HC Deb 17 July 1995 vol 263 c878W
Mr. Gordon Prentice

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led him to advise bidders for the CTRL in the competition overview document that the required alternative bids which include a station at Stratford should assume that authorisation for the station is obtained by him and not as a result of procedures under the Transport and Works Act 1992. [34276]

Mr. Watts

The aim in the competition overview document was to obtain from each tenderer a range of required alternative bids involving a Stratford station. In order to simplify comparison with the reference bid, which was not to include a Stratford station, tenderers were asked to assume, among several other things, that it was for the holder of the competition, the Secretary of State, and not for them, to see that authorisation for a station was forthcoming. No guidance was given on the method of authorisation. In fact, decisions about whether there should be a station at Stratford, and, in that event, how it should be authorised, remain to be taken.

Mr. Prentice

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led to the choice of 2030 as the date up to which the Government would not provide any subsidy or financial assistance to any further new railway for international passenger services between London and the channel tunnel as set out in the draft development agreement for bidders for the CTRL. [34274]

Mr. Watts

In formulating this provision in the draft development agreement, we aimed to provide comfort for the private sector promoter for the likely period during which he would be repaying primary financing and refinancing.