendments would change that arrangement so that the charging framework would be set by the Office of Rail Regulation by way of a periodic review. We do not think that HS1 should be subject to full economic regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation—I have made that clear in earlier debates. That regime was designed for a different type of asset base—a historic and complex network—and is not appropriate for a new, single line such as High Speed 1. Instead, we want lighter-touch regulation under the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005 in relation to charges for HS1, as proposed. It is anticipated that the charging framework will be set by the Secretary of State and will enable the infrastructure manager to recover operating, maintenance and renewal costs from train operators, plus a charge to reflect the level of investment in the railway. That investment recovery charge is likely to be subject to a maximum cap. There are no proposals at present to make the charging framework set by the Secretary of State subject to periodic reviews, although there will be scope for variation by agreement with the infrastructure manager. The level and structure of access charges will affect the value which the Government recoup on their investment in any sale. If that value is to be maximised, potential bidders need certainty that they will remain stable post purchase. The ORR will retain its role as an appeal body for any disputes over charges for High Speed 1, so it has that important checking responsibility. It will ensure that statutory obligations to charge on a fair and non-discriminatory basis are observed, which should give comfort, particularly to the freight sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment, which has enabled me to restate our position with, I hope, more clarity.