---

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

We have been over this territory before, but it is perhaps worth setting it out some more. The Bill is a preliminary step towards the restructuring of LCR's constituent businesses. One of the purposes of that restructuring is to separate those three businesses—HS1 infrastructure, its interest in Eurostar and its property business—and sell them. The first sale anticipated is that of the HS1 infrastructure, which is planned to take place in 2009. As a result of that sale, Eurostar and HS1 will no longer be in common ownership, and therefore the vertical links that currently exist will be removed without the need for legislation. A key reason for separating LCR's constituent businesses is that they will attract different investors as and when they are disposed of. Whoever the future infrastructure and train operators are, they will of course have to comply with relevant UK and EU legislation, including competition and open access regulations. Of course, it is possible that the new owner of HS1 could have interests in other train operating companies which may run services on HS1. There are existing legislative provisions to address the potential conflicts to which such an interest could give rise. Specifically, the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005, which implement EC directives in relation to access to railway infrastructure, require that the infrastructure manager and any associated train operator each prepare separate accounts, and that the infrastructure manager responsible for setting charges for and allocating capacity to the railway is—in its legal form, organisation and decision-making—independent from an associated train operator. If it is not, it is required to delegate the function to an independent charging body and independent allocation body respectively. It also requires that there is no cross-subsidy of public funds provided to either the infrastructure manager or train operator. We consider these provisions are sufficient to deal with the potential conflicts of interest that this amendment is designed to prevent. We seek to achieve what the noble Lord would like to see put in place but we do not think that his amendment is necessary or would give effect to that end. We think we have got it about right.