Clause 4
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
11:45 am
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
That is the problem. We may incur a load of costs, but what costs are reasonable to the ORR, what costs are reasonable to the people on whom it is seeking to impose them, and what costs are reasonable to outside observation? My amendment would go to the heart of the matter and clear up the problem.
We have discussed many times the meaning of “reasonable” and “reasonably” and “relevant” and “relevantly”. We are now in the same territory. Under the explanatory notes, the proposal is
“similar to the position on the national rail network, where the ORR’s regulatory functions are funded by the licence fee paid by the operator, Network Rail.”
That is not made clear in the Bill. The amendment would bring the CTRL arrangements in line with those for the rest of the network. The basis used by the ORR to set the fee for CTRL should be the same that it uses to calculate the licence fee paid by the operator on other parts of the network.
My amendment would not do anything about timing, about which the Minister spoke in our evidence session. It looks at the costs that are payable. I accept that the regulator’s functions for CTRL are slightly different from other operators in respect of the access contracts that we have discussed, but only slightly. That does not mean that the basis of calculation that is being used for the setting of the level of the fee should be different from that of the rest of the network. I look to the Minister to make clear why the amendment is not acceptable.