Clause 5
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
12:00 pm
Tom Harris (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Glasgow South, Labour)
Further to the hon. Gentleman’s explanation of an earlier discussion during the evidence session, I gave an undertaking to report to the whole Committee and to clarify the issue raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Wimbledon on the development agreement. For the record, the 1996 Act defines a development agreement as
“an agreement...in relation to the design, construction...or maintenance of the rail link”,
which is defined as the HS1 infrastructure. It does not cover train services. In that respect, the 2005 Act is irrelevant. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the Committee. I apologise that due to unusual circumstances, I have not been able to put it in writing for every Committee member.
I shall try to address the points made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. He can seek further clarification if I fail to do so. The clause will amend the definition of a development agreement in section 56 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. London and Continental Railways designed and constructed HS1 in accordance with the terms of the development agreement that it signed with the Secretary of State in February 1996. The development agreement contains the terms of the concession to operate the railway and will continue post-construction. To reflect more clearly the fact that the 1996 Act provisions referring to the development agreement apply where relevant to agreements relating to operations, the clause will amend the definition of a development agreement to include the word “operation”.
It is proposed to amend the current development agreement as part of restructuring so that it focuses on the railway’s operation. If the definition of a development agreement in the 1996 Act were not amended, it would be more uncertain whether the revised agreement fell within the definition. The effect of a court finding that the revised development agreement did not fall within the definition could be serious. Under the 2005 regulations, the Secretary of State is required to set a charging framework for access charges to HS1 through the development agreement as defined in the 1996 Act. If there is found to be no development agreement as defined, there will also be no effective charging framework, giving train operators greater scope to challenge access charges levied by the HS1 operator. I hope that that clarifies the matter.