Clause
5
Meaning
of “development
agreement”
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I want to have a small debate on the clause
because, as I mentioned when I spoke to my amendment to clause 3, I
have concerns about the wide-ranging impact of clause 5. I am grateful
to the Minister and his officials who, during the suspension, clarified
one of the points that I raised during the evidence-taking session
about the rail link and rail services on it. I now accept that the
clause deals with the rail link, rather than with the
services.
None the
less, I wonder if the Minister could provide us with a few more
examples and explanations. Adding the words “or
operation” to the development agreement will have a significant
impact on every clause in the Act that relates to development
agreements. Rights and obligations provided for in those clauses will
be extended, so that they will apply not only during the construction
phase but once the rail link is operational. I voiced my concerns about
the possible implications of that change during our discussion on
clause 3.
I would
like to ask the Minister whether there are any other provisions in the
1996 Act which relate to development agreements, and which this measure
would retrospectively change. Can he be clear what the impact of those
changes might be? It is a wide-ranging change, and I wonder whether the
measures in the clause might not have been obtained more prudently by
making some specific, rather than general, provisions. The development
agreement was supposed to deal with the construction phase, which is
now complete. We are now into the operation phase. The clause could
potentially be used extremely widely, and I wonder whether the Minister
could give some reassurances about the intentions of its operation,
perhaps give some examples, and indeed tell us where it will
potentially impact on other provisions in the 1996 Act.
Mr.
Harris:
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.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think that the Minister is encouraging me to
say, “Definitely.” I think that he has clarified the
point, but after reading the Hansard report, I may come back to
him. I think that he is saying that we need to amend the development
agreement so that the charging regime can stay in place through the
operational phase. If that is the short summary of what he said, it
clarifies the point, and I am grateful to him.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6
Interpretation,
commencement, short
title
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
In the interest of fairness, and in the same
spirit displayed earlier by the Minister, I thought it right and proper
that I should rise to catch your eye, Mr. Atkinson. The
Minister was criticised by the Opposition for the loose drafting of
clause 4, and he said very fairly that he would be willing to consider
it on Report. In the interest of balance, I therefore rise to praise
him for the drafting of clause 6, which for once
shows positive action. It gives a firm and definite implementation date,
not one to be determined on some unspecified day. The Act will come
into force two months from the day on which the Bill is passed. Well
done, I
say.
Mr.
Harris:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my
attention to that very worrying part of the Bill. [Laughter.]
That was the Government’s intention, of course, and we do not
intend to amend
it.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the
House.
Mr.
Harris:
I hope that I have my timing right,
Mr. Atkinson. During debate on the Crossrail Bill, I tried
three times unsuccessfully to offer a vote of thanks to you as the
Chair. It has been a short but delightful experience to serve under
your chairmanship. The Bill may go down in history as having undergone
one of the shortest periods of Committee scrutiny. It is probably
equivalent in length to some delegated legislation Committees on which
I have served. That is certainly due at least in part to you,
Mr. Atkinson.
I also thank
your Clerk, of whom I had experience when I was a member of the Select
Committee on Science and Technology. He is a fine chap, and I am sure
that he has done an excellent job for you. I also thank the Hansard
reporters, the Doorkeepers, the police officers, my own officials,
who have done an outstanding job, and my private secretary, Sandra St.
Louis. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon and the hon.
Member for Richmond Park for adopting a very healthy bipartisan and
constructive approach. Finally, as I forgot to do so last week, I must
thank members of my own party on the Committee. I am grateful to them
all for their sterling and reliable support during this very brief
sitting.
12.15
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
I echo all the thanks that the Minister has
expressed. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in
this short Public Bill Committee, Mr. Atkinson. It has been
shortened by the Minister’s help to the Opposition in the form
of a briefing, and by his answers to a number of our questions, and we
are grateful for that. I echo the Minister’s thanks to the
Clerk, the Hansard reporters, my researcher, who helped me
tremendously with the construction of our amendments, and indeed to my
hon. Friends for their support.
Susan
Kramer:
I, too, echo all the various thanks that have been
expressed. My first experience of an evidence-taking session was quite
useful in abbreviating our discussions in the clause-by-clause
consideration stage of the Bill. I thank everybody for allowing us to
go early to lunch.
The
Chairman:
I thank Committee members for their co-operation
in something that was quite new to us
today. The reason why we had to move from the Boothroyd Room to here was
the simple one that, if there are officials or witnesses to
interrogate, they need a microphone and a place to sit. At the moment,
only one Public Bill Committee Room has been kitted out in that way,
and that Room had been bagged by another
Bill this morning. Despite that disturbance, we have had a very easy and
well-mannered Committee, and I thank everyone for that.
Question put and agreed
to.
Bill to be
reported, without amendment.
Committee r
ose
at seventeen minutes past Twelve
o’clock.
| 
