Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
This amendment is a tidying-up provision following on from earlier amendments. It appears to give the Office of Rail Regulation rather than the Secretary of State the function of supervising negotiations between the HS1 infrastructure manager and a train operator to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2005 Regulations. It would also remove the obligation on the ORR to consult the Secretary of State and take account of her representations before taking a decision on an appeal in relation to HS1. I have explained why it is considered important that the Secretary of State should retain responsibility for setting the charging framework to secure best value. On the basis that she will retain this key function, it is clearly sensible that the Office of Rail Regulation should consult her before taking a decision on an appeal in relation to HS1. I have already explained why it is considered important that the Secretary of State should retain responsibility for setting the charging framework in terms of best value. On the basis that she will retain this key function, it is clearly sensible that the Office of Rail Regulation should consult her before taking a decision on appeal in relation to HS1. Likewise, the Government’s current position is that the Secretary of State should retain the ancillary function of supervising access charge negotiations. Having said that, it is recognised that, as I said earlier, there may be advantages in transferring some supervisory roles to the Office of Rail Regulation in the future because of its particular expertise. I gave a commitment that we will consider that issue once restructuring proposals are more certain. A third change, which I notice is introduced by the amendment, is directly related to the proposal to bring HS1 access contracts within the ambit of ORR regulation. The Government do not consider that that will be appropriate, given that it would result in a situation overlap—or, if you like, dual regulation—by both the ORR and the Secretary of State. We resist the amendment for those reasons. My noble friend asked how long it would be before the Eurostar access framework was in place. We have not taken decisions on that. We will be looking at precedents, including Crossrail, which he mentioned, but we have not yet reached a view on that. I cannot advise my noble friend further than that. I am grateful to him for this and the other amendments, which have enabled us to set out at greater length our view on some of the issues that I recognise fully concern the noble Lord.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 699 c255-6GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Access Construction Channel tunnel Cooperation High Speed 1 line Finance Fees and charges Licensing EU law Infrastructure High speed trains Railway network Network Rail Regulation Subsidies Eurostar London and Continental Railways Office of Rail Regulation Waterloo Station
- Legislation
- Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:25:45 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454360
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454360
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454360